Architectural Competitions - Histories and Practice

A

Kristian Kreiner, Professor João Rocha, PhD Magnus Rönn, Associate Professor Judith Strong, Consultant Charlotte Svensson, PhD Student Elisabeth Tostrup, Professor Leentje Volker, PhD

isbn ISBN 978-91-85249-16-9 978-91-85249-16-9

RIO KULTUR KULTUR KULTUR

KOOPERATIV KOOPERATIV KOOPERATIV

Editors: Jonas E Andersson Gerd Bloxham Zettersten and Magnus Rönn

Authors Jonas E Andersson, PhD Mats T Beckman, Tekn Lic Gerd Bloxham Zettersten, Associate Professor Pedro Guilherme, PhD Candidate Thomas Hoffmann-Kuhnt, Dipl. Ing. Maarit Kaipiainen, PhD Student Antigoni Katsakou, PhD

Architectural Competitions – Histories and Practice

rchitectural competitions are no longer simply professional praxis for architects and a recurrent exercise for students at schools of architecture. The competition has also turned into a field of research, and this book is part of an effort constituting the architectural competition as a field for studies with scholarly claims. The first doctoral dissertations on competitions were presented in the 1990s in Europe. Another clear manifestation of research interest is the growth and spread of scholarly conferences on architectural competitions.

The contributions to the book show in a convincing way that the architectural competition is an interesting and rewarding object for research. The competition processes bear rich empirical findings to which one may refer for knowledge about architecture as professional practice, as educational subject and research platform. The architectural competition illustrates processes of change in society that are technical and organizational as well as social; it shows up constructive dilemmas, the borderline of rationality and the relative, creative insecurity of knowledge production in architectural projects.

Architectural Competitions – Histories and Practice Editors: Jonas E Andersson Gerd Bloxham Zettersten and Magnus Rönn

Architectural Competitions – Histories and Practice

Architectural Competitions – Histories and Practice Editors: Jonas E Andersson Gerd Bloxham Zettersten and Magnus RÜnn

The Royal Institute of Technology and Rio Kulturkooperativ

Buying the book?

Contact: rio@riokultur.se http://www.riokultur.se

architectural competitions – histories and practice Publishers: The Royal Institute of Technology and Rio Kulturkooperativ Homepage: http://www.riokultur.se/ Editors: Jonas E Andersson, Gerd Bloxham Zettersten and Magnus Rönn Authors: Maarit Kaipiainen, Antigoni Katsakou, Jonas E Andersson, Magnus Rönn, Judith Strong, Pedro Guilherme, João Rocha, Leentje Volker, Kristian Kreiner, Charlotte Svensson, Elisabeth Tostrup, Thomas Hoffmann-Kuhnt and Mats T Beckman Cover image by Antigoni Katsakou from the exhibition Concours Bien Culturel Financial support: Estrid Ericsons Stiftelse, Stiftelsen Helgo Zettervalls fond, Stiftelsen J. Gust. Richert Stiftelsen, Lars Hiertas minne and Danish Building Research Institute, SBi at Aalborg University ISBN: 978-91-85249-16-9 Graphic design: Optimal Press Printing: Nordbloms tryck, Hamburgsund, Sweden 2013

Contents

Editors’ comments 7 jonas e andersson, gerd bloxham zettersten and magnus rönn Chapter 1: Architectural Competitions in Finland maarit kaipiainen

23

Chapter 2: 37 The competition generation.

Young professionals emerging in the architectural scene of Switzerland through the process framework of housing competitions – a case study antigoni katsakou Chapter 3: 67 Architecture for the “silvering” generation in Sweden – Architecture competitions as innovators for the elderly jonas e andersson Chapter 4: 107 Experience of prequalification in Swedish competitions for new housing for the elderly magnus rönn Chapter 5: Prequalification in the UK and design team selection procedures judith strong

135

Chapter 6: 159 Architectural competitions as lab – a study on Souto de Moura’s competition entries pedro guilherme and joão rocha

Chapter 7: 193 Facing the challenges of organising a competition – the Building for Bouwkunde case leentje volker Chapter 8: 217 Constructing the Client in Architectural Competitions.

An Ethnographic Study of Architects’ Practices and the Strategies They Reveal kristian kreiner Chapter 9: Inside the jury room.

Strategies of quality assessment in Swedish architectural competitions charlotte svensson

245

Chapter 10: 263 High ideals on a tricky site.

The 1939 Competition for the New Government Building in Oslo elisabeth tostrup Chapter 11: 291 The balancing act between historicism and monument preservation in some international competitions in Germany thomas hoffmann-kuhnt Chapter 12: 319 The architecture competition for the Stockholm – Bromma Airport, 1934 mats t beckman

andersson, bloxham zettersten & rönn: editors’ comments

Editors’ Comments jonas e andersson gerd bloxham zettersten and magnus rönn

To be in the position of presenting accounts that are exciting as well as instructive and informative on the subject of architectural competitions is a pleasure.

Something has happened. Competitions are no longer simply professional praxis for architects and a recurrent exercise for students at schools of architecture. The competition has also turned into a field of research, and this book is part of an effort constituting the architectural competition as a field for studies with scholarly claims. The competition as a field of research reflects a new phase of development with an inception in an academic interest and in a need for research. It is surprising that research into architectural competitions has been so limited until now, in particular when considering the fact that the modern architectural competition is an institution in function in Europe for more than 150 years, having played a central role, both for practicing architects and in architectural education. The introduction of competition rules during the late 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th coincides with architects getting professionally organized in associations and unions.

The first doctoral dissertations on architectural competitions were apparently presented in the 1990s at institutions for architecture in Sweden and Norway. Now there are around fifteen academic dissertations and a number of ongoing doctoral projects in Canada and Europe. Another clear manifestation of research interest is the growth and spread of scholarly conferences on architectural competitions. Until now four conferences have been carried out with a start in Stockholm in 2008, followed by Copenhagen in 2010, and Montreal and Helsinki in 2012. A fifth scholarly conference focusing on architectural competitions will be taking place in Delft in 2014.

The driving force behind research interest may be found in the deregulation and market orientation of the building constructions sector during the architectural competitions – histories and practice

7

andersson, bloxham zettersten & rönn: editors’ comments

1980s and the reregulation in the 1990s through the European Parliament and Council directive (2004/18/EC), regulations that have been transferred into the national legislation of the member countries. The architectural competition is seen as a way of benefitting competitive engagement. Through revisions of the legislation after 1994, the competition has acquired a double role, becoming both (a) a method for producing good solutions to design problems in architecture and urban design, and (b) a formal instrument for the procurement of services for public architecture commissions. The news here is not that prizes in competitions lead to commissions, but the fact of the directive which is a joint one for the member countries in Europe. According to Swedish application of the EU directive the demand for a competition is met if at least three firms or teams participate. The inner market may also be limited by national language requirements in public tendering.

A controversial regulation in directive 2004/18/EC is the demand for anonymity in article 74, stating that the jury must not know the identity of the authors of the competition entries. The good intentions behind this demand are evident. It is the professional qualities of the competition proposals that engender the decision—nothing else. The commission must go to the authors of the best overall solution to the design problem. A competent jury, detached in relation to the competing architects, must find the winner on the basis of the merits of the proposals. The jury members must not allow themselves to be affected by the reputation, education, experience or financial status of the competitors. But the demand for anonymity has a down side. The organizers begin to look around for alternative ways of public procuring. The rise of dialogue competitions in Denmark is a way of bypassing anonymity. Another outcome is the development of forms of procedure, similar to competitions but outside of competition rules and the control of the architects’ organizations.

Supported by legislation, organizers can now make far-reaching demands on the architectural practices in their invitations to prequalification in competitions with a limited number of participants, but the will to compete within architecture and urban design cannot be forced. That urge is not to be found in regulations or administrative directives, but in the engagement of architects and social planners. The spirit of competing has a background in the Jesuit schools, known for their efficient and competitive education. Sancta Æmulatio, the holy urge to compete, was encouraged by giving each pupil an æmulus with whom he should compare himself and who had as his task to stimulate learning (Liedman, 2007).

8

architectural competitions – histories and practice

andersson, bloxham zettersten & rönn: editors’ comments

Through continual comparisons the students were to be spurred on to improve their performance, which was training in being both colleagues and rivals.

We know more about the role of the competition in the French education of architects in the 18th century, a form of learning that was refined in the academies and copied around Europe and the US. The essential element of teaching at the Académie d’architecture and the École des Beaux Arts was the annual Grand Prix competition (Bergdoll, 1989; Svedberg, 1994; Wærn, 1996).

The students were to make an independent first sketch which was then developed in studios under the supervision of a master into detailed drawing on wall charts. The pedagogical point is clear. Through the sketch the individual abilities of the students were tested to quickly analyse the competition problem at hand, devising a fundamental idea as a basis for design. The design proposal was to show if the task had been solved in a qualified way, and this was crucial for the move up into the next form. The charette method, initiated at the Paris academies of the 19th century, is a modern variant of the work method at the École des Beaux Art, denoting the practice of solving complex design problems in intensive sittings. The competitions gave the academies a status as an international meeting place in the 18th century. Socialization into competition culture was started, as we have seen, already during the architects’ education when the competition became a central exercise in the learning process.

Traces of the French tradition of competitions survive in present-day architectural education in the recurrent student exhibitions of exam projects. The need to compare the design projects, evaluating their quality, has also laid the basis for architectural critique as a method for the evaluation and grading of proposals. In the French tradition jury members were invited to examine and comment on the students’ solutions of a yearly completion task.

Participating in architectural competitions is associated both with a playful learning process, delight, collaboration and with competition in dead earnest.

The tension of the chase for the fundamental idea that will resolve the design project has been testified to among practicing architects. The time for the handing in of the proposals is approaching irrevocably. When the competition proposals have been sent in and exhibited, the members of the jury walk around in the room to acquaint themselves with the design solutions. A sense of curiosity and delight fills the exhibition room. A new world is being opened before the eyes of the jury. The future is at stake. architectural competitions – histories and practice

9

andersson, bloxham zettersten & rönn: editors’ comments

Part of competition culture is making the proposals public through exhibitions, where they become the object of critical review in a form of worthy emulation of each other. Competition programs, competition proposals and jury statements are possible to download from home pages. The public presentation of architectural projects in competitions via home pages, journals and exhibitions lend communal character to knowledge production. Education and professional praxis combine in the creation of a professional identity where competitions play a key role with their own rules, secretaries and competition boards to supervise the conditions of competitions. It is this professional control that is being challenged by new competition forms and administrative directives in public procurement acts.

The architectural competition is a future oriented production of knowledge through architectural projects. From that perspective the competition takes on an appearance of futuristic archeology. The future is being investigated with the support of design—not how it is, but how it could be if the proposals were to be implemented. What is important here is that the proposals contain different modes of solution for the same competition design problem. There is no given answer, no “correct solution”, but instead the potential of alternative good solutions to the competition task at hand. For this reason doubt and lack of certainty is a constant companion in the jury’s examination of the design proposals.

That architectural competitions generate knowledge is hardly a controversial statement. Nor is the assumption that the learning process implies the handling of drawings and illustrations as though they constitute built environment. It is when we take up the question of the nature of knowledge, how knowledge may be given form and communicated that the question becomes controversial. It is characteristic of architectural projects that knowledge is embedded in the image and is communicated via drawings, illustrations and diagrams. The aim is for the images to be self-explanatory. Sometimes brief explanations in text are needed. However, the descriptive text has no value in itself, but is intended only to clarify the knowledge that is already deposited in the images and being conveyed through visual impressions. It is an already formed environment which is being revealed to the observer as design. The pictures transmit experience. The text on the other hand is intellectual in character, appealing to reason. Consequently, text and image represent two very different understandings of knowledge which are both to be found in architectural competitions, and which are 10

architectural competitions – histories and practice

andersson, bloxham zettersten & rönn: editors’ comments

made manifest in the mode of communication and visualization of knowledge to the observer.

Architectural competitions are based on three fundamental presuppositions: (a) that drawings and visualizations may transmit credible knowledge and (b) that quality in architecture is something that may be seen and transmitted via images. And in a principal view, (c) that architectural projects is a practicable method for investigating the future and testing ideas. Through visualizations the observer gets a fast and clarifying, efficient and easy to grasp overall picture of the architectural projects. Learning lies in the meeting with the image.

The idea of efficient evaluation, too, is included in the competitions tradition. A group of competent practitioners is assumed to be able to read the imagery of architecture, understand the architectural projects and point to qualities, omissions and non-clarities in the proposals. That is how the basis for jury procedure looks.

Faith in the architectural competition as a professional tool for the production of knowledge assumes that organizers may trust the judgments made by competent members of a jury, in spite of the fact that the proposals represent only a certain number of possible visions of the future. It is not examples of “real” environment but visualized proposals that are being tested. However, computer graphics make it possible for the illustrations of an architectural project to have photographic precision, looking like pictures of real built environment. We are easily fooled by the degree of detail. Therefore good judgment is central in the evaluation of proposals in competitions and their simplified interpretations of the future. Good judgment is the product of experience, examples, praxis and training. We cannot read up on good judgment; instead a rich repertoire of cases is required that may be reused as experience, principles and patterns for the development of solutions in new situations.

Thus there is a movement in competition processes that makes the transmission of knowledge shift between text and image. The centre of gravity varies.

The introductory invitation to architectural practices is a brief text description of the competition’s design task and its conditions. The competition programs, too, convey information as text on the task at hand with a supplementary material of maps and pictures of the site. The competition proposals on the other hand employ the image as their principal source of knowledge. So there is a clear displacement of the centre of gravity. The proposals for solutions to the design problems are visualized in drawings, illustrations and models. At this architectural competitions – histories and practice

11

andersson, bloxham zettersten & rönn: editors’ comments

stage the image is the central element in the transmission of knowledge. Without images, no design. After that the text takes over. The jury statement is a written report accounting for the outcome of the evaluation. Visualizations of awarded proposals are included, but only for the purpose of illustrating the conclusions of the jury. The text is the medium for transmission of information. It is by reading the jury statement that we learn which of the architectural projects in the competition that has been awarded 1st prize.

As matters stand, in text-based communication images are used to illustrate the knowledge that is deposited in written language. The text is king, power lies in the word. Architectural projects represent a diametrically opposed conception of knowledge. Now it is the image that transmits knowledge about the future. Knowledge is being visualized. The eye is given the deciding function.

Seeing the quality in an architectural project has priority to the descriptive text.

In order to be successful in architectural competitions the competing architects must catch the attention of the jury, and that is not done through written language, but by design. In the meeting with the proposals the jury sees the architectural projects as a built environment with qualities, non-clarities and omissions. In a mental process, the jury members enter the imagery, trying to experience the drawings as real-life environment.

A common denominator for most article contributions in this book is that they describe an epistemological axis activated through the competition process. The epistemological axis in competitions encompasses both text and imagery as empirical findings. This combined knowledge, which the texts and the images supply, makes it possible to define a typology, in which the architectural projects of the competitions describe principal solutions to specific design problems. Through this analysis, we may point to patterns, lines of development and breaks in trends.

Therefore we open the book by bringing out competitions as viewed from a national horizon. The first contribution by Maarit Kaipiainen is a survey of architectural competitions in Finland. Since the 1870s about 2000 competitions have been organized in Finland. Kaipiainen’s contribution is based on a catalogue that was compiled for the exhibition on architectural competitions shown at the Museum of Finnish Architecture in Helsinki in 2008. Here we have an overall description of the competitions system. An interesting difference from other European countries is the fact that the competition rules contain a specific paragraph laying down the handing over of the competition material to the 12

architectural competitions – histories and practice

andersson, bloxham zettersten & rönn: editors’ comments

museum of architecture. The wording goes: “In a design competition, the conditions and the judges’ report, including attachments, but with the exception of classified portions, shall be filed in a reliable way. In the case of architectural competitions the competition material shall be filed by the Museum of Finnish Architecture” (SAFA Competition Rules, 2008). Since the rules are the same ones for architects and their clients, this paragraph may be interpreted as a sign that the competition results are viewed as a collective source of knowledge that needs to be documented and made available to research.

The second article is an investigation of the contemporary competitions culture in Switzerland. Antigoni Katsakou gives us a tale of success. Every year c.

200 competitions are carried through in Switzerland. From the point of view of architecture this country is inspiring and instructive. Through Antigoni Katsakou’s contribution we get an insight into a specific competitions system making it possible for young architects to win competitions, start up architectural practices and begin to build their professional careers. Switzerland has a long tradition of competitions and an advanced competitions system that evidently encourages professional renewal. But here, too, external forces challenge the tradition. One threat is the changeover from open competitions to invited ones, making it hard for young architects to succeed in the competitive battle against established architectural offices with good references and a sound reputation.

The competition as a tool for tendering makes for an administrative and legal displacement of the centre of gravity. Katsakou also points to the new modes of representation, computer-based images, as an internal challenge. The contestants produce visualizations that are increasingly true to life in their architectural projects of future examples of environment, which makes clients believe that the conceptual proposals are ready to be built. The competition projects are rendered as elaborated ones before the jury has chosen the winner and the organizer has given the 1st prize winner the design commission. The new ways of visualizing architectural projects have a photographic precision that affects both the image and the understanding of its contents.

The third contribution to the book gives an account of the way in which the architectural competition in Sweden has been used as a sociopolitical instrument in the development of appropriate dwellings for an aging population, a challenge that Sweden shares with many welfare states. Jonas E Andersson describes a national drive in Sweden in 2011-2012 that focused on housing for the elderly and that used the architecture competition as a professional laboratory architectural competitions – histories and practice

13

andersson, bloxham zettersten & rönn: editors’ comments

in order to generate innovative solutions and creative proposals for the task.

Supported by a governmental program, three invited competitions were carried out in the municipalities of Burlöv, Gävle and Linköping. Andersson gives a survey of the competition processes and an analysis of the winning architectural projects. The architectural competitions illustrate two ways of meeting the needs of the aging society. One way presupposes the inclusion of apartments for the elderly in common residential building. This housing type is intended for continued living in a familiar environment, i.e. aging in place. The other way is to design special housing for frail elderly people who are in need of care and caring around the clock, i.e. the assisted living concept. However, the second type of housing is not freely available on the market; but instead, access depends upon an assessment made by the municipal administration for eldercare of the older person’s need of assistance and care, motivated by a diagnosis or a medical condition. This type of housing combines the deeper meaning of home with the demands on an appropriate work environment for the care staff. Whichever the orientation, the conclusion of the three competitions is that appropriate housing for the aging society should be provided with universal architectural qualities and general accessibility and usability, in line with the concept “Design for all” or “Universal Design”. The fundamentally different types of architectonic solution may at best be combined, integrated in common residential areas.

The fourth and fifth contributions deal with prequalification, which is a selective procedure in competitions with a limited number of participants. The prequalified competition is now a dominant form. Its spread may be viewed as a result of the organizers’ wish for control, administrative rules and the demand for a cheaper, faster and more efficient process, from invitation to program work and the contract offered to the 1st prize winner. The rationale of such demands may, on good grounds, be questioned in the light of the long life of buildings.

Magnus Rönn opens the discussion on the basis of experience of a selection of architectural practices for three competitions for dwellings for the elderly that were carried through in 2011-2012. A total of 120 design teams sent in their applications in expectation. Eleven teams were invited. Obviously the battle for places in the competition was very hard. Only 9% could proceed. That is a standard figure, for Sweden. Through their invitation to prequalification the organizers had access to a large number of applications from competent architectural offices with good references and a good reputation within the sector.

14

architectural competitions – histories and practice

andersson, bloxham zettersten & rönn: editors’ comments

That is one reason for the seclusion of young architects and newly established practices. Magnus Rönn makes a critical investigation of the prequalification process through interviews and an analysis of documents in the archives. In order to be invited the candidates had to satisfy a number of “must have” demands referring to prescriptions in the Swedish Public Procurement Act, LOU. It is a prerequisite for being allowed to proceed in the evaluation. The professional merits of the candidates are then tested on the basis of criteria for design ability, creativity, competence and resources. It is in this evaluation that the organizer appoints the design teams selected to participate in developing solutions to the competition design task.

Judith Strong carries on the discussion by investigating selection procedures in England and their influence on the competitions tradition. She describes attempts to develop alternative procedures as a way of softening the negative effects of the prequalified competition, as well as the difficulty experienced by smaller architectural practices in getting invited, the bureaucratization through legislation and the demand for anonymity which makes the organizer hesitant regarding competitions as a form. According to Strong the open competition has vanished, in principle, in England. But this is not just an effect of the demands for anonymity. A strongly contributing factor is privatization. No longer is there a public sector organizing open architectural competitions for new housing, hospitals, schools and buildings for municipal activities. The new methods of selection began to be developed in England in the 1990s. In her article Strong examines the different ways of selecting architects for commissions. Here there are dialogue-based methods that start out from simple interviews and presentations at meetings, to go on to scrutiny that may be likened to examination, short-listing of candidates based on references and analyses of competition programs for complex design tasks. Increasingly often the competition problems call for multidisciplinary design teams.

From the competition as an instrument for selection and procurement we turn our eyes to a Portuguese architect who has gained international reputation.

Pedro Guilherme and João Rocha present in their contribution Souto de Moura and a selection of his competition projects. Souto de Moura is an architect with star status operating on the international stage. During the period 1979-2010 Souto de Moura participated in fifty national and international architectural competitions. In fourteen of these competitions he was awarded 1st prize, and in particular in the national competitions organized in Portugal. Guilherme architectural competitions – histories and practice

15

andersson, bloxham zettersten & rönn: editors’ comments

and Rocha describe and analyse some fundamental traits in Souto de Moura’s design ideas in four competition projects used as case studies. We may watch how design evolves in the architectural projects via sketches, models and images used for reference. In the centre of the case studies there is an attempt at identifying an architectural grammar in Souto de Moura’s work. The cases are analysed in terms of authenticity and reuse, readability, simplicity and clarity, as well as materiality and time. The competition proposals are used in the article as sources for understanding of his idiom.

What could be a better competition design task than a school of architecture? Leentje Volker gives us an account of the competition for a new architecture school at Delft University. The background is dramatic as the school was hit by devastating fire in 2008. The directorate at once started planning for a competition for a new architecture school. It is this design task and its web page for communication that Leentje Volker deals with in her contribution.

The intention was to give young architects a chance to show their potential, inspiring them to great exploits. The medium was the open ideas competition, using English as the competition’s language. The competition resulted in 471 proposals, most of which came from Europe and the US. The awarded projects were carried out by architects native of the Netherlands, France, Belgium and Finland. Several of the awarded architects had been exchange students at Delft, apparently giving them an advance understanding of the competition task. The organizer communicated with the contestants via a website, requesting digital submission of the proposals. This facilitated the administration of the competition process, probably also contributing to the large number of submitted projects. Volker notes, too, that digital submission simplified the jury’s assessment of the proposals. Through the digital submission request the competition resulted in a data base that may easily be made accessible to future research.

The architecture school at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, too, has been damaged by fire and will be given new premises. The new school is planned to become one entrance to the campus. But instead of a competition, the directorate chose in 2007 to organize a parallel assignment procedure together with the client and the Swedish Association of Architects, inviting four architectural practices, three from Sweden and one from Japan. In comparison with the process at Delft, the directorate of the Royal Institute of Technology gives an appearance of caution with its investment in safe cards and security instead of supporting a curiosity-induced search for a new school building.

16

architectural competitions – histories and practice

andersson, bloxham zettersten & rönn: editors’ comments

Kristian Kreiner discusses the design phase from the horizon of the architectural practice. The demand for anonymity in competitions results in a one-way communication process which he names “shadow dancing”. With the program as their point of departure the contestants must dance with an absent client in their development of proposals as solutions to the design task. It is a logical consequence of the demand for anonymity which means a prohibition against dialogue in the design phase. The designing teams get no direct communication with the organizer and the jury. So with the competition program as their base the participant architects are forced to invent a picture of both the competition design task and the organizer. In such a construction the program may be read in several ways. It is both a description of the competition design task, a presentation of the conditions that apply to the competition, a source of inspiration and a challenge to the design team. Embedded in the task is a strategic interpretation, in understanding the clients’ intentions and what are central directives for planning that may not be exceeded, compared to negotiable demands. In the Nordic tradition, it is the jury determining what may be seen as a minor deviation constituting a permissible change of the competition rules.

Kreiner points out that it is the response by the design teams to the competition design task that gives the jury good reason for developing in retrospect the competition program’s criteria for assessment of the architectural projects. In effect the competition proposals throw an illuminating light on the competition design task. Here is a creative moment in competition processes seen to emerge only when the jury gets acquainted with the proposals; consequently it can not be predicted, neither by the organizer, nor by the jury or the individual competing teams. To the organizer, creativity is revealed in the form of surprising solutions to a design problem.

Charlotte Svensson takes us into the jury room in her contribution. The jury’s charge is to identify, among the submitted projects, the one proposal offering the best solution to the competition design task, also when the world outside the jury room asserts itself. According to Svensson, the jury’s evaluation of the architectural projects may be seen as a meeting between rationality and architectural critique. This is a consequence of the jury’s composition, of members representing differing interests, knowledge and professional background.

Appointing a winner through a rational decision process, or alternatively, through an architectural critique method, represents two different ways of finding a winner. The jury embodies both methods. Politicians and officials are used architectural competitions – histories and practice

17

andersson, bloxham zettersten & rönn: editors’ comments

to a basis for decision-making that holds in it a quantification of qualities. Allotting a score to an offer through measurable criteria, as a basis for a decision on procurement of services, is seen as being rational. Quantification conveys a picture of objectivity. Whereas the architects on the jury instead seek the best overall solution through a series of evaluations based on architectural critique.

The qualities of the competition proposals are tested when an architect jury member enters the visualized solutions, interpreting them from out of professional apprehension and experience. In this case, what determines the choice of a winner is a co-balancing of aspects forming a general picture. Svensson claims that the work of the jury in competitions is a creative process that ends with the jury normally agreeing on a winner, in spite of the fact that the jury members make use of different strategies to identify quality in competitions, and that they represent different interests, parties and professions. Evidently the wish for consensus has strong status within this tradition of competitions.

Elisabeth Tostrup discusses the competition in 1939 for the Government Quarter building in Oslo, and the rebuilding of it after the terrorist bombing in 2011. Preservation of the government buildings must be combined with a deeper understanding of the 1939 competition. Tostrup’s contribution to the book is a reconstruction of the architectural ideals in that competition. The jury consisted of five members, three of whom were architects. Two of the architects were appointed by the National Association of Norwegian Architects that had also approved the competition program. The competition was open to Norwegian architects and generated 49 proposals. The competition projects show that the architectural profession in Norway was dominated by a modernist stance that had won a hegemonic position within a short space of time. Four proposals were awarded, but the jury could not agree on a winner, and therefore it proposed a new competition. The renewed competition was never realized due to World War II. Instead a committee was appointed in 1946 charged with the selection of a winner from among the awarded architectural projects in the 1939 competition. Erling Viksjö was awarded 1st prize and was asked to develop his competition proposal. At the same time ideals were beginning to change. It was no longer a matter of self-evidence to create space for new buildings in a modernist idiom by tearing down buildings in the city. A growing interest in preservation and adaptation called for a reworking of the competition proposal. It was only in 1958 that the construction of the Government Quarter could start. According to Tostrup irresolution regarding the winning proposal and 18

architectural competitions – histories and practice

andersson, bloxham zettersten & rönn: editors’ comments

the change in architectural ideals have affected the design decisively, something which is now a returning discussion about the function or mission of architecture after the 2011 terrorist bombing of the Government Quarter in Oslo.

The last two contributions to the book, too, represent a historic context.

Thomas Hoffmann-Kuhnt starts by discussing the use of historicisms in German architectural competitions on the basis of four case studies. The background for the competitions is the destruction of cities during World War II and the wishes to rebuild historically important monuments. Common to the four cases is that the competitions have been presented in the German journal of competitions, wettbewerbe aktuell (wa). The first case concerns the reconstruction of the Berlin City Palace. After the reunification in 1989, the Parliament decided in 2008 to announce a competition that prescribed a recreation of the Baroque facade of the building. This was an open competition that generated 129 proposals. The second case is the reconstruction in 2010 of Herrenhausen Palace in Hanover. The aim of the architectural competition was to recreate a museum in this place. Fifteen architectural practices were invited after prequalification. The third case is the competition for new premises for an archive and for art exhibitions in Beeskow Castle in the city of Beeskow which is a centre for music and culture. This competition, too, was organized in 2010 as a prequalified competition with fifteen invited participants. The fourth case is the transformation of the Moritzburg Halle in Magdeburg into a new art museum.

In 2004 an architectural competition in two steps was organized to design a museum in the historic building. The first step resulted in 300 proposals, of which seven were taken further as invitations in the second step. HoffmannKuhnt formulates two principal conclusions after having compared the cases.

First, he claims that the awarded competition proposals illustrate fundamental strategies in the design of contemporary additions in a historical context.

Secondly, Hoffmann-Kuhnt is of the opinion that the brief is a key document, specifications is a limiting factor and a more general description of the task seems to increase the variety in the teams’ design proposals. According to this hypothesis the program has a steering function in competition processes.

The book’s final contribution is Mats T Beckman’s study of the architectural competition in 1934 for the first land airport in Stockholm, at Bromma. In the year 2000 the airport was given the status of a national, protected historical monument through a government decision. Ten years later the same status was given to some of the airport structures by the Stockholm county administration. It may architectural competitions – histories and practice

19

andersson, bloxham zettersten & rönn: editors’ comments

be said that this demand for protection is a sign of the long-term significance of the competition. Beckman describes the background planning. The future of air travel lay open, and Stockholm needed an airport. Four young architects, known internationally from work on the Stockholm exhibition in 1930, were invited.

In the biographies of the architects the commission is described as a competition. But there is no evidence of an invited competition in the archives. Nor does the program show any references to competition rules. That, too, is surprising.

Therefore there is good reason to suspect that the competition was not organized on the basis of current competition rules, nor that it had been approved by the architects’ local association of Stockholm. The Swedish national association of architects was formed only in 1936, but the competition rules have been operating since the beginning of the 20th century. Designing an airport for international traffic was a future oriented task which had the prerequisites of putting Stockholm on the map. The task must have seemed to be very attractive. The competition program is a brief document of four pages lacking aesthetical ambitions. Beckman analyses the four competition proposals in a model that has two axes, where one axis moves from well-tried solutions to new ideas. The other axis runs from rational simplicity to complex structures. According to this model, the winning architectural project is one that the jury perceives as being practical and possible to develop, using well-tried solutions. Therefore it appears as if the jury, before an uncertain future, chooses security before the spectacular, the untested and the innovative. The modernist architecture in the winning proposal represents a kind of aesthetic rationalism of the day. *** In conclusion: The contributions to the book show in a convincing way that the architectural competition is an interesting and rewarding object for research. The competition constitutes a source of knowledge of both width and great depth. The competition processes bear rich empirical findings to which one may refer for knowledge about architecture as professional practice, as educational subject and research platform. In the competition we may therefore investigate in fruitful ways how organizers, juries and competition teams produce, communicate, visualize and evaluate images of future built environment. It is the task of research to problematize this field of knowledge.

The architectural competition illustrates processes of change in society that 20

architectural competitions – histories and practice

andersson, bloxham zettersten & rönn: editors’ comments

are technical and organizational as well as social; it shows up constructive dilemmas, the borderline of rationality and the relative, creative insecurity of knowledge production in architectural projects. The collated articles point to the capacity in competition culture of thinking, despite a given framework, in innovative ways, passing by habitual notions; the holy delight in competing is still a resource to be exploited. The power of architecture to form and make space for individual life targets and communal societal visions is of pressing importance for many, and stands out as a necessity for society.

References Bergdoll, B., 1989. Competing in the Academy and Marketplace: European Architecture Competitions 1401-1927 in Lipstadt H., (Ed.) The experimental Tradition. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Liedman, S., 2007. Sancta Æmulatio, “Den heliga tävlingslusten”. Om kvantiteternas roll i ett historiskt perspektiv, in Strannegård, L., (Ed.) Den omätbara kvaliteten: Nordstedts Akademiska förslag (Norge 2007).

Svedberg, O., 1994. Arkitekternas århundrade. Värnamo: Arkitektur förlag AB. Wærn, R., 1996. Tävlingarnas tid. Borås: Arkitektur förlag AB, Arkitekturmuseet.

Internet Competition Rules, 2010, available 2013-03-20 at: www.arkitektforeningen.dk/english/competitions/competitions-rules Directive 2004/18/EC, available 2013-03-20 at: eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004L0018:en:NOT SAFA Competitions Rules, 2008, available 2013-03-20 at: www.safa.fi/eng/architectural_competitions/nbspnbspcompetition_rules/

architectural competitions – histories and practice

21

maarit kaipiainen: architectural competitions in finland

Abstract The practice of architectural competitions in Finland is discussed in this article from several viewpoints. A concise overview of the early developments of design competitions is followed by a discussion of architectural competitions as part of recognized professional practice. Finnish architects have been actively involved in shaping competition practices since the late 19th century. The Finnish architectural competitions archive and the method by which it is compiled are described, with some statistical information. Over time, competition rules need revisions, which are described in relation to changes in the constellation of actors in the construction sector during the past few decades. Changes in the recent operating practices of potential competition organizers have created the need to evaluate various new requirements as eventual components of design competitions. European Union requirements for the procurement of design services by public bodies have an impact on architectural competition practices as well. The article concludes with a discussion of architects’ resources invested in architectural competitions, as some architects participate as designers and others as jurors. Built results of architectural competitions have a greater environmental significance than their number, in proportion to annual building permits, might indicate.

Key words: architectural competitions, design competitions, professional practice, competition practices, competition rules, procurement of design services Contact: Maarit Kaipiainen, PhD Student, Architect SAFA maarit.kaipiainen@pp.inet.fi Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland

22

architectural competitions – histories and practice

maarit kaipiainen: architectural competitions in finland

Architectural Competitions in Finland maarit kaipiainen

Introduction Over the past nearly 140 years, close to two thousand architectural competitions have been held in Finland. Slightly under a third of them have been open competitions; i.e. the long-term annual average is four or five open competitions.

However, the numbers have fluctuated greatly, and at first there was not even one every year. In the last ten years (2002–2011), there have been three to thirteen open architectural competitions a year.

The earliest reliably documented architectural competition in Finland was held in 1876 for the edifice of the Bank of Finland. This international competition was won by the German architect Ludwig Bohnstedt. Foreigners also won some of the other early competitions. In this light, it may not surprise that the practice of competitions was a worry to Tekniska föreningen (TFiF, founded by engineers and architects in 1880) in its early years. Was the professional competence of Finnish architects not on a compatible level?

Formal architectural education in Finland began at the Polytechnic Institute in 1872. Finnish architects gradually gained experience and began to have success in competitions, and Finland became known as a country with its own style of architecture well before its independence in 1917.

Architectural competitions were discussed at Tekniska föreningen from the very start. Architects soon wanted to dissociate from engineers, and in 1892 they founded a chapter of their own, Arkitektklubben. From the start, the Architects’ Club engaged itself in pursuing issues of architecture and of the profession.

The club started the periodical Arkitekten (later Arkkitehti-Arkitekten; today Ark) in 1903. The Club’s rules of 1903 defined it a responsibility of its art committee to participate in the arranging of architectural competitions. architectural competitions – histories and practice

23

maarit kaipiainen: architectural competitions in finland

The vivid discussion about competitions in the Club led to the writing of the first Finnish rules for architectural competitions in 1893, only a year after the Club had started. These rules followed the example of the Swedish ones, and they defined both the open competition and the competition by invitation. The majority of the jury had to be professionals in the field of building. The rules did not stipulate that only architects be allowed to participate. These principles formulated in the 1890s have proven enduring.

It soon became a routine task for the Club to nominate architects to competition juries and to work out competition briefs. In 1919, the Architects’ Club decided to leave TFiF to form an independent association, Suomen Arkkitehtiliitto – Finlands Arkitektförbund (SAFA; The Finnish Association of Architects).

Its stated purpose was to promote architecture and defend the interests of its members. The expertise on architectural competitions was transferred from the Club to the new Association.

Architectural Competitions as Part of Professional Practice Since 1947, The Finnish Association of Architects has a separate Competition Board sorting under its Council; the first competition secretary at the SAFA office started in 1961. The Nordic practice of competition secretaries is exceptional in an international perspective: competition processes in most countries are handled through local bodies of voluntaries with the result that there may not be uniform competition procedures at the national scale. Within SAFA, design and planning competitions are discussed in the Competition Committee presently sorting under the Association’s Executive Board.

An architectural competition always bears the stamp of its organizer. The organizer programmes the competition in line with its own objectives and nominates most of the jurors. But even though the majority of the jury is appointed by the organizer, SAFA has held onto the principle that its Competition Committee inspects and approves the programme draft for every open competition.

The organizer defines the initial facts and the goals of the project; the Competition Committee checks that the programme gives the organizer the best possible result with an optimal effort from the competitors. The competition brief has to be legible, the initial facts and the requirements must be expressed clearly, and the output material must enable the appropriate evaluation of the entries.

24

architectural competitions – histories and practice

maarit kaipiainen: architectural competitions in finland

Architectural Competitions Archive It has become customary in Finland to save material from architectural competitions at the archive of the Museum of Finnish Architecture (MFA). The museum was founded in 1956 to administer the SAFA archives, so it has documentation even on early competitions. The archive is exceptional in an international perspective, both for its method and comprehensiveness.

The open competition results are published in the Architectural Competitions in Finland appendix to Ark, the Finnish Architectural Review. Material on recent open competitions is available digitally, too. The results of competitions by invitation are published on the SAFA website and in the newsletter Arkkitehtiuutiset. There is a plan to provide material on implemented competition entries on the website in the future.

The extent of documentation filed in the archive varies. The filed material from the earliest decades of architectural competitions is somewhat random; documents have come e.g. from architects’ donated archives. There usually is more material on open competitions than on competitions by invitation. The actual competition entries are not filed in the archive: they are returned to their authors. The Museum of Finnish Architecture now maintains a digital database on competition information. The database is not public; the use of it is negotiable for researchers.

A nine-category classification is employed for architectural competitions in the MFA archives. A look at the relative distribution of the thematic domains indicates that the public sector is a major organizer of architectural competitions. Almost half of all competitions deal either with areas or with buildings for education and culture. Only a minor share of such competitions is arranged by others than municipalities. Furthermore, the public sector arranges proportionally more open competitions than other actors. Town planning and the design of schools, churches and parish centres, cultural centres, and town halls have been frequent topics.

A closer look indicates that in some categories open competitions are favoured, while competitions by invitation dominate in others. For example, church or cemetery competitions are usually open but congregational centre competitions for invitees. Regarding school complexes, invited (restricted) competitions are utilized more than open ones, but for cultural centres the opposite is true. Competitions for low-rise housing have mainly been open, but those for apartment buildings often by invitation. architectural competitions – histories and practice

25

maarit kaipiainen: architectural competitions in finland

Fig. 1. Housing Blocks in Housing Fair 1992 in Mäntsälä, open architectural competition in 1990; 23 entries.

First prize awarded to Reino Helminen.

The annual number of architectural competitions in Finland has varied greatly. According to statistics collected by SAFA over the past forty years, the number of competitions peaked in the late 1980s, which was a time of heady economic (over)optimism. In the peak year of 1986, there were eleven open competitions and thirty-three competitions by invitation. Open competitions reached their peak numbers in 1989–91. The economic climate then changed quite sharply, largely because of political and economic shifts in Eastern Europe. Many Finnish industries had relied – too much, in retrospect – on bilateral trade agreements with Soviet block countries. A severe recession arrived as a reaction to the changes of the early 1990s. Economic activity, including construction, was very low for some years. This situation, quite dire for many architects, is clearly reflected in design competition activity. In the early 1990s, the number of competitions was about as low as it had been during the oil crisis in the mid-1970s.

It has been observed that the number of competitions by invitation follows the volume of construction more quickly than the number of open competitions.

26

architectural competitions – histories and practice

maarit kaipiainen: architectural competitions in finland Architectural Competitions in Finland 1972–2011 open competitions

competitions for invited

pcs

year

Fig. 2. Number of architectural competitions in Finland 1972–2011. Open and invited competitions indicated separately.

Since the recession of the early 1990s, the ratio between open and invited (restricted) competitions has changed so that the latter ones now form a somewhat greater share of the total than before. One reason for this development is that municipalities – formerly the most important organizers of open architectural competitions – have cut down on the construction of public buildings. Secondly, it may be assumed that for many potential organizers of competitions, a greater sensitivity to economic calculations plays a role: competitions with a known number of participants are seen as simpler and less expensive to arrange.

Needs for a Revision of Rules Once in a decade on the average, SAFA has revised its rules for architectural competitions. Revision needs to emerge from the changes in the operating environment of the profession. At times there has been a need for more detailed description of the phases of a competition, at other times for particularization of the procedures, or for a redefinition of the responsibilities of the different parties during a competition.

In recent decades, the revisions have also been approved by the major interest group on the side of the competition organizers, the Finnish Association of Building Owners and Construction Clients (RAKLI). architectural competitions – histories and practice

27

maarit kaipiainen: architectural competitions in finland

The result of the latest extensive development process is the new Guidelines for Planning and Design Competitions in the Construction Sector. They are based on the EU directives on public procurement, and are the most comprehensive ever regulatory framework for design and planning competitions in Finland.

The purpose of these Guidelines is to promote the arranging of competitions for architecture, landscape architecture, engineering skills, and combinations of these, to assist competition organizers in writing competition programmes, to secure the equal and non-discriminating treatment of competitors, and to ensure that the entries are judged in a professional manner.

In addition to the traditional categories of open competitions and competitions by invitation, both extensive and restricted design competitions have recently been defined. This division is based on the amount of work and documentation the competition requires. The restricted design competition is designated for the selection of designer in a regular construction project, with the intention that it will be used to replace the price-only competition that has become ever more commonplace in public procurement.

The accustomed Finnish procedures of architectural competitions are the result of nearly 140 years of continual development. The procedures have steered the development of the institution of architectural competitions, which has become an example of the best practice internationally. However, some changes are taking place because of public procurement legislation in the European Union.

In the jury of an open architectural competition in Finland, two members are by tradition appointed by the SAFA Competition Committee. In a competition by invitation there is an architect juror nominated jointly by the competitors. A jury often also includes architects representing the organizer, either employees or persons otherwise selected. In competitions held by authorities for the procurement of planning or design services, the number of experts in the jury depends on current legislation. According to the EU directives on public procurement, a third of the members of the prize jury must have the same competence as is required of the competitors. This means that the weight of design expertise in the process may be less than what architects’ organizations consider appropriate.

When the practice of jury composition changes, architects need to consider whether they see the new situation as a potential threat to design quality, or 28

architectural competitions – histories and practice

maarit kaipiainen: architectural competitions in finland

whether they think that it is not a critical change. If architects refuse to participate under the new rules, who then will participate? Students of architecture or other fields of design, engineers, or professionals with various foreign degrees? It must be noted that the procurement rules apply to publicly financed projects. Private companies still largely rely on SAFA recommendations, when they arrange architectural competitions.

A recent development, also a result of public procurement legislation, is that potential public sector organizers of design or planning competitions see themselves compelled to ask for bids on the arranging of competitions. This threatens to undermine the traditional role of architects’ associations in offering professional assistance. Architects’ associations see themselves in the role of upholding professional standards and of maintaining the practice of having competition entries evaluated for architectural design quality. Some construction management firms and engineering businesses have stepped forward to provide competition arrangement services as a new business feature, like assistance in formulating the programme and in practical arrangements of the entire process. As an architects’ professional association is by definition a nonprofit organization, the eventual need to be involved in bidding processes for architectural competition arrangements is an uneasy prospect.

New Elements of Architectural Competitions?

Along with new ways of implementing construction projects, new competition procedures have been introduced in which the architect has a key role in the production of content for the tender documents. These competitions are usually bids for tenders, directed to construction firms or clients, in which one part to be evaluated is the architectural design commissioned by the bidder. They include e.g. a variety of design & build competitions, site-allocation competitions, and turnkey competitions.

The architect’s input varies in these competitions; in a site-allocation competition with a set price, the documentation may include little else than the architectural design, while in a design & build competition the significance of the design varies depending on the judgment criteria. The determinant can be the quality of the architectural design, the bid price, or a combination of both.

Besides competitions involving design and implementation, construction clients have utilized formats with elements of design, implementation, management, and financing, and possibly even of ownership. In these competitions, the architectural competitions – histories and practice

29

maarit kaipiainen: architectural competitions in finland

Fig. 3. Jyväskylä Kangas ideas competition in 2011; 32 entries. First prize awarded to Petri Rouhiainen, Antti Mentula and Pekka Vehniäinen.

bid usually requires a multidisciplinary team. This type may spread, if municipalities increasingly decide to move from property ownership to procurement of comprehensive services.

Cities have made use of site-allocation competitions to ensure the intended level of quality for new housing on their land. Construction firms and clients register to participate and pay architects to draft designs according to the competition brief. This type of competition is judged based either on the site price and the design jointly, or on the quality of the plans only. Many cities arrange fixed-price site-allocation competitions resembling ordinary competitions by invitation for housing design: the site has a set price and is to be allocated to the bidder who presents the best architectural design.

In 2001, the SAFA Council adopted the view that the SAFA competition rules primarily apply to those design and planning competitions addressed to architects in which the commissioner and the reward is equal for all competitors. By this definition, design & build competitions and site-allocation competitions do not fall within SAFA-assisted competition activities. In the light of feedback from competition participants and organizers, these other forms of competition with elements of architectural design would gain from having rules of procedure jointly adopted by the construction sector.

30

architectural competitions – histories and practice

maarit kaipiainen: architectural competitions in finland

Architects’ Resources A competition utilizes the resources of architects in several ways. Architects take part both in producing entries and in judging them. There are many reasons for participating in a competition: hope for a job, gaining recognition and reputation, educating oneself further, and interesting tasks. The architectural competition has been characterized as a process of creating and learning in which the responsibility for the result is divided between the competitors and the decision-makers.

Possible obstacles to participation are e.g. unwillingness to take risks, the high amount of work and the price of it, lack of assistants, a bad brief, or ’unsuitable architect jurors’.

Among architects, competitions have been a source of enthusiasm as well as one of frustration. The possibility to develop ideas freely is valued – but the cliquish atmosphere of the system is criticized, too. There is no training available for the judging of architecture; and as long as the jury of a competition heeds the brief, there is no formal route of appeal.

From the viewpoint of architects, competitions offer better opportunities for artistic, functional or structural innovation than ordinary commissions do. Still one has to remember that every architectural competition belongs to its place and time, just as an ordinary commission does; it is programmed and judged in the context of its time.

Producing a competition entry is likely to create an economic loss, because only a handful of entries will be rewarded. The hazard is both artistic and economic. If paid assistants are used, the risk has to be covered either by competition success or by using the profit from commissioned jobs.

The number of participants in architectural competitions in Finland varies greatly from one competition to another. A competition by invitation usually has 3–5 invitees. A modern open competition may collect anything from some dozens to several hundred entries. The number of competitors seems to depend more on how special and interesting the task is than on how ‘easy’ it is.

Annually, design professionals produce hundreds of entries for architectural competitions in Finland. The most popular international design competitions in Finland have in recent years received more than 500 entries each. On the other hand, design competitions result in perhaps 10–20 commissioned jobs per year. The figure could be weighed against the annual number of granted building permits in Finland, which has been estimated to be around 60,000 (including both new construction and renovations). Architectural competitions architectural competitions – histories and practice

31

maarit kaipiainen: architectural competitions in finland

Fig. 4. Helsinki Music Centre. Two-phase open architectural competition in 1999–2000; 243 first-phase entries, of which 68 were selected for the second phase. First prize awarded to Ola Laiho, Mikko Pulkkinen and Marko Kivistö. Construction completed in 2011.

represent a very small share of the annual volume of construction. But they often result in buildings and milieus of significance that have an influence on the living environment of residents and other users for decades, if not centuries.

Note: This text has been adapted from Huotelin, P. and Kaipiainen, M., eds., 2006. Dreams and comp(l) eted projects. 130 years of Finnish architectural competitions. Helsinki: Finnish Association of Architects. The book served as the catalogue for the eponymous circulating exhibition arranged by the Museum of Finnish Architecture.

32

architectural competitions – histories and practice

maarit kaipiainen: architectural competitions in finland

Fig. 5. Helsinki Music Centre. Interior, main lobby.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

33

maarit kaipiainen: architectural competitions in finland

References Aartelo, S. 1971. Arkkitehtuurikilpailujen arvostelemisesta. Architectural Competitions in Finland 3–4/1971, pp. 14–17. Helsinki: Finnish Association of Architects.

Bergdoll, B. 1989. Competing in the academy and the marketplace. European architecture competitions in 1401–1927. In Lipstadt, ed. The Experimental Tradition.

Helsinki Music Centre architectural competition. Architectural Competitions in Finland 1/2001. Helsinki: Finnish Association of Architects.

Housing blocks in housing fair 1992 in Mäntsälä. Architectural Competitions in Finland 14/1990.

Helsinki: Finnish Association of Architects.

Huotelin, P. and Kaipiainen, M., (Eds.)., 2006. Dreams and comp(l)eted projects. 130 years of Finnish architectural competitions. Translation: Lars Tollet / Gaia Boreia. Helsinki: Finnish Association of Architects.

Ilonoja, P., ed. SAFA vuosikirja årsbok 2012 [yearbook]. Helsinki: Finnish Association of Architects.

Jyväskylä Kangas ideas competition. Architectural Competitions in Finland 3/2012. Helsinki: Finnish Association of Architects.

Korvenmaa, P., (Ed.), 1992. The work of architects: The Finnish Association of Architects 1892–1992.

Translated by Jüri Kokkonen. Helsinki: Finnish Building Centre.

Lipstadt, H., (Ed.), 1989. The experimental tradition: Essays on competitions in architecture. New York: Architectural League of New York.

Nyberg, P. 1992. The Finnish Association of Architects 1892–1992., in Korvenmaa, P., (Ed.) The work of architects, pp. 301–339.

Solla, P. 1992. Architectural competitions in Finland., in Korvenmaa, in P., (Ed.) The work of architects, pp. 269–281.

Spreiregen, P. D. 1979. Design competitions. New York: MacGraw-Hill.

Viljo, E.-M., 1992. The architectural profession in Finland during the latter half of the 19th century. Korvenmaa, P., ed. The work of architects, pp. 27–51.

Wærn, R. 1996. Tävlingarnas tid: arkitekttävlingarnas betydelse i borgerlighetens Sverige. Stockholm: Arkitekturförlaget. Dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology.

Wäre, R. 1992. Architects and the Finnish architectural club at the turn of the century. Korvenmaa, P., ed.

The work of architects, pp. 53–71.

Internet sites www.hankintailmoitukset.fi/sv/ public procurement announcements in Finland (web site available in Finnish and Swedish) (Aug. 31, 2012). www.mfa.fi (Museum of Finnish Architecture), www.mfa.fi/architecturecompetitions (Aug. 31, 2012). www.safa.fi (Finnish Association of Architects), http://www.safa.fi/eng/architectural_competitions/ (Aug. 31, 2012).

34

architectural competitions – histories and practice

Illustration credits Mäntsälä housing fair, Helsinki Music Centre and Jyväskylä Kangas competition phase images from Architectural Competitions in Finland, by permission of Jorma Mukala, editor-in-chief, 2012.

Photo of Helsinki Music Centre foyer by Richard Alaskewicz, 2011.

Competition statistics graph by the Finnish Association of Architects, 2012.

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

Abstract Switzerland is one of the European countries with the longest tradition in competition organizing; since the mid-nineties the systematic organization of competitions that aimed at the construction of new collective housing complexes and the renovation of existing ones has produced an impressive variety of urban building forms and apartment types. Equally, it has established an important and clear link between the competitions’ process framework and the quest for qualitative design in the housing sector of the market.

An analysis of this framework from the point of view of its significance for the younger professionals is proposed in this article. During the last fifteen years, a period in which housing competitions are systematically promoted by State services as quality-guarantee procedures, a whole new generation of architects, currently in their thirties or early forties, emerges from the competitions’ background. The importance of competitions for younger professionals has often been discussed in the international bibliography; the contemporary Swiss architectural scene seems to confirm such arguments and to provide a specific case study of a country where a significant number of architects become increasingly well-known through competition awards, as well as through their being acquired in less ‘radiant’ competition procedures, such as the ones usually concerning residential construction.

Key words: competitions, housing, Swiss architecture, young professionals Contact: Antigoni Katsakou, PhD antikatsakou@yahoo.gr University College London, London, England

36

architectural competitions – histories and practice

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

The Competition Generation Young professionals emerging in the architectural scene of Switzerland through the process framework of housing competitions — a case study antigoni katsakou

Introduction – a recurring success story In my first contact with the subject of housing competitions in Switzerland, in 2006, I was primarily interested in the design of contemporary domestic projects and for that reason, looking for a subsequently delimited field that would offer fertile grounds for theoretical analysis. Apart from the necessity to study the competitions’ operational characteristics in order to fully understand them as a phenomenon, competitions in Switzerland, a country well-known internationally for the quality of its architectural production, turned out to be such an abundant (and exciting) territory that further occupation with their process framework proved equally attractive. On this level, competitions revealed an interesting background with regard both to their administrative particulars – the terms and regulations established by the Swiss Society of Engineers – and the political and economical framework which promotes them.

In the housing sector especially, and specifically in the model case of the city of Zurich since 1997, there has been a change of political actors that has, in conjunction with other contributing factors (such as the public market procurement legislation of the European Union, applied also in Switzerland thanks to bilateral agreements), marked the course for the systematic organization of a large number of competition procedures aiming at the transformation of the urban and suburban tissue. The enrichment, both in terms of quantity and quality, of the city’s housing stock was to be a first crucial step in this regeneration process of the city’s urban periphery and disused areas; the construction of housing units financially accessible by disfavoured households has been set as a priority.

Thus my doctoral research (2008-2011) focused on the subject of housing competitions, from the point of view of its process framework – the need to architectural competitions – histories and practice

37

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

adequately document not only the existing situation but also the historical evolution of the institution still remains pressing – and from the point of view of architectural criticism. This methodological approach was only the complementary extension of a preliminary typo-morphological analysis which was performed during the period 2006-2008, and led to an initial publication on the subject of the architectural design resulting from housing competitions.

In the aforementioned co-authored book1, a substantial sample of competition projects (selected both among awarded and non-awarded proposals) has been grouped and analysed according to the adopted urban form and the overall conceptual approach of the authors. From this preliminary analysis there have emerged a number of design features which, by manner of frequency or on the contrary, by manner of uniqueness and the special interest they held compared to the characteristics of the rest of the proposals in the sample, could be associated with principal lines of investigation in contemporary architectural research concerning both the interior of the collective housing unit and the exterior form of the residential building. Further distinguishing the special qualities of break-through conception was one of the primary objectives of this research. Innovation in the residential sector of the market was to be understood through the study of specific cases and as the range of contemporary interpretations of past architectural tendencies.

Against this background, and while constantly browsing the available resources for new cases worth studying, it has been only too easy to witness the continuous repetition of the same success story for young and emerging architectural bureaus. Once in a while, there would again be some “freshmen” winning a significant competition for the first time in their professional career and thus setting up their practice upon the basis of this important commission. Other awards, even if not as important as this first one, would probably come along soon, and the same names would reappear in specialised and other reviews. A plausible common scenario would encompass the firm’s being invited subsequently in restricted competitions (as the “promising outsider” and as the young practice needed to “complete” the list of participants), and with at least one of its members being invited to teach at an architectural school in the country.

This storyboard can hardly come as a surprise to those experienced in the field of competitions reading, as competitive procedures have often been 1 See Marchand, B. and Katsakou, A., 2008. Concevoir des logements. Concours en Suisse: 2000-2005.

Lausanne: PPUR.

38

architectural competitions – histories and practice

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

discussed with respect to the architects’ public recognition and their impact on the careers of young professionals, in their respective bibliographies. The competitions’ positive role on the professional trajectories of the ambitious and imaginative architectural youth has sometimes been taken for granted, others considered as the profession’s common secret and the main reason that architects keep taking part in such an unfair process (unfair, if compared to the effort invested by all the participants and the pains and sacrifices needed to participate in the first place). Systematic studies though, concerning a specific chronological period or a particular sector of the market, do not exist.

As with several characteristics of the competitions’ system in general, commentaries are mostly restricted to isolated examples of their history, often in relation to the importance of the architectural jurors’ role and regarding competitions for a landmark type of buildings (Sudjic 2006; Lipstadt 2000).

Such examples are Jørn Utzon’s rise to fame thanks to Eero Saarinen’s presence in the jury of the Opera of Sydney competition (1957) or the “discovery” of Piano and Rogers by Philip Johnson, Jean Prouvé and the rest of the jury in the Pompidou Centre competition (1970). As Lipstadt (2006) points out, every distinct architectural era offers its own examples of young talents that get recognised for the first time through a tendering procedure. It is less common though, that these examples are discussed in relation to the distinctive operational characteristics of separate case studies of distinct geographical regions and time periods.

It is the purpose of this article to fill in this gap by offering a specific example from the Swiss architectural background. To what extent, do the common features of young architectural firms that become known through competition procedures (or those presented as such in their bibliographies) correspond to a specific reality? Are there any other common qualities among architects that become thus known which should be taken into consideration in future research?

Which are the factors contributing to a view of competitions as a repetitive system and not as isolated phenomena of dubious outcome? How does the impact on younger professionals relate to the system of competition and its overall efficiency? At the same time, I wish to discuss these questions within a more commonplace framework; housing competitions, organized on the frequency of four or five a year in a single city of one million inhabitants (as in the case in Zurich), are undoubtedly of less renown than international procedures referring to cultural or administrative buildings on a large scale. architectural competitions – histories and practice

39

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

Separate features of the Swiss housing competitions in the last fifteen years have already been discussed in my previous essays (broader urban planning strategies, encouragement of architectural innovation, and implementation of the awarded projects, representation techniques in relation to the overall innovative character of the project and to contemporary domestic values). The impact of competitions on the architects’ career is meant to be studied as one of the main parameters of the value of the system’s application. While describing adequately the current process framework in a country with one of the longest European traditions in this field that, in spite of its small size, holds one of the largest numbers of competitions per annum, the model of a supposedly efficient application of the competition system will be discussed.

The architectural bureaus, of which the professional trajectories are offered as case studies, have been chosen mostly in relation to the innovative attitudes they have adopted in competition projects that stand out as particularly important in their careers; or else, because of their overall architectural contribution so far, and the interest that their conceptual approach bears on a broader background. To a large degree the choice of the case studies is based on an empirical knowledge of the Swiss situation. I will be limited in this essay to mostly presenting the facts of the evolution of their trajectories; information offered by the architects’ websites, specialised publications and by the architects’ themselves has been taken into consideration.

In the following the main features of the professional trajectories of young architects linked with the framework of the competitions will be discussed in relation to the already existing bibliography. These features will be juxtaposed to the six cases of Swiss architectural teams composed by architects in their thirties or early forties for whom the framework of competitions (and in particular housing competitions) have been quite significant for the evolution of their career.

The general picture – significant characteristics of housing competitions in Switzerland during the last fifteen years There are three main elements characterising the general process framework, at least that of the housing competitions, in Switzerland during the last fifteen years. First of all, the important role that cooperative construction societies play for the market, acting as model promoters also for private developers, and collaborating with State Services; in the case of Zurich, the City Administration 40

architectural competitions – histories and practice

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

Services urged cooperatives to the organisation of housing competitions as a condition for leasing public land. In the case of Zurich a percentage of around 25% of the housing stock2 (relatively high compared to other parts of the country) belongs to housing cooperatives, to the city or to other types of public utility associations. In addition, one has to keep in mind that the Swiss market is marked by the lack of constructible terrain (also due to the large zones of agrarian and forest land) and moreover, the lack of reasonably priced terrain; also, by the overall high cost of construction; finally, by the fact that the majority of people are housed under tenant tenures; homeowners represent only a third of the population.

Second, housing competitions made part of an overall refurbishment of the urban and suburban tissue, and of regeneration plans concerning dysfunctional parts of the cities. The last and perhaps more definitive factor – certainly so, from an architectural point of view – is the fact that the architectural and urban quality of the projects has been fixed as one primary objective in the guidelines of the various construction programmes set in place to respond to the urgent demand for housing units. Worth noting, in relation to the system’s outcome so far, is the fact that, at least in the case of Zurich, the fixed objectives regarding the number of units and the variety of housing types and urban forms have been attained.

In comparison to the situation internationally, the case of Zurich and that of Switzerland in general features, first, relatively high ratios of built projects and implemented procedures; second, usually little difference between built projects and competition layouts, which is even more significant in cases where architectural innovation has been one focal point in the authors’ conceptual approach. The fact that built projects remain relatively faithful to the initial competition proposals provides evidence for the efficient functioning of the competition system. This could be due also to the continuous and active involvement of the respective administrative State services (that often organise competitions on behalf of cooperative societies or even of private investors), or from a more optimistic point of view, to a certain change of attitude on the part of the investors, who seem to become increasingly aware of the fact that not only quantity but most importantly quality too, has to do with the financial and social rendering of the operation.

2 See on that subject the electronic pages of the Planning Department of the city of Zurich, <http://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/content/dam/stzh/hbd/Deutsch/Hochbau/Grafik%20und%20Foto/ Wettbewerbe_abgeschlossen/Abgeschlossen_2009/Projekt_1_baugenossenschaft_mehr_als_ wohnen/Projekt_1_baugenossenschaft_mehr_als_wohnen1/Ideenww-Jurybericht.pdf>, p.3

architectural competitions – histories and practice

41

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

The success scenario Judith Strong (1976, p.13) commenting on competitions in the United Kingdom states that “traditionally, competitions have attracted young architects who see them as an opportunity to make their names and set up in practice […].” She points out that there is a variety of professionals (as regards their career stages and situation) who take part in project competitions, and younger architects who are employed in public or private offices or in teaching, and thus have a way of supporting themselves while striving to switch to independent practice, are usually one of these groups. She particularly notes the fact that some of the contemporary (at the time), large UK project competitions were “won by a young group of individuals, with a well-established practice falling in second place.” The situation in Switzerland seems to correspond to this model (some thirty years later, for the period 1997-2012 examined here), with emerging architectural bureaus claiming priority to already well-known internationally Swiss firms. In the 2010 international competition for the extension of the Museum of Art in Basel, the architectural firm (1998) of Emanuel Christ and Christoph Gantenbein (both just crossing the barrier of forty years of age at the time) was awarded first prize, while Made In architects (2003), François Charbonnet and Patrick Heiz (then in their late thirties) made it second, ahead of, not only compatriots Diener & Diener, but also the equally well-known Japanese firm SANAA. In the 2011 competition of the city of Lausanne for the much-discussed new Cantonal Museum of Fine Arts (MCBA), Made In were awarded third prize, leaving Gigon & Guyer (Kirchner museum in Davos, Archaelogical museum and Park Kalkriese in Osnabrück, Germany) in the fifth place. They were not the only young architectural firm to win an award: Jessen & Vollenweider (1999), based in Basel, won sixth prize ( just like in the 2009 competition in Basel for the extension of the Art Museum).

On the line of Strong’s remarks about the situation in Britain, Sudjic argued in 2006 for a beneficial reciprocal feedback between theory and practice, in which competitions play a crucial role. He offers Spain as an example, where young architects seek, by teaching, to build up a reputation so as to be invited in restricted procedures. Winning a significant commission in this manner provides them with the means of expanding the firm and probably employing former students of theirs, thus perpetuating the system.

42

architectural competitions – histories and practice

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

Christ & Gantenbein 1st rank, 1st prize.

Made In 2nd rank, 2nd prize.

Diener & Diener 3rd rank, 3rd prize.

SANAA 4th rank, 4th prize.

Fig 1. Competition for the extension of the Museum of Art in Basel.

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

43

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

Made In 3rd rank, 3rd prize.

Gigon & Guyer 5th rank, 5th prize.

Fig. 2. Competition for the new Cantonal Museum of Fine Arts in Lausanne.

44

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

Although nowadays design studio teaching seems to be significantly reduced to the conclusions of design-based research3, it is certain that in Switzerland the connection between studio-teaching (in extension the academic environment) and the professional one holds strong. In addition, the gradual path to fame in the professional arena, which involves procuring more and more substantial works through the competitions framework (and later on as direct commissions), seems to find its equivalent also in the academic trajectory of emerging architects. They first serve as assistants/studio tutors under already well-known professionals4; then, they are offered the possibility of “designing” their own teaching modules as autonomous guest lecturers, soon also of publishing the outcome of their studio work, and eventually of taking up professorships.

The case of the architects Christ & Gantenbein eloquently features this gradual advancement both on the academic and the practical professional level. Their practice was established in 1998, immediately after their graduation from the Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETHZ), where they have both completed their diploma under the supervision of Hans Kolhoff. They won their first competition for the construction of a small café in Basel in 2001. Although the project was not built until 2011, the firm had some direct commissions from the start.

The reconstruction and extension of the Swiss National Museum in Zurich, a commission that came with their winning first prize in a 2002 competition (built in 2005-9) was their first important work bringing them to the notice of the specialised press. But it is their winning of the VoltaMitte housing development competition (2005) in Basel (a joint architectural/investors tendering procedure) that brings them to the foreground of the country’s architectural stage. The project stands out for the originality of its form that effectively responds not only to the functional problem of inhabiting the specific site (the quieter side is of north orientation) but also to the problem of filling in the existing, triangularlyshaped, traditional urban block in the district of St. Johann’s station, on the west coast of the Rhine and close to the EuroAirport (Basel-Mulhouse-Freiburg) that was, at the time, undergoing important transformations. The project got widely 3 In my opinion, one should hesitate in talking of a relation between theory and practice in general, as design-based research has little, or at least a more far-reaching, relation with theory-based research.

4 It is also relatively frequent that younger professionals do not take up posts directly at the more prestigious Federal Institutes of Technology in Zurich and Lausanne, or the Academia di Architettura di Mendrisio in the Italian-speaking part; instead they work first as tutors in some institution of higher education, of lesser renown.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

45

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

Fig 3. Christ & Gantenbein VoltaMitte Housing Development (Basel), photo: Tonatiuh Ambrosetti.

published and quickly built (already in use from 2010), also thanks to the type of procedure (since the investor was backing up the scheme already at the moment of the competition). A travelling scholarship to Italy for both architects, 46

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

after their graduation, must have influenced their VoltaMitte proposal, where the criss-crossing of the facades and the fluidity of the housing units’ interior spaces are reminiscent of Milanese Luigi Caccia Dominioni’s elegant curves and flowing interior sequences. They actually refer to his work as a source of inspiration.

Already from 2000 on, both Christ and Gantenbein are involved in teaching.

From 2002 to 2009, they act as guest lecturers for the HGK in Basel, the Oslo School of Architecture and Design (in 2008, this must not be irrelevant to their 2nd prize for the Munch and Stenersen Museum Collections in Oslo), the Academia di Architettura in Mendrisio, and most important at the ETH Studio Basel with Herzog & de Meuron, only to take up, in 2010, assistant professorships at the ETH. The first volume of their studio’s work has recently been published.

In the meantime they have built in Germany (Roche Office Building in Grenzach), China (“Ancient Tree” Pavilion in Jinhua), United Kingdom (restoration and transformation of the Swiss Church in London) and have increased, during a period of ten years, their bureau’s size into a team composed of 6 associates and 35 collaborators5.

In some cases of competition-winning young architectural firms, it is not quite clear if studio teaching comes as a means for supporting oneself in his first professional steps or as part of the recognition brought along with the first competition awards. In both cases of course, the system’s social acknowledgement is to be concluded; only a strong belief in the “objective” assessments and quality-guarantee character of competitions can establish architectural practices as mentors and style-defining pioneers. The case of the Lausanne-based FHV architects (Claudius Fruehauf, Guillaume Henry and Carlos Viladoms), is an illustrative example. The firm’s co-owners, already well-acquainted from their studies at the Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), set up their practice one year after their graduation (2007), when they won their first competition for a housing development in Lausanne. The competition for the Avenue de Morges housing project, organized by the city of Lausanne, is a significant one for the city. With Zurich organising housing competitions systematically already since 1998 (when the first housing programme “10000 flats in 10 years” was put into action), Lausanne falls behind in dealing with the same problem of housing shortage, with the “exodus” of families towards the city’s periphery (where larger 5 As resulting from a discussion with Mona Farag (associate of the firm) in Basel, February 14th 2013, Christ & Gantenbein have participated so far in a total of about sixty competitions; they have won prizes in half of them (two third of which were first prizes).

architectural competitions – histories and practice

47

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

Fig. 4. Avenue de Morges . The competition site.

residential units may be found at moderate prices). Avenue de Morges is a first substantial effort for the city and its “3000 housing units” 2005 programme to transform a problematic urban area (in the periphery of the city centre where density begins to cede its place to an urbanism of large scale isolated buildings).

The construction of the scheme is to begin shortly, and is planned to be completed in the year 2014.

With the French-speaking region generally considered as less efficient than the German-speaking part, with respect to planning and state administration services (building regulations tend to be stricter, district plans less flexible, procedures more time-consuming), this was Lausanne’s chance to bring into light its own young talents. Since their first prize in 2009, FHV have already won several other competition prizes, and achieved second place ranking in the prestigious competition for the city’s new sports complex at Près-de-Vidy. Guillaume Henry has worked as an assistant for Buchner Bründler architects, already well-known in Switzerland (2nd prize at the VoltaMitte competition and 1st prize at the VoltaZentrum 2006 competition 48

architectural competitions – histories and practice

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

in Basel, themselves EPFL Visiting Professors for the period 2009-10, before taking up visiting professorships at the ETHZ), while Carlos Viladoms works (from 2012) as assistant for the well-known, Geneva-based architect Andrea Bassi, at the EPFL. Both the examples of Christ & Gantenbein and FHV illustrate the significance of the training alongside already well-recognised professionals, for the evolution of an architect’s career. For Fruehauf, Henry & Viladoms their common 2007-08 experience as collaborators of the Herzog & de Meuron firm (although short) constituted the basis for establishing their own bureau. In fact, Fruehauf continues the collaboration with Herzog & de Meuron in scenographic projects. For Christ & Gantenbein their experience with Herzog & de Meuron at ETH Studio Basel has brought direct commissions, such as the renovation of the Swiss Church in London.

Both teams have established their own private practice almost immediately after their graduation. For another upcoming architectural bureau (this time female), professional training has lasted for a more substantial period before actually setting up an independent practice. Sabine Frei and Kornelia Gysel have graduated from the ETHZ in 2002. Since 2003 Frei works also at the Zurich University of the Arts6, while Gysel’s assistantship for Andrea Deplazes and Marc Angélil at ETHZ has followed her collaborations with Diener & Diener, and Caruso St John architects (London and Zurich-based; Adam Caruso is Professor of Architecture and Construction at ETHZ while Peter St John has served there as Visiting Professor from 2007 to 2009). Frei & Gysel have founded their futurafrosch independent practice in 20077, while being ranked among the awarded bureaus in the emblematic ideas’ competition “Wie wohnen wir morgen?” (“How will we live tomorrow?”), organized by the newly-born mehr als wohnen cooperative society. Mehr als wohnen was formed on the centenary of the cooperative movement in Zurich (2007), and with the City Services’ support, as a regrouping of almost thirty cooperatives.

The ultimate objective was to build innovative, exemplary housing schemes that would serve as a kind of “continuing learning” process to all actors involved.

6 She does not hold a teaching post though.

7 As resulting from a discussion with the two partners in Zurich, February 15th 2013, they have also been collaborating for various projects during a long number of years before setting up a joint practice together.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

49

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

Fig. 5. Wie wohnen wir Morgen? competition. Frei & Gysel proposal in the form of a specially produced booklet.

Frei & Gysel were even more successful in their second attempt at a mehr als wohnen competitive procedure; they won first prize in the first project competition launched in 2009. Their project is one of the most original approaches that have appeared in these last few years in Switzerland, proposing the building of “a neighbourhood and not of a housing development”8, to cite the architects themselves. They adopt the scale of the surrounding tissue to create within the project’s perimeter a dense and complex network of communal open spaces and interior courtyards, which around it makes possible the creation of various housing types. Each building block’s interior is, in a way, a microcosmos of the urban complex to which it belongs, and guarantees a multifunctional approach. Construction has already begun and the completion of the project is planned for the year 20159. Its implementation seems to be taking up a large part of the firm’s activity, investing effort also in the scheme’s publicity10. The mehr als wohnen project has been, so far, decisive for 8 See Kiss, V. and Tschirren, U., 2009. Neubau Projekt 1 der Baugenossenschaft Mehr Als Wohnen, Zürich-Leutschenbach. Projektwettbewerb im selektiven Verfahren, Bericht des Preigerichts (Project 1 of a New Building of the Cooperative Mehr Als Wohnen, Zurich-Leutschenbach. Project Competition of Selective Procedure. Jury Report). Zurich: Amt für Hochbauten, Stadt Zürich (online, last visited 13.08.2012, <http://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/content/dam/stzh/hbd/Deutsch/Hochbau/Grafik%20und%20Foto/ Wettbewerbe_abgeschlossen/Abgeschlossen_2009/Projekt_1_baugenossenschaft_mehr_als_ wohnen/01-15_Fellini.pdf>) 9 See online <http://www.mehralswohnen.ch/hunziker-areal.html>, last visited 15.08.2012.

10 See the firm’s website and their “kiosk” selling souvenirs of the project and publications of the firm, <http://www.futurafrosch.org/index.php?n=4>, last visited 14.08.2012

50

architectural competitions – histories and practice

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

Fig. 6a. First project competition by the Mehr als Wohnen cooperative. Proposal by Futurafrosch & Duplex Architekten.

Fig. 6b & c. Futurafrosch & Duplex Architekten. Project Fellini: “Accessoires zum Städtebau”.

their firm, as for FHV the Avenue de Morges project. Since 2008, FHV have doubled the number of their collaborators and entered, after certain direct commissions, the entrepreneurial world managing their own housing project11.

11 See Viso (Official publication of the Swiss Building Documentation, first issue 2008), 31.03.2011, p.71

architectural competitions – histories and practice

51

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

For A4D (owner: Dominik Gubler), another characteristic success story from the framework of housing competitions, entrepreneurial activity has also been a step ahead, after winning several competitive procedures. In 2008, when they won, with an innovative trefoil-formed design, the Johannes-Hirtstrasse tendering procedure for a housing development in Wädenswil (canton of Zurich), they had already acquired first prizes in two other housing competitions and first rank in at least three other invited tendering procedures concerning residential complexes. Thanks to its competition awards, in 2008 the firm already has seven projects in construction (today the Johannes-Hirtstrasse scheme has also been completed), and has increased in size from 5 to 28 collaborators in only three years (from 2005 to 2008).

So, what’s the catch...?

From what we have seen until now, one could easily form the impression of a competitions’ heaven on earth that corresponds to the geographical boundaries of Switzerland. The system seems indeed to be working; chances of obtaining a reputation are certainly offered to young professionals. This is made even more evident if one examines in detail the framework of the two competitions for cultural buildings that have already been mentioned in the beginning of this paper: the extension of the Art Museum in Basel and the new Cantonal Museum of Fine Arts in Lausanne. Both of these international competitions have been restricted procedures based on selection of submitted files. However, a particular arrangement concerned qualifying a number of firms that did not forcibly comply with the fixed criteria of past experience in similar construction schemes; they would represent promising talents. In the competition for the extension of the Art Museum in Basel this clause concerned four young architectural firms; Christ & Gantenbein (who actually won the competition) and Made In (ranked second) were among them. In the competition for the Museum of Fine Arts in Lausanne the following year, the young professionals qualified by exception were three; among them the Barcelona-based Barozzi Veiga firm (that won first prize) and Made In architects (third-prize winners).

The criteria on which younger bureaus have been selected would be an interesting issue in itself. In any case, it would be difficult not to underline the fact that in several selective procedures – and, in relative terms, more significant competitions as they represent larger commissions and are building schemes charged with social meaning – the same names of architectural firms 52

architectural competitions – histories and practice

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

Fig. 7. Lists of participants, highlighted in red the teams qualified by exception.

Left: Competition for the extension of the Museum of Art in Basel.

Below: New Cantonal Museum of Fine Arts in Lausanne.

keep reappearing. So, to what extent are Swiss competitions open to all architects of the younger generation, promoting their professional trajectory?

The fact that young talent is mostly represented by architects who have been trained in the proximity of imposing, widely celebrated names of contemporary Swiss architecture may testify to a general, â&#x20AC;&#x153;introvertedâ&#x20AC;? character of the architectural profession, possibly indicating an intrinsic parameter of the Swiss professional world. I here argue that this characteristic of the Swiss architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

53

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

system is made apparent also by two additional facts: first, architectural firms seem to stay “fixed” in geographical zones that correspond to the zones of influence of the cities in which they are based; second, foreign bureaus selected to take part in restricted procedures are mostly limited to renowned names of the international architectural scene.

Concerning this last remark the French-speaking region seems to be more “open” to foreign architectural offices and newcomers than its Germanic equivalent. In the competition for the extension of the Art Museum in Basel, out of the twenty-four teams that had been qualified to participate, twelve were practices based abroad, among which David Chipperfield (Vice-president of the MCBA competition’s jury and together with Fransisco Aires Mateus the jury’s only foreign members), Rafael Moneo, Tadao Ando, Eduardo Souto de Moura, and SANAA; one of the foreign teams was associated with a Swiss practice. In the MCBA competition in Lausanne, out of the eighteen qualified teams, ten came from abroad (among them Kengo Kuma and Eduardo Souto de Moura); three had teamed up with Swiss firms. In the Art Museum Basel competition, the only foreign member of the jury, the director of the Tate Gallery in London, Sir Nicholas Serota, did not have the right to vote and only played a consulting role. In the MCBA competition Made In topped the list of the domestic, awarded bureaus while the first and second prizes went to firms based abroad (although the ranked second, London-established Caruso St John architects keep an office also in Zurich). In the Art Museum competition in Basel, only one award went to a foreign bureau: SANAA made it to the fourth place.

Nevertheless, since the 1970s there has been an undeniable evolution in the process-framework of Swiss competitions, regarding the range of professionals that competitive procedures address12. Judith Strong noted in 1976 (p.87) concerning Swiss competitions that they were often restricted to canton or parish or even by religious belief, thus reducing, in normal conditions, the number of entries. Such restrictions were often decided by the importance of 12 See Bernard Attinger’s article (2000) “Lo sviluppo dei concorsi di Architettura in Vallese” (“The evolution of architectural competitions in Valais”) regarding the evolution of the competitions’ system in the canton of Valais, in Archi: Rivista svizzera di architettura, ingegneria e urbanistica (Swiss review of architecture, engineering and urban planning) n.4, p.6: “The ’70s were characterized by a definite slowdown and by an unfavorable to competitions political attitude, as the State Council of that time did not want to let a jury impose the allocation of commissions.” (“Gli anni ’70 sono tuttavia stati caratterizzati da un netto rallentamento e da un atteggiamento politico sfavorevole ai concorsi, in quanto l’allora Consiglio di Stato non volle più lasciarsi imporre da una giuria l’attribuzione dei mandati.”).

54

architectural competitions – histories and practice

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

the commission13. The canton of Valais is one characteristic example of such an evolution in professional ethics. Valais is a mountainous canton in the southern part of Switzerland, rather isolated from the rest of the country due to its topography, but it is one in which competitions hold a long tradition. Competition results however, were often contested in Valais due to professional clans exerting influence on the distribution of available commissions14. Bernard Attinger, chief architect of the cantonal administration services (appointed to this post in 1978, originally) was pointing out back in 1991 in an interview where the success of the competitions which he had systematically organized in this part of the country was emphasized upon by Christoph Allenspach (1991, p.15): “It is quite easy to live in autarchy by keeping on one’s own and living in one’s own commonplace everyday rhythm. Once the borders are open, problems flew in: emulation, interaction. […] Even if emulation was not, in the beginning, seen under a favorable eye, we realize now that it has been beneficial both for the architecture and the architects of Valais.”15 Today, also in the spirit of European agreements, even restricted competitions in Switzerland normally address architects from all geographic parts of the country, and other parts of Europe. Such a change also promotes the transparency of assessment procedures. But in spite of the progress that has been made (and one might add, the country’s small size), architectural firms still do not seem as “mobile” as one would think. Rarely do they step out of their comfort zone (the geographical region in which they are based) to take part in competitions organized in other parts of Switzerland, if it is not a question of a competition of international radiance that normally would concern 13 “En règle générale, la participation à ces joutes était ouverte aux architectes établis sur un territoire géographique donnée – commune, canton, région, pays voire au-delà, selon l’importance de l’ouvrage.”

(Ducret et al., 2003: 20) 14 “Thus, after many years characterized by ‘pseudo-competitions’ [...] it has been possible to resume the tradition with the organization of a true competition [...]” (“Così, dopo molti anni caratterizzati da ‘pseudoconcorsi’ […] è stato possibile ricollegarsi alla tradizione con l’organizzazione di un vero concorso […]”, Attinger, 2000: 6).

15 Allenspach, C., 1991. Le concours : une façon d’aborder le débat sur l’architecture. Interview de Bernard Attinger, architecte cantonal du Valais par Christoph Allenspach (The competition: a way to approach the architectural debate. The cantonal architect of Valais Bernard Attinger interviewed by Christoph Allenspach). Archithese 3, pp. 14-17: “Il est très facile de vivre en autarcie en restant entre soi et en vivant son petit train-train quotidien. Dès que les frontières s’ouvrent, les problèmes affluent: concurrence, échanges. […] si la concurrence a d’abord été vue d’un mauvais œil, on s’aperçoit maintenant qu’elle a été bénéfique tant pour l’architecture que pour les architectes valaisans.”

architectural competitions – histories and practice

55

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

a construction scheme other than housing. A4D’s list of works and competition participation, apart from their specialisation in the residential sector of the market, also speaks of their range of action: most of the projects they work or have worked on, concern the cantons of Zurich or Aargau, where the firm’s headquarters are situated. FHV’s competition awards come, except one, from competitions in the Geneva or the Lausanne district, and the bilingual (French- and German-speaking) Fribourg, despite the fact that at the start of their career they were about to set up their practice in Basel16.

One reason for the reduced flexibility of architectural firms must be a restriction automatically imposed even onto open calls by the competition language (the language in which the programme is issued and in which, most of the time, the documents, which are demanded by the participants, must be submitted). Language and a firm’s area of action relate of course also to the origins of the firm’s collaborators, which seems to be an equally decisive factor for the firm’s professional trajectory. Christ & Gantenbein have participated during the last five years in several competitions in Germany and two of their current collaborators are of German nationality. Jessen & Vollenweider have a considerable practice and teaching activity in Germany; Anna Jessen’s origins (she was born in Constance) must be related to that fact. She has been teaching as an assistant at Dresden University of Technology before taking up a professorship at the Darmstadt University of Technology (2011), while Ingemar Vollenweider has worked at the Federal Institute of Zurich (ETH) as an assistant under Hans Kolhoff before taking up a professorship at the Kaiserlautern University of Technology. Theirs is another competition success story. They founded their firm in 1998, when they won a competition for the master plan of a housing development in Berlin. Since then, they have been participating systematically in competitions and kept accumulating prizes.

Among competitions they have won in the period between 2005 and 2010, there are at least two for residential developments, one of which is the very interesting project of the Schaffhauserrheinweg complex (2009), along the river Rhine.

The success stories that I have commented on above certainly confirm the system’s value to the younger generation. Such an intrinsic function of the competition system is undeniably related to the number of procedures organized 16 See Jelk, C., 2009. Newcomers. hochparterre.wettbewerbe n.4, p.23.

56

architectural competitions – histories and practice

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

Fig. 8. Schaffhauserrheinweg Housing Development (Basel). Winning project by Jessen & Vollenweider, site plan.

as open calls17. In Switzerland, as in other countries, the danger of reducing, through the increase of restricted procedures, the chances provided to younger architects has been commented on by significant architectural figures that take a decided position against restricted procedures. Luigi Snozzi is one of them (see Chimchila 2000, p.12): “Now, in the process […] of preselecting, architects are left aside. [...] This is very serious because it entails, in practice, the elimination of the young, that is, of the very people who need the competition so as to be able to emerge.”18 A decade after this interview was made the situation seems to be equally alarming. The large majority of the competitions organized by the city of Zurich in 2012 (currently more than ten) have so far been restricted procedures. Such a policy (unlike the attitude adopted towards competitions during the period 1997 to 2010) reduces the dynamism of the system and its potential for producing architectural results of quality.

17 Although the architects themselves seem to have a preference for invited procedures, once they have already advanced a while in their career, as resulting from a discussion with Patrick Heiz (Made In architects) in Geneva, February 12th, 2013.

18 “Ora nel processo […] della preselezione, l’architetto è messo da parte […] Questo è molto grave, perché comporta, in practica, l’eliminazione dei giovani, cioè proprio di quelle figure che necessitano del concorso per potere emergere.”

architectural competitions – histories and practice

57

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

But are restricted procedures the only obvious danger to the architectural quality of the competition outcome? If the type of procedure and the frequency of such procedures may be considered as an extrinsic factor of the system, are there other factors that may attenuate the efficiency of the final result? It is argued in the following that there also exists an inherent condition, potentially impoverishing the so far impressive results of the housing competition system19. The standardization of a process framework that has already produced concrete, outstanding results in the past (as the one of housing competitions in the city of Zurich which seems to work as a model for other Swiss cities) risks bringing about standardization of the adopted architectural approaches. For the moment this is quite evident mostly in the representation modes employed by the architects. Judith Strong reported already in 1976 on the satisfaction of the promoters and the public with the results of competitions (p.88); but is this to be attained by sacrificing one dimension of the architect’s creativity? More and more projects, at least in the housing sector, aim at three-dimensional representations that look as much as possible “close to reality”; it is, in fact, on some occasions, almost difficult to distinguish the competition’s perspective image from a photo of the newly built project. This resemblance testifies unfortunately, not only to the system’s efficiency as to the project’s implementation, but also to the projects’ reduced compositional power. The majority of architects seem willing to offer a quite finished image of their project ideas in order to convince the promoters of their ready-to-build aspect. But is this the result one should normally expect from a relatively precocious stage of the creative process that comprises the conception, finalization and execution of a construction scheme?

Made In is one of the few architectural bureaus that mostly use diagrammatic representation modes for their competition projects. To François Charbonnet and Patrick Heiz (born in the beginning of the 1970s, architectural studies at the ETHZ), it has taken four years after their graduation for them to establish their own architectural firm; they have needed seven more to be teaching as guest lecturers at the EPFL and ETHZ. They did internships on other continents (USA and Japan) and have experience as collaborators of highly publicized bureaus (Herzog & de Meuron, OMA). Their style is distinguished from the majority of other architectural firms by a certain “detachment”, an almost “technical” neutrality concerning purified layouts, sections, and photo montages; an approach 19 I have to thank Prof. Magnus Rönn for suggesting this interesting distinction between “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” forces shaping the competition system.

58

architectural competitions – histories and practice

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

Fig. 9. Avenue de Morges competition (Lausanne). Made In, presentation panel from the competition project.

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

59

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

made equally evident in the numerical mottos that unify their competition projects. They describe this design style as a reaction to certain conventions, among which they place the competition framework and commonplace representation techniques (Stalder 2010, p. 107) in the following: “In our competition entries […], we don’t systematically demonstrate the implications in terms of construction. The reason for this is simple: to rehabilitate the project in the literal sense of the term, which is to say, not as a miniature of the building but as the first stage of a process: the project as a proposition and not as a final representation.

This implies a form of honesty and very little opportunism. To opt for precise determination in a competition is to close a multitude of doors. […] In addition, we should like to be able to withdraw this proposition sufficiently early so that it can be considered on its value as a phase of the project and not as the final object. Today, the techniques of image production at architects’ disposal are so sophisticated, so widely available that the profession is missing the mark when it accepts a client’s expectations. It becomes a case no longer of evocation, but of representation; and the latter short-circuits the course of the project. It is very difficult to go into reverse in the second phase, when all the client can see is the image, which is hence all he can apprehend.”20 Equally, they point out the underlying danger of homogenisation for most competition projects that adopt a “literal” representation style21. On the one hand, it is to wonder if Made In’s ‘radical’ approach is related to the fact that they have not so far made it to a first prize. Their most “international” attitude – they seem to be interested in competitions taking place in various parts of the world but mostly for particularly important buildings – must surely be another reason for that.

On the other hand, all competition projects adopting a more ‘conventional’ representation style are not due for a happy ending. In the Avenue de Morges competition Made In won 5th prize with an innovative project reinterpreting the bourgeois style apartment of the ‘en série’ rooms. A cubic block, relatively compact in its exterior aspect, concealed the crenelated volume of an interior courtyard, engendered by the criss-crossing hooking of each unit’s various rooms along a straight distribution path in its centre. Except for the axonometric drawings of the exterior, no other three-dimensional representations accompanied the plans 20 Stalder, L., 2010. Made INterviewed. Archithese 40(1), pp.106-108.

21 See on that subject Katsakou, A., 2012. Architectural Quality and the Iconic Status of Competition Proposals: A Study on Swiss housing Competitions 1997-2010. Conference paper presented in the 3rd international conference on competitions in Montreal, Canada earlier this year.

60

architectural competitions – histories and practice

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

Fig. 10a. Avenue de Morges competition. FHV winning project.

Fig. 10b. Avenue de Morges. FHV, perspective view of the project as it stands currently.

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

61

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

and sections in the competition panels. FHV, who won the competition, placed emphasis on the iconic, as they described it, geometry of their interior court which resembled a star and accommodated a private garden22. This court’s ‘protected’ milieu was underlined in the project presentation using two dramatically lit perspective images, one under the other, on the same board and juxtaposing the dense character of the surrounding urban tissue with the green environment of the communal exterior space in the complex. As building commences, the project is significantly changed. Although at the moment of the competition no specific number of units was fixed by the program, the number of apartments has been increased. The principal typological element of the apartments’ layout, a sort of “promenade” in the interior of each flat, which was created by the fact that the kitchen and the living area were situated in opposite parts of the plan, remains only in a reduced number of units. And the irregularly sloped roofs that guaranteed the continuity of each block’s polyhedral volume have been transformed into typically retreating penthouses23.

Conclusion From what has been discussed so far, competitions in Switzerland operate as a powerful link between architectural practice and architectural education. The teachers and mentors of an architect seem to play a significant part in his professional evolution, both from the point of view of winning an award in competition procedures and for entering the academic world as a studio tutor. This does not necessarily mean that competition assessments are doubtful; but it certainly indicates an existing mentality that seeks to reproduce already successful patterns, either in the form of architectural concepts or in the form of typical architectural figures.

It may safely be argued, that the system is sufficiently acknowledged socially – as a process framework which produces quality architecture – to provide recognition and teaching positions to many award-winning young firms. Moreover the whole process of practicing (and winning distinctions), teaching and publishing seems to promote a model of “star” talents that can cope equally 22 See the architects’ website and their online description of the project <http://www.fhvarchitectes. ch/index.php#travaux/1>, last visited August 14th 2012.

23 The changes are due to budget limitations, construction regulations and a more ‘pragmatic’ adaptation of the project during the implementation procedure, as established from a discussion with the architects, Lausanne 13th of February 2013.

62

architectural competitions – histories and practice

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

well with both theory and practice, and in their turn play the role of the mentor for even younger professionals, perpetuating traditions in the country’s architectural production.

Swiss competitions indeed provide an efficient framework for the ascension to fame of young architects. What is perhaps less common about their process framework on an international scale, is the fact that they can also provide sufficient grounds for young architects to establish their own architectural firms, in many cases almost immediately after their graduation (as for FHV and Christ & Gantenbein). As competition procedures are quite popular for all kinds of construction schemes, actually winning one seems more probable; as well as being assigned an actual building commission, independently from past experience.

But on the other hand, with an increasing number of restricted procedures and the margin these frameworks introduce for less transparency in the selection criteria, chances for all young professionals (who have not necessarily been trained by the side of distinguished firms of the Swiss architectural scene) are significantly reduced. There exists an operating pattern concerning the architectural figures who get particularly promoted by the framework that, exactly as common representation styles, seems to weaken the impressive structure of the competition framework inherently. And this pattern, demanding in a way already subsequent credentials to gain, through competitions, further recognition, may indeed have a significant impact (in terms of the variety of the submitted proposals and of innovative architectural conception) on the architectural results of competitions, in the long run.

References Allenspach, C., 1991. Le concours : une façon d’aborder le débat sur l’architecture. Interview de Bernard Attinger, architecte cantonal du Valais par Christoph Allenspach (The competition: a way to approach the architectural debate. The cantonal architect of Valais Bernard Attinger interviewed by Christoph Allenspach). Archithese 3, pp.14-17.

Allenspach, C., 1999. L’architecture en Suisse. Bâtir aux XIXe et XXe siècles (Architecture in Switzerland.

Building in the 19th and 20th Century). Zurich: Pro Helvetia, Fondation Suisse pour la culture.

Attinger, B., 2000. Lo sviluppo dei concorsi di Architettura in Vallese (The evolution of architectural competitions in Valais). Archi 4, p.6.

Bau- und Verkehrsdepartment des Kantons Basel-Stadt, Immobilien Basel-Stadt, 2009. Wohnen am Schaffhauserrheinweg (altes Kinderspital-Areal). Anonymer Ideenwettbewerb im selektiven Verfahren. Bericht des Preisgerichtes (Live in Schaffhauserrheinweg. Anonymous Ideas Competition of Selective

architectural competitions – histories and practice

63

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

Procedure. Jury Report) [pdf ]. Available at: <http://www.planungsamt.bs.ch/2009-09-09_jurybericht_kispi_1-3_rang_screen.pdf> [Accessed 17 September 2012].

Blau, E. and Kaufman, E. (Eds.)., 1989. Architecture and Its Image. Four centuries of Architectural Representation, Works from the Collection of the Canadian Centre for Architecture. Montreal: Canadian Centre for Architecture.

Chimchila Chevilli, J., 2000. La cultura del concorso: intervista a Luigi Snozzi (The competitions’ culture: interview of Luigi Snozzi). Archi 4, p.12.

Ducret, A., et al, 2003. Architecte en Suisse. Enquête sur une profession en chantier. Lausanne: Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes.

Hochbau- und Planungsamt des Kantons Basel-Stadt, 2009. Kunstmuseum Basel, Erweiterungsbau “Burghof”. Anonymer Projektwettbewerb im selektiven Verfahren. Schlussbericht (Museum of Art Basel, Extension “Burghof”. Anonymous Project Competition of Selective Procedure. Final Report) [pdf ].

Available at: <http://www.hochbauamt.bs.ch/schlussbericht-2.pdf> [Accessed 28 September 2012].

Jelk, C., 2009. Newcomers. hochparterre.wettbewerbe 4, p.23.

Katsakou, A., 2012. Conception des logements: Formes urbaines de géométrie triangulaire (Housing Composition: Urban Forms of Triangular Geometry). Matières 10, pp. 139-149.

Katsakou, A., 2012. Competing Realities. trans 20, pp. 66-69.

Katsakou, A., 2012. Housing Competitions: Elaborating Projects in Their Specific Process Framework. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, [e-journal] 24 (1). Available through Nordic Journal of Architectural Research website <http://arkitekturforskning.net/na> [Accessed 13 February 2012].

Katsakou, A. 2011. Representation of ‘Potential Realities’ and Contemporary Domestic Myths. In: Inter-Disciplinary.Net, 2nd Global Conference Space and Place. Exploring Critical Issues. Prague, Czech Republic 6-8 November 2011. Oxfordshire: Inter-Disciplinary.Net. Katsakou, A., 2011. Recent Architectural Competitions for Collective Housing in Switzerland: Impact of this Framework on Architectural Conception and Innovation. Ph. D. École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne).

Katsakou, A., 2010. Consensual Urban Planning – Zurich’s Model. In: M. Aboutorabi and A. Wesener, eds. 2010. Urban Design Research: Method and Application. Proceedings of the International Conference held at Birmingham City University, 3 - 4 December 2009. Birmingham: Birmingham City University, pp. 190-201.

Katsakou, A., 2008. Collective Housing Competitions in Switzerland. The parameter of innovation in architectural conception. In: M. Rönn, R. Kazemian and J. E. Andersson, (Eds.). 2010.

The Architectural Competition: Research Inquiries and Experiences. Stockholm: Axl Books, pp. 350371.

Kiss, V. and Tschirren, U., 2009. Neubau Projekt 1 der Baugenossenschaft Mehr Als Wohnen, ZürichLeutschenbach. Projektwettbewerb im selektiven Verfahren, Bericht des Preigerichts (New Building, Project 1 of the Cooperative Mehr Als Wohnen, Zurich-Leutschenbach. Project Competition of Selective Procedure, Jury Report). Zurich: Amt für Hochbauten, Stadt Zürich.

64

architectural competitions – histories and practice

antigoni

katsakou:

the

competition

generation

Lipstadt, H., 2006. The Competition in the Region’s Past, the Region in the Competition’s Future.

In: C. Malmberg, (Ed.). 2006. The Politics of Design: Competitions for Public Projects. New Jersey: Princeton University School of Architecture, pp.7-28.

Marchand, B. and Katsakou, A., 2008. Concevoir des logements. Concours en Suisse: 2000-2005 (Composing Housing. Competitions in Switzerland: 2000-2005). Lausanne: PPUR. ProVolta, Baudepartment des Kantons Basel-Stadt, 2005. Neubebauung VoltaMitte. Projekt- und Investorenwettbewerb. Bericht des Preisgerichtes (New Building VoltaMitte. Projects and Investors’ Competition. Jury Report) [pdf ]. Available at: <http://www.baselnord.bs.ch/voltamitte_jurybericht. pdf> [Accessed 16 September 2012].

Service d’architecture de la ville de Lausanne, 2009. Construction de logements à l’avenue de Morges, Lausanne sur les parcelles 354 et 20361. Concours de projet d’architecture en procédure ouverte selon le règlement SIA 142. Rapport du jury (Construction of Housing in Avenue de Morges, Lausanne, plots 354 and 20361. Architectural Projects Competition of Open Procedure under the SIA Regulation 142) [pdf ].

Available at: < http://www.lausanne.ch/Tools/GetLinkedDoc.asp?File=17484.pdf&Title=Rappo rt+jury+Av.+de+Morges> [Accessed 14 September 2012].

Stalder, L., 2010. Made INterviewed. Archithese 40(1), pp.106-108.

Strong, J., 1976. Participating in architectural competitions: A guide for competitors, promoters and assessors. London: The Architectural Press.

Strong, J., 1996. Winning by design. Architectural competitions. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Sudjic, D., 2006. Competitions: The Pitfalls and the Potential. In: C. Malmberg, ed., 2006. The Politics of Design: Competitions for Public Projects. New Jersey: Princeton University School of Architecture, pp. 53-66.

Tostrup, E., 1999. Architecture and Rhetoric: text and design in architectural competitions, Oslo 1939-97.

London: Andreas Papadakis Publisher.

Ville de Lausanne, 2011. Nouveau Musée cantonal des Beaux-arts, pôle muséal et culturel, site des Halles CFF aux locomotives, Lausanne. Concours de projets et concours d’idées en procédure sélective – Rapport du jury (New Cantonal Museum of Fine Arts, Museum and Cultural Center, site Les Halles CFF locomotives, Lausanne. Project and ideas competition of selective procedure – Jury Report) [pdf ]. Available at: <http://polemuseal.ch/media/filer/2012/08/06/mcba_rapport_jury_complet.pdf> [Accessed 24 September 2012].

architectural competitions – histories and practice

65

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

Abstract In the context of the universal ageing process that is currently taking place in western society, the organization of architecture competitions, which deal with space for the silvering generation, becomes relevant. Based on the welfare regime theory, it could be argued that this type of architecture is part of a national architectural typology. Not only does the type of welfare regime supply spatial parameters to be respected, it also aligns the spatial visions of architects so they will incarnate the national socio-political ambitions. This type of space has a relatively slow pace of change, since a spatial innovation is juxtaposed with socio-political reform work of the welfare regime.

The present study is an explorative study of the programming of competition documents and winning proposals that were part of the Swedish governmental initiative of 2010, “Growing older – Living well,” to innovate space for ageing with the use of architectural competitions. Three municipal architecture competitions that dealt with space for ageing (ordinary or sheltered housing) constitute the framework of this study. These were organized during the period of November 2011 to April 2012, and partially sponsored by the Swedish Institute of Assistive Technology, SIAT, which administered the governmental allocation of SEK 50 million. The research material was accumulated via internet searches, interviews and questionnaires. The analysis involved pattern seeking and close reading, as well as document analysis and the spatial analysis of architectural drawings.

The study suggests a preliminary conclusion: programme documents used within the field of architecture for ageing and eldercare emphasize spatial requirements for a high overall architectural quality and long-term performance, but little attention is paid to the user perspective; how to grow old in a care environment with respect to the WHO policy of active ageing. In addition, the study demonstrates a conservation of existing notions about appropriate architecture for ageing at the expense of an integration of multi-disciplinary findings on the relation between ageing, eldercare and space. Consequently, architecture competitions that focus on the emerging ageing society could be seen as a restricted type of space limiting the possibility of digression by the architects. National welfare goals and existing means of achieving these goals, act as inhibitors for an innovative spatial preparation for the ageing population.

Key words: architecture for ageing and eldercare, architecture competitions, welfare regimes, competition programmes, socio-politics, user values.

Contact: Jonas E Andersson, PhD, architect SAR/ MSA joa@sbi.aau.dk Danish Building Research Institute, SBi at Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark

66

architectural competitions – histories and practice

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

Architecture for the “silvering” generation in Sweden On architecture competitions as innovators of space for the elderly jonas e andersson

Introduction In 2006, the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, NBHW, started to report a decreasing number of available flats in residential care homes for frail older people. Due to the aggravated health status of this group, this eldercare almost touched the most extreme scenario of budget deficits that the Swedish local and regional authorities (SALAR) had forecasted. This resulted in a more restricted attitude vis-à-vis the building of new residential care homes (NBHBP & NBHW, 2004). Instead, an extended home care service was offered to older persons with somatic diagnoses, while a dementia diagnosis became the ultimate reason for moving to a residential care home (NBHW, 2008). The decline of residential care homes resulted in the nomination of a parliamentary committee. During the period of 2006 to 2008, the Delegation for Elderly Living, DEL, started to investigate appropriate housing for the senior section of the Swedish population.

The committee published two reports: the first one of 2007 focused on various forms of housing for older people who, to a large extent, could be characterized as able and who have a limited need of eldercare. This report attempted to redefine the existing nomenclature of various forms of housing for older people, thus coining the idea of special safe-haven residences (trygghetsboende) (DEL, 2007). These residences, which were to be included in the stock of ordinary housing, would offer a high degree of safety and security, since older people often report an increasing sensation of isolation and loneliness despite a maintained generally good health status. The second report was published in 2008. The conclusions could be described as half-hearted, and they added power to the stance of the local and regional authorities, but little architectural competitions – histories and practice

67

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

to the innovation of the residential care home (DEL, 2008). The maxim of ageing in place was once again put forward, but a certain dissension among the committee members impregnated the document: At least seven members of the fourteen member delegation chose to add their individual reservation in a special appendix.

Growing older and living well The Swedish governmental two-year programme “Growing older – Living well” was launched in 2010. This programme proceeds from the loose ends that the first and the second DEL report created. The programme assumes a global perspective in order to promote innovation concerning housing for both able and frail older people (SGO, 2010). The administration of the programme was entrusted to the SIAT, which has distributed the allocated 50 million Swedish crowns among seventy different projects. Apart from case studies on different phenomena in relation to older people and their choice of housing, the governmental programme designated the architectural competition as an instrument for renewing ordinary and special housing for older people.

In this aspect, the governmental programme links up with the Swedish tradition of using architecture competitions in order to define space for the frail ageing.1 The architecture competition was juxtaposed with the rethinking of cultural beliefs and established notions: “The government wishes to create opportunities to orient financial support to local programming and architectural competitions that will stimulate creativity and innovative thinking when it comes to planning strategies that aim at offering senior citizens attractive and functional forms of housing (SGO, 2010, p. 1).” The use of the words creativity and innovative thinking reveals an on-going tendency in Swedish civil administration and in the European Union to address complex matters in relation to the welfare society with calls for inventive challenges directed towards architects, engineers, entrepreneurs or researchers (OECD, 2005).

1 It has to be mentioned that the governmental program was preceded by a joint initiative from Christer Neleryd, executive director of the special program Äldreguiden (Guide for the elderly) that the NBHW launched in 2007 and finalized in 2010, Magnus Rönn, associate professor at the School of Architecture, the Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, the author of this paper, then doctoral student, and Susanne Iwarsson, professor at the CASE Research group, Lund University, who presented the idea of organizing several architecture competitions with research-based competition documents in November 2009 at a meeting at the Swedish Social Ministry.

68

architectural competitions – histories and practice

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

Aims and working hypothesis The present study focuses on the three architectural competitions that were realized in three Swedish municipalities within the perimeters of the governmental programme. Of special interest is the correlation between the requirements, stated in the competition brief, and their implementation as design criteria in the eleven competition proposals that the participating architects submitted.

The working hypothesis states that programming documents, used for architecture intended to be used for eldercare purposes, will generate spatial requirements for an overall high architectural quality and long-term performance, but that they result in a limited understanding of the spatial implications of ageing; how to grow old with respect to active ageing (WHO, 2002).

Methodology and research material This study draws conclusions from three parallel case studies pertaining to the architecture competitions that were organized by three Swedish municipalities with financial support from the Swedish governmental initiative “Growing older – Living well” (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003).

Data accumulation and document search The data accumulation started after the completion of each competition. The first step involved the distribution of a questionnaire form in pdf-format, attached to an e-mail. Given the low response rate in case studies I and II, these informants were approached a second time with an e-mail or a telephone call with the suggestion of an interview instead of the completion of the questionnaire form. As a result of this, the response rate increased considerably. The interview guide was used as the sole research method in case study III, with a response rate of 80 per cent. All in all, the response rate for the three case studies was 64 per cent. A total of 56 answers were collected for further analysis.

The competition documentation, i.e. competition briefs with appendices, jury assessment reports, and competition proposals, aligned with official documents, supplied the necessary background to the three competitions. This documentation was compiled by searches on the websites of the Swedish Architects’ Association, SAA, and the Swedish Institute of Technology, SIAT, as well as the participating municipalities. In addition, this documentation supplied a list of 62 potential key actors who were involved in the competitions. Contacts with the participating architects added 4 more names to that list. architectural competitions – histories and practice

69

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

The informants In case study I, 27 informants were targeted (12 men and 15 women), while a group of 19 (8 men and 11 women) informants were mapped in case study II. In case study III, 16 informants (7 men and 9 women) were found. In addition, two representatives of the Swedish Architects’ Association, SAA, and two representatives of the Swedish Institute for Assistive Technology, SIAT, were approached; see table 1. Of the full sample, 13 persons represented the competing architects, 21 persons the organizer and members of the competition jury, 3 persons the the competition jury, 3 persons and the c2ompetition functionaries, and 2 persons from competition functionaries, persons from each organization that theeach SAA organization that the SAA (competition secretaries) and the SIAT represent. The major-­‐ (competition secretaries) and the SIAT represent.

The majority of the informity of the informants were female respondents. The identified key actors were promised full confidentiality.

All answers have been anonymized. ants were female respondents.

The identified key actors were promised full con fidentiality.

All answers have been anonymized.

distributed according to affiliation.

Table 1.

1. Overview Overviewofofthe theinformants informantsininthethestudy study distributed according to affiliation.

Architecture competition

Informants

(full number of respondents) 2

the Mun. of Burlöv (16) 2

Methods 1

Response rate 1

men

women

total

question.

interview

4

8

12

2

11

total 13

80%

the Mun. of Gävle (27) the Mun. of Linköping, 2, 3 (19)

3

10

13

8

9

17

55%

4

9

13

5

9

14

73%

the SIAT(2)

0

2

2

5

3

8

.

the SAA (2)

1

1

2

1

3

4

.

12

30

42

21

29

56

64%

Notes: 1) Municipalities: Interviews and questionnaires have been supplemented with secondary mails or telephone calls. In the case of the SAA and the SIAT, the number refers solely to various questions addressed as e-mails. In the same manner, the number for interviews refers to the number of telephone communications in the matter. 2) The architect in charge of the work with the competition proposal, and named in the jury report, was approached for an interview or a questionnaire. When responding, this person often added names of other colleagues, and these were included in the sample of informants. 3) In the case of Linköping, only one of the representatives of the SAA was contacted.

Research methods

Research methods The research methods have involved freely structured interviews and questionThe research methods have involved freely structured interviews questionnaires. naires.

The questionnaire contained five thematic sectionsand with 40 questions, The questionnaire contained five thematic sections with 40 questions, and is a short-­‐ and was a shortened version of an existing interview guide with 82in questions ened version of an existing interview guide with 82 questions that was used connec-­‐ tion w ith a

m unicipal a rchitecture c ompetition i n 2 006 ( Andersson, 2 009).

A bias ith that was used in connection with a municipal architecture competition inw2006 an electronic document was discovered: Only persons with a high level of computer (Andersson, 2009). A bias with an electronic document was discovered: Only skills managed to fill out the form. As a consequence, the questionnaire had to be revised persons with a ihigh level of computer skills managed to fillsout the2form.

As and transformed nto an interview guide with five themes of inquiry, ee table . a consequence, the questionnaire had to be revised and transformed into an The potential informant was approached with an e-­‐mail that explained the purpose of interview themes inquiry, see table the study. Iguide n case swith tudy five I, where the qof uestionnaire form was 2.used for the first time, the response rate was shown to be low. The realization of the interview was adjusted to the

informant’s use oarchitectural f language and the ccompetitions onversation that the ive themes generated.

The – fhistories and practice 70 interviews were recorded, and lasted, on average, for 15-­‐30 minutes.

Table 2. Overview of the interview guide with the five themes that were used for inquiry.

Item 1

Themes for inquiry Background details that preceded the organization of the municipal architecture competition (competition site, programming documents, user involvement, administrational preparation).

competition

rate

(full number of respondents) 2

the Mun. of Burlöv (16)

1

women

total

question.

interview

4

8

12

2

11

13

80%

8

9

17

55%

2

the Mun. of Gävle (27) 3 10 13 the Mun. eof andersson: Linköping, jonas architecture for 2, 3 (19) 4 9 13 the SIAT(2)

1

men

0

2

2

total

the “silvering” generation 5

9

14

73%

5

3

8

.

SAA (2) 1 2 1 an e-mail 3 . the theThe potential informant was 1approached with that4 explained 12 30 42 21 29 56 64% purpose of the study. In case study I, where the questionnaire form was used Notes: 1) Municipalities: Interviews and questionnaires have been supplemented with secondary mails or for the first time, the response rate was shown to be low. The realization of the telephone calls. In the case of the SAA and the SIAT, the number refers solely to various questions addressed as e-mails.

In thewas sameadjusted manner, theto number for interviews refers of telephone communications in the interview the informant’s useto the of number language and the conversation matter. 2) The architect in charge of the work with the competition proposal, and named in the jury report, was approached for anthemes interview orgenerated. a questionnaire.

Wheninterviews responding, thiswere personrecorded, often added additional names of that the five The and lasted, on other colleagues, and these were included in the sample of informants. 3) In the case of Linköping, only one of the representatives of the SAA was contacted. average, for 15-30 minutes.

Table 2. Overview of the interview guide with the five themes that were used for inquiry.

Table 2. Overview of the interview guide with the five themes that were used for inquiry.

Item

Themes for inquiry

1

Background details that preceded the organization of the municipal architecture competition (competition site, programming documents, user involvement, administrational preparation).

2

The writing of the competition brief, the participating architects’ use of the brief, the jury’s use of the brief, and the perceived accuracy of the brief for the competition.

3

The competition proposals compared to the defined competition task, and a discussion of its relevance for the submitted proposals.

4

The architecture competition as an entity seen before and after its completion (public response, coverage in media)

5

Supplementary questions (perceived level of innovation and rethinking housing for older people in general, the architecture competition as an instrument for rethinking existing notions about housing for older people).

Data analysis The accumulated research material for this study consists of three types of material: architectural drawings, and spoken and written statements about the competition. This required a narrative and a spatial analysis.

the cell

the corridor

the multi-purpose space

the niche

Figure 1. The four spatial entities: the cell, the corridor, the niche and the multi-purpose space.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

71

SE SEPARAT JPEG FIL-­‐1: stripentites

the cell

the corridor

the multipurpose space

the niche

Figure 1. The four spatial entities: the cell, the corridor, the niche and the multipurpose space.

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

exterior space

interior space

perceived space

Localization in built environment

Combination of four fundamental spatial entities

adjacency (close to), integration (in the middle of)

The cell is a space with a specific usage enclosed by four walls, a floor and ceiling.

periphery (far from)

The corridor has two walls, a ceiling and a floor. It is narrow and long, and creates a directional axis

Elements part of the perceived space and assessed as home-like, residential-like or institution-like: balcony/ French balcony, terrace, fake/ true open fireplace, elaborated/ neutral interior colouring, elaborated spatial configuration that emphasized the boundary between communally shared and individual space with varied passages and sojourns, spatial configuration that did not emphasize the boundary between communally shared and individual space with straight passages without sojourns, exterior building mass, interior built scale, crowdedness-emptiness, entrance composition, spatial entities, windows, garden, localization, materials used, individual entrance door, space adjustable to personal needs, sensory stimulation, transspatiality, Transspatiality refers to the contact with the exterior space. French balcony, bay window, panorama window, garden, terrace.

Type of facade monolithic facade (boundary) membrane facade (transparency) structural facade (attenuation)

The multipurpose space signifies a spatiality defined by its ceiling and the floor, since the walls are not perceived.

The niche has five surfaces, a floor, three walls and a ceiling.

Fenestration

Spatial effects

form (horizontal/ vertical)

straight passages

composition (group/ solitary)

passages with varying size

nodes of passages

Entrance cavity canopy portico undefined

sojourns Material used Inventory of materials in communally shared space and in individual space

Illustration 1. Overview of the analytic model of exterior, interior and perceived space.

Illustration 1. Overview of the analytic model of exterior, interior and perceived space.

Interpretative spatial analysis The competition proposals that the various teams of architects, selected through a pre-qualification procedure, designed based on the competition programme were also included in the research material. This drawn material was analysed in relation to what could be deducted from the competition programme. The architectural designs were subjected to a spatial theory,2 which states that the built space can be seen as a compilation of four basic entities, see Figure 1 (Andersson, 2011b).

The four entities are: the cell, the corridor, the niche and the multi-purpose space.

The basic spatial entity is the cell with four walls, floor and ceiling in a primarily quadratic shape; the second one is an extended rectangular shape with two walls, floor and ceiling: the corridor; the third one is the niche, with three interconnecting walls around an opening as large as the widest wall, and floor and ceiling, while the fourth entity has an open spatial shape that may include either of those previously mentioned and of which the main characteristic is the multi-purpose usage. By combining this theory with the possible triple outcome of the Swedish guidelines for residential care homes for frail older people, i.e. homelike, hotel-like and hospital-like environments (Andersson, 2011b), an analytic model that pertains to the exterior, interior and perceived space can be assembled , see Illustration 1.

2 This theory has been formulated by the Swedish architect Hans Fog, professor em, the Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, Stockholm.

72

architectural competitions – histories and practice

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

Figure 2. This model is called the discursive model of an architecture competition in a Swedish municipality (Ibid.). Here, the discourses have been combined with one to all of the three genres of classical rhetoric.

Compared to the original model (Cold, Dunin-Woyseth, & Sauge, 1992), some aspects have been relocated.

This concerns the following items: 1) In the original model this item is placed at the current position of “Work/ Processes”; 2) In the original model this item is placed at the current position of “Emotional Experiences”; 3) In the original model, this item is placed at the current position of “Institutions/ Resources”; 4) In the original model, this item is place at the current position of “Care/ Taken Care of”.

Narrative analysis The competition documentation, questionnaires as well as other textual documents were subjected to close reading in order to establish recurring themes that could be translated into design criteria for the subsequent design task in the competition (Brummett, 2010). The preliminary conclusions that could be drawn from the spoken material were cross-checked with what could be sustained from the written material. In the very centre of the analysis of the competition documentation, lies the capacity to convey the organizer’s spatial visions for the future built environment to the participating architects.

The analysis of the competition programme has aimed to define the type architectural competitions – histories and practice

73

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

of discourse and rhetorical genre that appears in relation to an architectural competition, see Figure 2 (Andersson, 2011).

In classical rhetoric, there are three rhetorical genres (Karlberg & Mral, 2006). The deliberative rhetoric uses dissuasive or persuasive elements in speech and writing to argue a case, while the epideictic rhetoric analyses negative or positive models in order to define what is to be avoided and what is to be desired (Ibid). The forensic rhetoric is concerned with legal matters, and focuses on what is right and wrong (Ibid). The human-spatial bound discourse (HSD) on architecture and ageing consists of a mixture of all three genres, while the other four discourses correspond to one of the classical genres. The ethical discourse (ED) uses an emotional stance in order to define the appropriateness of certain space, and, therefore, demonstrates a similarity with the epideictic rhetoric. The conceptual and visionary discourses (CD and VD) are aspects of the deliberative rhetoric, since these discourses use logic reasoning in terms of right and wrong in order to conceptualize visions for the future built environment. The planning-based discourse (PBD) equals the forensic rhetoric, since this discourse defines feasible measures to be undertaken in order to realize a certain type of built space.

results The following section is divided into sub-sections describing in detail the three case studies in the sample. The opening section will present information regarding the governmental initiative towards the rethinking of housing for older people. The second section will retrace the individual characteristics of each municipal architecture competition in the sample. The order is motivated by chronology.

1. General background of the cases In order to define the potential receivers of the allocation of means for the organization of competitions, the SIAT started mapping the 290 Swedish municipalities by sending a letter with information to the head of each local executive committee. They were encouraged to prepare an application to the SIAT for funding, and were offered advice on how to organize an architecture competition and its specific aims. In March 2011, the SIAT had received twelve applications for organizing a competition, of which five were granted funding: the municipalities of Burlöv, Halmstad and Linköping, the municipal housing 74

architectural competitions – histories and practice

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

Figure 3. An overview of the different steps in the governmental programme “Growing Older – Living Well” and the preparations of the three municipalities to take part in the initiative.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

75

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

companies of Gavlegårdarna AB and the consortium of five local real estate companies in Karlskrona. However, the municipality of Halmstad withdrew its application, and the consortium in Karlskrona closed the competition prematurely in June 2012. The realization of the governmental programme lasted for a period of in total 23 months, and transferred to the individual architecture competition, this period ranged from 10.5 to 16 months, see Figure 3.

1.1 The participating architects The architecture competitions were announced in professional journals and other media. If interested, the architects had to submit a set of various documents in order to allow for the organizer to make a selection. The three architecture competition generated 120 applications (CS I: 36; CS II: 33; CS III 51 applications). The eleven participating teams of architects were selected by the individual organizer of the architecture competition in a prequalification procedure. The applicants had submitted 1-6 documents that supplied both financial and taxation information about the architecture firms, and artistic and professional skills (key persons, 5-6 referential objects, biding offer for subsequent commission). An overview of the three competitions is presented in the appendix, see appendix A. 1.2 The competition documentation The main stock of the competition documentation, i.e. the competition programme with appendices, was written by the local organizer (although the jury assessment report was written by the SAA and with some supervision from the municipality). A final draft was submitted to the SAA and the SIAT for additional comments, but only the SAA returned advice on the structure and the wording. Until the beginning of the competition in Gävle, the SIAT lacked a strategy for evoking the key items in the governmental initiative, and during the opening meeting of this competition the SIAT suggested an improvised solution with separate meetings during the competition period. The competition documentation that the participating architects needed to assimilate mentally had the following components, presented below; see table 3.

The period for questions on the competition documentation varied from 4 days to 92 days (CS I: 4; CS II: 92; CS III: 69 days). In addition, the remuneration of the architects varied between SEK 150,000 to SEK 300, 000 SEK. The competition documentation was mainly written in a forensic rhetoric that focuses on what is right or wrong for the particular design task. This is a planning-based discourse.

76

architectural competitions – histories and practice

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation Table 4.Overview of the competition documentation of the three architecture competitions.

parameters issuescompetitions.

Competition Table 3. Overview of thePlanning competition documentation of the threeAgeing architecture

Table 4.Overview of theCompr. competition of the threeCompr. architecture documentation level documentation Detailed level level competitions.

Detailed level

Competition Cs I. Municipality of documentation Gävle Cs I. Municipality of Gävle

Cs II. Municipality of Linköping

Cs II. Municipality of

Linköping

Cs of III. Municipality

Burlöv

Cs III. Municipality of

Burlöv

2. The

Planning parameters Final competition Appendices Compr. level Detailed level programme (drawings, detailed planning Final competition Appendices documents, programme (drawings, detailed constructional planning documents, documents, comprehensive constructional descriptions) documents, comprehensive

descriptions)

Final competition Appendices

programme (drawings, detailed

planning Final competition Appendices documents, programme (drawings, detailed constructional planning documents, documents, comprehensive constructional descriptions) documents, comprehensive

descriptions)

Final competition Appendices

programme (drawings, detailed

planning Final competition Appendices documents, programme (drawings, detailed constructional planning documents, documents, comprehensive constructional descriptions) documents, comprehensive descriptions)

Ageing issues One of the Compr. levelthat appendices contained One of the preliminary appendices from that a information contained pilot study on preliminary housing conditions information from a for older people pilot study who live at on the housingsite conditions chosen for the for older people competition, also who live at the financed by the chosen site for the SIAT. competition, also Existing financed by the documentation SIAT. concerning spatial Existing requirements for documentation residential care concerning spatial homes in the requirements for municipality residential care homes in the municipality

One of the appendices that

contained One of the preliminary appendices from that a information contained pilot study on preliminary housing conditions information fromina for older people pilotmunicipality, study on the housing conditions also financed by for older the SIAT.people in the municipality, also financed by the SIAT.

SIAT meeting Detailed level SIAT meeting

SIAT meeting SIAT meeting

SIAT meeting SIAT meeting

three architecture competitions

In this section the case studies will be described and presented in chronological order. An overview of the characteristics of the submitted proposals is found in the appendix, see appendix B. The competition proposals are executed in a modernized functionalist type of architecture.

2.1 Case study I. “Elm Street, resident inclusion in the refurbishment of rental flats” In this case, in the architecture competition in the municipality of Gävle, the competition programme opens with a quotation from the comprehensive physical planning document for Gävle. By use of this passage, the programme architectural competitions – histories and practice

77

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

explains that the design task concerns a condensation of existing built space in order to optimize the use of infrastructure and municipal services: “(...) from a sustainability point of view, the dense built environment is the type of space to envision.” In consequence, the organizer also urges the participating architects to produce sustainable solutions with limited environmental effects (AB Gavlegårdarna & Gävle kommun, 2011, The competition programme, Ibid, p. 5-6, translation from Swedish to English by author).

In this competition, the key question is how much condensation/ exploitation the existing built environment can take and how this new built space is to take shape.

This question will be answered, not only by the competing architects and the competition jury, but also by the residents of the area, the neighbours and the City Planning Office.

The competition is two-fold: The primary task is to present at least 50 flats within the area that would attract residents within the target group of people aged 65 years and older. The second task is to demonstrate how existing buildings can be adapted to meet modern demands of accessibility and usability. It is then up to the author of the individual competition proposal to decide how the existing row houses can be integrated in the new design.

The competition task also includes suggestions for long-term sustainability, with clear connections with adjacent areas. The proposals must meet the demand for low power consumption and minimal impact on the environment.

The challenge for the competing architects is to create an existing residential area where account is given for attractive and cost-efficient housing for older people grouped around and in harmony with the existing green environment.

This design should demonstrate innovative housing solutions for older people, as well as technical equipment that would facilitate a prolongation of ageing in place.

If the content of this quotation is structured, a set of requirements for the design task falls out that makes it possible to formulate eight design criteria: 1) assess the reasonable level of condensation of the existing built space at Elm Street; 78

architectural competitions – histories and practice

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

2) suggest a feasible architectural design for the additional built space of the district; 3) conceive at least 50 flats that target the demands of older people; 4) demonstrate refurbishment solutions of the existing row houses that would create a higher level of accessibility and usability; 5) suggest a comprehensive solution for the district that integrates the existing row house, or replaces these with a new type of housing; 6) integrate the solution for the district in the surrounding context of infrastructure and municipal services; 7) implement smart-house thinking in the proposed housing for older people in order to promote innovative thinking for this target group; 8) conceive overall attractive and cost-efficient housing for older people around the existing green space at Elm Street.

The intention was that a parallel pilot study on the user group of the elderly who today have a tenancy agreement on a flat in one of the existing row houses would supply a description of the target group of people aged 65 years and older and their specific needs. However, this study was ongoing when the architecture competition opened, and only raw preliminary results were added to the programme as an appendix.

The architects’ understanding of the competition programme For this competition, the organizer selected four versatile architecture firms, three from Stockholm, and one from Gothenburg, but all of them Swedish. The architects chose to focus on the competition site and its constituents, since they found little of relevance in the programme concerning housing for older people.

In addition, they found the transfer of the decision odd, to either renovate or demolish the existing row houses based on financial and technical considerations to the competing architects’ team. According to them, this was a matter that the organizer should have resolved prior to the competition. The competition programme generated a substantial number of questions, 24 questions all in all. One factor that could explain this number is the fact that the time for questions was set to only four days. The questions can be distributed according to the author: Architects’ team 1: 3 questions; Architects’ team 2: 6 questions; Architects’ team 3: 6 questions; Architects’ team 4: 10 questions. architectural competitions – histories and practice

79

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

Refurbishment 1: one storey added to the existing row houses in combination with a five story tower building to finance the refurbishment. (Architects’ team 1).

Refurbishment 2: Some row houses are demolished and replaced by three to four storey buildings in order to finance the refurbishment of the existing row houses to which one room has been added at angle to the existing building and facing the park. (Architects’ team 3).

Figure 4 (above). Overview of two competition proposals in the architecture competition in Gävle, two refurbishment projects.

Figure 5 (opposite page). Overview of two competition proposals in the architecture competition in Gävle, one project that reshapes the present built environment, and one that introduces a novel concept for the built space.

80

architectural competitions – histories and practice

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

Reshaping: The existing row houses are replaced in a long term reshaping process with 1-3-storey buildings and the creation of private court yards for each group of housing. The park space is condensed. (Architects’ team 2).

Novel solution: the existing row houses are replaced by three storey buildings but the green space is left intact.

(Architects’ team 4 and winner).

architectural competitions – histories and practice

81

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

Lacking information about older people and their housing preferences, the competing teams of architects chose to seek information outside of the competition programme in order to conceive a structuring idea for the competition proposal. To some extent, the information meeting that the SIAT offered on 2 December 2011 did constitute a necessary input in this work, mainly in regard to the use of information technology and the smart-house concept by older persons. However, the meeting was restraining as regards geographical location, and only the competing architects and jury members in Stockholm participated. The competition period for the conception and production of competition proposals was approximately 3 months, from 10 October 2011 to 18 January 2012. However, the architects maintain that a disproportionally large part of this time had to be devoted to investigating the matter of refurbishing or demolishing the existing row houses, and a minor part to conceiving innovative housing solutions for older people. In addition, the preliminary results from the pilot study on user involvement proved that the current residents wished for modest changes, which would make the design task inconsistent.

Therefore, the competing architects developed two strategies towards the residents’ comments: a) the residents’ statements were acknowledged and integrated in the structuring idea for the competition proposal; b) the residents’ statements were deemed as an accessory component that allowed for a certain amount of liberty in the interpretation of the same as a design parameter.

The design task and its realization in four competition proposals The jury assessment report supports the architects’ opinion about the low-degree of the introduction of innovation, in the competition programme into the design task concerning appropriate architecture for older people. The design task became mainly active on an urban level rather than on the direct building level. The complexity on the urban level, i.e. to renovate or demolish existing buildings, superseded the detailed work of elaborating sustainable designs of flats adjusted to older persons’ conceivable panorama of needs. The dominance of the urban level made the architects inclined to present a complete solution for the whole district of Elm Street. After having assessed the feasibility of keeping the existing row houses, the architects’ conclusions diverge in three directions; see Figure 4 and 5.

1) Two refurbishment proposals with the existing row houses kept intact or with one storey being added to the existing height of the building 82

architectural competitions – histories and practice

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

in order to meet modern building requirements of accessibility and usability, paired with additional built space with three to five storey in order to add financial credibility to the competition proposal (Architects’ team 1 and 3).

2) A reshaping proposal in three storeys that is to be implemented step by step in order to change the district into a densely built space with a variety of flats (Architects’ team 2).

3) A novel proposal that suggests a complete demolition of the existing row houses to be replaced by new built space in two storeys on top of the existing basement floors (Architects’ team 4, winner).

The architects suggest that the competition programme contained sparse information about future oriented space for the senior generation. The competition proposals and the jury assessment report promote a notion that the components of appropriate architecture for older people are universal. Both conclude that accessibility, functionality, building performance and usability are building requirements of relevance for people of any age. However, it is the architectural aspects such as having a direct relation from the inside space towards the outside space, integration in the surrounding built environment and easily accessible infrastructure that makes the housing attractive. This competition provides foundation for a preliminary conclusion that appropriate architecture is a type of universal design open for anyone regardless of age or possible impairment, cognitive or functional.

2.2 Case study II. “Town block Walpurgis Night: invited project competition concerning the design of future oriented housing for frail older people” In five introductory sections, the competition programme prepares for the definition of the design task in the municipality of Linköping. These sections supply the background and the link to the governmental programme. More specifically, this text explains the municipality’s intentions with the competition (Linköpings Kommun, 2011a, The competition programme, Ibid, p. 4, translation from Swedish into English by author): The task is to propose the design of a residential care home with good functionality and high architectonic qualities. This housing is to be designed in a way that minimizes the institutional feeling that is often perceived in this type of housing. architectural competitions – histories and practice

83

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

With regard to the actual positioning of the building, the steep site and virgin nature must be taken into consideration. The goal is also that the new premises and outdoor environment in conjunction with the new residential care home shall function as a meeting place for all residents in the area. The idea is to create a feeling of safety and community with abundant opportunities for meeting across generations.

A residential care home that provides meeting places and opportunities for various activities for all residents in the area leads to an increased sense of satisfaction, community and well-being. Meeting places such as common spaces for celebrating birthdays or other festive occasions or gym, swimming, studies and other leisure activities exemplify such space.

The municipality wishes to have a design that adds value to an already established housing area in the sense that: • the individual resident of the residential care home may be stimulated by the beautiful surroundings; • the residents in the existing built environment will welcome the new addition to the environment.

If the content of this quotation is structured, a set of requirements for the design task falls out that makes it possible to formulate ten design criteria; to create: 1) a residential care home with high performative abilities; 2) a residential care home with high architectural qualities; 3) a residential care home that minimizes, or is free from an institutional feeling; 4) a residential care home that is integrated in the steep natural site; 5) a residential care home that will be perceived as an obvious addition to the existing built environment since it contributes with new space for communal meeting place between the residents in the residential care home and the neighbours; 6) a residential care home integrated in the surrounding environment in order to install a feeling of community, safety, security and possibilities to meet beyond the barriers of age;

84

architectural competitions – histories and practice

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

7) a residential care home in which the positive aspects of the existing neighbourhood can be integrated and can add quality for the frail residents in the home; 8) a residential care home that through its architectural design will neutralize the neighbouring residents’ hesitation towards a new implantation of built space in the area; 9) a type of housing that residential care home incarnates for the coming decade of 2020s with respect to accessibility, usability and modern technology; 10) an increased possibility for frail older people to continue to reside in a familiar neighbourhood but in a new type of housing.

The number of residents per unit in the residential care home is defined as approximately 10 persons. The communal space is estimated to 15 m2 per resident, which is identical to the quota that was used by the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning in relation to the state grants that were open during the period of 2007-2011 for increasing the number of available flats in residential care homes (NBHBP, 2011). However, the older frail person is evasive in the programme similar to the care staff that is to work in the home. The diagnoses that the residents will probably suffer from are articulated in the following description: “The physical environment must be designed so that persons with reduced cognitive and locomotory abilities will find their way. The main entrance must be clearly visible” (Linköpings_Kommun, 2011b, p. 2).

The architects’ understanding of the competition programme The municipality of Linköping had selected four versatile architects’ firms, three from Stockholm, and one from Malmö. One firm in Stockholm (architects’ team 4) and the one in Malmö (architects’ team 2) collaborated with Danish architects’ firms. The competition programme generated a few questions, seven in all. The participating architects assessed the programme with appendices as convenient for the purpose. The questions were formulated by the same architects’ team (Architects’ team 4), and, according to their own statement, they had to make these inquiries in order to reach a similar understanding among the Danish and Swedish members of the team. The period for asking questions on the competition programme was set to 3.5 months. However, the architects regret that the competition programme did not include the staffing of the residential care architectural competitions – histories and practice

85

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

The view to the exterior space as the universal source of distraction. (Architects’ team 1).

The dynamics between the outside and the interior space, and the private flat versus the communal space (Architects team 2).

Figure 6. Overview of two competition proposals in the architecture competition in Linköping, arranged in the two identified categories.

86

architectural competitions – histories and practice

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

The dynamics between the outside and the interior space, as well as the private space versus the communal one (Architects’ team 3 and winner).

The dynamics between the outside and the interior space, and the private flat versus communal space (Architects’ team 4).

Figure 7. Overview of two competition proposals in the architecture competition in Linköping, both in the same category.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

87

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

home, since from their experience, this question has a bearing on how to design an appropriate residential care home. By adding the staffing situation, the architects maintain that the architectural design becomes innovative. Only two architects’ teams chose to challenge the given number of residents per unit, the Danish- Swedish teams of architects. The SIAT held a special meeting to inform this group of participating architects about space for the frail ageing process and the research that the institute produces. Most of the architects participated in the meeting that they saw to be inspiring and beneficial for their work.

The design task and its realization in four competition proposals The jury assessment report recapitulates the discussion concerning the size of the unit among its members. It resumes accurately the view among the participating architects about what the competition has achieved: Firstly, the competition has aimed for an innovation of the residential care home within the current definition of acceptable costs for care and staffing. As a consequence, neither of the teams who challenged the number of residents per unit found themselves to be fortunate in the competition. Secondly, what the competition has achieved is a renewed focus on the relation between the architectural design and the well-being of the frail older person, but also of the satisfaction of the care staff working there. The architects maintain that the architectural conception has been concerned with the emphasizing of those spatial qualities that may enrich the older person everyday life. This involves aspects such as being within reach of daily distractions and experiences, a room with an inspiring view, the sensation of the outdoor environment compared to the indoor space, the warmth of the sun and the penetration of daylight.

In this case, the competition site invites the architects to use both the urban level and the direct building level, but in a combination and to an extent that can induce an individual understanding of the design task. The main difference between the four competition proposals lies in how the urban level and the building level have been merged into a structuring idea for the competition proposal. Therefore, the individual flats are well executed, but the inner communal space lacks those considerations that would make it easy to understand and that would facilitate findings one’s way. In that aspect, the older person with cognitive or functional impairments has not been fully respected. The submitted proposals boil down to two categories: a) the view of the exterior space as the universal source of distraction (Architects’ team 1) versus b) the dynamics 88

architectural competitions – histories and practice

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

between exteriority and interiority, and the private flat as compared to the communal space (Architects’ team 2,3 and 4), see Figure 6 and 7.

2.3 Case study III. “New housing district for older people near the Kronetorp Manor.”

In this competition programme, the precise description of the design task is found in the opening section of the text, but not in the passage that is entitled design task. This attributes to the competition programme an interpretative dilemma that requires attentive reading (Burlövs_kommun, 2011, The competition programme, p. 3, p. 5-6, translation from Swedish into English by author).

The following are two quotations that demonstrate this complexity: The design task is to conceive an illustrative overview of the development of a new housing district around the Kronetorp Manor in the new district of the existing community of Arlöv, as well as to suggest 100 flats intended for older people in close proximity with the manor. The opportunities and qualities for a good life that can be created by using the manor as a centre in the area, for elderly and other categories of residents alike, is to be developed.

The competition proposal must display a solution for an age-integrated new housing district in which the senior part of the local population will be embraced by children, youth and adults of other ages. The level of exploitation and the suggested solutions must be environment-friendly and sustainable.

The competition proposals shall demonstrate other aspects such as accessibility, usability and integrated meeting places and pathways through the district. Parking solutions must also be included. In addition, the challenge implied by disturbing noise of the infrastructure in the neighbourhood must be mastered. In order to supply an attractive residential area for both residents and property owners, the suggested housing types must be on the cutting edge of what is financially and technically possible.

The 100 flats for senior residents shall be presented with a floor plan, elevations and facades. The result of the parallel pilot study on the housing preferences among the senior citizens in the municipality (…) shall be visualized.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

89

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

The competition will result in an illustration of a new detailed plan of the area that, apart from the 100 flats for senior citizens will also include 200 flats for other age groups.

If the content of these quotations is structured, a set of requirements for the design task falls out that makes it possible to formulate ten design criteria: 1) conceive an illustration of a new housing district in the close proximity of the Kronetorp Manor estate, the new housing district of Arlöv; 2) create a hundred new flats for senior citizens near the manor that will enjoy the comfort of having the old manor as a focal point for older people and other age groups; 3) create a new age-inclusive housing district in which the senior part of the population will meet children, young adults and adults of other ages; 4) present a feasible level of exploitation of the area and building solutions that result in a low environmental impact and a sustainable solution; 5) elucidate important aspects with regard to the localization, the design of meeting places and pathways, and the green environment in general (including parking solutions); 6) create solutions for how to reduce the noise impact from neighbouring infrastructure; 7) propose a housing district that may be attractive for both residents and property developing companies; 8) propose housing solutions that are financially and technically advanced; 9) propose housing solutions of a 100 new flats for older people with floor plans, elevations, and facades (a concretization of the governmental programme); 10) over and above the 100 flats for senior citizens the participating architects shall suggest at least 200 flats for people of other age groups.

In the competition programme, a parallel pilot study is referred to as a source of knowledge with respect to housing preferences among senior citizens. However, when the competition programme is distributed the pilot study is not yet 90

architectural competitions – histories and practice

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

complete, and only preliminary results are included as an appendix (the report was finalized in January 2012). Therefore, the competition programme has little information about housing preferences among the senior part of the local population.

The architects’ understanding of the competition programme In this competition, the organizer selected three versatile architects’ firms, two firms based in nearby Malmö and known by the municipality (Architects’ team 1 and 3), and one firm with its head-office in Stockholm and a local office in Malmö (Architects’ team 2). The participating architects had few objections to the competition programme, and few questions were raised. One of the participating architects suggests that the programme was an optimal version of a programme, whilst another participant makes some remarks about the unclear definition of the design task. For this person, the true meaning of the design task becomes clear first in the jury assessment report. Only 6 questions were formulated by one of the competing architects’ team (Architects’ team 3), but these mainly referred to missing documents that the organizer omitted to send out as promised at the opening meeting the 14 December 2011.

The time for addressing questions on the programme was set to two months. For all of the participating architects, the design question was mainly active on an urban level, and it involves housing preferences and age integration. However, the architects did find the focus on older people rather odd.

The SIAT arranged a special meeting in the municipality to address these questions. Representatives from all firms participated, and for those, who represented a collaborative level in the project, the meeting was informative.

However, participants on a responsible level in the project suggested that this meeting added new parameters to the competition programme which they found obstructive. The competition period was 4.5 months, from the 6 December 2011 to 17 April 2012.

The design task and its realization in three competition proposals The participating architects’ teams like the jury in this competition reached the conclusion that older people are not definable as a homogenous group of people with identical needs and similar housing preferences. Instead, as the jury assessment report states, the perceived attractiveness of a particular type of housing is a type of universal design that focuses on “classical values for appropriate architectural competitions – histories and practice

91

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

housing like light penetration, choice of materials, furnishing possibilities and views to the exterior space” (Hjälpmedelsinstitutet_HI, 2012, p. 6).

However, and the architects and jury are in agreement in this matter, the design task for this competition has mainly been active on an urban level, on the level of structuring the built environment around the Kronetorp Manor estate, and therefore several aspects of interest for the governmental programme have not been activated in the competition. Nonetheless, the architects maintain that this focus has drawn extra attention to the issue of how to create an accessible and usable environment for people with cognitive or functional impairments. In this competition, the submitted competition proposals bear witness to the different ways in which the competing architects have read the programme. If the introductory section of the competition programme is included in the interpretation of the competition task, the submitted proposals describe three approaches towards the manor and its outbuildings considering the time factor; see figure 8: 1) the manor and the outbuildings as focal point for a new housing district that will be realized in the near future (Architects’ team 2); 2) the manor and the outbuildings as remains from the previous agricultural landscape in the near future (Architects’ team 3); 3) the manor and the outbuildings as remains in an urban landscape in a future oriented perspective (Architects’ team 1).

Discussion The present study has focused on the three architecture competitions that were realized within the governmental programme Growing older – Living well (Regeringskansliet, 2010). Placed in a global context, this study is consistent with previous studies on architecture competitions in the sense that the competition documentation demonstrates the essential components of the current ideological paradigm concerning architectonic ideals and the contemporary dialogue about architecture (Bloxham Zettersten, 2007; Rustad, 2009; Tostrup, 1999). The special interest in this study has been the correlation between the requirements specified in the competition documentation and their realization as design parameters in the submitted competition proposals. As demonstrated by the proposals that have been conceived by eleven versatile architects’ offices, the architectural space is an outcome of how the architects have understood the competition programme. In that respect, the competition realized in the 92

architectural competitions – histories and practice

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

Left: The manor and the outbuildings as remains of the previous agricultural landscape in a near future. (Architects’ team 2 and winner).

The manor and the outbuildings as remains of the previous The manor and the outbuildings as remains agricultural landscape in an urban landscape in a future of the previous agricultural landscape in a near future. (Architects’ team 3). oriented perspective. (Architects’ team 1).

Figure 8. Overview of the three competition proposals in the architecture competition in Burlöv, arranged in the three identified categories.

municipality of Burlöv is the most interesting one, since their difference in outcome can be linked to the unclear definition of the design task: Two competing teams have focused on the section that is headed by this word, while the third has conducted a comprehensive reading of the whole document and realized that the organizer’s understanding of the design task is found in the very beginning of the document and under another headline.

What could be considered to be a disappointing outcome of the competition is the feeble bearing on what could be described as the key element in the Swedish architectural competitions – histories and practice

93

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

governmental investment in the project: The three realized architectural competitions demonstrate a poor interest in housing preferences concerning the ageing generation. This outcome seems related to the overall time schedule for the programme, which has resulted in a time efficient process that has not allowed for a methodical exploring of issues of relevance for the ageing population by the municipal organizer. However, this dilemma has been revealed by the competition juries who suggest that the senior group of the population cannot be considered as a homogenous group of people with similar needs and preferences. In that sense, the realized competitions add power to the understanding that age cannot be used as a parameter to define people: ageing is a prerequisite in living, to earn new experiences in order to complete an individual life story (Cortina_Orts, 2012; Messy, 1992). The competitions demonstrate that architecture has a different pace of ageing than the human ageing process. Appropriate architecture can be seen as a built environment that is based on accumulated human experiences on what gives a feeling of being at ease and in peace: the daylight penetration, the dynamics between the exterior space and the interior one, and the contradiction between the private space and the communal one.

Seen as an entity, the three architecture competitions’ goal of spurring the production of new space especially for the ageing society may reflect a more severe critique of current trends in building. The three competitions suggest that future built space should exploit a closer fit between architecture and the potential user: there is a symbiotic relation between the individual process of making a home and the rational aspect of providing homes. The home is a psychological process of appropriating space and standing one’s ground (Lefebvre, 1985). In this context, the three competitions demonstrate the close relation between life and home architecture as a backdrop to life: Both competitions in Gävle and in Burlöv concern a home environment that has been appropriated and integrated in life for many years. In the case of Gävle, the competing architects pay little respect to this emotional connection that the residents enjoy in relation to their living environment. These proposals defy the principle of ageing in a familiar environment , whilst the competition in Burlöv is consistent with what many gerontologists have argued: a familiar environment is a vital component in a successful ageing process (Hurtig, Paulsson, & Schulz, 1981; Rowles, 1993, 2000). On the other hand, the second competition in Linköping describes an ageing-friendly ambition in the sense that both the organizer and the architects acknowledged the emotional connection to the built environment by integrating 94

architectural competitions – histories and practice

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

and opening the residential care home to the surrounding neighbourhood in a de-institutionalising ambition.

Concluding remarks The present study has focused on the three municipal architecture competitions that were realized in the three Swedish municipalities of Burlöv, Gävle and Linköping within the perimeters of the governmental programme. The common denominator between the three competitions resides in the requirements, stated in the competition documentation, and their implementation as design criteria in the eleven competition proposals that the participating architects submitted in response to the programming documents. This study demonstrates the fact that programming documents used within the field of architecture for ageing and eldercare generate spatial requirements for an overall high architectural quality and long-term performance, rather than an extended understanding of how to grow old in a care environment with respect to the WHO policy of active ageing (WHO, 2002).

Acknowledgement This study was funded by the Swedish Institute for Assistive Technology, SIAT, with the specific aim of evaluating the three architecture competitions that were realized within the governmental program “Growing older – Living well.” This study was realized in collaboration with associate professor Magnus Rönn, School of Architecture, Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, Stockholm.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

95

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

References AB_Gavlegårdarna, & Gävle_kommun. (2011). Arkitekttävlingen “Boinflytande för äldre i Gävle” Program för arkitekttävling. Almvägen i stadsdelen Fridhem, Gävle. In AB_Gavlegårdarna (Ed.). Gävle: AB Gavlegårdarna.

Andersson, J. E. (2009). Looking for Visionary Architecture. Architectural Critique as pedagogy for evaluation. Paper presented at the Architectural Criticism, Trondheim, NTNU. Andersson, J. E. (2011). Architecture and Ageing. On the interaction between frail older people and the built environment. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology, KTH. Bloxham Zettersten, G. (2007). Political behaviour and architectonic vision: Two Swedish/ Danish processes in comtemporary public architecture. Göteborg: Chalmers Tekniska Högskola.

Brummett, B. (2010). Techniques of close reading. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Burlövs_kommun. (2011). Arkitekttävling för bebyggelse av bostäder för äldre vid Kronetorps Gård i Burlövs kommun. (Dnr KS2011:55). In B. Kommun (Ed.). Burlöv: Burlövs kommun.

Cold, B., Dunin-Woyseth, H., & Sauge, B. (1992). Om arkitekturforskning og arkitekturforskningslandskapet i Norge 1992 (Appr. translation of the Norwegian title: On architectural research and the topography of architectural research in Norway) Nordisk Arkitekturforskning (Vol. 2, pp. pp. 8-19).

Cortina Orts, A. (2012). On ageing and ageing well. Fundación Caser and Fundación Pilares Madrid DEL. (2007). Bo för att leva. Seniorbostäder och trygghetsbostäder. Statens Offentliga Utredningar.

Stockholm: Äldreboendedelegationen (Delegation on Elderly Living).

DEL. (2008). Bo bra hela livet. Slutbetänkande. Statens Offentliga Utredningar, SOU. Stockholm: Äldreboendedelegationen (Delegation on Elderly Living).

Hjälpmedelsinstitutet_HI. (2012). Juryutlåtande Arkitekttävling: bebyggelse av bostäder för äldre vid Kronetorps gård i Burlövs kommun. Hjälpmedelsinstitutet:HI & Burlövs_kommun (Eds.). Stockholm: Sveriges Arkitekter.

Hurtig, E., Paulsson, J., & Schulz, S. (1981). En vill bo där en e´känd (One wants to live where one is known). Stockholm: Byggforskningsrådet.

Karlberg, M., & Mral, B. (2006). Heder och påverkan, att analysera modern retorik. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.

Lefebvre, H. (1985). La production de l’espace (4th Edition). Paris: Anthropos.

Linköpings_Kommun. (2011a). MAJELDEN. Inbjuden projekttävling om framtidens vårdbostäder i Linköping. Linköping: Linköpings kommun.

Linköpings_Kommun. (2011b). Vårdbostäder för äldre. Lokalprogram med generella, tekniska och rumsbundna krav. 2011-09-07. Rev. 2011-10-20. Linköping: Linköping kommun.

Messy, J. (1992). La personne âgée n’existe pas. Une approche psychanalytique de la vieillesse. Paris: Éditions Payot & Rivages SA. NBHBP. (2011). Information om investeringsstöd till äldrebostäder. Särskilda boendeformer för äldre. Trygghetsbostäder. (Information concerning subsidies for the construction of housing

96

architectural competitions – histories and practice

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation for older people, sheltered housing). Karlskrona: Boverket (National Board of Housing, Building and Planning).

NBHBP, & NBHW. (2004). Varför kan inte behovet av särskilda boendeformer tillgodoses? Stockholm: Boverket & Socialstyrelsen.

NBHW. (2008). Äldre - vård och omsorg år 2007 (Care and services to elderly persons 2007). Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen (National Board of Health and Welfare, NBHW).

OECD. (2005). Oslo Manual 2005. The measurement of scientific and technological activities.

Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data. Eurostat.

Regeringskansliet. (2010). Bo bra på äldre dar. (S2010/5354/ST). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet Retrieved from http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/12606/a/149831.

Rowles, G. (1993). Evolving images of place in aging and ‘aging in place’. Generations, 17, pp. 65-70.

Rowles, G. (2000). Habituation and being in place. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 20, pp. 52-67.

Rustad, R. (2009). “Hvad er tidsmessig arkitektur”. En undersoekelse av arkitekturens diskursive rammer gjennom tre arkitektkonkurranser og tre tidssnitt. Trondheim: Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet, NTNU. SGO. (2010). Bo bra på äldre dar (Growing older – living well). (S2010/5354/ST). Stockholm: Swedish Governmental Offices, SGO Retrieved from http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/12606/a/149831.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.

Tostrup, E. (1999). Architecture and Rhetoric. Text and Design in Architectural Competitions, Oslo 19391997. London: Andreas Papadakis Publisher Ltd. WHO. (2002). Active Ageing, a Policy Framework, (2008-03-15) Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research, Design and Methods (Third edition). Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

97

98

Eachparticipating participating Each teamofofarchitects architects team received:150,000 150,000 received: SEK. SEK.

Typeofofarchitecture architecture Type competition: competition: Invitedarchitecture architecture Invited competitionwith withpreprecompetition qualificationproceprocequalification dure. dure.

Organizer: Organizer: ABGavlegårdarna Gavlegårdarna AB (municipalreal realestate estate (municipal company). company).

Architecture Architecturecompeticompetition tion"User "Userinvolvement involvement ofofolder olderpeople peopleinin Gävle,"programme programmefor for Gävle," architecturecompeticompetiarchitecture tionElm ElmStreet Street(Alm(Almtion vägen),district districtFridFridvägen), hem,Gävle.

Gävle. hem,

Meansfor forArchiArchiMeans tecturecompeticompetitecture tion: tion: SEK1,100,000.

1,100,000.

SEK

Means Meansfor forpilot pilot study: study: SEK SEK300 300000.

000.

Closingreport reportin in Closing April2011.

2011.

April

Timetable: table: Time May-Oct2011.

2011.

May-Oct

Thestudy studyaimed aimedat at The involvingtenants tenantsin in involving theproject, project,and andat at the elucidatinguseruserelucidating basedmatters mattersin in based relationto tothe the built built relation environment. environment.

YES: YES:pilot pilotstudy study "User "Userinvolvement involvementof of older olderpeople peoplein in Gävle" Gävle"with withspecial special coordinator. coordinator.

Competition Competition secretary: secretary: Representative Representative of of Swedish Swedish Architects' Architects' Association, Association, SAA. SAA.

Competition Competition secresecretary tary and and competition competition functionary functionary

10 (32) 9 (32)

Jury Assessment Assessment Jury period: 18 18 Jan-14 Jan-14 Mar, Mar, period: 2012.

2012.

Closing of of competition/ competition/ Closing announcement of of announcement winner: 14 14 Mar, Mar, 2012.

2012. winner:

Submission date date of of Submission competition proposals: proposals: competition 18 Jan, Jan, 2012.

2012.

18

Questions on on competicompetiQuestions tion programme, programme, anantion swerperiod: period: 10 10 Nov. Nov. -swer 14 Nov., Nov., 2011.

2011.

14

Separate SIAT SIAT meetmeetSeparate ing Sundbyberg: Sundbyberg: 33 ing Dec,2011.

2011.

Dec,

Opening meeting meeting for for Opening teams of of architects architects teams and jury jury members: members: 11 11 and Oct,2011.

2011.

Oct,

Announcement of of Announcement selected architects' architects' selected Competition functionfunctionCompetition team:15 15 Sep, Sep, 2011.

2011. (4 (4 team: ary: ary: architecture teams teams out out architecture Representative of of local local Representative of36 36 interested). interested). of architects' firm. firm. architects' Distribution of of competicompetiDistribution tion programme: programme: 10 10 tion Oct,2011.

2011.

Oct,

Invitation Invitation to to participarticipate: pate:15 15 June June –– 19 19 Aug Aug 2011.

2011.

Architecture Architecturecompecompe- Amount Amountof ofalloallo- Preparations Preparationsprior prior Timetable Timetable for for the the titions cated titions catedmeans meansby by to tothe therealization realizationof of architecture architecture competicompetithe the tion theSIAT SIAT thecompetition competition tion

Architects' team Architects' 4: Nyréns Nyréns 4: Arkitektkontor Arkitektkontor AB, Stockholm, Stockholm, AB, Sweden.

Sweden.

Architects' team 3: Architects' RB Rahel Rahel BeRB latchew Arkitektur Arkitektur latchew AB samt samt Urbio Urbio AB, AB Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden; den;

Architects' team 2: Architects' White Arkitekter Arkitekter White AB, Göteborg, Göteborg, AB, Sweden; Sweden;

Architects' Architects' team 1: Basark Basark arkitekter arkitekter AB, AB, Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden; Sweden;

team team in in bold) bold)

Participating Participating architects architects (winning (winning

Architects' team 3: 6 questions;

Architects' team 2: 6 questions;

Architects' team 1: 3 questions;

Interrogatory actor concerning questions

During the competition period, 24 additional questions were addressed to the competition functionary in relation to the competition task and the competition programme.

This opening meeting Architects' team 4: ended with a visit to the competition site for 9 questions. all participants in the meeting (representatives of the organizer, the jury, and the participating architects' team).

At the opening meeting, some 10 questions were formulated concerning the competition task and the wording in the competition programme.

Questions on the competition task

Table 4. Overview of theofthree architecture competitions that were organized in theinmunicipalities of Burlöv, GävleGävle and Linköping, and partly financed by means allocated Appendix A. Overview the three architecture competitions that were organized the municipalities of Burlöv, and Linköping, and partly financed by means alloby the Swedish governmental programme “Growing older –older Living well”. well”. cated by the Swedish governmental programme “Growing – Living

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

architectural competitions – histories and practice

Each participating team of architects received: SEK 200,000.

Invited architecture competition with prequalification procedure.

Type of architecture competition:

Organizer: the Municipality of Linköping.

Architecture competition "Walpurgis Night (MAJELDEN), invited project competition concerning a future oriented block of flats with diurnal professional care and caring"

Architecture competitions

Means for Architecture competition: SEK 1,100, 000.

NOT APPLIED FOR, 0 SEK.

Means for pilot study:

From this date, this documentation has been in regular use, and undergone regular updates, the latest one on 7 Sep, 2011.

The original documentation was ela-borated in 1995, and in close collaboration with the eldercare administration and the local senior council.

A municipal tendering documentation from 1995 served as first outline that was revised in a referential procedure that took place among the municipal administrations, involved in the project.

NO:

Amount of Preparations prior allocated means to the realization of by the SIAT the competition

architectural competitions – histories and practice .

Closing of competition/ announcement of winner: 25 Apr, 2012

Jury assessment period: 15 Mar-25 Apr, 2012.

Submission date of competition proposals: 15 Mar, 2012.

Questions on competition programme, answer period: 3 Nov, 2011-15 Feb, 2012.

Separate SIAT meeting Sundbyberg: 13 Feb, 2012.

Opening meeting for teams of architects and jury members: 1 Dec, 2011,

Distribution of competition programme: 3 Nov, 2011.

Competition functionary: Representative of, the Municipality of Linköping.

Competition secretary: Representative of Swedish Architects' Association, SAA.

Invitation to participate: 21 Aug – 5 Oct, 2011.

Announcement of selected architects' team: 1 Nov, 2011.

(4 architecture teams out of 33 interested).

Competition secretary and competition functionary

Timetable for the architecture competition

Architects' team 8: Semrén+Månsson arkitekter AB, Stockholm, Sweden and Rubow Arkitekter A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Architects' team 7: MARGE Arkitekter AB samt Land Arkitektur AB, Stockholm, Sweden;

Architects' team 6: Fojab Arkitekter AB, Malmö, Sweden, samt JJW Arkitekter AB, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Architects' team 5: MAF arkitekter AB samt Argark AB, Stockholm, Sweden;

Participating

architects (winning team in bold)

During the competition period, 9 additional questions were addressed to the competition functionary in relation to the competition task and the competition programme.

The opening meeting ended with a visit at the competition site for all participants in the meeting.

Therefore, the number of questions formulated during this meeting has not been possible to establish.

No notes were taken during the opening meeting.

Questions on the competition task

Architects' team 8: 9 questions.

Interrogatory actor concerning questions

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

99

100

Each participating team of architects received: SEK 300,000.

Type of architecture competition: Invited architecture competition with prequalification procedure.

Organizer: the Municipality of Burlöv.

Architecture competition "New built environment for older people in the proximity of the Kronetorp Manor, the municipality of Burlöv."

Architecture competitions

Means for Architecture competition: SEK 1,100, 000.

Means for pilot study: SEK 500 000.

Closing report in April 2012.

Time table: Sept 2011 to Jan 2012.

The project was realized as a special study by the local eldercare administration.

YES: The pilot study "Future oriented housing for older people" with external coordinator.

Amount of Preparations prior allocated means to the realization of by the SIAT the competition

Closing of competition/ announcement of winner: 20 Jun, 2012.

Jury assessment period: 17 Apr-20 Jun, 2012.

Submission date of competition proposals: 17 Apr, 2012.

Questions on competition programme, answer period: 5 Dec, 201114 Feb, 2012.

Separate SIAT meeting Burlöv: 27 Mar, 2012.

Opening meeting for teams of architects and jury members: 14 Dec, 2011.

Distribution of competition programme: 5 Dec, 2011.

Architects' team 11: Chroma Arkitekter AB och Tema landskapsarkitekter AB, Malmö, Sweden.

Architects' team 10: Johan Celsing Arkitektkontor AB, Malmö/ Stockholm, Sweden;

Competition functionary: Representative of City Planning Office, the Municipality of Burlöv.

Announcement of selected architects' team: 5 Dec, 2011.

(3 architecture teams out of 52 interested).

Architects' team 9: White arkitekter AB, Malmö, Sweden;

Competition secretary: Representative of Swedish Architects' Association, SAA.

Invitation to participate: 26 Sep-21 Nov, 2011.

Participating

architects (winning team in bold)

Competition secretary and competition functionary

Timetable for the architecture competition

During the competition period, 5 additional questions were addressed to the competition functionary in relation to the competition task and the competition programme.

The opening meeting ended with a visit at the competition site for all participants in the meeting.

Therefore, the number of questions formulated during this meeting has not been possible to establish.

No notes were taken during the opening meeting.

Questions on the competition task

Architects' team 11: 5 questions (the five questions generated one additional question on the answers that were given).

Interrogatory actor concerning questions

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

architectural competitions – histories and practice

Architecture competition forfor architecture competition Elm Street (Almvägen), town district Architecture competition"User "Userinvolvement involvementofofolder olderpeople peopleininGävle," Gävle,"programme programme architecture competition Elm Street (Almvägen), town district Fridhem, Gävle.

Fridhem, Gävle. Organizer: Organizer:AB ABGavlegårdarna Gavlegårdarna(municipal (municipalreal realestate estatecompany). company).

architectural competitions – histories and practice

Living on the bright side

rooms, but in some cases theLiving space onisthe toobright side

the central tower building that is assessed houses.

However, this supposes the central houses.

However, supposes central as toobuilding imposing in its current architecture. tower isthis assessed as the too imA proposal thatthat represents aArchitects' fortune tower building that is assessed as too team im- 1: posing in its current architecture. solution of the problems at stake, Basark and arkitekter that AB, posing in its current architecture. to a high extent allows a conservation Stockholm, ofSweden existing houses. However, this supposes Architects' team 2: This proposal is based upon an idea of 1 Happy continuation the central tower building thatHappy is assessed continuation White Arkitekter housing in various sizes.

Different Architects' team AB, 2: This proposal is in based upon an idea of 1 (God fortsättning) as too imposing its current (God architecture. fortsättning) Göteborg, Sweden combinations ofishouseholds may Architects' team AB, 2: This proposal based an idea of 1 White Arkitekter housing in various sizes.upon Different combinacomplement one another inDifferent this layout of White Arkitekter AB, housing in various sizes. combinaGöteborg, Sweden tions of households may complement one Park living Sweden (Parkliv) the building.

The proposal has a clearThe Göteborg, tions of in households may one another this layout of thecomplement building. structure with blocks that allows a another in this layout of the building.

Park living team (Parkliv) proposal has aopen structure with open Architects' 2: This proposal isclear based upon Architects' an idea ofThe team 2:1 smaller proportion the existing park to Park (Parkliv) proposal a clear structure with open blocks that allows aof smaller proportion of be AB, Whiteliving Arkitekter AB, housing inhas various sizes.

Different White Arkitekter kept butthat the park creation of small and intimate blocks allows a smaller proportion of the existing to be kept but the creation Göteborg, Sweden combinations of households Göteborg, may Sweden court yards between the buildings.

This of small and intimate court between the existing park to be kept but layout the creation complement one another inyards this of proposal incarnates thecourt largest change from the buildings.

Thisproposal proposal incarnates the of small and intimate yards between Park living (Parkliv) the building.

The has Park a clear living (Parkliv) the conditions, it constitutes a largest change fromblocks thebut existing conditions, theexisting buildings.

This proposal structure with open thatincarnates allows a the solution that could be the realized time. but it constitutes a of solution thatover could be largest change from existing conditions, smaller proportion the existing park to be realized over time. but itbut constitutes a solution be kept the creation of smallthat andcould intimate Architects' team 3: RB This proposal has larger realized over time.somewhat court yards between the buildings. This Rahel Belatchew buildings in thehas north, and smaller buildings Architects' team 3: RB This proposal somewhat larger buildproposal incarnates the largest change from Arkitektur AB and3:Urbio to theinproposal south.

Approximately half the number Rahel Belatchew the north, and smaller buildings toa Architects' team RB ings This has somewhat larger buildthe existing conditions, but it constitutes AB, Stockholm, of the buildingssmaller ishalf left the but in Arkitektur AB and Urbio the south.

Approximately number Rahel Belatchew ings inexisting the north, buildings solution that couldand be realized over time. toof Sweden. refurbished and extended (…)

The of AB, Stockholm, Swebuildings is leftversion. but the in refurArkitektur AB and Urbio the theexisting south. Approximately half number large central building has large and den. bished and extended version. (…) large AB, Stockholm, the existing buildings is left but in The refurArchitects' team Swe3: RB This proposal has somewhat Architects' larger team 3: RB Golden days (Gyllene spacious stairwells might create a new central hasthat large and spacious den. bishedbuilding and extended version. (…)buildings The large Rahel Belatchew buildings in the north, and smaller Rahel Belatchew tider) days (Gyllene use for social meetings.

Thea large glazed Golden thatApproximately might new use for central building hascreate large and spacious Arkitektur AB and Urbio stairwells to the south. half Arkitektur the number AB and Urbio sections of the facade can install a tider) social meetings.

The large glazed sections AB, Stockholm, of the existing is left AB, Stockholm, in Golden days (Gyllene stairwells thatbuildings might create a but new use for sensation of vertigo, especially among of the facade canextended install a sensation of The Sweden. refurbished and version.

Sweden. (…) tider) social meetings.

The large glazed sections people with cognitive or functional vertigo, especially people with of coglarge building has alarge and of thecentral facade can among install sensation impairments. nitive or functional impairments.

Golden days (Gyllene spacious stairwells that might Golden create days a new (Gyllene vertigo, especially among people with cogtider) use foror social meetings.

The tider) large glazed nitive functional impairments.

Architects' team 4: This is a structured and well organized sections of the facade can install a Nyréns Arkitektkontor proposal with a good eye for a feasible sensation of vertigo, especially among AB, Stockholm, building scale and adjustment to the people with cognitive or functional Sweden existing environment. In general, the flats impairments. are well organized with reasonably large Living on the bright side rooms, but in some cases the space is too Architects' team 4: This is a structured and well Architects' organized team 4: of life (Livet från den condensed. flats eye havefor nice viewsArkitektkontor and Nyréns Arkitektkontor proposal withThe a good Nyréns a feasible ljusa sidan) they have an easy access toAB, the outside AB, Stockholm, building scale and adjustment to the Stockholm, through balconies or terraces, which both Sweden existing environment.

In general, Sweden the in flats cases are easy to furnish. are well organized with reasonably large

(God fortsättning) Happy continuation Architects' team 1: Happy continuation (God fortsättning) Basark arkitekter AB, (God fortsättning) Stockholm, Sweden

Happy continuation

Existing Kitchen row open houses to livingare room kept space with a second floor added, new building at the edge of the park

New Kitchen buildings open replace to livingentirel room the space existing buildings at th edge of the park

Renovation Hallway andof the kitchen existing open rot houses living room with some replacin new buildings facing the park

New Kitchen buildings open replace to livingthe room existing space ones hallways sunny locations only, shape space for and additional bathroom accessible kitchen and new built spac from bedroom socializing in the park

complement shape one another in this and layout additional of hallways complement shape one space another for inand this additional layout of the building. The proposal has new Park a clear built living space (Parkliv) the building. The kitchen proposal andhas newabuilt clearspace structure with open blocks that in the allows parka structure with open socializing blocks that in the allows park a smaller proportion of the existing park to be smaller proportion of the existing park to be kept but the creation of small and intimate kept but the creation of small and intimate 1 Renovation of Bedroom, Hallway and Flats oriented in 2-3 court yards between the buildings. This court yards between the buildings. This the existing of row bathroom kitchen open to cardinal directions, 1 Renovation Hallway and proposal incarnates the largest change from Bedroom,proposal incarnates the largest change from Flats oriented in 2-3 houses with rowof bathroom andBedroom, living room bathroom accessible existing openaand to cardinal 1 Renovation Hallway Flatsdirections, oriented in 2-3 the existing conditions, but itthe constitutes a the existing conditions, but it kitchen constitutes some hallways from hallway houses with rowand hall- solution that could be realizedliving room accessible the replacing existing bathroom kitchen to cardinal directions, solution that could be realized over time. over time. open bathroom new buildings some replacing hallway accessible houses with ways and hallliving room frombathroom facing thereplacing park buildings some ways This hallway This 1 proposal has somewhatnew Renovation larger Architects' of team 3: Bedroom, RB 1 proposal has somewhat Renovation Hallway larger and of Bedroom, Flatsfrom oriented 1 in 2-3 facing the park new buildings buildings in the north, and smaller the Rahel existing buildings Belatchew row bathroombuildings in the north, and smaller the kitchen existing buildings open rowto bathroom cardinal directions, facing theAB park to the south. Approximately half houses Arkitektur the number with andand Urbio to the south. Approximatelyhouses half living theroom with number and bathroom accessible of the existing buildings is leftsome AB, but in Stockholm, replacing hallways of the existing buildings is left some but replacing in hallways from hallway refurbished and extended version. new Sweden. buildings (…) The refurbished and extended version. new buildings (…) The large central building has large facing andthe park large central building has large facing and the park spacious stairwells that might Golden create adays new(Gyllene spacious stairwells that might create a new use for social meetings. The large tider)glazed use for social meetings. The large glazed 1 Slender two New buildings Bedroom, Extra Kitchen open Flats oriented in 2-3 sections of the facade can install a sections of the facade can install a storey buildings replace entirely bathroom space on to living room cardinal directions, sensation of vertigo, especially among sensation of vertigo, especially among with attic floor the existing and attic floor space bathroom accessible people with cognitive or functional people with cognitive or functional (three storeys buildings at the hallways from hallway impairments. impairments. to the park) edge of the park This 1 is a structured Slender two and well New Architects' buildingsteamBedroom, 4: This 1 is a structured Slender Extra two and wellNew organized Kitchen buildings open Bedroom, Flats oriented 1 in 2-3 Slender Extra two 13 (32) organized proposal with storey a good buildings eye forreplace aNyréns feasible entirely Arkitektkontor bathroomproposal with storey aspace good buildings eye on for replace to a feasible living entirely room bathroom cardinal directions,storey space buildings on building scale withand attic14 adjustment floor AB, toexisting the Stockholm, and building scale with attic and atticadjustment floor floor the space to existing the and bathroom accessible with attic floor (32) the existing environment. (three storeys In general, buildings Sweden the flats at the hallways existing environment. (three storeys In general, buildings the at flats the hallways from hallway (three storeys are well organized to the park) with reasonably edge oflarge the are well organized to the park) with reasonably edge of large the to the park) rooms, but in some cases the park Living spaceon is too the bright side rooms, but in some cases the park space is too

new 4-5 and storey added, new kitchenfor and houses, a second floor ways space from hallway houses, and a building second ways space for from hallway tower building at floor the socializing 4-5 storey new kitchen A1 proposalnew An that extra represents floor is aadded, Existing fortune Architects' row team 1: Bedroom,A1proposal Anthat extra Bedroom represents floor and isin a Existing Kitchen fortunerow open Bedroom, Flats oriented 1 in 2-3 An extra Bedroom floor is in new 4-5 storey building added, new kitchen and edge of the tower building at the socializing solution of added the problems to the at stake, houses Basark and are arkitekter that bathroom AB, solution ofadded the problems studio to theflat,at stake, houses to living and are room that bathroom cardinal directions,added studio to the flat, tower building edge building at the socializing park of the to a high extent existing allows row a conservation kept Stockholm, with aof Sweden and to a high extent existing open allows rowto a conservation kept space with a of and bathroom accessible existing open row to edge of the park existing houses. houses, However, and a this second supposes floor hallways existing houses. houses, space However, andfor a this second supposes floor hallways from hallway houses, space and fora park Row houses in New buildings Bedroom, Bedroom in Kitchen open Flats oriented in 2-3 the centralnew tower 4-5 building storey that added, Happy is assessed new continuation the centralnew tower 4-5 kitchen building storey andthat added, is assessed new new kitchen 4-5 storey and threehouses floors inin New replace the bathroom studio flat,in Kitchen to living open room cardinal directions, Row buildings Bedroom, Flats oriented in 2-3 as too imposing tower in building its currentbuilding architecture.

(God fortsättning) at the as too imposing tower Bedroom socializing building in its current building architecture. at the towersocializing building anRow angular existing ones andBedroom, open toflat, in space some smaller flats in 2-3 houses New buildings Bedroom Kitchen open cardinal Flats oriented three floors in in replace bathroom studio to living room directions, edge of the the edge of the shape and additional hallways space sunny locations only, three floors in existing replace the bathroom studio to living roomsome cardinal directions, an angular ones and hallopen tofor flat, space smaller flats in park park new built space kitchen and bathroom accessible an angular existing ones ways and hallopen to space some smaller flats in shape and additional space for sunny locations only, in the park socializing fromsunny bedroom shape and additional ways space for locations only, new built space kitchen and bathroom accessible This proposal Rowishouses based upon in New an Architects' idea buildings of team 2: 1 Bedroom,This proposal Row is houses Bedroom basedinupon in New Kitchen an idea buildings of open Bedroom, 1 Flats oriented in 2-3 Row Bedroom houses inin newpark built kitchen and bathroom accessible in the socializing from bedroom housing in three various floors sizes. in Different replace White Arkitekter the spaceAB, bathroomhousing inthree various floors studio sizes. in flat,Different replace to living the room bathroom cardinal directions, threestudio floorsflat, in in the park socializing from bedroom combinations an angular of households existing may Göteborg, ones Sweden and combinations an angular ofopen households to existing may space ones and some smaller flats in an angular open to

Participating Characterization of the proposal Urban level Analysis of built space (individual flat/ Other comments Participating archiCharacterization of the Table proposal Urban level Analysis built space (individual flat/three architecture Other comments architects (winning from the jury proposals report communal space) Table 5. Overview of the submitted the5.three Overview architecture of the submitted competitions. proposals in Table the three 5. Overview architecture of theof competitions. submitted proposals in the Participating archiCharacterization of the in proposal Urban level Analysis of built space (individual flat/ Other competitions. comments

team (winning in bold style) tects team from the jury report space) niche closed open building integration in communal cell corridor Multi-purpose tects (winningcompetition team from the jury involvement report Architecture communal space) Architecture "User of older people competition in Gävle," "User programme involvement Architecture for of architecture older people competition competition in Gävle," "User programme Elm involvement Street (Almvägen), for of architecture older town people competition district in Gävle,"Elm programme Street (Almvägen for archit in bold style) block block building typologytythe space closed open integration in cell corridor niche Multi-purpose in bold style) closed open building tyintegration in cell corridor niche Multi-purpose Fridhem, Gävle. Organizer: AB Gavlegårdarna Fridhem, (municipal Gävle.

Organizer: real block estatepology AB company).

Gavlegårdarna Fridhem, (municipal Gävle. real Organizer: estate company).

AB Gavlegårdarna surroundings block the surroundspace (municipal real estate company). block block pology the surroundspace Participating Characterization of the proposal Participating Urban level Characterization of the proposal Participating Urban Analysis level Characterization of built space (individual of the proposal flat/ Analysis Urban Other level comments of built space (individual flat/ ings ings row (winning architectsteam (winning from the jury report aarchitects (winning from jury report architects communal from space) the juryBedroom report in Kitchen open communal space) Architects' 1: A proposal that represents fortune 1 the An extra floor is Existing Bedroom, Flats oriented in 2-3 Basark solution of the at stake, and that style) added to floor the is Existing houses bathroom studio to living open room cardinal directions, team inarkitekter bold insolubold team are in bold closed 1open An building integration in style) closed cell open corridor building niche flat,in integration Multi-purpose in cell closed open corridor building niche integration Multi-purpos in Architects' teamstyle) 1:AB, A proposal thatproblems represents a team fortune extra row Bedroom, Bedroom Kitchen Flats oriented in 2-3 Architects' team 1: A aproposal thatallows represents aand fortune 1 An extra floor is Existing row Bedroom, Bedroom in Kitchen open Flats oriented in 2-3 Stockholm, Sweden to high a conservation of existing row kept with a and open to space bathroom accessible Basark arkitekter AB, tion of theextent problems at stake, that soluto a added to the houses are bathroom studio flat, to living room cardinal directions, block block typology the block block typology the space block block typology the space Basark arkitekter AB, tion extent of the problems at stake, to a addedrow to the houses bathroom studio to living roombathroom directions, existing houses. this and supposes houses, and a second hallways space fromcardinal hallway Stockholm, Sweden high allowsHowever, a conservation ofthat existing existing kept withfloor aare and hallopen tofor flat, space accessible surroundings surroundings surroundings Stockholm, Sweden high extent allows a conservation of existing existing row kept with a and hallopen to space bathroom accessible

Table 4.

5. Overview of the submitted proposals in the three architecture competitions competitions. in the sample.

Appendix B. Overview of the submitted proposals in the three architecture competitions in the sample.

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

101

102

The proposal has a clear design with three 1 independent buildings around a protected court yard. The buildings are well integrated in the topography, and the building scale is agreeable thanks to this design, but even individually, each building is elegantly smallscaled.

This proposal is beautifully integrated in topography and the surrounding buildings.

The discrete architecture has an appropriate level of building performance, with a spatially well-designed interior space for dining and socializing. The flats are

Architects' team 7: MARGE Arkitekter AB and Land Arkitektur AB, Stockholm, Sweden.

Home sweet home (Hem ljuva hem)

Gunborg (Gunborg)

Architects' team 6: Fojab Arkitekter AB, Malmö, Sweden and JJW Arkitekter A/s, Copenhagen, Denmark.

1

closed block

1

1

open block

Urban level

This is a solitary building with a little impact on nature. The concept for the proposal is well organized. It is easily integrated in the area, but it creates a new and positive character. The distance to the other existing buildings is respectful, and contributes to a feeling of openness around the building.

However, despite the more condensed architectural shape, this proposal will be too invasive for the existing built environment.

Characterization of the proposal from the jury report

Architects' team 5: MAF arkitekter AB and Argark AB, Stockholm, Sweden.

Participating architects (winning team in bold style)

two separate buildings in 2-3 storeys

Three separate buildings in 1-2 storeys

A four storey tower building with basement

building typology

free integration at the edge of the small wood

Free localisation in the landscape and a protected outdoor space is created between the buildings

Free localisation in the topography

integration in the surroundings

Flat: hallway

Flat: hallway

Bathroom Flat: in flat. hallway Communal space: dining space

Bathroom in the flat.

Bathroom in the flat.

corridor

Small niche in front of entrance to individual flat

niche

Flat: bedroom and kitchen open to living room

Flat: bedroom and kitchen open to living room.

Communal: open connection between kitchen and living room, 2 terraces, fire place

Flat: bedroom and kitchen open to living room.

Communal space: open connection between kitchen and living room and a central (dark) space without clear use, 2 balconies, fire place

multipurpose space

Analysis of built space (individual flat/ communal space)

cell

Flats oriented in sunny or cold orientations, bathrooms accessible from hallway, kitchenette

Flats oriented in sunny or cold orientations, bathrooms accessible from hallway, kitchenette in hallway. Only studio flats, but in reversed location possible to combine for two person use.

Daylight openings in the roof on the upper floor. Risk for glare, reflexions because of large glazed sections. Terraces

Flats oriented in sunny or cold orientations, bathrooms accessible from hallway, kitchenette in hallway. Only studio flats, no two person flats. Risk for glare, reflexions because of large glazed sections. Spa section and terraces

Other comments

Architecture competition "Walpurgis Night (MAJELDEN), invited project competition concerning a future oriented block of flats with diurnal professional care and caring" Organizer: the Municipality of Linköping.

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

architectural competitions – histories and practice

This is a well-designed proposal adjusted to the existing buildings. The court for entering the building is withdrawn. It is nicely proportioned but somewhat remote. This location gives an impression that the residential care home withdraws from the area. The green court for entering the building interacts with one of the facade of one of the existing buildings (...).

Architects' team 8: Semrén+Månsson arkitekter AB, Stockholm, Sweden and Rubow Arkitekter A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Space for life - space for scenery (Livsrum landskapsrum)

nicely organized around this communal space. Each flat has an individual balcony, a nice quality for the older residents.

In harmony with nature (Ett med naturen)

x

x

Four separate buildings in 2-3 storeys Buildings arranged freely in nature but in a way that creates a protected outdoor room between the buildings, but relating to the existing built space Flat: Flat: bathroom hallway and bedroom in flat for 2 persons.

Communal space: space for dining is separated from social space for socializing with space for laundry and storage room

separated from social space with space for laundry, storage.

Small niche in front of entrance to individual flat

Flat: bedroom and kitchen open to living room.

Communal: open connection between kitchen and space for dining and socializing, terraces.

Daylight openings in the roof on the upper floor. Risk for glare, reflexions because of large glazed sections. Spa space and terraces

Flats oriented in sunny or cold orientations, bathrooms accessible from hallway, kitchenette in hallway. Studio flats and two person flats.

in hallway. Only studio flats, but in reversed location possible to combine for two person use.

Daylight openings in the roof on the upper floor. Risk for glare, reflexions because of large glazed sections. Spa space and terraces

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

architectural competitions – histories and practice

103

104 1

1

1

closed block

1

open block

Urban level

4 storey buildings with balconies for communication (sound barriers), detached buildings in 2 storeys with 23 flats

Slender buildings in 3-4 storeys

3-4 storey buildings (slender and tower buildings), 2-3 storey row houses

building typology

!integrated in the landscape on a comprehensive level and interacting with visual landmarks in the context

Integrated in the built space that the manor, its outbuildings and other remains of the agrarian landscape constitute

Integrated in the surrounding build environment, however, not with the manor and its outbuildings, but with visual landmarks in the landscape

integration in the surroundings

Bedroom

Bedroom, living room and kitchen

Bedroom

Hallway and bathroo m

Hallway and bathroo m

Hallway, bathroo m and kitchen

corridor

niche

Kitchen open to living room space

Kitchen open to living room space

multipurpose space

Analysis of built space (individual flat/ communal space)

cell

Note: X refers to a single building that in the urban landscape lacks visible connections with the surrounding built environment or with the topography.

The green thread (Den gröna tråden)

Architects' team 11: Chroma Arkitekter AB and Tema landskapsarkitekter AB, Malmö, Sweden.

The gardens of Kronetorp Manor (Kronetorps trädgårdar)

The green structure that links the existing park at Svenshög via the Kronetorps Manor with the new park to the west of the road to the town Lund is the most evident asset of this proposal.

The gardens of Kronetorp are a welldesigned and sustainable proposal that emphasizes and reinforces the existing character around the old manor with its outbuildings. The proposed flats are of high architectural value and will suit all categories of residents.

Architects' team 10: Johan Celsing Arkitektkontor AB, Malmö/ Stockholm, Sweden.

Accept the situation (Gilla läget)

The proposal accept the situation is based on a general open block matrix that allows the creation of both integrated and varied housing set in a friendly urban environment.

Characterization of the proposal from the jury report

Architects' team 9: White arkitekter AB, Malmö, Sweden.

Participating architects (winning team in bold style)

Small flats in sunny orientation, or in two cardinal points, warm/ cold.

Bathroom accessible from hallway in small flats, but directly from bedroom in large flat

Small flats in sunny orientation, or in two cardinal points, warm/ cold.

Bathroom accessible from hallway in small flats, while bathroom located between two bedrooms in different sizes.

Small flats in sunny orientation, or in two cardinal points, warm/ cold.

Bathroom accessible from hallway.

Other comments

Architecture competition "New housing district for older people in the proximity of the Kronetorp Manor, the municipality of Burlöv." Organizer: the Municipality of Burlöv.

jonas e andersson: architecture for the “silvering” generation

architectural competitions – histories and practice

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

Abstract This article presents results from a study of prequalification in architectural competitions for senior citizen housing. The aim is to develop knowledge of how the organizer appoints candidates to restricted competitions. Prequalification is a selection procedure used early in the competition process to identify suitable candidates for the following design phase. Three to four teams have in this study been invited to develop design proposals. The overall research question is to understand how organizers select design teams for competitions aimed at developing innovative design solutions on housing for elderly persons in an aging society.

The methodology includes an inventory of competitions, case studies, document review and interviews with key persons. Three municipal competitions have been examined. In these competitions 10 informants have reported their experiences of prequalification. They responded to an interview guide with questions on the background of the competition, development of the invitation, and the need for information about the candidates, assessment process and experience from the selection of design teams.

The invitation emerges during negotiation at the organizing body, which includes discussion with the Swedish Association of Architects and the Swedish Institute of Assistive Technology, who provided economical support for the competitions. General conditions, submission requirements and criteria for the evaluation of applications are parts of an established practice. The assessment procedure has two distinct stages. First the selection committee checks whether applications meet the specific “must requirements” in the invitation. Thereafter follows an evaluative assessment of the candidate’s professional profile. Reference projects are important in this final stage. From the study ten general conclusions can be drawn regarding the influence on the competition by the organizer, the Swedish Association of Architects and the Swedish Institute of Assistive Technology, starting with the decision to organize a competition and ending with how the selection committees experienced the prequalification.

Key words: prequalification, invitation, selection, architectural competition, organizer.

Contact: Magnus Rönn, Associate Professor, architect magnus.ronn@arch.kth.se Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

106

architectural competitions – histories and practice

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

Experience of prequalification in Swedish competitions for new housing for the elderly magnus rönn

introduction This article studies prequalification of architectural firms in restricted competitions aimed at architectural designs that promote a sensation of health care, caring and security in everyday living. The discussion centers around three architectural competitions in Sweden carried out within the framework of the government’s program Growing Older – Living Well (Bo bra på äldre dar). The program is administered by The Swedish Institute of Assistive Technology, SIAT, and includes 50 million SEK in support for municipal architectural competitions, studies to identify needs and physical and regional planning for an aging society (www.hi.se/sv se/Arbetsomraden/projekt/bobrapaaldredar).

The article present results from an evaluation of competitions supported by the governmental program. Three restricted architectural competitions have been organized by support of the program Growing Older – Living Well. The motive for selection of these cases is the objective to support housing for senior citizens by architectural competitions.

Prequalification is a selection procedure in restricted competitions. There are a limited number of participants in these competitions. The organizer begins the selection by issuing an invitation to the trade giving an overall presentation of the competition task, the criteria upon which the choice of candidates will be based and the documents the applicants are required to send in. Architectural firms wishing to participate in the competition submit their applications. A group of persons examines the applications on behalf of the organizer and selects appropriate competition teams. This is a brief description of prequalification for a competition arranged by public organizers. architectural competitions – histories and practice

107

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

Research area The academic research on architectural competitions covers two types of studies: research on competitions from an architectural historical perspective (Waern, 1996; Tostrup, 1999; Sauge, 2003; Rustad, 2009; Bloxham Zettersten, 2000; Hagelqvist, 2010), and analyses of contemporary competitions (Blomberg 1995; Östman, 2005; Svensson, 2008; Volker, 2010; Katsakou, 2011; Andersson, 2011, Ramberg 2012). One reason why contemporary competitions need to be studied is that project competitions are regulated in Europe (Directive 2004/18/EG). In Sweden this directive has been incorporated into the Public Procurement Act, LOU. As a result of this regulation, competitions have become both (a) a method to bring forth good solutions to design problems and (b) a tool for public negotiations of architectural services. This double role is very apparent in the competitions studied.

Prequalification lays the foundation for future assignments for competing teams. Despite the importance of the selection procedures in negotiating future architectural services, there are surprisingly few studies about how candidates are selected in restricted competitions. I found only a handful of studies about prequalification in architectural competitions Sweden, Holland and Denmark.

Magnus Rönn (2011, 2012) studied prequalification of architectural firms/teams in ten competitions held by municipal or government organizers. The results are based on the study of competition documents and interviews with the organizer.

The competitions generated a total of 375 applications. 12 % of the architectural firms proceeded to the design phase of the competitions. Excellent references were required as well as an appropriate professional profile to be “shortlisted”.

The invitation’s requirement for a completed reference project, relevant to the competition goal, means that young architects and newly established firms have difficulties asserting themselves in the competition. This aspect makes prequalification stand out as a conservative force in the competition process.

Leentje Volker (2010) studied how public promoters in Holland contract architectural services using architectural competitions. There is a sort of dissatisfaction among architects towards the bureaucratic and expensive application requirements from municipal/public clients (Kroese, Meijer & Visscher, 2009; Volker, 2010). Volker and Lauche (2008) note that the evaluation of architects for competitions, and the judging of competition proposals, resemble each other, even though the criteria differ. The selection is based on a combination of experience, reputation, references and architectonic qualities.

108

architectural competitions – histories and practice

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

Kristian Kreiner and Merete Gorm reviewed prequalification in Denmark in 2008 and 2009. Mapping from 2008 gives an account of the promoters’ perspective. The Danish study differs from our study on two important points.

Kreiner and Gorm seek knowledge using questionnaires for public and private promoters. I accumulate data on prequalification using a combination of document examination and interviews with public organizers. The other difference is the organizer. Respondents in the Danish study are both public and private firms. I have studied three competitions arranged by public actors who have received economic support from The Swedish Institute of Assisted Technology, SIAT. They are public organizers who, as opposed to private promoters, must use a firm/team in accordance with the Public Procurement Act. The common factor is that I both studied contemporary competitions from the standpoint of the organizer’s choice of architectural firms.

Aim and research questions

The invitation, applications and selection of candidates are the central points of interest for this study. The purpose is to describe and analyze prequalification in the competition process which received economic support from the Swedish Institute of Assistive Technology, SIAT, through the program Growing Older – Living Well. This is also the motive for the selection of competitions in Burlöv, Gävle and Linköping as case studies. The key players in the competition are the organizers, jury members, selected design teams and end-users (care-giving staff, the elderly and their relatives). The Swedish Association of Architects, SAA and SIAT are also key players in the study.

The aim is to develop knowledge about the choice of architectural firms for competitions and the key players’ role in prequalification with the support of the following questions: • Why were three restricted architectural competitions arranged?

• How was the invitation, application requirements and criteria for evaluating the applications formulated?

• How well did the architectural firms fulfill the organizer’s need for information in the prequalification?

• How was the evaluation of the candidates organized and carried out?

• Which actors had an active role in the prequalification process?

• What experience was gained by the organizers from the choice of architectural firms/teams for the competitions? architectural competitions – histories and practice

109

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

Theory, method and model The investigative method includes case studies, document review and interviews. The collection and processing of data has been done as follows: • Case studies: Three restricted architectural competitions financially supported by the program Growing Older – Living Well has been examined and evaluated. Two were organized by municipalities: Linköping municipality and Burlöv municipality. One competition was organized by AB Gavlegårdarna, a company owned by the municipality. By questioning the organizers I gained access to the invitation, applications from chosen candidates and internal competition documents from the evaluation process such as protocol, decision-making reference material and minutes of meetings.

• Document review: The competition documents describe the formal “outside” aspects of prequalification and have been used in three ways. First: as a source of knowledge about the choice of candidates for the competitions. Second: for identifying the organizer’s informants who evaluated the applications. Third: to form the material for an interview guide with questions about the competition process to clarify the informal “inside” of prequalification. Through “close reading” of the documents I have obtained a picture of the process from the invitation to the final choice of candidates.

• Interviews: Information about how the organizer experiences prequalification of candidates is conveyed by the persons who participated in selecting and judging the applications. The interviews are based on an interview guide with open questions that take up the background of the competitions, the competition form, the invitation, the judging process and the experiences of the judges from prequalification. The informants wrote their answers directly on the interview guide. The answers reflect personal experiences and give in-depth information about selecting applicants from the organizer’s point of view.

A basic assumption behind the study is that organizers have two fundamental principles for steering the competition process: ex-ante and ex-post. Ex-ante means that organizers try to control the competition process “ahead of time” through the competition task, the competition conditions and the choice of 110

architectural competitions – histories and practice

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

competing architect firms. Central to this steering is the invitation to prequalification. Ex-post means that the competition is steered “afterwards” by the design and the jury’s assessment of the competition design proposals. My intention is Fig. 2.to Briefs for the restricted competitions in Burlöv, Gävle and reason Linköpinghighlight prequalification in a model. For this the following model illustrating steering in competition processes has been developed.

Ex-ante Competition form: - restricted - open Competition program: - competition task - competition conditions

Ex-post Design proposals: - basic ideas - design solutions Jury assessment: - ranking proposals - selection of winner

Implementing

competitions.

Model: implementation principals in restricted So, the model shows the two fundamental principles for steering in compe

titions when design proposals have to be presented anonymously to the jury: ex-ante and ex-post. Ex-ante is steering “ahead” of time through prequalification and competition program (brief ). Ex-post means steering “after” by design and jury assessment of entries in the competition. These two principles of steering are combined in architectural competitions. I want to understand how steering “ahead of time” works in prequalified competitions. This is why I am investigating how selections committees choose design teams.

Informants In total 10 informants from the competition organizer gave an account of their experience from qualification in the interview guide. The reply rate is good. 10 out of 12 persons who participated in the selection of candidates for the competition answered the questions in the interview guide. The informants are a very qualified group of reviewers. A majority are over 50 years old. Most have at least 20 years of professional experience. There is an equal gender distribution among the informants. Architects make up the largest single group. An almost equally large group works with social welfare. In short, a survey shows that experienced persons were used by the organizer to evaluate the applications and point out suitable candidates for the competitions. Their professional merits are of an interdisciplinary nature with an emphasis on architecture, public building and heath care and care giving for the elderly. architectural competitions – histories and practice

111

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

case studies The organizer briefly describes the competition task in the invitation, the general conditions and the documents to be included in the application, how the candidates will be evaluated and who will judge/review the applications. Based on this information architectural firms decide if they will apply for prequalification.

Case 1: Senior housing in Gävle AB Gavlegårdarna sent out an invitation for prequalification in 2011 (Advertisement Prequalification Project Competition). According to the invitation the competition has two aims. On the one hand, the organizer wants to receive design proposals for attractive and suitable housing for senior citizens. On the other, to negotiate architectural services for the assignment. Four architectural firms were chosen for the restricted competition. The winner will be able to design the buildings if the organizer carries out the project.

There is a short description of the competition task in the invitation. The competition area is 13 000 square meters and includes attached houses from the 1960s. The buildings have technical defects and accessibility problems. The organizer wants to refurbish the area and supplement the already existing buildings with new housing to enable the elderly to remain living there. The need for new housing is somewhat unclear in the invitation. According to the competition program the area should be supplemented with at least 50 apartments (AB Gavlegårdarna, 2011-10-10).

The general conditions in the invitation to prequalification are: • Competition form: Project competition.

• Number of invitations: four companies (architectural firms/competition teams).

• Remuneration: 150 000 SEK per participant after submission of approved proposal. The winner will receive an additional 50 000 SEK, in total 650 000 SEK. • Language: The application should be in Swedish, which is also the language of the project assignment.

112

architectural competitions – histories and practice

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

The “must-have” list in the invitation is: • Register: The application must include a listing of the submitted material.

• Company information: Name, organization number, postal address, telephone number, e-mail address and web site.

• Taxes: Affidavit stating that all taxes and fees have been paid. This affidavit may not be more than 3 months old.

• Economy: Affidavit from a business and credit report company with information about key economic figures and risks. This affidavit may not be more than three months old.

• Reference project: Review of three reference projects the applicant considers relevant to the competition task, at least one of which has been completed.

• References: Contact information including name, address, telephone number, e-mail to the reference persons for each project.

• Curriculum vitae: A CV for each of the key persons and their role in the reference projects.

• Project organization: Statement of the project organization for eventual continued assignment. The team should have experience and knowledge about Swedish norms and demands.

Candidates with applications that fulfill the “must” requirements will be evaluated in a second phase according to the following criteria: • Architectonic design capacity with regard to the design of buildings in the existing environment, adaptation of green areas, re-building, new building and accessibility.

• Housing design for seniors and knowledge of their needs including prerequisites as well as personnel and technical support.

• Competence in project organization and experience of planning and projecting.

According to the invitation the organizer has appointed a selection committee of three persons to judge the professional merits of the candidates. The committee is made up of a technical director, a draft architect and an outside consulting architect. The committee chose the following four architectural architectural competitions – histories and practice

113

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

firms/teams to participate in the competition out of 36 applicants: 1) Basark AB, 2) Nyréns Arkitektkontor, 3) RB Rahel Belatchew Arkitektur AB & Uribo AB and 4) White Arkitekter AB (AB Gavlegårdarna, 2011-09-19).

Fig 1. Invitations to the restricted competitions in Burlöv, Gävle and Linköping.

Case 2: Housing for health care and assisted living in Linköping Municipality In 2011 the municipality of Linköping issued an invitation to prequalification through the local authority for care of the elderly (äldrenämnden) and the built environment (samhällsbyggnadsnämnden) (Linköping municipality, 2011-08-21). According to the invitation there were two purposes for the competition. First, the organizer wanted proposals for assisted living with various constellations. Then, the municipality wanted to negotiate architectural services. Four teams should be chosen for the project competition. The winner was promised the assignment provided it was carried through by the municipality.

The background to the competition is that the town districts are in shortage of housing for senior citizens in an area where the aged population is increasing. Through the competition the municipality hopes to increase their possibilities to remain in the area. The competition assignment included some 40 new assisted living apartments with common areas. The competition assignment also included adapting the outdoor areas to suit the needs of the elderly.

114

architectural competitions – histories and practice

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

The general conditions for prequalification stated in the invitation are: • Competition form: Project competition.

• Number of invitations: Four firms (architectural firms/teams).

• Remuneration: 200 000 SEK per participant after submission of an approved proposal, in total 800 000 SEK. • Language: The competition and project language is Swedish. Applications should be submitted in Swedish with the exception of documents such as publications, articles, jury statements etc., which may be in Norwegian, Danish or English.

The “must-haves” in the invitation are: • Listing: The application should contain a register listing the material submitted.

• Company information: Name, registration number, address, telephone, email and web site to the firms in the competition team.

• Company structure: Affidavit stating the company forms of the competing firms.

• Economy: Affidavit from a legal credit survey company containing information about the key economic figures and risks for the competing company. This document cannot be more than three months old.

• Reference projects: An account of four reference projects, which the contestant considers relevant to the goal of the competition. Pure marketing information may not be submitted.

• Reference persons: Contact information including name, address, telephone, e-mail for the reference persons for each reference project.

• Curriculum Vitae: Statement with CVs for key persons, their roles in the reference project and eventual further assignment.

• Project organization: Description of project organization for eventual further assignment. The team should have experience and knowledge of Swedish norms and regulations. The applicant should also describe how the demand for capacity and availability will be met if the project in Linköping is awarded.

• Quality and environment: Description of quality and environmental management assurance system for the firms involved in the application. architectural competitions – histories and practice

115

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

Candidates with applications that meet the “must-have” requirements will be evaluated in the second phase by collective judgment according to the following criteria: • Relevant competence in design and functionality.

• Competence from other related assignments.

• Candidates who, on the whole, give a wide and varied illustration of the competition goal.

According to the invitation a selection committee, a group of experts at the organizing body, will appoint the candidates for the competition. Of these, two are architects employed by the municipality and two persons have experience in health care and care giving. The selection committee chose four firms/teams for the competition out of 33 applicants: 1) Fojab Arki-tekter AB & JJW Arkitekter, 2) MAF Stockholm AB & Argark AB, 3) Marge Arkitekter AB & Land Arkitektur AB and 4) Semrén + Månsson AB & Rubow Arkitekter (Linköping municipality, 2011-11-01).

Case 3: Senior housing in Burlöv In 2011 Burlöv municipality organized a restricted competition in cooperation with the landowner, Kronetorps Park AB (Burlöv municipality, 2011-09-26).

This competition also had two purposes. In part the organizer wanted to receive suggestions for new housing and environments with especially high quality including activities for the elderly. In part they wished to negotiate architectural services for designing 100 apartments and drawing up a detail plan for development in the area.

Kronetorp is the municipality’s largest remaining land resource and is in a strategic area between Malmö and Lund with direct train connections to Copenhagen. Burlöv municipality has plans to transform Kronetorp into an age-integrated town district for 60,000 inhabitants with work places as well as cultural and recreational activities.

The general requirements in the invitation for prequalification are: • Competition form: Project competition.

• Number of invited participants: Three firms/teams will be invited to compete.

116

architectural competitions – histories and practice

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

• Remuneration: 300 000 SEK after submission of approved proposal, in total 900 000 SEK. • Language: Swedish is the language for the competition and project assignment. The application must be made in Swedish. The accompanying documents such as publications, articles and jury statements may be in another language.

The requirements in the invitation are: • Listing: The application should have a list of the material submitted.

• Company information: Name, organization number, address, telephone and web site to the applicants.

• Company form: Affidavit stating the firms’ structure.

• CV: A CV for each key person in the competition project must be provided.

• Project organization: Statement of the project organization with an eventual continuation of the assignment including the key persons and their work contribution in percent. The team should have experience and knowledge of Swedish norms and demands.

• Reference project: At most five relevant reference projects of which at least two must be implemented. The material in the application may include printed plans, illustrations, publications and charts.

• Reference persons: Statement of reference persons for the reference projects including name, address, telephone and e-mail.

Candidates with applications that fulfill the requirements will be evaluated in a second phase through a collective judgment using the following criteria: • Architectonic ability.

• Capacity for innovative thinking.

• High level of competence in environmental design.

• Competence with regard to the needs of the elderly.

• Experience and resources.

According to the invitation the organizer has appointed a selection committee of five professional persons to choose the candidates for the competition. Two architectural competitions – histories and practice

117

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

persons in the committee represent the land owners. Three persons represent the municipality: the head of the welfare office and two representatives from the town planning office. The selection committee pointed out three architectural firms/teams to participate in the competition out of 51 applicants: 1) Johan Celsing Arkitektkontor, 2) Tema landskapsarkitekter and Chroma Arkitekter AB and 3) White Arkitekter AB (Burlöv municipality 2011-12-06).

results The three architectural competitions generated a total of 120 applications (33, 36 and 51 applications). 11 of the 120 competition teams (9%) were invited to competitions. 91 % of the candidates were eliminated through prequalification. The majority of applications (51) were for housing for the elderly in Burlöv municipality. This was the competition that offered the highest remuneration: 300 000 SEK per competing team. The first prize gave the winner both the detail planning and building project assignment. The competition’s ability to attract applications from architectural firms was largely due to the economic conditions the organizer offered in the invitation.

Competition form The organizers selected 3-4 architectural firms/teams for the restricted competitions. No one chose to organize an open architectural competition. The decision to organize a competition was motivated by the economic support received from SIAT. “We received money from SIAT on condition that a genuine architectural competition is organized” is an enlightening reply. But why was just a restricted architectural competition organized? The answer given by the organizer for choosing this competition form concerned limited planning resources, experience from other competitions, steering and negotiating architectural services for continuing the assignment.

The organizers, who motivated this choice of competition form by reference to good experience, the desire for simplicity and negotiating regulations, reply: We have tried this form earlier and it worked well. An open competition entails more work for the organizer, and a rather large number of less interesting design proposals, which nevertheless demand a certain amount of attention. (Internal reviewer)

118

architectural competitions – histories and practice

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

Architectural competitions provide the prerequisites to develop good solutions for complex problems. The SIAT laid the foundation for the competition by partially financing pre-studies and the architectural competition. Project competition was chosen as the competition form since it meets the negotiating demands specified in the Public Procurement Act. Prequalification was chosen to ensure the quality level of the applications and to facilitate the subsequent work of the jury and their selection process. (Internal reviewer)

It is politically desirable to develop the quality and design of health care and assisted-living housing for the future… The choice of competition form was made because it was deemed impossible to have an open competition because of the hard work it would entail. (Internal reviewer) The organizer who refers to steering replies: With a restricted competition the process is familiar, it is more transparent and it is known that all the teams involved can carry out the project. This is not necessarily the case with an open competition. (External consultant)

Invitation The organizer’s invitation to prequalification is extended early on in the competition process. The general conditions, application requirements and criteria for judging the candidates’ professional merits as expressed in the invitation are part of the normal praxis and have a regulatory function. The demands communicate a feeling of security in an uncertain search for innovative solutions, but have a conservative influence, which limits renewal in the competition system. The demands favor Swedish architectural firms/teams with good reputations and who can present a portfolio with implemented projects relevant to the competition task. Foreign firms, new companies and young architects are unfairly treated. Thus it is not surprising that the organizers chose to invite 11 well-known architectural firms/teams to the competition. Even though in two of the competitions there are constellations that include Danish architectural firms (JJW and Rubow Arkitekter) among the invited teams, Swedish dominance stands out in the architectural competitions examined in this study.

According to the informants the invitation was drawn up in consultation with SAA and SIAT. The competition language, economic remuneration and architectural competitions – histories and practice

119

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

number of participating teams were decided upon in consultation with SAA. That the competition and project assignment language was Swedish was motivated by practical arguments. Informative replies to the question about how the general conditions in the organizer’s invitation were drawn up are: The SAA was… involved in determining the remuneration and competition language. That the competition language became Swedish was natural since the competition is comparatively small and it could hardly be expected to draw interest from, for example, the continent. (Internal reviewer) The prize sum was set in consultation with SAA… My personal opinion is that the sum should be fair and dimensioned in a reasonable degree to correspond to the work input and at the same time be a certain incentive for the competition.

(Internal reviewer) Swedish seemed to be the only alternative since the understanding of the proposal is essential for the competition result. The project is based on a process of dialogue…

That makes the Swedish language an important factor. Swedish norms and demands are prerequisites that must be met in this type of housing. The economic remuneration was discussed back and forth with SAA. (External consultant) The officials involved made a joint appraisal in consultation with representatives from SAA… The contribution received from SIAT also influenced the level of the prize sum. The choice of competition language, Swedish, was made for practical reasons, to facilitate managing the competition. (Internal reviewer) The organizer was extremely brief on questions about how the application demands and evaluation criteria were determined. Few think about the accuracy of the demands and how to attract highly qualified teams in the field of care for the elderly. The organizer refers instead to the praxis, negotiating regulations and consultation with SAA. The forms of the competitions seem more of a driving force than the competition assignment and the focus on architecture for care and security for elderly in every day living.

In addition to the formal requirements, it is a matter of “finding” firms that have the best and most relevant experience for the project highlighted in the competition.

120

architectural competitions – histories and practice

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

The invitation was drawn up with the aid of the (organizer’s) technical department in consultation with SAA and SIAT. (Internal reviewer) The project manager… presented a suggestion based on good examples, which we read and commented upon. The SAA was very helpful. (Internal reviewer) The invitation was formulated by the municipal welfare department and the technical and town building office jointly. (It) was drawn up from guidelines and our experience of working with data from inquiries and negotiations of procurement.

(Internal reviewer)

Need for information The invitation gave the organizers access to a large number of informative applications from architectural firms. The informants were satisfied with the contents of the applications and did not need any further information. Not even in the final selection, when only the favorites remained, were other promoters asked for their experiences. Only one informant asked for a clarification: that the work input for key persons presented in the project organization is described in a clearer way. Otherwise the organizer felt well-informed about the candidates’ professional merits for the competition task.

We judged the material we received to be adequate and could make our choice without any further information. (Internal reviewer) The information about the candidates’ references was very clear in the applications.

(External consultant) The information was extensive. A lot of work to go through it… No references were sought since the firms that continued were well-known. (Internal reviewer) The information in the applications generates architectural critique judgments, which are used to motivate the choice of firms/teams for the competition. Three typical motives are: Relevant and well realized reference project, often small-scaled. Good knowledge and sound experience of housing for the elderly. The project organization is well architectural competitions – histories and practice

121

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

thought through with both specialized and broad competence. (AB Gavlegårdarna 2011-09-19) The firm’s reference project reflects a high architectonic level with the capacity to create buildings with a strong character… The team proposed to work with “our project” is also the one who worked on the reference project. The firm is experienced in reconstruction and additions in environments for the elderly and has been nominated/won several prizes such as EU’s Mies van der Rohe prize, Kasper Salin prize, Lund’s Municipal Building prize and the Swedish Concrete Association’s architecture prize…(Burlöv municipality 2011-12-06) Good reference projects with special, differingdesign solutions, with for example living areas without corridors. The project reflects good adaptation of buildings to a difficult terrain. New thinking in design for groups of elderly in nursing homes.

(Linköping municipality 2011-11-01)

Judgment process Candidates are selected using a judging process that has two distinct stages. The selection begins with a formal control of the applications followed by an evaluation of the professional merits for the task. Applications that are incomplete or arrive too late are eliminated in the first control. The second phase in the appraisal process is described by the informants as a successive elimination of candidates through comparison, evaluation and ranking. Only candidates who receive active support continue to the final judging. Then the reviewers must choose among the favorites. One informant describes the process as a critical evaluation of the candidates based on the criteria in the invitation: The “must-haves”… were gone over by the competition official and me. Two were submitted too late. Each reviewer went around in a large room where the proposals were laid out on a table. Each one read and went through the “piles” individually. You had 10 “post-it” stickers and a list of the judging criteria, which were to be placed on the proposals you liked the best. The ones which did not receive any stickers were put aside. On the next occasion everyone was given three A-4 pages with criteria to be filled in. The proposals, which did not receive any stickers were removed. After the last round eight proposals remained which we together went through and made motivations for. (Internal reviewer) 122

architectural competitions – histories and practice

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

One reviewer described the selection as a tournament with elimination: (Selection) may be described as a tournament with three steps and a semifinal in the end. In the first step the applications, which were not relevant to the task were eliminated. Each one of us individually suggested which ones should continue. In the cases where we differed the firms were allowed to continue. In the second step we went deeper into the applications, studied the relevance of the given reference objects and the architectonic expression they represented. From that step we arrived at a semifinal round where we carefully examined the proposed project organization, CVs for the key persons and read more about the firm’s philosophy etc. In the end we assured ourselves that the formal criteria were met. We were incredibly much in agreement about our final selection. (External consultant) A formal description of the selection looks like this: The process is, briefly, that an official responsible for negotiating examines the applications in question as to “must-haves” and formalities. A report is then made to the selection committee. The selection committee then reads through all the applications and makes, each individually, a preliminary selection. Thereafter the selection committee compares these suggestions and formulates motives for the selection. The selection committee’s suggestion for a decision is then taken up in the respective professional boards/committees for a political decision. After the decision is made all applicants are informed about the conclusion and the motives.

(External consultant) One informant highlighted the advantages of having several fields of competence represented when judging the candidates for competitions aimed at new housing for the elderly: We were pleased that we came from such varied professions representing different interests on the jury. This made the dialogue and review so much broader! At the same time we were very surprised at how similar our choices were and how easy it was to finally agree even though we were very careful about going around and judging individually!

I think that apart from the criteria, we have followed a sort of “gut feeling” about which firm really thinks it would be interesting to take on the challenge and at the same time have the competence and experience we feel is needed. (Internal reviewer) architectural competitions – histories and practice

123

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

The judges need to meet three or four times to reach a decision about which candidates should be invited to the competition. Applications that are incomplete or late are eliminated immediately in the first control of the “must-haves”.

Appraisal of candidates is a combination of individual judgment and collective comparisons. The competition team with good merits is seen as “very interesting” and will be chosen for the final judging. The choice is motivated with architectural critique comments. The architectonic qualities of the reference project will be highlighted together with professional merits and the way in which the applicant brought know-how together in their project organization. The written motivation in the protocol is used to explain and legitimize the decision.

The final choice is marked by consensus. “Wide agreement in the group” is a typical answer from informants to the question of how the competition team was chosen.

Participation in the competition process In all three cases the organizers used an expertise model for evaluating the applications. A group of experts in architecture, negotiating procurements and health care and care for the elderly chose the team for the competitions. These selection committees have interdisciplinary competence. There were no participants who represented the elderly or their relatives in the selection. Politicians and representatives from senior organizations were also missing. On the other hand the invitation to prequalification in Burlöv municipality and Linköping municipality states that the jury would be appointed according to a committee model that includedlaymen. In Gävle municipality, the inhabitants in the area and representatives for seniors had two places on the jury. In preparatory studies to the competition relatives and seniors were also represented in the focus groups. Consequently, expertise models are clearly limited to prequalification.

It is evident from the description that the competition proceedings shift in nature between the time when the invitation is extended to architectural firms and when the jury points out a winner. Experts steer prequalification. The influence of laymen is seen when jury members are appointed. That is a decision based on a more democratic model, which gives the competition wider political ties among the involved community. In this model, there is room for more interests in the competition. The jury’s task is to judge the design proposals for the competition task and identify a winner. But there are not only locally elected laymen on the jury. In theses cases, it was further expanded to include two experts 124

architectural competitions – histories and practice

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

on architecture appointed by SAA and SIAT. The elderly who should move into the new housing and their relatives do not have the same influence in the competitions and must trust the experts, elected jury members and representatives appointed by the senior organizations.

Experience of prequalification The organizers describe positive experiences from prequalification. No one complains about the administrative work, the high costs, the bureaucracy or complicated regulations. On the contrary. The selection of candidates is described as an exciting task and educational experience. The 120 applications are considered a sign of the wide interest from the trade for the competitions.

“We received more applications than we hoped for”, replied an informant. The organizers’ selection committees are also pleasantly surprised over the quality of the applications. Some reviewers highlighted the organizers’ need for housing for the elderly as an explanation to the attractiveness of the invitation to prequalification: There was an unexpectedly wide interest… The great interest was probably due to the fact that this is a “hot” area. (Internal reviewer) The interest was great considering the background for the project. One gets the feeling that public promoters who wish to build housing for the elderly are interesting clients for architects and that you can see an increase in the number of assignments in the future. Probably the role of SIAT and the governmental program plays a part, which gives greater exposure for the competition results than normal.

(Internal reviewer) The number of applications surprised me! And also the level of the layout from a few of the applications. Prequalification is really a competition within a competition! (External consultant)

conclusion and discussion My intention has been to understand how prequalification is seen from an organizer’s point of view and describe the role of the actors. I have done this by examining documents and seeking the organizers’ personal experience from choosing teams. architectural competitions – histories and practice

125

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

Fig. 2. Briefs for the restricted competitions in Burlöv, Gävle and Linköping.

The selection of design teams in these restricted competitions follows a general pattern and the objective for the task – housing for senior citizens – has influence only on how the selection committees have been composed. Invitation, application and selection are organized in the same way as in other restricted competitions. The findings in the study on prequalification can for this reason be considered as being valid in the contemporary Swedish competition culture. The conclusion has an interest beyond competitions with the objective of finding design supporting health care, caring and security in everyday living.

The answer to the research question in the study may be summarized in six paragraphs and ten conclusions: • Competition: The organizer pointed out three reasons for the decision to call for a competition: economic support from SIAT, good experiences of competitions and the need for housing. The motives support each other. The organizer also uses the competition to negotiate architectural services for the continued assignment. The choice of competition form – a restricted project competition – is motivated by the possibility of control and limited resources. A restricted competition does not demand as much work as an open competition and gives the organizer greater possibilities for control. A first conclusion is that the organizer in the study prefers a competition form that gives them influence from the beginning of the process through the demands in the invitation and the 126

architectural competitions – histories and practice

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

choice of the competition team. The second conclusion is that the support from the government through SIAT has been a trigger factor. The three municipalities that received support had already identified a need for housing for the elderly and began planning when they received information about the possibility of seeking economic support for competitions.

• Invitation: The requirements in the invitation to prequalification are a combination of the law and professional praxis. This is a third conclusion.

The “must have” demands are referring to specific rules in the Public Procurement Act. They provide a sense of security and control for the organizer. The evaluation criteria in the invitation are based in design experiences from judging architecture. The invitations were all drawn up in cooperation with SAA and SIAT. The invitation gives the impression of “collaboration”. Advice from SAA has been particularly important for decisions about the economic remuneration for the architects, the number of teams that should be invited, including the requirement for Swedish as the competition language. The language requirement favors Swedish architectural firms. 9 out of 11 invited teams were made up of only Swedish architectural firms. Two teams are part of a Danish firm with established contacts among Swedish architectural firms.

The demand for relevant reference projects in the invitation, of which some should be implemented, favors well-known firms with good reputations in the trade. New firms do not have a chance. The organizer’s way of inviting firms to competitions is a detriment to renewal in the competition system and new thinking when identifying appropriate candidates for competition tasks. A fourth conclusion is therefore that the potential for competitions as experimental arenas is not fully utilized in prequalification. This shortcoming can be corrected later in the process in connection with the development of the competition program and the design of proposals for solutions.

• Need for information: The organizer was able to choose candidates for the competition with the support of an informative decision-making base.

The firms replied to the invitation to prequalification with applications that gave a good enough picture of their professional merits for the architectural competitions – histories and practice

127

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

competition task. The reviewers are satisfied with the applications. No one asked for additional information before the choice was to be made.

A fifth conclusion is that the organizers’ need for information and a feeling of security was fulfilled. The invitation to prequalification resulted in applications from competent competition teams with informative presentations.

• Judgment process: The organizer’s choice of candidates is made according to a judging process, which has two typical phases. The first phase is a control of the applications for the “must-haves” stated in the invitation followed by a second evaluation, which focuses on the firm’s professional merits. The evaluation is made by successive eliminations. Only teams that are liked will be left for the final judging. A sixth conclusion is that the judging goes from “hard” control of the “must-haves” to an evaluating trial of the merits supported by “soft” criteria that give the organizers more negotiating room for choosing competition teams. The reviewers generally need three to four meetings to identify the appropriate candidates. The final choice is marked by consensus. The decision is based on comparisons, evaluations and ranking. A seventh conclusion is that organizers used three different selection methods. The first method is based on identifying the differences in quality among the applications as a basis for ranking. The teams are divided into groups according to how interesting their professional merits appear to the organizer. The second method concerns the subjective moment where attractive candidates are pointed out. Some competition teams are found to be more exciting than others. The reviewers’ individual opinions surprisingly often coincide, which creates a feeling of security about this subjective choice.

The third method is a search for a rational basis for the choice. Reviewers for the organizer set up tables and score candidates. The firms/teams receiving the most points are invited to participate in the competition.

The method is marketed as an objective judging of professional merits for architectural assignments.

• Participation in competition procedures: There is an expertise model behind the choice of a competition team. A group of experts in architecture, town planning, negotiation procurements and health care and care 128

architectural competitions – histories and practice

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

for the elderly, have evaluated, ranked and chosen candidates for the competition. There were no representatives in these selection committees from the elderly, their relatives, politicians or senior citizen organizations. An eighth conclusion would thus be that prequalification is an enterprise steered by experts with no input from laymen. In that early phase of the competition procedure the influence was very unevenly divided among the actors. Politicians, the elderly, relatives and senior citizen organizations did not have any role in prequalification. The influence of laymen only becomes apparent in the later stages of the competition process; during the program work, when the competition goal is defined and by representation on the jury when the design proposal is judged.

• Experience from selection by prequalification: The informants relate only positive experiences from selecting candidates for the competition. It was a challenging, exciting and educational experience to review the applications in the search for appropriate competition teams. The number of applications pleasantly surprised the selection committees. Altogether 120 candidates wanted to be qualified. A ninth conclusion is that there has been widespread interest in the competitions among architectural firms.

It was very hard to get a place in the competition. Only 11 out of 120 applicants (9%) were invited. From the architects’ standpoint, restricted competitions represent an insecure road to new future assignments.

When considering the organizer’s positive experience of prequalification it is surprising that so few architectural competitions are carried out. To compete on housing for the elderly maybe seems like a one-off event, a work method for negotiating architectural services, which is only used as an exception. The low rate of competitions is in strong contrast to the reviewers’ personal good experiences from prequalification. Also, surprisingly few municipalities have been in contact with The Swedish Institute of Assistive Technology and sought information about funds available for architectural competitions. Only six municipalities applied for economic support. Conclusion number ten is therefore that municipalities showed a weak interest in arranging competitions related to housing for the elderly. This in turn could be because promoters with high architectonic ambitions do not find housing for the elderly to be an attractive architectural competitions – histories and practice

129

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions

assignment. The architecture is considered ordinary. Another explanation is that the Swedish Institute of Assistive Technology has too narrow timeframes; only municipalities that had already prepared plans sought economic support for the architectural competition. The timeframes for the government’s program Growing Older Living Well has not been coordinated with the municipal planning processes.

Acknowledgement This study is founded by ARQ, Foundations for Architecture Research, The Swedish Institute of Assistive Technology and Swedish health care facilities network. This paper is part of a project carried out in cooperation with Jonas E Andersson, SBi/Aalborg University. Lynn Taylor Edman has checked the English language.

References Andersson, J. E., 2011. Architecture and Ageing. On the Interaction Between Frail Old People and the Built Environment. Stockholm: TRITA-ARK 2011:3, KTH. Arge, K. & Bleiklie S., 2003. Arkitektonisk kvalitet. En studie om samspillet mellom bygg-herre og arkitekt, Oslo: Norsk Form.

Benedikt, M., 2007. Introduction in Sanders (Ed.) “Judging Architectural Value”. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Blomberg, J., 1995. Ordning och kaos i projektsamarbete. Stockholm: Handelshögskolan i Stockholm.

Bloxham Zettersten, G., 2000. Nordiskt perspektiv på arkitektur, Kritisk regionalisering i nordiska stadshus 1900-1955, Stockholm: Arkitektur Förlag AB. European public procurement legislation and architectural service: Recommendation and guidelines for transposition to national law. (2005) ACE. Brussels: Architects Council of Europe.

Hagelqvist, S., 2010. Arkitekttävlingen som föreställning: Den svenska arkitekttävlingens ideologiska, institutionella och professionella villkor under 1900-talets första hälft, Lettland: Axel books.

Katsakou, A., 2011. Recent Architectural Competitions for Collective Housing in Switzerland. Lausanne: École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.

Kreiner, K. & Gorm, M., 2008. Prekvalificering till arkitektkonkurrencer i Danmark. Del 1: Byggherens perspektiv og erfaringer, Center for ledelse i byggeriget: Arbetspaper.

Kreiner, K. & Gorm, M., 2009. Prekvalificering till arkitektkonkurrencer i Danmark. Del 2: Arkitekternes perspektiv og erfaringer, Center for ledelse i byggeriget: Arbetspaper.

Kroese, R., Meijer, F. & Visscher, H., 2009. European Directive for tendering architectural services; a too strict interpretation by Dutch Local Authorities? Available 2011-10-10: http://www.rics.org/site/download_feed.aspx?fileID=5038&fileExtension=PDF

130

architectural competitions – histories and practice

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions Lag om offentlig upphandling, 2007:1091. (2007) Available 2011-07-10: http://www. notisum. se/rnp /sls/lag/20071092.HTM Positions on the 2004 public procurement directive (2004) EFCA. Brussels: Federation of Engineering Consultancy Associations.

Ramberg, K., 2012. Konstruktionen av framtidens stad. Stockholm: Hemmavid förlag.

Rustad, R., 2009. Hvad är tidsmessig arkitektur? Trondheim: NTNU 2009:72.

Rönn, M., 2011. Den prekvalificerade tävlingen – hur utses arkitekter till inbjudna arkitekttävlingar?

TRITA-ARK-Forskningspublikationer 2011:1, Stockholm: KTH. Rönn, M., 2012. The prequalified competitions – how are architects appointed to invited architectural competitions? ARCC Journal, No 1.

Sauge, B., 2003. Arkitekturtegning og kontekst: Arkitektkonkurranser om Norges Redarforbunds bygning, 1930. Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen.

Svensson, C., 2008. Architectural competitions, the art of finding a winner, Stockholm: TRITA-ARKAkademisk avhandling 2008:3, KTH. Tostrup, E., 1999. Architecture and rhetoric: text and design in architectural competitions, Oslo 1939-1997.

London: Andreas Papadakis.

Utformningen av förfrågningsunderlag vid upphandling av arkitekttjänster. (2011) Sveriges Arkitekter.

Available 2011-07-08: www.arkitekt.se/s65138/f11844 Volker, L., 2010. Deciding about Design Quality. Value judgements and decision making in the selection of architects by public clients under European tendering regulations. Leiden: Sidestone Press.

Volker, L., 2010. Design a design competition: the client perspective. Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology. Paper presented at the conference Design & Complexity, Montréal, 7-9 July 2010. Available 2011-07-05: www.designresearchsociety.org/docs-procs/DRS2010/PDF/125.pdf Volker, L. & Lauche, K., 2008. “Decision making during a tendering procedure: case studies of restricted European tenders in architecture”. In Dainty (Ed.) Procs 24th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2008, Cardiff, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management.

Wærn, R., 1996. Tävlingarnas tid: arkitekttävlingarnas betydelse i borgerlighetens Sverige. Borås: Arkitekturmuseet. Östman, L., 2005. A Pragmatist Theory of Design. Stockholm: TRITA-ARK-Akademisk avhandling, KTH. Homepage Sveriges Arkitekter, Genomförda tävlingar. Tävlingsprogram, Juryutlåtande och Tävlingsförslag.

Available 2011-07-08: www.arkitekt.se/tavlingar/dokumentation Hjälpmedelsinstitutet, Bo bra på äldre dar. Available 2012-04-11: www.hi.se/sv-se/Arbets-om-raden/Projekt/bobrapaaldredar/

architectural competitions – histories and practice

131

magnus rönn: experience of prequalification in swedish competitions Archive AB Gavlegårdarna: Annons Prekvalificering Projekttävlingar, Odaterad, AB Gavlegårdarna.

Protokoll för utvärdering av intresseanmälningar till projekttävling Almvägen, 2011-09-12. AB Gavlegårdarna.

Projekttävling Almgården. Utvärdering av intresseanmälningar efter annonsering, 2011-09-19. AB Gävlegårarna. (Dnr 11.0126) Boinflytande för äldre i Gävle. Program för arkitekttävling – Almvägen i stadsdelen Fridhem, Gävle, 201110-10. AB Gavlegårdarna Linköping municipality: Framtidens vårdboende i Majelden, Linköping. Prekvalificering för projekttävling, 2011-08-21. Linköping kommun, Omsorgskontoret, Teknik- och Samhällsbyggnadskontoret. (Dnr Än 2011-19, Dnr Sbn 2011-541) Förteckning anbudsansökan, 2011-10-06. Linköping kommun, Upphandlingscenter.

Förslag till urval av arkitektteam för deltaganden i projekttävling om framtidens vårdbostäder i Linköping, 2011-11-01. Linköping kommun, Omsorgskontoret. (Dnr Än 2011-19, Dnr Sbn 2011-541) Majelden. Inbjuden projekttävling om framtidens vårdbostäder i Linköping. Tävlingsprogram, 2011-11-03.

Linköping kommun.

Burlöv municipality: Tävlingsinformation till projekttävling. Prekvalificering. Bebyggelse av bostäder för äldre vid Kronetorps gård i Burlövs kommun, 2011-09-26. Burlövs kommun. (Dnr KS/2011:55) Öppningsprotokoll samt urval steg 1, 2011-11-22- Burlövs kommun.

Utvärderingsprotokoll, 2011-12-06. Burlövs kommun. (Dnr KS/2011: 55) Arkitekttävling för bebyggelse av bostäder för äldre vid Kronetorps gård i Burlövs kommun, 2011-02-05.

Burlövs kommun. (Dnr KS/2011:55)

132

architectural competitions – histories and practice

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

Abstract Competitions have a very long history. Over the years procedures have developed which have become embedded in the system and are seen as central to it. But practice is changing both in response to greater internationalism and to legislation introduced by the EU and by individual governments. This paper looks at current procurement objectives and procedures in the UK and assesses the impact this is having on the traditional competition system.

Concepts such as “anonymity” and “peer assessment” are giving way to systems in which clients bodies interview prospective architects/design teams, sometimes with a single professional advisor. Open competitions have virtually disappeared.

Entry is often restricted to four or five teams. Increasingly, these teams are being pre-selected on the basis of lengthy questionnaires where design quality is just one of many criteria. Inevitably, the larger practices with portfolios of completed projects are the ones which are given the chance to compete though even these tend to be precluded from exploring new areas of work.

Where the client pre-selects a number of well-known and respected “names”, the resulting buildings can be very impressive. But small and medium sized practices are being squeezed out of the process. Younger and less experienced architects are being excluded.

The competition opportunities which helped the well-known “names” become established in the first place are now rarely available within the UK. Unless means are found of opening up the procurement of design services, the pool of design talent may gradually become diminished.

Key words: Procurement, Short listing procedures, Pre-selection, Interviews, Principles of good practice Contact: Judith Strong, Consultant judith@judithstrong.com a+ap consulting, London, United Kingdom

134

architectural competitions – histories and practice

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

Prequalification in the UK and design team selection procedures judith strong

introduction This paper looks at short listing and selection procedures: the criteria used, the various methodologies which have been introduced into the competition system, and the briefing processes required in order to achieve the best outcomes. While it is very much focussed on UK experience, the procedures currently in use have been influenced by developments in other countries and have responded to the need to operate within the rules of EU procurement legislation. Architects and the construction industry as a whole are now accustomed to seeking commissions and gaining work outside the UK. This, too, has led to the cross-referencing of commissioning systems and the adoption of practices found in other countries.

The practice of asking a number of architects to prepare sketches and plans for a building prior to being awarded a commission goes back many centuries.

From Renaissance Italy to 19th century Europe and through to the last century, archives can be found which record details of designs submitted in competitions. The long history and shared experience means that architectural competitions tend to follow established formulae as in demonstrated in the introduction to the competition regulations issued by the Austrian Chamber of Architects and Chartered Engineering Consultants.

A body of rules does not need to be invented at the beginning of the 21st century: it is a good idea to continue the tried and tested while being mindful of its roots â&#x20AC;Ś. The historic connections between todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regulatory expectations of architectural creators and architectural competitions can be recognised from the fact that the initial 142 year old competition principles largely corresponded to the new Competition Standard for Architecture. (Austrian Chamber of Architects 2010) architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

135

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

In nineteenth century Britain the competition system was widely used with major public buildings being designed to demonstrate national or civic pride – one of the most well-known being The Houses of Parliament1. As the building boom of Britain’s expansive years dwindled with the impact of wars and recession, competitions became much rarer. In post-war Britain (1945 – mid 1960s), public authorities built up their own in-house architectural departments which undertook much of the housing and school building etc. completed during that period. Commercial buildings tended to be handled by relatively few large practices. Attempts to generate a “competition culture” comparable with that of Scandinavia, Germany or France met with limited success, not least because of the highly protective rules which had been introduced some fifty years earlier in order to stem some of the more questionable practices which had developed during the 19th century building boom.

Towards the end of the 1970’s new regulations were drawn up by the RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) similar to those currently endorsed by the Austrian and many other European Institutes. The documentation was picked up by the UIA (Union Internationale des Architectes) and applied to the international competition system. At that time, the RIBA was able to limit participation to approved competitions only (i.e. those run in accordance with these new regulations) as its members were not otherwise permitted to compete for work. This control was subsequently lost following a government examination of “restricted practices” within the professional institutes.2 While procedures tend to vary according to the context in which buildings are being commissioned, the basic principles of the competition system remain the same. This is documented in a recent survey which looked at how competitions were being run in a number of different countries.

“The main points they have in common are: • Making sure the first prize winner gets the commission to build • Quality control of the competition 1 Houses of Parliament: a competition held in 1835 to replace the former Palace of Westminster much of which had been destroyed by fire. The competition resulted in Charles Barry being appointed as architect for the work.

2 The ruling was made by the Monopolies Commission (following a review of the Fair Trading Act 1973).

136

architectural competitions – histories and practice

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

• Ensuring adequate representation of architects on the jury • Anonymity of entries • Adequate prizes or fees Some of the differences in approach relate to: • How countries focus on the post-competition commitment to build • Rewarding entrants • Leadership by the architectural institute/association • Service development • Setting the standards” (Parish. 2012)

the development of alternative procedures in the uk A significant move towards embedding the competition system more firmly into UK public procurement procedures came with the introduction of the National Lottery in 1993-4. The distribution of lottery funds was initially directed towards capital projects – probably in an attempt to stimulate the construction industry which was in recession during the early 1990s. The UK government delegated the process to a number of government agencies (Quangos)3 responsible for supporting arts, sports, and heritage interests. Led by Arts Council England, which has the promotion of architecture within its remit, the distributory bodies pressed for the architects for all lottery-funded capital projects to be selected through the competition system.

By chance this coincided with EU procurement directives being issued which extended jurisdiction from goods to services – including the services of architects and the design team professions. (Directives 93/36. 93/37 and 93/38).

These directives called for all tenders above a given threshold to be open to suitably qualified individuals/companies across the EU and for selection to be made against given criteria, including “most economically advantageous”.

Many within in the architectural profession were opposed to a more widespread, let alone mandatory, use of the competition system for publicly funded projects as they felt that they would be overwhelmed with demands for unpaid design work. Virtually all lottery funded projects fell within the EU jurisdiction (where more than 50% of the cost was to be met from lottery income channelled 3 Quango: an acronym for “quasi autominous non-governmental body” used to describe nondepartmental government funded organisations to which selected powers have been devolved.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

137

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

through the Quangos) while the recession meant that the majority of practices would be seeking such commissions. Architects were also very wary of the alternatives – perceiving the EU service directives to be promoting “fee bidding” with selection being made on the basis of the lowest tender. The EU Design Contest option gave rise to concern as, in the past, UK clients had proved unwilling to use a competition system where anonymity had to be respected throughout the process. They feared having to appoint an inexperienced architect or one who, while strong on design, might lack the skills to deliver on time and on budget.

This accumulation of factors led the RIBA to explore ways of introducing an open design-based selection procedure which would both comply with EU procurement legislation and provide an acceptable alternative to the EU Design Contest. The result was the Competitive Interview – a commissioning procedure which, while based primarily on criteria of quality of design and service, required nothing more detailed than indicative design approaches to be produced. The procedure is explained below. The system followed the “Restricted” EU procurement route with the criteria for selection being weighted towards “most economically advantageous”4.

This has led to a variety of procedures being used in the UK. Very occasionally, a traditional architectural competition is held. More usual is some hybrid form in which pre-selection, face-to face interviews, discussions, briefing sessions and presentations all play a part. The more recently introduced EU procedure “Competitive Dialogue”5 created with the aim of easing public-private partnership awards, also serves to facilitate this approach (though restrictions apply to its use).

the demise of the open design competition A review of web sites showing completed projects, where the architects and design teams have been selected through these more flexible competition procedures, demonstrates that the outcomes are generally good. For example, a significant number of the projects managed by the RIBA Competitions Office 4 Restricted procedure: a process in which all interested parties may express interest in tendering for the contract but only those meeting the contracting authorities’ selection criteria will actually be invited to do so. The first step is for candidates to submit any information required by the authority as part of its selection stage. (Source – www.Outlaw.com. Legal advice website drawn up by consultants Pinsent Masons.)

5 Competitive Dialogue: a system which allow tenderers individually to discuss all aspects of the contract with the contracting authority. Restrictions apply as to its use. Source. As above.

138

architectural competitions – histories and practice

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

have won design awards. At the same time, it has to be acknowledged that opportunities for smaller and less established practices have become considerably more limited. A number of factors have contributed to this. These include: a preference by clients for well-known names; the desire for the reassurance given by limiting entry to architectural practices which have already designed similar types of buildings; a “risk averse culture” within public bodies leading to undue emphasis being placed on the financial standing of entrants; and a requirement for high levels of insurance as a pre-entry qualification.

The traditional open two-stage competition, where anonymity was preserved throughout the process, has virtually disappeared in the UK. There has been nothing comparable to the competition to select the architects for the Oslo Opera House which attracted 350 entries all placed on public display. While the winning architects, Snøhetta, produced “a powerful and beautiful statement” (Glancey 2008) which succeeded in its objective of creating a world class opera house, many would argue that very few, if any, projects merit the amount of unpaid work involved in its selection process. On the other hand there is a case to be made for extending the entry for buildings of national significance beyond, for example, the few known names invited to submit designs for many of the major public projects funded by the UK National Lottery. Opportunities to increase the use of open design competitions for similar projects are now impeded by the fact that lottery money is no longer so strongly focussed on capital projects.

A further factor contributing to the demise of the traditional competition is the lack of direct commissions. Over the last few decades, public authorities within the UK have increasingly handed over the provision of buildings such as housing, hospitals, schools and community facilities to private companies through the use of Section 106 Planning agreements6 and PFI (Public Finance Initiative) systems7. The former has been extensively used to secure social housing while the latter was promoted as a means of replacing out-of-date hospitals and schools.

6 Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows local planning authorities to enter a legally-binding agreement with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. It is intended to be used to provide public benefits related to a development.

7 Public Finance Initiative: PFI was introduced in 1992 as a means of funding public infrastructure projects with private capital. Over £68 billion had been spent by Oct 2007. The system is now becoming increasingly questioned as evidence of the amount of indebtedness is revealed.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

139

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

pre-qualification and selection: process and impact The requirement for larger publicly funded commissions to be published in the OJEU (Official Journal of the European Union) has tended to further extend the numbers of applicants tendering for commissions and this has led client organisations to seek ways of reducing the work involved in the assessment.

One outcome has been the increased use of PQQs (Pre-Qualification Questionnaires) as a means of both short listing and of selection.

PQQs were initially introduced as a quality assurance prerequisite to sift out potential applicants prior to tender stage, mainly to prevent organisations from tendering for jobs for which they did not have the basics skills or the resources to deliver effectively. As EU procedures have become embedded in the commissioning process PQQs have become increasingly complicated, and are now used to pre-select rather than to merely exclude the unqualified or financially questionable. The rise in the use of framework agreements8, favoured by the current government as a means of reducing the costs involved in procuring a sequence of tenders, has also contributed to the increased complexity of PQQs. Many clients, particularly those in countries such as the UK where relatively few competitions are held, will be unfamiliar with a deign-based selection process – even those in organisations which are experienced in commissioning architects and design teams. This is more likely to be the case now in publicly funded organisations where a single unit is often made responsible for all procurement: selecting service providers in accordance with set procedures whether the tenders are for the provision of office equipment, schools dinners, waste disposal, park maintenance or the design and construction of a significant new building.

A methodology which could be considered appropriate for the commissioning of specific goods or services is being used to select or pre-select architects.

Criteria are established and given a weighting to reflect the clients’ priorities and every tender is “scored” according to how well each of these criteria is met.

Tenders are then assessed by adding all the marks together. This system is often used to award contracts rather than just pre-select. The criteria tend to be weighted towards the quantitative rather than the qualitative i.e. on areas that 8 Framework agreements: a system through which suppliers are short-listed for a given period of time so that they can be selected to provide goods or services or undertake projects as the need arises. The selection of the suppliers to join the framework follows standard EU procurement procedures but subsequent commissions can be made directly within the framework with no further EU notifications being required.

140

architectural competitions – histories and practice

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

can be easily scored rather than those which require informed judgement in order to make an assessment. Aspects such as size of practice, turnover, number of similar projects completed, number of qualified staff, and levels of professional indemnity insurance tend to be prioritized. Some PQQs ask for detailed statements to be submitted demonstrating compliance with government employment policies in areas such as Race Relations and Disabilities Legislation, implementation of Health and Safety Legislation, etc. and these too, gain marks for expressions of “good practice”.

There is a general consensus amongst design professionals that this “tick-list” approach is an inappropriate method for selecting architects and design teams.

One result of the current procurement system is that much of the UK’s design talent is either locked out of the market or discouraged from tendering by the costs and time involved in responding to PQQ requirements. To put this in context 97% of UK practices are SMEs (small or medium sized enterprises) with 79% of UK practices employing 10 or fewer people (RIBA 2012). A system which preselects by weighting only quantitative criteria tends to cut out a significant section of the profession. For example, turnover requirements typically applied to much public sector work above the OJEU thresholds mean that 85% of UK practices are too small to be able to tender. (RIBA 2012). Organisations with large portfolios of work are favoured, regardless of the fact that those staff responsible for “exemplar projects” of the type required could have moved elsewhere. Setting artificially high levels of PPI (professional indemnity insurance) cover as a prerequisite for entry is another major deterrent for smaller and medium sized practices.

The use of more simple PQQs designed to serve the original intent of excluding the unqualified rather than as a means of pre-selection, would widen the entry and provide scope to introduce a system in which qualitative assessments are made relating to applicants’ design skills, experience and expertise, and the quality of the service they are able to offer.

Selection procedures based on these criteria can follow a number of different routes.

design-based selection procedures Traditional architectural competition/EU Design Contest The procedures which used to be recommended by most professional institutes and government departments are essentially those which are now defined in EU procurement documentation under the heading of Design Contest. architectural competitions – histories and practice

141

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

• An announcement is placed in the press (or in OJEU for countries within EU jurisdiction) • Documentation (rules of entry and an initial brief ) is sent to anyone expressing an interest • An independent jury with relevant expertise is appointed to assess the competition entries. EU rules require at least a third of the members to have qualifications comparable to those required of competitors.

• Proposals are submitted anonymously “without any indication as to the authorship of each proposal” and in accordance with the specification detailed in the rules of entry.

• The jury assesses each entry according to criteria listed in the documentation and, in the case of EU Design Contests published in OJEU. This is a straightforward and open form of competition which, when properly organised, results in the promoter being presented with an outline design which is judged to provide the best solution to the brief set. The promoter can then agree the terms of appointment and work with the selected team to develop the design. This format has been widely used and continues to be particularly appropriate where: • the client is seeking innovative solutions to a specific problem • a number of different organisations are involved either as funders or as end users • the project is a significant building of public interest • a site of special interest is being developed.

Design Contests can be run in one or more stages. Two-stage competitions provide the promoter with a wide choice of design approaches while limiting the amount of detailed design work that competitors have to produce. While there are several advantages to having an initial design stage, one of the factors which deters clients from using this system is the amount of time involved. The process of double briefing and assessment - plus the time allowed for design work – extends the total timescale beyond that which many would find acceptable.

Increasingly clients are by-passing the initial design stage and using various forms of selection to move straight to the more detailed “second stage” – a format which used to be known as an Invited Competition. In EU design contests the promoter is permitted to restrict the number of persons invited to partici142

architectural competitions – histories and practice

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

pate provided the selection is made on the basis of “clear and non-discriminatory criteria”. The term “discriminatory” in this context refers to criteria which favour competitors from one country or region rather than another.

Competitive Interview As explained above the “Competitive Interview” was introduced by the RIBA to provide an alternative to the Design Contest and to fee bidding. The system aims to provide clients with a comparatively fast, inexpensive and efficient method of selecting a design team by competition’. The Competitive Interview allows the client to choose a designer or design team rather than a specific design. There is no question of anonymity or, often, of selection by independent jury, though the client is usually guided by an external professional adviser. Prizes are replaced by normal professional fees; although all entrants should be paid honoraria if specific design work is required (UK Government 1996).

When this document was issued it contained a caution for publicly funded projects: The competitive interview system may be subject to EC rules. This may have the effect of limiting the proprietor’s right to select on the basis of design quality rather than on fee levels. The Brook’s method9 is incompatible with EC rules. Where the two-envelope system is used, all fee proposals must be considered before a selection is finalised. (UK Government 1996).

Subsequent practice has questioned this interpretation.

At its simplest the Competitive Interview is merely a form of job interview in which selection is based on considerations of the quality and appropriateness of what is offered. The competition elements include open application, established criteria, and selection by a jury (or client panel with a professional 9 Brook’s Method: refers to the two envelope system which forms part of the Brook’s law method of assessing tenders. The first envelope contains all the tender information except the price.

The second envelope contains the tender price (or fee structure in the case of architects’ submissions). The second envelope is only opened once the assessment of the material contained in the first envelope has been completed.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

143

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

adviser). The system works best when the architects/design teams asked to attend for interview are properly briefed so that they can focus their presentations to respond to the client’s requirements. While no design work is required, interviewees may be asked to demonstrate what their approach to the project would be. They might well choose to illustrate this with sketches and drawings or by reference to other projects.

Mixed formats The competitive interview procedures are now also used as a short-listing mechanism prior to a design stage. While this enables clients to assess qualitative criteria more effectively, it still leaves the problem of how to reduce the numbers responding to an open invitation to an acceptable level for interview.

Some clients want to select on the basis of a site specific design proposal but are reluctant to do so solely on the basis of “paper evidence”. This has to the introduction of procedures which enable assessments to be made of factors such as compatibility of approach, quality of service, and structure of the team within the winning practice etc. Interviews, visits, presentations, and briefing sessions are now all being used to supplement the submission of designs. For example, a client may talk to organisations with which the preferred architects have worked previously before making a final decision.

These assessment methods are also being used between the first and second stages of design competitions with competitors being asked to present their schemes before answering questions put to them by the assessment panels.

Such procedures break anonymity (i.e. such competitions are no longer Design Contests in EU terms) but they can help steer a promising approach, encourage the architects to focus on the areas of most interest to the client, or develop alternatives approaches where there are points of specific concern. The danger is that one competitor may receive information (in comments on his/her scheme) which might have proved equally beneficial if given to others.

With anonymity removed, these procedures can tend to favour the “wellestablished” and “the big names” which many clients feel offer more security, particularly when selection is being made on behalf of a public organisation.

For countries within the EU, competitions and competitive selection processes which do not follow the “Design Contest” format outlined above, use interpretations of the “Restricted” procedure to determine “the most economically advantageous” tender. They do so by taking account of the longer term 144

architectural competitions – histories and practice

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

financial benefits of attributes such as the quality of design and service; ability to deliver on time and on budget; innovation, sustainability; fitness for purpose, and running cost over the life of the building.

Some public bodies are wary of using the procedures outlined above but the generally held view appears to be that they are a valid interpretation of current EU legislative rulings. There is, as far as can be readily ascertained, no evidence of these practices having been challenged.

elements of “good practice” Despite the fact that competitions have never been seen as an integral part of UK procurement practice, considerable experience has been built up over the years as to what constitutes good practice and what procedures are most likely to prove effective.

With all competition procedures, careful preparation is needed to ensure the best outcomes.

Somebody needs to manage the process – either a suitably qualified member of the client body or a professional project manager with experience of the competition system and the building type for which an architect or design is being sought. There is a good case to be made for this person being brought in right at the outset – to give guidance on the preparation of documentation and on the short listing procedures.

Initial Information All forms of competition start with invitations being issued. Some clients then proceed to issue reams of information, leaving potential applicants to work out what the client is looking for, what the project really involves, and which of the multifarious documents may or may not be important. This is costly in terms of time for those who have to work through everything before even considering making a response. It is also ineffective in that it does not serve to communicate the clients’ aims or needs.

Preparing to design and build a project is the most intense phase for the client. This is when crucial decisions are made, objectives and standards set, a brief is developed and tested, a team and project processes are put in place and relationships are built upon which the whole project is founded. (CABE 2011)

architectural competitions – histories and practice

145

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

A competition is a means of selecting the best design solution or the right architect/team for the job. It is not a means of bypassing the detailed work which needs to be put in at the outset of a building project. Before embarking on any form of competitive selection, the client needs to have an initial brief in place – setting objectives, spelling out the opportunities and constraints, detailing who the building is for and how it will be used, indicating the spaces required, and working out indicative costs so that an outline budget can be set. Drawing together and documenting this key information will help the client clarify what sort of architect/team they need, work out what form of competition is most appropriate, identify key advisors, and establish the criteria for assessing responses and submissions. Where the client has no experience of commissioning capital projects or no in-house design expertise, it is worth considering appointing a consultant specialising in competitive selection procedures.

Providing carefully thought-through documentation at the outset will help those preparing submissions to focus their work and address the client’s requirements and this, in turn, will ease the short-listing process. The most effective way of getting information to those with a potential interest in preparing a submission is to set up a web site, complementing the basic details required for an OJEU notice or placed in an advertisement and providing access to the initial brief and links to useful additional background information. The web site can continue to be used as the main means of communication as the competition/selection procedure progresses.

There is a tendency for clients to demand too much detail (in many cases irrelevant to the job in hand) from would-be competitors. Procedures need to be streamlined to try to ensure that applicants give the information which is needed in order to make a qualitative assessment and to make meaningful comparisons between the merits of the various submissions. Good practice requires responses to be limited in format and size (e.g. no more than 10 sheets of A4 or A3) and to contain only specified information appropriate to the particular project.

A simple and separate PQQ sheet sets out basic details about size of practice, qualifications of partners and staff, three or four “reference projects” (projects completed by the applicant over a given period) and some form of undertaking that, if appointed, the architect/team would have the resources needed to do the job and would be able to provide the necessary Professional Indemnity Insurance. The PQQs are then checked in advance of the main assessment to exclude applications which do not meet the basic qualifying requirements.

146

architectural competitions – histories and practice

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

Short-listing from Initial Submissions When quality-based selection procedures are being followed, relatively few applicants will be excluded without more detailed consideration being given to the material they have submitted. In most situations the client will be left with considerably more applicants than can be reasonably be interviewed or are needed for a design stage. Some form of short listing will be required. This can prove an onerous process on occasions when expressions of interest total 50 – 100 which is not uncommon in the UK. Simple logistics show that even spending five minutes looking at the material submitted limits the number which can be assessed to twelve an hour. In practice, some submissions will be ruled out more quickly while selecting the final short list will take considerably more time.

The qualitative assessment is normally undertaken by a panel with client representatives supplemented by one or two independent members who are professionally qualified and experienced in the area of work being considered.

The following process has been shown to work well.

• The submissions are divided into batches to equal the number of panel members. Each panel member is given one submission from the first batch which they read and then pass on. When all the submissions in the batch have been read, panel members do a simple vote: either “possible” (showing some merit) or “discard” (not sufficiently strong). This process continues until all the submissions have been considered. Judgements can be quite quick at this stage, taking account of the fact that only five or six will eventually be selected. (Considerations of fairness suggest that it is worth returning to the discard pile at the end of the process to check that the same standard has been applied throughout.)

• The submissions remaining in the “possible” pile are then discussed, one by one, by the panel as a whole. Where there is general agreement as to their potential merit or where one member of the panel is prepared to argue the case, the submission is retained. Those which attract no strong support join the “discarded” pile. This process could well reduce the number to around ten or twelve submissions.

• The final selection is the most time consuming which is why judgements in the preliminary stages have to be quite ruthless. Panel members need to be given time to study the remaining submissions in some architectural competitions – histories and practice

147

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

depth before debating their relative merits. The final selection may require a vote to be taken.

It is important to keep an “audit trail” (written record) of how decisions are made, listing the submissions discarded at each stage. In many cases, particularly for publicly funded projects, clients require that every submission is “scored” or graded against each of the criteria set. Where this procedure has to be followed, it is advisable to keep the number of criteria to the minimum – using general heads to cover a range of specific elements e.g. the general criterion of “quality of service” could include assessing how the practice is structured, qualifications and experience of key personnel, patterns of work and organisation of client contact.

Where standardised procurement procedures are being followed, the scores will often be used to finalise the short list. This is unlikely to prove to be the most effective way of short listing either for competitive interview or for the design stage of a more traditional competition. A simple addition of total scores can lead to the largest practices coming out top. This can be rectified to some extent by weighting particular criteria but this is a complicated process which still may not give the desired result (i.e. that of selecting architects/teams most likely to produce a building of high quality). A major shortcoming in the “scoring” approach is that it is likely to produce a short list of very similar teams. One of the purposes of holding a competition is to explore options, hopefully introducing an element of innovation into the completed project. There is, therefore, a good case to be made for balancing experience against “promise” and for looking at how a practice which has shown excellent design skills in one area might tackle a different type of project. Competition managers might well seek to create a short list in which several established practices with previous design experience in a particular field are selected (to provide a degree of assurance to the client) together two or three others whose submissions demonstrate an interesting approach to the subject. There are even merits (where rules permit) to including a “wild card” – a younger architect or smaller practice of the type that might emerge in the first stage of an open design competition. There are many examples of excellent buildings being produced early in an architect’s career and many of the largest and best known practices started out by completing small projects which led them to be recognised for their quality of thought and design skills.

148

architectural competitions – histories and practice

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

Interviews Interviews and presentations are, by definition, integral to the Competitive Interview system but they are also used as a pre-selection procedure for architectural competitions and between stages in design competitions. (The procedures cannot be introduced into EU Design Contests as anonymity is no longer possible).

Interviewing panels are best kept small with five, seven or nine members – the odd number avoids giving the chairperson a casting vote. All members need to be adequately briefed both on the client’s requirements and on the procedures to be followed. Where scoring or grading is required pre-prepared check sheets need to be provided listing the criteria and providing space for grades and comments. Some public bodies insist that each applicant is asked exactly the same set of questions. More interesting and informative responses tend to come when questions take the form of a discussion – each area being explored in a similar way with every applicant but allowing phraseology to vary and responses to be followed up. Grading and assessment are facilitated by allocating one or two specific areas of questioning to each member of the panel (with other panel members being given an opportunity to explore further if they feel they need to).

The architects/design teams present themselves – outlining how they work, their experience, design principles and approach to the project – before answering questions put by the panel. Again, the system works best if numbers are limited – with probably no more than three representatives from each applicant organisation. It is important that the architect who will work directly with the client on the project is specifically asked to attend. Interviews can take about an hour with time allowed between each one for panel members to collect their thoughts and make notes. This means that no more than five (possibly six) interviews can be held in a day. The short listing should aim to reduce the applications to this number – except for very significant projects when interviews may need to be spread over two days.

Where permitted, the Brooks method tends to be recommended. Even when the project falls within EU jurisdiction, many experienced competition managers still prefer to keep the fee bid separate from the design assessment process – taking fees into account only after the teams have been graded against qualitybased criteria. The fee is then brought into the discussions to help determine “the most economically advantageous” bid. architectural competitions – histories and practice

149

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

Briefing As explained above, good practice requires that an initial brief is drawn up right at the outset. More detailed briefing may be required prior to a design stage.

It is standard practice to provide for questions to be put and replies to be circulated. In accordance with the practice of “fairness” and “transparency” which underlie the competition system, all short listed competitors are shown all the questions and all the responses. Where anonymity is being preserved all briefing material is circulated either as hard copy or on a dedicated web site. Site visits may be arranged but these need to be conducted by someone who has no input into the assessment process.

When the EU “restricted” procedure is being used, or in situations where clients are free to determine their own procedures, a range of other options become available. These include site visits (either with individual teams visiting separately or with all those short listed meeting in a single group for a site visit and a follow up question session), seminars, presentations, and open discussions. To give one example, a University seeking designs for an experimental drama facility hosted a conference to which the short-listed teams were invited along side a range of academics, theatre designers, and practitioners to discuss developments in theatre. Students also mounted different types of productions to illustrate how the space might be used. This was seen as part of the briefing process.

One of the criticisms which architects have of the competition system is that it bypasses the crucial period of dialogue between the architect and client, a process which they consider to underlie the development of the brief.

Competitions are not appropriate in cases where it is essential for a client and architect to maintain continuous dialogue as the design progresses. (UK Government 1996) It can be argued that this criticism relates to a distinct style of commissioning which is becoming increasingly less common – that where a single client appoints and briefs the architect of his/her choice and sees the scheme through to completion. Most building projects where the use of the competition system might be considered appropriate, are commissioned by organisations: local authorities, statutory bodies, educational institutions, commercial companies etc.

In such cases, the brief is often drafted by administrators or consultants and the 150

architectural competitions – histories and practice

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

selection made by a panel acting on behalf of the client body. For example, the redevelopment of part of the London’s Kings Cross/St Pancras International station complex (which includes George Gilbert Scott’s Grade I listed hotel and the new Eurostar terminus) required over 40 people to represent all the different interest groups. The competition system has benefits in such cases. Where a number of interests are involved, the obligation to produce the initial brief by a given date can help draw people together and focus discussions. Careful management is then needed to ensure that competition documents have universal endorsement before they are issued.

Competitions should not be seen as a means of finding solutions to insoluble problems. Difficult decisions cannot be fudged and questions have to be answered. If difficulties are left unresolved in the briefing material issued to applicants, they may well become embedded in the designs they produce – and prove costly to resolve at post competition stage.

The objectives need to be agreed before the competition is launched along with the key elements of the brief. The points listed below may seem obvious but experience shows that it is often worth spelling them out.

• Building in Use. A series of basic questions needs to be answered before any more detailed work is undertaken. The client (individual or group) needs to work out what the building is for, how it will be used, what the main activities will be, what spaces are required to house these activities and how the spaces need to interrelate. With public or community buildings questions of longer term ownership, management, and running costs also need to be addressed.

• The site. The site needs to be secured before the competition is launched with basic requirements such as services and access agreed in principle.

The site needs to be suitable for the proposed use and large enough to accommodate a building of the size and type required, within existing planning constraints.

• The budget. Competitions benefit from having the overall budget established at the outset. This needs to be realistic and take account of the total cost including fitting out to the standard required. Increasingly costs in use and issues of sustainability are being taken into account (where increased building costs may be set against a reduction in longer term costs.) architectural competitions – histories and practice

151

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

• Timetable. The tightness (or flexibility) of a building programme, etc. will need to be taken into account as this may well affect design decisions and end cost.

• Specialist provision. Where provision of a very specialist nature is required this needs to be specified in detail in the brief.

• Mandatory requirements. A careful distinction needs to be made between requirements which are mandatory (specified in the English language by the term “must”) and those which are “desirable” or “the preferred approach” (specified by the words “may” or “should”). Where a mandatory requirement is ignored, good practice requires that the scheme be disqualified from further consideration.

Note: For more complex projects, the client may need to appoint consultants to help prepare the initial brief. In the UK, for example, it is not unusual for cost consultants to be brought in prior to the selection of the design team.

embedding competitions in uk procurement practice While the RIBA Competitions Office and other experienced Competition Managers have established the basic principles of good practice and demonstrated that such principles lie at the heart of a successful outcome, the UK is still some distance away from a “competition culture”.

Economic problems have, once again, led to cutbacks in capital expenditure with the result that opportunities for architects and design professionals have become much more limited. In Brussels, a revised EU public procurement directive is being negotiated which some fear may ease out design-based selection procedures10. The growing use of frameworks and the increasingly demanding sets of PQQs which the framework procedures tend to generate are also having an impact on all but the largest firms. The UK government is currently exploring ways of reducing procurement costs and is looking to the framework system as a means of doing so. At the same time, a separate government department is exploring ways of stimulating SMEs (small and medium enterprises) – the organisations which tend to get excluded by the framework system.

This combination of factors, plus growing frustration with current procedures and outcomes, prompted the RIBA to undertake a detailed analysis of the 10 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Public Procurement. COM(2011) 896.

152

architectural competitions – histories and practice

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

procurement system. A working group was convened, headed by architect Walter Menteth, to make recommendations for change. Their work resulted in the publication of the report “Building Ladders of Opportunity” (published in June 2012). In her introduction to the report, RIBA President Angela Brady writes: Our current public procurement system has not been working for some time…. The process is both frustrating and wasteful for those bidding for or unable to gain access to contracts, and too often the resulting buildings are of poor quality that cost too much money to build and run.

This report forms the first part of a new programme of work by the RIBA on construction procurement. It has been produced through consultation with a crossprofessional forum, so that together, we can create a stronger voice for change. We do not claim to have all the answers, but aim to set out some achievable solutions which combined, can help deliver on some of the Government’s key areas of ambition. (RIBA 2012).

The report contains recommendations under three heads: • Further examine the best ways to drive efficiencies and savings to ensure the public procurement system functions in the best interests of all those it serves • Embed processes that ensure buildings are sustainable by focusing on design outcomes • Create a competitive market by increasing access and allowing the public sector to take full advantage of UK design talent.

These recommendations are supported by a call for a wider range of procurement practices to be used. The report urges the Government to promote the competition system in order to establish a competition culture within the public sector – a culture which places design issues firmly at the top of the agenda. It recommends that up to a third of public sector construction projects be procured via competitions and that the Government work with the RIBA to promote and widen the use of design competitions run in accordance with EU Design Contest rules and the “Competitive Interview” system.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

153

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

In EU countries we have investigated, design competitions are well integrated with procurement procedures… In the case of France and Germany this is largely driven by government supported systems where public projects are automatically put out to competition. Their use equally extends to the private sector. (RIBA 2012).

The report seeks standardisation of practice including the reintroduction of guidance regulations produced by the Government and endorsed by the professional organisations and client bodies. (Documentation along the lines suggested was produced in 1996 but fell into disuse as government areas of responsibility were reorganised and RIBA priorities changed.)

Inevitably, the renewed push for competitions sparked a debate. Those in favour of a government-supported competitions culture emphasise the need for a procurement system which promotes design quality, focuses on the benefits of innovation, and extends opportunities for new talent to be expressed and for new practices to grow. Those against draw attention to the cost and time incurred, citing examples such as the competition for the Stockholm Library11, abandoned after over one thousand one hundred submissions had been assessed and six architectural practices had worked to develop their designs.

Whether this initiative will prove any more successful than previous attempts to embed the competition system within UK procurement practice remains to be seen. Government policies (and legislative guidance) need to change if public buildings are to form the core of a revitalised competition culture. The public sector needs to be weaned away from a predilection to hand projects over to developers as well as from a reliance on the perceived safety of appointing large organisations which have already completed similar projects.

If the competition system, in its various forms, is to be used more extensively clients need to be reassured, possibly by the promotion of some high-profile well-run competitions for government projects, that the system works well and achieves the outcomes claimed by its supporters. To work successfully and be acceptable to the majority of architects procedures need to be established to encourage easier access for small and medium practices, professional assessment against given criteria, fair and transparent methodologies, and limits on the amount of work involved in the preparation of “expressions of interest” 11 A competition promoted by Stockholm City Council in November 2007 but abandoned two years later due to pressure from various groups opposed to building so close to Asplund’s celebrated 1932 design.

154

architectural competitions – histories and practice

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

and in the â&#x20AC;&#x153;design approachesâ&#x20AC;? presented at the interview stage. Where more detailed designs are required, it is important to brief competitors well, limit the numbers entering the detailed design stage, control the amount of work to be submitted, and offer payments (or premiums) to help offset some of the costs incurred as well as ensure, as far as possible, that the winning schemes get built.

The RIBA moved away from offering an advisory service (supported by standard regulations and sets of documents on which to base the competition conditions). For more than two decades it has, instead, operated a management service for which it charges fees. While the outcomes demonstrate the effectiveness of this service, it leaves unfulfilled the role of promoting the use of the system and advising on good practice. This gap in services to guide and promote has become more apparent since 2011 when the UK Government stopped funding CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment), its former advisory body on design standards and quality.

There is a case to be made for the RIBA concentrating less on the management of individual competitions (there are a number of consultants and specialist organisations experienced in this field) and focussing its expertise on developing the competition system and advising government how it can be used more effectively to improve design standards and to direct commissions to those best suited for each particular project. There is evidence that more publicly funded bodies would consider promoting some form of design based competition if they were given authoritative guidance on procedures so that they could be confident that they would not be challenged for breach of EU regulations.

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

155

judith strong: prequalification in the uk and selection procedures

References Austrian Chamber of Architects. Competition Standard for Architecture – CSA 2010 published by the Federal Chamber of Architects and Chartered Engineering Consultants in Austria.

CABE. Creating Excellent Buildings – A Guide for Clients. CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment). Issued as a hard copy in 2003. Revised (electronic version only) 2011.

Glancey. J., 2008. A review of the completed Oslo Opera House. The Guardian newspaper. 21 April 2008.

Parish. S., 2012. International Architectural Competitions – a survey conducted by Sarah Parish of Parish Consulting UK February 2012.

RIBA., 2012. Report: Building Ladders of Opportunity: How reforming Construction procurement can drive growth in the UK economy. RIBA. June 2012.

UK Government., 1996. Architectural Competitions; A handbook for promoters.: issued by Department of Environment and Department of National Heritage in 1996.

156

architectural competitions – histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

Abstract International competitions reflect the architect’s personal design beyond controlled systems of social relations, comfort zones, age, gender or even expertise, in a fast and risky sublimation process. At the same time they generate publicity and a public recognition which may surpasses the investments in time, energy and financial resources.

Based on the work of the 2011 Pritzker laureate – Portuguese architect Eduardo Souto de Moura – we put forward the hypothesis that international competitions act as an intersection between research and practice evolving through the nature of individual architecture.

Souto de Moura follows Alvaro Siza Vieira and the Oporto’s School design practice.

From 1979 to 2010 Souto de Moura submitted 50 competition entries, more than half international, of which 26 competitions were realized between 2007 and 2010.

International competitions, besides acting as a refraction of a working method for a specific proposal provide an important resource for personal reflective practice and are seldom considered, compiled or jointly analysed.

This paper will collect, document and outline the epistemology of the professional practice associated to the phenomenon of internationalization of this Portuguese architect. We will illustrate two competitions – “Salzburg Hotel” (1987-89) and “The Bank” (1993) – and one built project in Oporto – “Burgo Tower” (1991-95 Phase 1; 2003-04 Phase 2; 2007 Construction) – that share a progression of methodological imagery, clarity and innovation from primordial immateriality towards the built form.

Souto de Moura’s work relentlessly and repeatedly searches for the solution that serves the program and the task at hand taking risks and challenges as stimulation for creativity, conveying reflection in theory and culture and, at the same time, remaining obsessive towards specific themes. Souto de Moura is permanently a scientist in a lab: satisfying client’s needs (or as acting as one), creating beauty, elegance and solving riddles, thus addressing competitions with qualified rhetoric.

We conclude proposing that competitions provide a theoretical corpus of knowledge, besides what is specific and unique to each one individually, which infer the existence of an overlapping and intertwined, complex system of projects. Consequently, competitions constitute an optimised interface for the continuity of research for the architectural author where design statements put forward in proposals transcend the boundaries of the competition.

Key words: Architectural Research, Competitions, Eduardo Souto de Moura, Portugal Contact: Pedro Guilherme, PhD Candidate pg.sspg@gmail.com CHAIA, Univ Évora, FA, Univ Tecn Lisboa, Portugal

158

João Rocha, PhD rjoao@uevora.pt CIDEHUS, Univ Évora, Portugal

architectural competitions – histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

Architectural competitions as a lab – A study on Souto de Moura’s competition entries pedro guilherme, co-author joão rocha

introduction The initial assumption that supports this investigation is that competitions provide the time and the place to develop a research on individual practice.

This research is often used and perfected in the works that follow. Thus, we put forward the hypothesis that competitions may act as an intersection between research and practice evolving through the nature of individual architecture.

This research follows a mixed approach. The findings in the article are based on a literature review of relevant architecture studies and analyses about architectural competitions.

The investigation starts by pointing out the specific and highly complex nature of the internationalization of Portuguese architecture and its architects.

We will frame and focus on the 2011 Pritzker laureate: architect Eduardo Souto de Moura. We will present the case studies including two competitions - “Salzburg Hotel” (1987-89) and “The Bank” (1993) – and one built project in Oporto – “Burgo Tower” (1991-95 Phase 1; 2003-04 Phase 2; 2007 Construction) – that share a progression of methodological imagery, clarity and innovation from primordial concept immateriality towards the built form. The competition entries, quotes from jury reports and interviews illustrate the research questions and how the competition can be understood as a research tool. We propose to identify some results that can be observed from the presented case studies and elaborate on Souto de Moura’s architectural grammar of knowledge.

Although architectural competitions in Portugal and entries of Portuguese architects abroad have never been subject to any systematic research, this study gathers evidence of an epistemology of the professional practice associated with the phenomenon of internationalization of this particular Portuguese architect.

Following these results we base our discussion on the evidence of a link between architectural competitions – histories and practice

159

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

investigation and practice by the use of competitions. We briefly identify some types of mechanism that may lead to knowledge during the architectural design (Alexander, 1965, 1971; Darke, 1978; Attoe, 1978; Lawson, 2001, 2004, 2005; Hill, 1998, 2003, 2006; Till, 2005a; b, 2009, 2011) and introduce the “reflection-in-action” (Schön, 2003, first edition 1983) as expressive “knowing” and part of the “lab” process. The literature review is used to put the case studies in a research context (Lipstadt, 1989a, 2006; Nasar, 2006; Strong, 1996; Tostrup, 1999, 2010).

Finally, the paper summarises the outcome of our investigation and formulates possible conclusions and some doubts to be answered.

theorethical frame of reference The Internationalization of Portuguese Architecture From 1960 onward portuguese foreign policy gradually renouced the overseas territories (Angola, Mozambique, São Tomé and Príncipe, Portuguese Guinea and Portuguese Timor) and changes focus towards the European market, gaining exterior visibility and interest. Nuno Portas1 (1934-) participates in the architectural “Small Congresses” in Spain organized by Oriol Bohigas (1925-) in Tarragona in 1967 and in the following year he brings Álvaro Siza Vieira (1933-) to Victoria’s Small Congress. This becomes the initial moment for the international recognition of Portuguese architecture.

Together, Siza Vieira (deeply influenced by Alvar Aalto architecture2) and his work, the intellectual and political activity of Nuno Portas and the interest 1 Nuno Portas, architect, researcher, teacher, politician and critic, was since 1957 editor at the Portuguese magazine “Arquitectura”. In 1974, he assumed the position as Secretary of State for Housing and Town Planning, a post he held through the first three Interim Governments. He promoted the creation of housing cooperatives and of local support offices (GAT), created the SAAL and started the processes leading to the adoption of the Municipal Master Plans.

2 In 1949 Siza begins his training at the School of Fine Arts (later FAUP). In 1950 Carlos Ramos arrives to the school with an envisioned “reform in teaching architecture (…) and a major change in the level of information (…) a certain openness (…)” (Conversation between Álvaro Siza and Eduardo Souto de Moura, 2011, p.53). A young teacher Fernando Távora opens up to travelling and to magazines: “First it was Corbu[sier]. But times were changing and things started coming from abroad. New publications gave notice of what was going on, where, how and by whom. (…) Távora appeared, with a sparkle in his eyes and a book in his hand: “Brasil builds. (…) Other magazines suddenly disappeared (monographs of Gropius, Neutra, Mandelson, Mies) they were mysteriously substituted. (…) later our eyes opened to marvellous architectures, arriving from all four corners of the world. Merged one after another in turmoil, mixing, resting in the subconscient, waiting.” (Siza and Morais, 2009, p.371). This opening was only possible then and as English magazines became available, then Italian and later

160

architectural competitions – histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

generated by SAAL (Serviço de Apoio Ambulatório Local / Local Ambulatory Support Service) architectural operations (1974-1976) become the subject of the permanent attention of Oriol Bohigas, Bernard Huet (1932-), Vittorio Gregotti (1927-) and Kenneth Frampton (1930-) in Spain, France and Italy throughout the 70s and the 80s.

After the 25th of April Revolution of 1974 Siza Vieira embraces a solid and continued, national and international, activity. Between 1979 and 19903 competitions were of the utmost importance for his international recognition. Souto de Moura (1952-) is deeply influenced by his assumed master’s practice and embarks in his own personal venture much earlier in his career. Souto de Moura uses competitions as potential research opportunities relevant for subsequent projects.

Competitions by Portuguese architects It is possible to find individual winning projects or referenced entries in monographs of Álvaro Siza Vieira, or Souto de Moura. We may also find some competition entries in some Portuguese or foreign serial publications. However, no coherent study on competitions has been made up to now.

In 2006 the Ordem dos Arquitectos (Portuguese Chamber of Architects) conducted a survey (Cabral and Borges, 2006) to better understand architects, how they began their professional lives, how they exercise their profession, as well as their main values and attitudes within their profession.

The survey reaches three main conclusions (Cabral and Borges, 2007): (1) the main characteristic of the ethos of architecture lies in a recurrent tension between vocation and profession due to its artistic dimension which, in turn, distinguishes it from other liberal professions; (2) secondly, the “jurisdiction” imposed by Portuguese architects over the practice of architecture is weak; and (3) finally, the “liberal professional” continues to be the type ideal for architects to work in Portugal.

Japanese. Short trips abroad became also possible and Siza goes to different cities in Spain and to Paris. Carlos Ramos recommends Siza to find Nordic architects and he bought some Architecture d’Aujourd’hui (among them the monographic issue about Alvar Aalto – n.191, June 1977). It was the beginning of a great passion for Alvar Aalto).

3 We can see a first period between 1979 and 1980 with the Bonjour Tristesse, Schlesisches Tor, Berlin, Germany (1980); a second period between 1980 and 1983 with the Kulturforum, Berlin, Germany (1983); and a third period between 1985 to 1990 with Campo di Marti, Giudecca, Venece, Italy (1985), La Defensa, Madrid, Spain (1988-1989) and the Bibliotheque de France, Paris, France (1989).

architectural competitions – histories and practice

161

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

In accordance to this study male architects take part 14% more than female architects in competitions and obtain double the number of prizes (23% against 12%). Only one third of Portuguese architects compete in open national architectural competitions, and only 7% in more than one competition. A smaller number of architects (15%), usually older and male architects, enroll in rectricted national architectural competitions. Almost half of all architects questioned state that office size is fundamental to winning architectural competitions.

It is relevant that only a very limited number of architects (7%), identified and described by Cabral and Borges as “the profession’s elite”, participate in foreign architectural competitions.

This so called “professional elite” definitely includes both Pritzker Prizes (Álvaro Siza in 1992 and Souto de Moura in 2011) and their work in competitions is relevant for international recognition of their professional quality and of Portuguese architecture.

During the last decade several exhibitions confirm that most incursions by Portuguese architects in foreign territory (Coelho, 2009; Carvalho, Tostões and Wang, 2009; Gadanho and Pereira, 2003; Metaflux, 2004) are in competitions and seem to share identical objectives of research and recognition.

Architectural competitions (winnings) and the recognition of an authorship are described by Cabral and Borges as being linked to the personal success in the profession in relation to peers and in society in general. Gender (weight 0.11) and age (weight 0.25) contribute to a career of success which provides both personal satisfaction (weight 0.22) or status and financial satisfaction (weight 0.34).

Based upon this data and examples from unquestioned architects, one may confirm if competitions for Portuguese architects, both in Portugal and abroad, provide a strategy to obtain professional recognition, and if competitions serve as a research lab to architects.

Souto de Moura – professional profile Souto de Moura was born in Oporto on the 25th July 1952, studied sculpture and graduated in architecture in 1980 at the School of Fine Arts of the University of Oporto (later FAUP).

From 1974 to 1979 he worked with Álvaro Siza Vieira at his architectural practice and in 1980 he began his career as an independent architect, after winning a design competition for “Casa das Artes” (Vilar de Allen Viscount Mansion / “Arts House”, in Oporto, Portugal, 1981-1991).

162

architectural competitions – histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

Souto de Moura’s early commissions were modest residential houses, mainly in Portugal. Later, he was commissioned with shopping centres, schools, art galleries, and a cinema, in Spain, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, and Switzerland.

Between 1989 and 1997, Souto de Moura spent eight years on the rehabilitation of Santa Maria do Bouro, a half-destroyed 12th-century monastery in Amares, transforming it into a Hotel (Pousada). More recently he built the Braga Stadium Fig. 1. Souto de Moura pictured over Casa das (2000-04), the Casa das Histórias Paula Histórias Paula Rego, Cascais.

Rego (2006-09) and the Burgo Tower (1991-95 Phase 1; 2003-04 Phase 2; 2007 Construction).

From 1981 to 1990, Souto de Moura was assistant professor at his alma mater, and was later appointed Professor at FAUP, the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Oporto. Along with Fernando Távora and Álvaro Siza, he is one of the well-known names of the Porto School of Architecture. He has been a visiting professor at the architectural schools of Geneva, Paris-Belleville, Harvard University, Dublin, ETH Zurich and Lausanne, and has participated in numerous seminars and given many lectures both in Portugal and abroad. His work has appeared in various publications and exhibitions.

Souto de Moura was awarded the Pritzker Architecture Prize in 2011 and in the jury nomination we can read “During the past three decades, Eduardo Souto de Moura has produced a body of work that is of our time but also carries

Fig. 2. Early drawings by Souto de Moura illustrating design ideas.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

163

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

Fig. 3. Catalogue of Exhibition. Eduardo Souto de Moura – Competitions 1979-2010.

Fig. 4. Floating Images. Eduardo Souto de Moura’s Wall Atlas.

echoes of architectural traditions.” And further, “His buildings have a unique ability to convey seemingly conflicting characteristics — power and modesty, bravado and subtlety, bold public authority and a sense of intimacy — at the same time.” (Media Kit: announcing the 2011 Pritzker Architecture Prize Laureate, 2011). Álvaro Siza, the first Portuguese architect to consistently work abroad in the late 70s (Berlin after 1979, La Haya after 1983, Venice after 1985 and Salzburg after 1986), and Souto de Moura share a national, inherent, conditional ability to read the context of the site and to recreate it with added materiality.

Souto de Moura’s international recognition reflects not only the growth of the architectural profession in Portugal after the 1974’ Revolution and the intense interest in its architects during the 80s, but also an architectural quality based on a critique of undifferentiated values of global civilizations and the development of the values implicit to local cultures and to materials.

Competitions by Souto de Moura In a recent exhibition (Barata, Campos and Oliveira, 2011) all relevant work on competitions by Souto de Moura from 1979 to 2010 were displayed in the Gallery 164

architectural competitions – histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab Table 1 - Competition Statistics from Exhibition “Competitions 1979-2010”.

Data (Barata, Campos and Oliveira, 2011)

#

%

Number of competitions between 1979 and 2010

50

100%

Number of national competitions

24

48% (24/50)

Number of international competitions

26

52% (26/50)

Number of international competitions – Europe

24

92% (24/26)

Number of international competitions – Non Europe

2

8% (2/26)

Prized competitions (first and second places)

16

32% (16/50

Winning (1st place) competitions in Portugal

11

46% (11/24)

Winning (1st place) competitions abroad (international)

3

12% (3/26)

at the FAUP and later published (Barata, Campos and Oliveira, 2011). This exhibition illustrates the international recognition of Souto de Moura and establishes an initial inventory of his competitions both in Portugal and abroad.

From 1979 to 2010 Souto de Moura participated in 50 competitions. He obtained relevant positions (1st and 2nd prizes) in 16 competitions. 26 competitions were completed between 2007 and 2010. Some relevant statistical information is presented in table 1.

The first conclusion we may draw is the growing importance of competitions to guarantee a commission4 in the last 5 years.

From the exhibition data we may conclude that most competitions deal with significant urban buildings (cultural, health, sports and religious programs make up 31 out of 50 competitions) or directly related to urban developments (7 out of 50) and only a few (4 out of 50) deal with the housing theme, half of which are hotel programs.

Souto de Moura has a low rate of successful competitions (32% of all competitions obtain the first or second prizes), and he is, statistically, more successful in Portugal (he won 11 out of 24 competitions) than abroad (3 out of 26 competitions). As Souto de Moura says “50% of all [my] designs are never built. So many buildings are not built … today alone I lost two tenders! Two!”(Rangel, Martins, Sá and Faria, 2009b, p.91) Competitions are either won or lost, and even if Souto de Moura wins it does not mean that the project will be built. There are bureaucratic, economic and 4 Yet, with the date collected, it is unclear the true economic relevance of competitions over direct acquisition of architectural services.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

165

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

Fig. 5. Initial Study, Salzburg Hotel (1987).

Fig. 6. Final Study, Salzburg Hotel (1989).

other steps that have to be overcome with diplomacy and compromise. This effort is not always successful.

the case studies Salzburg Hotel (1987/89) This is an urban project where the location is the foundation of the idea. The periphery of the site and its urban relations give structure to his proposal.

The triangular site is situated between a residential area and the great mass of rock which cuts right through the city. The project tries to conciliate the various areas, programmes and legal impositions and presents a two volume building that separates the private areas from the public areas.

Souto de Moura’s success in this competition is due to his response to the theme, in an urban context, and to his experience in the interplay of volumes and shapes.

Three years after (1989) Souto de Moura submits the final proposal to the Council. Some important changes to the initial design were made in the volume, construction scheme and materials: concrete, stone and iron.

Between the initial (competition, 1987) to the final proposal (1989) there is a change in the attitude of the architect. In the first scheme the “(…) wilful (deformed) 166

architectural competitions – histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

Fig. 7. View of the model, Salzburg Hotel.

Fig. 8. View of the model, Salzburg Hotel.

axiality and its urban adornment achieved through contrast of materials and gigantic flag poles, a mise en scene of prudent urban and compositional continuity with the Mitteleuropäisch city read by means of the tools of neo-academicism. The second project is an object that constitutes itself, in terms of a rigorous logic of construction and material, at the cost of making worse the urban articulation which it felt obliged to establish in the first version.” (Anon, 1998, p.17) In the final proposal the problems of form are settled in the shape of an isomorph and infinite building.

The design references for this project are piles of overlapping elements, such as wood, concrete or iron. It is unclear when Souto de Moura collected these references, but they emerge at an early design level as if they were pre-design immaterial objects that communicate the project to the architect and help him to keep focused on the idea.

There is some research and selection among the images, some unspoken narrative that keeps images and project linked together. Souto de Moura reflects and acts swiftly in the brief moment of the competition. He selects the images from his Wall Atlas (Bandeira and Tavares, 2011) and applies them as scientific experiments to the project. The images are so strong that they convey the hidden (personal) moment of conception to others. These images say it better and say it sooner.

These everyday objects that Souto de Moura uses as figurative transposition research “(…) the minimal structure which permits the greatest possible combination of interpretations, with the idea that if something gets changed in the combination of materials, in the phase of adaptation to the new function, evidently it was not essential to be exactly as planned. In this way the evocative force of the form overcomes that of the function for which the object was created, permitting the architectural competitions – histories and practice

167

pedro guilherme & joĂŁo rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

Fig. 9. Design references for the Salzburg Hotel project.

degree of flexibility necessary for the sort of interpretation required by a society in continuous evolution.â&#x20AC;? (Angelillo, 1996, p.21) These images are not arbitrary, but premeditated in the sense that they are compulsory, collected on a daily basis by Souto de Moura, reflecting some kind of personal filter. These images become affective, expecting to be used, and will be used and reused in other projects.

To someone evaluating the competition these images say what Souto de Moura would have liked to say.

168

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joĂŁo rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

Fig. 10. Plan, Salzburg Hotel.

Fig. 12. First Story Plan, Salzburg Hotel.

Fig. 14. Sections, Salzburg Hotel.

Fig. 11. Basement Plan, Salzburg Hotel.

Fig. 13. Second story Plan, Salzburg Hotel.

Fig. 15. Exterior views, Salzburg Hotel.

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

169

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

In this case these images serve yet another purpose of explaining the skin of the building, the facade design, which is unexplained by the design programme.

Souto de Moura states: “As often occurs in my projects, the question of the system of construction became a kind of obsession. Design is increasingly determined by budget, schedule, dimensions and building codes. The role of the language to be deployed is restricted to the surface, a field open to all sorts of dangerous artistic gestures. The result aimed to achieve a clear implantation of a harmonious volumetry within a container-type facade, capable of diluting the impositions of a five story structure onto a street lined by neo-classical villas displaying their volutes, cornices and entablatures with dignity.” (Peretti and Bortolotti, 1999, p.113)

The Bank (1993) This was a private, restricted competition by invitation held by Olivetti in 1993.

The Bank is a fictitious project with a fictitious program, and without a fixed location, “(…) based on ideas, which are necessarily the fruit of reflection and research” (Capezzutto, 1994, p.30). Souto de Moura’s (1952) studio in Oporto was invited, along with David Chipperfield (1953) based in London and Jacques Herzog (1950) & Pierre de Meuron’s (1950) studio from Basel.

The reasons for the choice of these architects were: • they belonged “(…) to the same generation born around 1950 (…)”and represented “(…) a relatively homogeneous group of architects … who aim to become great masters” (Capezzutto, 1994, p.33); • they were “European architects, with comparable social roots and cultural backgrounds” (Capezzutto, 1994, p.33); • they “are among the best in the world” (Capezzutto, 1994, p.33); • they “would form if not a movement or a trend, then at the very least a group of friends” (Capezzutto, 1994, p.33).

Souto de Moura is described as having trained at Oporto School of Architecture and having “worked for Fernando Távora and Álvaro Siza, from whom he developed his attention to the site, his construction knowledge, his sensitivity to the materials used and his ability to condense even the most complex architectural theme to essential terms. His research into architectural types has led him, through a painstaking pursuit for perfection, to propose a series of exciting, 170

architectural competitions – histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

Fig. 16. Sketches, design principles, after Tàpies.

Fig. 17. Plan and section for the Bank.

innovative and at the same time logical modifications. Souto de Moura’s great attention to detail is not affectation, but the consequence of a process of refinement and elimination of the superfluous” (Capezzutto, 1994, p.34).

Unlike usual competitions, there were meetings between the architects and the Olivetti jury. This is a feature seldom seen in competitions but brings to bear an exchange of ideas between the client and the architect.

The task was to design a medium sized bank branch building in a provincial European town, whose location was left to the individual choice of the architect in a 25x25 square meters floor area and three stories.

Souto de Moura addresses the competition as the construction of an object: This is not a competition or a project, but the construction of a model of a possible building with no specific location. The project, in the sense of a catalogue for the implementation of an idea, is limited to the construction drawings and its transportation case. What is left is a sort of material archive which gradually turned into a final idea as it was developed. (Capezzutto, 1994, p.74) Somehow the unspecified project location is in contrast to the attention to the site initially praised as a characteristic of Souto de Moura’s architecure by the jury.

Souto de Moura addresses this question again taking use of his imagery atlas. This time he selects an image of Tàpies, a painting that becomes the origin of the plan.

By resembling early drawings from Team X with collage and lithography Souto de Moura explores his first hypothesis, based on four symmetrical corner architectural competitions – histories and practice

171

pedro guilherme & joĂŁo rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

Fig. 18. Collage concept for the Bank project.

units on the square plot, and variants address the requirements of each level.

The free space within shapes a square, empty courtyard.

Reference images, like those from the work of TĂ pies, also provide research material for facades and detailed sketches or models. Souto de Moura researches the ideograms, which tell all without articulation, and the images, which elaborate the possible construction. Again, from initial stacks of concrete beams, to stacks of iron elements, to overlaps of wood stacking systems, images are used as project material and potential structures capable of originating space.

All these images sometimes preceding the idea are connected by an unwritten narrative of obsessive nature.

Fig. 19. Sketches by Souto de Moura for the Bank project.

172

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

Fig. 20. Exterior view, the Bank model.

Fig. 21. Bank model of the courtyard and section.

From the moment of the first sketch to the final moment of the drawing of the project there is time to reflect upon the nature and ethos of the building.

With the same need to erase the stories, Souto de Moura uses the same principle of the “container facade”. The height of the building is artificially tempered and contaminated by the materiality chosen, as if buildings could restore the nature of the material in Souto de Moura’s images.

This is in fact a project research about overlappings, a theme initiated in the Salzburg Hotel and continued at the Burgo Tower, which is the final object of our investigation.

The Burgo Tower (1991/95 Phase 1; 2003/04 Phase 2; 2007 Construction) The Burgo tower was the first large building that Souto de Moura designed; he mocks “I always say that I moved from one floor to twenty. I never built three or four floor buildings, I moved from one to twenty.” (Rangel, Martins, Sá and Faria, 2009d, p.58) The site is located at Boavista Avenue in Oporto and the building consists of a level platform and two volumes which are designed at different scales. The lower building allows for the enclosure of an urban square and a sculpture5 gives meaning to the place. The tower rises up from the platform, near the lower volume. This two volume solution clearly responds to the site complexity with simple geometry.

The same images, once again, serve as motto for the design of the outer layer of the facade. This construction, later detailed in the execution project, follows 5 Sculpture by Ângelo de Sousa.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

173

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

Fig. 22. References for composition of the facade, Burgo Tower.

Fig. 23 (left). Souto de Moura reuses this concept as prototype for a bar unit.

Fig. 24 (middle and right). Design reference and detail of facade construction.

a path of research only possible with the long timespan (1978-1993, or 1978-2007 including implementation) available to Souto de Moura since Salzburg. The image remains an iconic symbol of the construction to be erected.

In an interview with El Croquis, he explained, “I find Mies increasingly fascinating ... There is a way of reading him which is just to regard him as a minimalist. But he always oscillated between classicism and neoplasticism ... You only have to remember the last construction of his life, the IBM building, with that powerful travertine base that he drilled through to produce a gigantic door.

Then on the other hand, he arrived in Barcelona and did two pavilions, didn’t 174

architectural competitions – histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

he? One was abstract and neo plastic and the other one was classical, symmetrical with closed corners ... He was experimenting. He was already so modern.”

(Key projects by Eduardo Souto de Moura, 2011, Media Kit: announcing the 2011 Pritzker Architecture Prize Laureate) Souto de Moura acknowledges the Miesian influence, speaking of his Burgo Tower and answering an Italian architectural critic, Francesco Dal Co, stated “it’s better not to be original, but good, rather than wanting to be very original and bad.” (Key projects by Eduardo Souto de Moura, 2011) In this project there is a clear connection to the Salzburg Hotel and to the Olivetti bank project. At that time (1993) Souto de Moura was in Switzerland and was deeply influenced by Swiss architecture (Diener & Diener, Herzog & de Meuron or Zumthor) in a hybrid mix between tradition and modernity, monumentality and deception.

The volume was predefined: the maximum height was fixed by the firemen and the width (span) by the engineers. Therefore the design had to focus on the skin and the pictorial materials, not for fashion but as natural consequence.

For some reasons the initial project could not be built for 17 years and had to be revised mainly due to economic restrictions, in fact it had to be “adapted to the current situation. Because the situation changed, it is a kind of second project.” (Rangel et al., 2009b, p.90).

Precision and truth (or deception) are constantly at stake. “Burgo is an authentic building because it is a mirror of the lie it really is (…) it is not a stack or it would not have columns.” (Rangel et al., 2009d, p.60) This deception reflects a condition of modernity with which Souto de Moura must work.

Fig. 25. Inside scale vs outside layer: sketches and construction section, Burgo Tower.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

175

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

Fig. 26. Burgo Tower, Oporto, Portugal.

Then I thought that the building should be the result of a superposition of floors (…) as stacked things, that permit to distort the scale in a way one could not understand if each superposed element corresponded to one or two levels. (Maza, 2004, p.230) Two huge modules of simple geometric shape, with traces of straight lines, break the architectural landscape and house the largest office building in the city.

There is a clear intention of masking the number of stories, materialized as construction details. One cannot tell at a distance the number of stories; the height of the building loses sense and turns into an abstraction. As Souto de Moura says “I have a trauma about abstraction. I happen to love realistic paintings and sculpture, but I feel somewhat reluctant to use conventional domestic forms because I cannot design them. When I attempt to make them, they seem ridiculous and fragile to me (…).” (Rangel et al., 2009d, p.60) Within buildings of urban relevance, such as this one, Souto de Moura researches the visible qualities of architecture through the use of the facade as mediation between exterior and interior: transparency and reflection. Thus he reflects upon the novelty of visual elements, as did the Baroque architects, too, centuries before.

176

architectural competitions – histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

Fig. 27. View of the Burgo Tower. Fig. 28. View from the main access road, Burgo Tower.

results In this period (1979 – 2007) Souto de Moura gives us a glimpse of the interdisciplinary debate following the cultural changes of 1968 and the social and political agenda it influenced (which was relevant at SAAL). From a “grand narrative”, a sense of social decorum, a commitment to the cause (larger than the architectural profession) and an ideological concept of progress, Souto de Moura continues the old modernist love for honest constructions and pursues scientific progress (in construction) by collaborative research with other professionals.

He states “(…) architecture can’t just be the answer to a problem that is called construction, not architecture. Architecture is construction plus some added value which is creating sensations that make people feel good. It can never be premeditated, if it is, it is a disaster.” (Rangel, Martins, Sá and Faria, 2009c, p.30) He constructs a systematic approach to the project at hand by researching, not only – as Aldo Rossi proposes in the “architecture of the city” – how to take part in the history of the city, but also in the desacralization of history and academicism – as Venturi’s “complexity and contradiction” proposes – or the transparency and simplicity of architecture – as Donald Judd speaks in “architektur”.

Antonio Angelillo6 (1996, p.13) states Souto de Moura’s “(…) pursuit of a new interpretation (subjective-environmental rather than analytical-rational) of the context (…)” which gives credit to his “(…) restitution of artistic practice to the 6 Antonio Angelillo (Gorizia, Italy, 1961) worked with Alvaro Siza at Oporto (1988-89) and, between 1989 and 1997, was the chief editor of the international magazine “Casabella” under Vittorio Gregotti direction.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

177

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

design process, in the rediscovery of the values of concreteness and realism implicit in architecture, in the belief in a certain inherent objectivity in the construction.” (ibidem) Souto de Moura relentlessly gathers bits and pieces of information to induce thinking and drawing as he constructs his atlas of important ideas (Bandeira and Tavares, 2011). This is an important part of his research as he uses and reuses the same images along three projects separated by almost 14 years (1979-1993).

With no shame he says “Architecture can be copied. It is fine if it is copied unconsciously. If it is deliberate, it is disastrous.” (Rangel et al., 2009d, p.62) Within this applied research to the project at hand he gathers influences from historic architects, specific artists, poets or writers. He gathers images of personal consequence in a personal narrative.

Following a Vitruvian and old modernist ethos of integrated utility (utilitas), beauty (venustas) and construction (firmitas), Souto de Moura unites architecture and design to post-completion performance.

I think my architecture might not be too well suited for magazines or too fashionable but it is developed with conviction. It has a mission that is to give an answer to certain problems. (Rangel et al., 2009b, p.91) With little spectacle, but with profound labour, he stands out from the growing sensational and individualistic built images. By doing so he goes against the increased rhetoric and image-making that exacerbated the subtle homogenizing effect of the “special ones” or “star architects”.

He says “contradictions and all complex information cannot be visible.

We cannot massacre the users. If the public has the minimum idea of my effort, then my work is not properly done. If has failed. It is like in a book: when the reader understands exactly which books the writer read. The reader gets disappointed”. (Afonso et al., 1998, p.32)

Architectural Grammar Souto de Moura uses his projects, and in particular competitions, as starting points and fundamental opportunities to further investigate his architectural grammar.

We can observe the “relation between wall and ground” in the Braga Market (1980-84) or in the Cultural Centre Casa das Artes (1981-91); the “question of the 178

architectural competitions – histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

habited-table” in Quinta do Lago (1984-89) or in the House at Cascais (2001-02); the “importance of the section” or the landscape in the stairs and quarry of the Braga Stadium (2000-04); the “condition of the ruin” in Baião (1990-93) or in the Pousada de Santa Maria do Bouro (1988-97). (Abrantes, Rangel and Martins, 2009) Based upon these two competitions and one completed project presented as case studies it is possible to propose a grammar for competitions with additional key points: Authenticity and (re)use These projects address the issue of authenticity and its deceptions. The rigour and truth of materials and construction is, sometimes, simply not possible.

Fig. 29. Braga Stadium.

Fig. 30. Design reference, Sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidaurus.

Fig. 31 (left). The Burgo Tower, Oporto.

Fig. 32 (right). Design reference, Mies Van Der Rohe, Hochhaus am Bahnhof Competition, 1922.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

179

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

Fig. 33. Stairways from the Braga Stadium, Braga. Fig. 34. Design reference, National Assembly Building of Bangladesh / Louis Kahn.

Souto de Moura often has to reach compromises and the un-truth (different from the lie) becomes also a theme for investigation.

“It is interesting but it is false. It can be interesting because it is false.”

(Abrantes, Rangel and Martins, 2009, p.7) He acknowledges the same un-truth in some of Mies Van der Rohe work and finds it fascinating.

Souto de Moura uses these two competitions as early studies on how to camouflage the number of stories and then he is able to apply it at Burgo Building.

From time to time Souto de Moura flashed back, revisits, subverts and reuses principles formerly used in past projects. But also from others: “You never begin from scratch. It would be silly. It would be unnatural. I have to use things that have been done by others and adapt them to specific situations. This task must be performed unconsciously so that there is no analogy or similarity, otherwise it would look ridiculous.”(Rangel et al., 2009d, p.62) Also “I copy from all my previous detail designs. I know which ones don’t work. I have corrected and tested them. (…) It is the principle of intelligence: do not waste energy”. (Rangel et al., 2009b, p.94) Readability, Simplicity and Clarity The main idea in a competition must be quickly readable and apparent. All projects are different but they all are quite simple in terms of an idea and how to deal with the site, with the city and with the program.

His ideas are adequate to the place and to the program. The relation to the materials becomes evident. There is an apparent simplicity in the “climax” of the process of research – the Burgo tower – as Souto de Moura hides a complex building. Quoting Souto de Moura “the concept of simple is very complex. There 180

architectural competitions – histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

is a rule (…): the more simple it looks, the more complex is the process it hides”.

(Santillán and Sargiotti, 2008) Within the research the subject becomes clearer. In the Burgo tower Souto de Moura is able to synthetize the quest he long pursued in a clear architectural concept materialized and constructed.

Materiality and time Recurrent images formulate the materiality of the project. The exterior detail of the facades often hints what the project is going to be like, and in competitions preference may be given to those who are not vague about the construction of the exterior layer or facade.

But time allowed for competitions is so limited that only a fraction of work is humanly possible. Souto de Moura says: “Designs have to be completed by tomorrow and there is no time to think about solutions (…)” (Rangel, Martins, Sá and Faria, 2009a, p.14).

The length of time from initial drawing to final detailed plan gives Souto de Moura the time he lacks in competitions. This explains why projects from competitions to final solutions are so often modified. Not in the concept but through a remarkable review and optimization of construction. This can be easily observed in the Burgo building as Souto and his team of engineers optimize the container facade along the height of the building, differentiating the construction details of the stacking facade of the lower floors from the upper ones.

discussion On Investigation in Practice The discussion on design activity by itself as research medium following scientific method to some degree can be dated from the 60s. Relevant work was done

by Christopher Alexander (1979) on “image” and “language”, by Jane Darke (1978) over the “primary generator” cited by Lawson (2004, 2005, 2001), by Wayne Attoe (1978) followed by Friedman (1997, 2003) and by Schön (1983, first edition). More recently Jonathan Hill (1998, 2003, 2006) has discussed the frame and boundaries of the actions of architects (and architecture) while Jeremy Till (2009, 2011, 2005b; a) has debated upon the interactions of researching in architecture.

Although one might consider a controversial choice we will pursue Schön’s view in this paper since it is more focused upon the relevance of the continuous process of acquiring and producing knowledge within practice. architectural competitions – histories and practice

181

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

In fact, architecture, not like other exact disciplines, is not simply the exact result of a specific deductive method, but rather a product of a “reflection-inaction”. As Schön believes “competent practitioners usually know more than they can say. They exhibit a kind of knowing-in-practice, most of which is tacit (…) [they] often revel [in] a capacity for reflection on their intuitive knowing in the midst of action and sometimes use this capacity to cope with the unique, uncertain, and conflicted situations of practice” (Schön, 2003, pp.viii, ix).

This “knowing” is composed of a systematic knowledge of architecture, although highly professionalized due to its specialized field of expertise, firmly bounded, scientific and standardized corpus (Schön, 2003, p.23) although increasingly entangled within a broad spectrum of other competences. Boundaries among architectures are continuingly shifting (Hill, 2003, 2006) and even between architects clearly identified with the same school (like Souto de Moura is identified with the Oporto School) there are many variations (either subtle or fundamental) in the exercise of the profession.

As Heylighen and Neuckermans (2000) state “Architects’ greatest impact therefore comes during the early stages of the design process, when they must come up with one or a few ideas, powerful enough to encompass the different aspects. These ideas are known to architects by many names, (…) but most often are called the ‘parti’ or ‘concept’ [Lawson, 1994]. Such a concept does not necessarily require the addition of an extra ingredient. In fact, every component already present in the design situation, e.g. a special feature of the site or a curious trait of the client, may qualify for this focal role. Moreover, underlying ideas are rarely found in the singular.”

But it is undeniable, as Schön (2003) shows, that there is a reflection in practice that, following a systematic approach by means of scientific method, constructs theories based in “deliberate and idiosyncratic constructions (…) [continuingly] put to test” (Schön, 2003, p.59). This reflection is obviously personal and based upon the individual (repetitive) experiments and is as varied as the opportunities to reflect.

One may think over the norms of judgments, the strategies or theories of some pattern of behaviour or situation, or upon the divergences of practice.

These occurrences may be unique or unstable and serve as a critique to the initial understanding of the problem, serving to construct a new description and providing the opportunity to renew experimentation and testing. Additionally, these occurrences may constitute an appreciation, which can serve to 182

architectural competitions – histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

Fig. 35. The architect’s presence, hands of Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, Mies Van Der Rohe and Alvar Aalto, postcard by Souto de Moura, Christmas 2011.

frame a role and value it, either morally or ethically, in relation to others and by others.

For Eduardo Souto de Moura the laboratory is possible when the project, freed from contingencies alien to the object of research becomes a blank sheet of paper.

The pragmatic simplification of the statement – program, context, client – into elementary rules defined as preamble and thence unalterable, determines the limits of the available sheet. And then the project becomes a necessary instrument, a field of experimentation, the backdrop. (Clement, 1999, p.11) Quoting Schön (2003, p.68): When someone reflects-in-action, he becomes a researcher in the practice context, He (…) constructs a new theory of the unique case. His inquiry is not limited to a deliberation about the means which depend on a prior agreement about ends. He does not keep means and ends separate, but defines them interactively as he frames a problematic situation, He does not separate thinking from doing (…). Because architectural competitions – histories and practice

183

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

his experimentation is a kind of action, implementation is built into his inquiry.

Thus reflection-in-action can proceed, even in situations of uncertainty or uniqueness, because it is not bound by the dichotomies of technical rationality7.

In the case of art related professions, we may assume that for some architects reflection-in-action is the core of practice. It is within the epistemology of practice – as one usually refers to the (architectural or personal) method – that the dilemma of rigour and relevance is settled. It links the art of practice in uncertainty and uniqueness to the scientist’s art of research.

On competitions International competitions test architect’s capacities (Lipstadt, 1989a; Santos Fialho, 2002, 2007; Tostrup, 1996, 1999, 2010) beyond controlled systems of social relations, comfort zones, age, gender or even expertise, in a fast sublimation process (Gil, 2008; Ramos, 2009), as well as induce a recognition and publicity that surpasses the investments in time, energy and financial resources, forcing a (re)interpretation of the role of the architect (Nasar, 2006).

As Hélène Lipstadt states in her opening text: For at least 2,500 years, architecture competitions have been employed to choose one architect or one design among many, to distinguish excellence in appearance and in function, to award commissions, and to educate young architects. (…) Competitions are battlegrounds of opposing and antagonistic solutions, giant architecture class-rooms with invisible boundaries and, often, open enrollments. They provide the forum for struggles for one’s personal best, team efforts forged in camaraderie, debilitating taxes on body and pocket, and, for the happy few, joyous public triumph. Competition encourages those who only observe, including the public, to applaud or admonish architects as if designers were contending in a public tournament. (Lipstadt, 1989b, p.9) Competitions are a standard administrative method for procuring design services and reflect the equitable distribution of design commissions, the need for openness in the distribution of public funds, the quest for better design, 7 Technical rationality “consists in instrumental problem solving made rigorous by the application of scientific theory and technique” (Schön, 2003, p.21). It assumes three components: an underlying discipline or basic science; an applied science or engineering; skills and attitudes that induce performance of services.

184

architectural competitions – histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

further public participation and an overall improvement of the built environment. They further represent: Vehicles for the release of creativity, vitality, new talent and new ideas (…) creating opportunities for renewal and change in the built environment. Competitions open way to the art of architecture and creative freedom, though within a set of rules and programmes, and through disciplined and expert procedures. (Strong, 1996, p.29) Each participant in a competition – sponsor, client, competitor, architect, jury and the public – has his own definition of the cultural and symbolic qualities of the building type, site and design and has, to some degree, a fair expectation of the innovative architectural design (which may or may not prove to be successful).

There seem to be two major interests, sometimes opposed, at stake in a competition. The first is the client (public or private promoter) to whom competitions offer the opportunity of multiple choices in design solutions, provide awareness and public opinion (although controversy may arise), permit to gather prestige and recognizance for its patronage, or to obtain the best quality design possible within the available budget. The jury serves (or ought to serve) the interests of the client. The second is the competitor – architect – who wishes to win a commission (although it is clear that competitions consume an inordinate amount of time, money and effort with no guarantee of return) since it should provide an equitable access to the market (even to young architects), to obtain, provide or increase status (within the class of architects) or, in business terms, to bind the client to a design proposal, often in that connection insuring the desired freedom for the author’s creativity, and may provide an opportunity to explore new themes and extend areas of expertise.

In fact “it may provide a firm [or an architect] with the opportunity to think about ideas it would otherwise not explore on a day-to-day basis” (Collyer and Berk, 2004, p.13).

Both national and international competitions reflect the architect’s personal design beyond controlled systems of social relations, comfort zones, age, gender or even expertise, in a fast risky sublimation process. “In general, competitions can bring out the best in people” (Nasar, 2006, p.23) and generate publicity and a public recognition which may surpass the investments in time, energy and financial resources. architectural competitions – histories and practice

185

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

Fig. 36. Pages from the Eduardo Souto de Moura’s Wall Atlas.

International competitions assume a stronger and unconstrained position that can help in focusing the concept and the discourse whilst assuming the distance and the reference to the site (locus).

Many architects are aware of pitfalls they may face when entering a competition in their own country and calculate their chances accordingly. Whereas competitions in Europe, which are administered either under the auspices of the national associations or on a non-regional basis according to EU rules, are relatively transparent (…) (Collyer and Berk, 2004, p.12).

Eduardo Souto de Moura provides testimony to an insight of how competitions lead to experimentation in design and investigation in architecture, proving that it is relevant for his own on-going work.

conclusion In the two recent exhibitions of Souto de Moura’s work, following the 2011 Pritzker Prize, the first focusing on competitions (Barata, Campos and Oliveira, 2011) and the second focusing on his personal imagery atlas (Bandeira and Tavares, 2011), it is clear that his work knowledge embraces a varied experience (“O que aprendi com a arquitectura?”: Eduardo Souto de Moura, 2009), far beyond the usual rigid limits of architecture – humanistic and cultural. All flow of multidisciplinary and artistic information is channelled towards the architectonic thought either as product or as cultural production.

The competition project, with its drawings, texts and images, constitute the end of research. Schön (2003, p.81), quoting Quist, makes references to “drawing and talking [as being] parallel ways of designing and together make up what 186

architectural competitions – histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

[he] calls the ‘language of designing’”. These verbal and non-verbal dimensions are closely connected. Taking into consideration Tostrup’s research (2001) we can clearly identify drawing (both present in Souto de Moura and Álvaro Siza) as visual rhetoric, which, in conjunction with other means of communicating the idea (verbal rhetoric), tend to shape the argumentation of reflective action. Quoting Souto de Moura “drawing is a research” (Santillán and Sargiotti, 2008) and quoting Álvaro Siza, Souto de Moura recalls “drawing is researching for lucidity”. (ibidem) Although “artistic ways of coping with these phenomena [uncertainty, uniqueness, instability and value conflict] do not qualify, for them [positivists], as rigorous professional knowledge” (Schön, 2003, p.42), it is clear from the examples presented here that, on specific occasions, the project, most frequently in competitions, assumes the condition of scientific research or “reflection-inaction”.

Angelillo confirms that in “small works, installations and interiors, furniture design thus becomes experimental laboratories for the study of structure and space.” (Angelillo, 1996, p.21) And Marie Clement concludes, “We need only think of the project for the Salzburg Hotel to imagine a paradigm of this system. The passage from the first project, an attempt to articulate the conservative city and an interpretation of its orography, to a plan simply designed by the necessary program, makes the building available, ready to establish the ‘container type facade’8, as with the University of Aveiro, the Olivetti contest or the Burgo Tower. This obsessive concern in a triangular quest which weavers between discipline, language, and construction, establishing within the succession of these projects, the principle of a ‘contamination’, expressed without false modesty in the ‘blue notebook’9. Each one of these projects, a complete fragment, takes on the preceding events and already contains within itself the embryo of the following one. Contaminated and contaminant.” (Clement, 1999, p.11,13) The one million dollar question would be if this “contamination” could be possible without competitions?

I can only assume it could. We cannot deny seeing research in other Souto de Moura’s work. It is clear that during the time he worked with Álvaro Siza at SAAL (1974-1976) he gathered experience and did research on dwelling that was used to further develop his personal commitment to the habited box, which 8 That erases the stories, therefore the very principal visual element of a building’s height.

9 From Aldo Rossi, “Il mio libro azzurro”, 1960.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

187

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab

he developed obsessively in his following single-family houses. Angelillo (1996, p.19) confirms this view stating “Domestic architecture has always been an important field of experimentation for the architects of Oporto”.

However, it is also quite clear that he chooses competitions as prime environments for experiments and investigations. It is apparent that it is within competitions that Souto de Moura addresses questions most intimate to his “course” and “discourse”. Competitions therefore seem to be the optimal place for him to innovate and to deal with all that cannot be dealt with on a daily basis.

Acknowledgments To Eduardo Souto de Moura and his office (Joana Correa) for all support given to this research and all graphic material provided.

To Centre for Art History and Artistic Research (CHAIA, Univ Évora, Portugal) and Faculdade de Arquitectura (FA, Univ Tecn Lisboa, Portugal) for all support.

This Ph.D research was funded by POPH – QREN Portugal 2007-2013 (4.1 Typology – Advanced Education) and by the national budget – MCTES (SFRH / BD / 45345 / 2008).

To my supervisors, João Rocha and José Callado, to the Centre for Art History and Artistic Research (CHAIA, Univ Évora, Portugal) and Faculdade de Arquitectura (FA, Univ Tecn Lisboa, Portugal) for all support.

References Abrantes, V., Rangel, B. and Martins, J.P.P., 2009. Edifício Burgo: o projecto, a obra, as tecnologias. Cadernos d’Obra. Porto: GEQUALTEC. Afonso, S.L., Siza, Á. and Moura, E. de S., 1998. Pavilhão de Portugal. Citações e desenhos de Álvaro Siza e Eduardo Souto de Moura. [online] Lisboa: Cimpor. Available at: <http://cvc.instituto-camoes.pt/conhecer/biblioteca-digital-camoes/doc_download/1520-alvaro-siza-e-eduardo-souto-de-moura-pavilhao-de-portugal.html>.

Alexander, C., 1965. A City is not a Tree. Architectural Forum, [online] pp.122(1):58–61, 122(2):58–61.

Available at: <http://www.rudi.net/node/317>.

Alexander, C., 1971. Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Alexander, C., 1979. The timeless way of building. New York: Oxford University Press.

Angelillo, A., 1996. Obras de Souto de Moura. Uma interpretação. In: Eduardo Souto de Moura.

Lisboa: Blau, pp. 9–26.

Anon, 1998. Euardo Souto de Moura : obra reciente : recent work. Barcelona: GG Editorial Gustavo Gili.

Anon, 2004. Metaflux. Porto: Livraria Civilização Editora.

Anon, 2011. Conversation between Álvaro Siza and Eduardo Souto de Moura. Casabella, 75(800), Apr., pp. 52–65.

188

architectural competitions – histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab Anon, 2011. Key projects by Eduardo Souto de Moura. Dezeen Magazine. Available at: <http://www. dezeen.com/2011/03/29/key-projects-by-eduardo-souto-de-moura/> [Accessed 1 Aug. 2012].

Anon, 2011. Media Kit: announcing the 2011 Pritzker Architecture Prize Laureate. Available at: < h t t p : // w w w. p r i t z k e r p r i z e. c o m / s i t e s / d e f a u l t / f i l e s / f i l e _ f i e l d s / f i e l d _ f i l e s _ inline/2011mediakittxt_0.pdf> [Accessed 10 Aug. 2012].

Attoe, W., 1978. Architecture and critical imagination. Chichester; New York: Wiley.

Bandeira, P. and Tavares, A., 2011. Eduardo Souto de Moura: atlas de parede: imagens de método. Porto: Dafne.

Barata, F., Campos, A. and Oliveira, P.G. (Eds.)., 2011. Eduardo Souto de Moura : concursos = competitions : 1979-2010. Porto: Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade do Porto.

Cabral, M.V. and Borges, V., 2006. Relatório da Profissão: Arquitecto/a. [online] Ordem dos Arquitectos. Available at: <http://www.architects.pt/documentos/1164322770I3pQH2qr9Wg02JR3.pdf.>.

Cabral, M.V. and Borges, V., 2007. Architecture as Vocation and Profession: A Survey of Portuguese Architects. 8th Conference of the European Sociological Association: Conflict, Citizenship and Civil Society. Glasgow, Scotland.

Capezzutto, R. ed., 1994. The Bank. Three Architectural Concepts for the Future. Olivetti Progetti. Olivetti. [Ed.: Rita Capezzuto].

Carvalho, R., Tostões, A. and Wang, W., 2009. Arquitectura, Portugal fora de Portugal. Lisbon, Berlin: Aedes.

Clement, M., 1999. Vouns ne saurez rien. In: Eduardo Souto de Moura : Themes for projects. Milano: Skira.

Coelho, A.P., 2009. Portugueses de Berlim à Mongólia. Jornal Público, [online] 8 Mar., pp.6–7. Available at: <http://arquitectos.pt/index.htm?no=2020491578,156> [Accessed 21 Jul. 2010].

Collyer, G.S. and Berk, M., 2004. Competing globally in architecture competitions. Chichester, West Sussex, England; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Academy.

Darke, J., 1978. The Primary Generator and the Design Process. Design Studies, 1(1), pp. 36–44.

Friedman, K., 1997. Design science and design education. In: The challenge of complexity : based on the proceedings from the 3rd International Conference on Design Management. [online] Helsinki: University of Art and Design, Helsinki UIAH, pp. 54–72. Available at: <http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/swin:21128>.

Friedman, K., 2003. Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods.

Design Studies, [online] 24(6), Nov., pp. 507–522. Available at: <http://design.osu.edu/carlson/id785/friedman.pdf>.

Gadanho, P. and Pereira, L.T., 2003. Influx. Porto: Civilização.

Gil, J., 2008. Portugal, hoje. Lisboa: Relógio D’Agua.

Heylighen, A. and Neuckermans, H., 2000. Design(ing) knowledge in architecture. [online] EAAE/ ARCC Conference. Paris. Available at: <https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/75850/1/00EAAEARCC.pdf>.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

189

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab Hill, J., 1998. Occupying architecture. London; New York: Routledge.

Hill, J., 2003. Actions of architecture. London; New York, NY: Routledge.

Hill, J., 2006. Immaterial architecture. London; New York: Routledge.

Lawson, B., 2001. The language of space. Oxford; Boston: Architectural Press.

Lawson, B., 2004. What designers know. Oxford [England]; Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Architectural Press.

Lawson, B., 2005. How designers think : demystifying the design process. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Lipstadt, H., 1989a. The Experimental tradition. In: The Experimental tradition : essays on competitions in architecture. New York, N.Y: Princeton Architectural Press, pp. 9–19.

Lipstadt, H. ed., 1989b. The Experimental tradition : essays on competitions in architecture. New York, N.Y.: Princeton Architectural Press.

Lipstadt, H., 2006. The Competition in the Region’s Past, the Region in the Competition’s Future.

In: Politics of design : competitions for public projects. Princeton: Policy Research Institute, pp. 7–27.

Maza, R.M. de la, 2004. Interview with Souto de Moura - De lo Privado a lo Público. Cambios de Escala. In: Eduardo Souto de Moura – Obra Recente, Serie Dedalo. Valencia: Ediciones Generales de la Construccion, pp. 228–234.

Nasar, J.L., 2006. Design by competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

“O que aprendi com a arquitectura?”: Eduardo Souto Moura. 2009. Porto: Casa da Música. Available at: <http://vimeo.com/18320317> [Accessed 2 Aug. 2012].

Peretti, L. and Bortolotti, N., 1999. Eduardo Souto de Moura : Themes for projects. Milano: Skira.

Ramos, R.J.G., 2009. A formulação da descontinuidade na crítica de arquitectura contemporânea ou a transitoriedade da tradição. Arte Teoria, [online] (12). Available at: <http://sigarra.up.pt/faup/publs_pesquisa.show_publ_file?pct_gdoc_id=1681>.

Rangel, B., Martins, J.P.P., Sá, A.V. and Faria, A., 2009a. Interview with Souto de Moura - Architecture / Engineering. In: Edifício Burgo: o projecto, a obra, as tecnologias, Cadernos d’Obra. Porto: GEQUALTEC, pp.8–15.

Rangel, B., Martins, J.P.P., Sá, A.V. and Faria, A., 2009b. Interview with Souto de Moura - Construction design. In: Edifício Burgo: o projecto, a obra, as tecnologias, Cadernos d’Obra. Porto: GEQUALTEC, pp. 90–95.

Rangel, B., Martins, J.P.P., Sá, A.V. and Faria, A., 2009c. Interview with Souto de Moura - Construction Research. In: Edifício Burgo: o projecto, a obra, as tecnologias, Cadernos d’Obra. Porto: GEQUALTEC, pp. 26–37.

Rangel, B., Martins, J.P.P., Sá, A.V. and Faria, A., 2009d. Interview with Souto de Moura - Tectonic Object. In: Edifício Burgo: o projecto, a obra, as tecnologias, Cadernos d’Obra. Porto: GEQUALTEC, pp. 58–63.

Santillán, J.I. and Sargiotti, R., 2008. Entrevista a Souto de Moura. [online] Available at: <http://www.x-arquitectos.com.ar/doc/textos/2008/entrevista_Souto_de_Moura. pdf>.

Santos Fialho, V., 2002. Concursos de arquitectura em São Paulo. M.Arch. Universidade de São Paulo.

Santos Fialho, V., 2007. Arquitectura, texto e imagem. [PhD] Universidade de São Paulo. Available at: <http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/16/16138/tde-27052010-104933/pt-br.php>.

190

architectural competitions – histories and practice

pedro guilherme & joão rocha: architectural competitions as a lab Schön, D.A., 2003. The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Siza, Á. and Morais, C.C., 2009. 01 Textos. Porto: Civilizacão.

Souto de Moura, E., Wang, W. and Siza, A., 1996. Souto de Moura. Barcelona; Madrid [etc.]: G. Gili.

Strong, J., 1996. Winning by design : architectural competitions. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture.

Till, J., 2005a. Lost Judgment. In: E. Harder, ed., Writings in architectural education.How will the demands of the information society and “new knowledge” affect on the demand of relevant or necessary “know how” in architectural education ; EAAE prize 2003 - 2005, sponsored by VELUX. [online] Copenhagen: European Association for Architectural Education, pp. 164–181. Available at: <http://www.archdesign.vt.edu/news/pdf/eaae-prize-2003-05-essays.pdf>.

Till, J., 2005b. What is architectural research? Architectural Research: Three Myths And One Model. London: RIBA. Till, J., 2009. Architecture depends. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Till, J., 2011. Is doing architecture doing research? IV Jornadas Internacionales Sobre Investigación En Arquitectura Y Urbanismo. Valencia: Escuela Técnica Superior De Arquitectura Universitat Politècnica De València.

Tostrup, E., 1996. Architecture and Rhetoric. Text and design in architectural competitions, Oslo 1939-90.

[PhD] Oslo School of Architecture. Available at: <http://www.aho.no/Global/Dokumenter/Forskning/Avhandlinger/Tostrup_avhandling.pdf>.

Tostrup, E., 1999. Architecture and rhetoric : text and design in architectural competitions, Oslo, 1939-1997.

London: Andreas Papdakis Publisher.

Tostrup, E., 2010. Promoting the Best: On Competition Thetoric. In: M. Rönn, ed., The architectural competition. Research inquiries and experiences. Stockholm: AXL Books, p. 76–96.

Credits Photographic credits and copyright Figure Francisco Bahia Nogueira (photograph) 1 FAUP, R2 (Design) 3 Tiago Casanova (photograph) , Lars Müller Publishers & Integral Lars Müller (Design) 4 Editorial Gustavo Gilli S.A. 22, 23, 24 Dafne Editora & Souto de Moura, João Faria @ drop.pt (Design) 36 Luís Ferreira Alves (photograph) 26, 27, 28, 31 Ian Volner 29 Federica Leone | UNESCO 30 Naquib Hossain 34 All other referenced graphic material included, photographs and edited material, including published by 2G and Olivetti are copyright of Souto de Moura and ESM Archive.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

191

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

Abstract After a devastating fire in 2008 the Delft Faculty of Architecture started their search for a new faculty building by organising an international ideas competition called Building for Bouwkunde. This process took place under extreme time pressure and large public attention. Within four months the competition programme was designed, which included decisions about the competition brief, the rules of the game, the requirements, and the composition of the jury panel. Communication was effected through a website to attract participants from all over the world. The competition resulted in six winners and several hundreds of high level ideas for a new faculty building. In this article six important challenges that the organising project team faced when making design decisions in this competition are addressed: 1) trust and communication in a digital era; 2) composing a jury panel as expert team; 3) developing a format of submission display; 4) aligning the decision frames; 5) developing a display structure based on anonymity, and 6) sensemaking in carrying out the rules of the game. These challenges are related to the scarce contributions that have been published about organizing competitions and linked to literature on decision making in the context of a jury panel. Based on the findings some recommendations are made for client organisations.

Key words: client organisation; ideas competition; decision making; management; architecture

Contact: Leentje Volker, PhD L.Volker@TUDelft.NL Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands

192

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

Facing the challenges of organising a competition – The Building for Bouwkunde case leentje volker

Introduction In the morning of 13 May 2008 a fire broke out in the Faculty of Architecture building of Delft University in the Netherlands. The Faculty of Architecture – generally known as “Bouwkunde”– is the largest faculty of Delft University of Technology and one of the largest in its field in Europe. Many students, alumni and staff members saw the building as a second home and a source of inspiration with consistent detailing and a sparkling atmosphere (Maandag, 2008). The fire started due to an electrical fault in one of the coffee machines. Because of its age the building was not equipped with sprinklers and when the fire service arrived they were ultimately unable to extinguish the fire. In both a material and an emotional sense, the destruction of the building was undoubtedly a major loss for the architectural community. The fire was widely covered in (inter)national newspapers and on television.

Immediately after the fire, the Dean of Bouwkunde started preparations for a temporary accommodation campus for the several thousand students and over 600 employees of the faculty at Julianalaan in the northern part of the campus.

In the meantime university staff and students of the Faculty of Architecture were housed in tents and at other faculties. Many employees and alumni were involved in the briefing, design and construction of the temporary housing project in the former main building of the university. The immense renovation of these head quarters was completed in December 2008 and required a great amount of workforce and energy in a short period of time. This created a positive chaos in which everything seemed possible. Soon after the fire, rumours started about the selection of an architect for a permanent new faculty building.

Since European tender regulations apply for such projects, the Faculty and the architectural competitions – histories and practice

193

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

board of the university were obliged to organize an official tender to select an architect. However, the sudden and unanticipated initiation of such a selection meant that there was no vision for the new building yet.

In July 2008 two trajectories were chosen to sharpen the ideas for a new faculty building: an Open International Ideas Competition called “Building for Bouwkunde” and a national Think Tank with experts (Arkesteijn and Volker, forthcoming). Both projects were guided by the same steering committee and had to provide input for the brief and plan of action for a new faculty building in the future. This created a unique situation, since people involved in a Faculty of Architecture typically have a special relationship to architecture and the built environment in general. Besides, alumni represent a large part of the Dutch professional community because the faculty in Delft originates from 1904 and is one out of only two architecture faculties in the Netherlands.

In this article I address six challenges that the organising project team faced when making design decisions in this competition. These challenges are related to the scarce contributions that have been published about organising competitions and connected to literature on decision making in the context of a jury panel. Based on the findings some recommendations are made for client organisations.

Research approach and methods The client fulfils a very important role in the design of a design competition.

The choices made during the preparation phase determine to a considerable extent the results and appropriateness of the competition, as well as the style of the architectural design (Bloxham Zettersten, 2010). A recent literature review of Manzoni (2010) shows that not much empirical research exists on this topic. Most publications on design competitions just show the diversity of the competition and the relevance for the architectural profession (e.g. de Haan and Haagsma, 1988, Glusberg, 1992). Others describe the aims, procedures, potentials and pitfalls in a historical perspective (Sudjic, 2005, Spreiregen, 1979, Lipstadt, 2005), but do not directly relate to the role of the client or a particular case. Some scholars in the recently published book of Rönn et al. (2010) have studied the judgement process of jury panels in the current context of design competitions (Kreiner, 2006, Kazemian and Rönn, 2009, Kreiner, 2010, Svensson, 2010, Spreiregen, 2010) and the strategies of architectural teams that join competitions (Kreiner, 2007b, Kreiner, 2007a, Manzoni, 2011). However, apart 194

architectural competitions – histories and practice

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

from Spreiregen (2010), none of them have specifically addressed the difficulties that client organisations face in organising a competition.

Considering the current state of research in the field of design competitions, a gap can be identified between the structures that are provided and the actual behaviour of clients. As addressed by Rönn (2010) and Danielsen (2010) challenges in organising a competition mainly concern: the vision and briefing requirements of the client, the type and quality of the participants, the composition of the jury panel, the quality of the jury’s process, and the competition material and other organisational conditions. All these issues are based on decisions that clients make during the organisation of a competition. Since existing knowledge about competitions remains scattered and is not used adequately by the client organisations, this research focused on exposure of underlying structures and behavioural phenomena of the project team during the organisation of a design competition. The two main research questions are therefore: How does a public commissioning client decide on the procedure for the selection of an architect? What are the implications for the design of procedures for the selection of architects?

This article is based on the results of a single case study as part of a PhD research project on architect selection processes (Volker, 2010). The method of studying cases makes it possible to study decision making in a real life context on different levels of individual, group and organisational decision making (Yin, 2009). In this case the representative of the commissioning body, the Dean of the Faculty of Architecture, was aware of the research project and invited me as a researcher in architect selection procedures to take an active role in organising the competition. This created a revelatory case, “a situation in which an investigator has the opportunity to observe and analyse a phenomenon previously inaccessible to social science inquiry” (Yin, 2009). I was already a member of the Bouwkunde organisation but none of the project team members were direct colleagues. This allowed for sufficient “otherness” to conduct the participant observation (Sanger, 1996). Yet, the entry-exit problem was therefore relatively easy to overcome (Bechtel and Zeisel, 1987).

A large set of data was collected by using different methodologies. I was involved as a full member of the project team for 32 weeks in order to organise an international ideas competition. During this period a research log was kept. At least once a week I recorded the activities of that week, the considerations and arguments that led to a particular decision, and all documents including press architectural competitions – histories and practice

195

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

releases and news paper articles were filed. Personal reflections were noted in a special section of the log. All submissions and additional analyses were stored in a database. After the project had ended, I conducted in total six semi-structured interviews with the jury members and the project leader.

Most of the data were collected through participant observation. Participant observation studies are “in the tradition of “verstehen” sociology and cannot be repeated in the experimental manner of the natural sciences” (Jackson, 1983).

My role as participant-researcher was known to the other actors and it was not prominently concealed during the project. As a project member I often had first-hand experience but could not always record “private” information as it occurred. I experienced several benefits and limitations of this research approach during data collection. On the one hand, being directly involved in a project complicated the collection of data. I got personally involved, including the mixed feelings, responsibilities and emotions that this sometimes brought.

These emotions became part of my process of learning to make accurate observations from a qualitative research perspective (Bechtel and Zeisel, 1987).

Data collection was time consuming and there was a constant time pressure because of the tight deadline of the competition, and therefore limited time to reflect on actions. On the other hand, the case illustrated the complexity of the phenomenon because I could personally experience decision making, including the conflicting issues. It allowed me to distinguish interpersonal behaviour and motives more carefully (Yin, 2009); and by being able to study the mundane world, the value of fine details were more appreciated (Silverman, 2007). Acting as a participant observer also created an opportunity for me to apply the findings of previous cases and get in contact with organisations and persons that play an important role, such as the jury panel and members of the Board of the university.

The analysis was conducted a few months after the project was finished and data collection had ended, to create a certain distance to the data. All data were first analysed in Atlas.ti, a software package to support the categorizing of the data. The analysis resulted in a distinction between the actors, the competition design and materials, the competition procedure, the participation process with stakeholders, and the jury deliberation process. For the purpose of this article I focus on the competition structure and the implementation process.

196

architectural competitions – histories and practice

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

Case description The impetus of this international open ideas competition was a fire that destroyed the old faculty building in May 2008. The competition programme was set up mainly on the basis of the “Kompas” (Compass) model for competitions (van Campen and Hendrikse, 1997), supplemented with the ideas of the Dean of the Faculty and the project team. This model was a result of a Dutch Covenant for Competitions in the field of architecture, urban planning and landscape architecture and can be compared to the competition rules as discussed by Rönn (2010). The project team first used the Dutch version of the model, and translated it into English before the launch of the competition.

The competition programme consisted of two main parts: Part A. Competition Brief and Part B. Competition Rules. Part A, the competition brief, included: • An introduction to the problem description.

• The assignment.

• The brief at building level.

• The conditions for the location.

Part B, the competitions rules, included a description of: • The competition and objectives.

• The requirements of the entrants, method of registration and submission, the language, a time schedule with deadlines and the method of questions and answers.

• The names of the jury panel, the prizes, the evaluation criteria, evaluation procedure and publication of a jury report.

• The follow-up to the competition.

• An indication about the publicity, publications and exhibition.

• The rules concerning copyright, use, ownership, and disputes.

The Dean wanted to fulfil multiple aims and involve as many people as possible in the ideas competition. He saw the competition as a chance to enhance the reputation of the faculty. One of his strategic goals was for the faculty to become one of the most famous in architecture in the world. The official objectives of this competition were 1) to collect inspiration for a new building brief, 2) to encourage creativity among the younger generation and 3) to stimulate research and debate. The competition also provided a forum for all people in architectural competitions – histories and practice

197

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

the community to voice their ideas. This diversity of goals is characteristic for the concept of a design competition. Several means were used to reach these diverse goals, such as: • Launching the competition on the Architectural Biennale in Venice.

• All communication in English.

• A competition website for communication, registration, questions and submission.

• Low entrance requirements.

• An internationally renowned jury panel.

• A substantial amount of price money.

The organising steps show great similarities with the seven steps as identified

by Spreiregen (2010): planning, competition announcement, design, submission, jury deliberation, winner announcement and post-competition. In the competition the main actors were the steering committee, the project team and the jury panel. The website and submission system of the competition was created by a consultancy firm, and the project team was supported by a secretary of the Dean’s office and several student assistants. The main task of the project team was to write the competition programme, provide the information for the website, prepare the jury meeting and coordinate the whole competition. On several occasions the steering committee provided input for the competition programme and some of the managerial aspects (e.g. finances). Because the Dean was a member of all actor groups, he acted as the connecting link. Right after the opening of the competition in September 2008 the Dean fell seriously ill, and remained absent during the rest of the competition period. He was not replaced in the jury committee. His responsibilities were assigned to another member of the steering committee.

Preparations for the competition started in July 2008; the winners were announced in March 2009. The opening at the Architectural Biennale in Venice by the Dutch Minster of Education resulted in a strict deadline to prepare necessary documentation before that date, 13 September 2008. The submission deadline was 13 November 2008. The jury met on the 14th and 15th of January 2009 in Delft.

In total 471 international participants joined to win €60.000 of prize money.

The evaluation procedure consisted of an assessment phase and an evaluation phase. During the assessment phase the entries were analyzed by two 198

architectural competitions – histories and practice

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

Fig. 1. First prize winners of the competition: amalgam from Laura Alvarez (the Netherlands), A world without objects from Gijs Raggers (the Netherlands), and Green-housed culture from Marc Bringer & Ilham Laraqui (France)

internal analysis teams regarding the content of the proposals and checked against the rules and assignment of the competition by the project team. The results of the assessment, a typology and a quantitative analysis of the entries, were made available to the jury for an anonymous two-day evaluation process.

The jury selected six prize winning entries and two honourable mentions in two rounds based on an overall unanimous judgement. During the first day 50 submissions were selected, on the second day these 50 entries were reduced to 8 nominees and finally six winners; three first prizes of €15.000 (see fig. 1) and three second prizes of €5.000. More information about the winners can be found in the publication “Building for Bouwkunde – Open to Ideas” (Faculty of Architecture – TU Delft, 2009).

An exhibition with all submissions was opened in the Netherlands Architecture Institute in Rotterdam on the day of the award ceremony, 14 March 2009.

The best 50 ideas, sixteen ideas for discussion and the results of the Think Tank were included in a publication called “Building for Bouwkunde – Open to Ideas” (Faculty of Architecture – TU Delft, 2009). The whole process of ideas generation was closed with a debate and the presentation of the publication on 13 May 2009 to coincide with the anniversary of the fire. In that meeting the results of the Think Tank and ideas competition were officially offered to the Executive Board of the TU Delft, which had to decide about the next phase of the project. architectural competitions – histories and practice

199

on the day of the award ceremony, 14 March 2009. The best 50 ideas, sixteen ideas for discussion and the results of the Think Tank were included in a publication called ‘Building for Bouwkunde – Open to Ideas’ (Faculty of Architecture - TU Delft, 2009). The whole process of ideas generation was closed with a debate and the presentation of the publication on 13 May 2009 to coincide with the anniversary of the fire. In that meeting the results the Think Tank and competition awere officially offered leentje volker: facing theofchallenges of ideas organising competition to the Executive Board of the TU Delft, which had to decide about the next phase of the project. Table 1 provides an overview of the characteristics of the case.

Table 1 provides an overview of the characteristics of the case.

Table 1 Overview of Building for Bouwkunde competition Characteristics

Specifications

Type of competition

Open ideas competition

Time period

End of May 2008 until the end of May 2009

Prize money

Total € 60.000

Submission requirements

Registered architects and urban planners or design students in relevant areas

Assignment

“Formulate both in text and images (maximum two A1 posters and one A4 text) a vision on the two competition themes: ‘new concepts’ and ‘dynamics of city and campus’. This vision should be presented in a sketch design for a new Bouwkunde building on the existing site, or on a well-argued, alternative site.”

Information available on the website

General and historical information about the faculty, maps of the former location (scale 1:500) and the campus (scale 1:2500), and a master plan for the campus renewal, statements of renown professionals about the assignment, facilities to ask questions.

Submission format

Design sketch on 1 or 2 A0 posters

Evaluation criteria

Visionary power, architectural quality and economic and ecological viability

Number of participants

1,380 registrants, 465 (+ 5 invalid) submissions

Amount of winners

Three first prizes of € 15.000, three second prizes of € 5.000, two special mentions

Findings This article focuses on the organising phase of the competition and the client decisions that steered the direction of the competition. The competition rules determined the kind of entrants, amount of information per entry, the process of assessment, the communication of the justification of the decisions, and the utilization of the submissions after the closure of the competition. Six important challenges had to be faced by the organising project team in turning this ideas competition into a successful event: 1) trust and communication in a digital era; 2) composing a jury panel as expert team; 3) developing a format of submission display; 4) aligning the decision frames; 5) developing a display structure based on anonymity, and 6) sensemaking in carrying out the rules of the game. These will be addressed in the following sections.

Trust and communication in a digital era The project team decided to manage the competition via a website. After the launch of the competition the website turned out to be an excellent medium to improve the profile of the competition. The website was easily accessible for people from all over the world and several newspapers and internet forums provided a link to it. The website had 91,000 visitors in total until July 2009, with an average of 307 per day. Statistics of the website show about 18,000-20,000 visitors in September and October 2008 (the launch and submission period) with 200

architectural competitions – histories and practice

5

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

Netherlands 30%

United States 15% Italy 7%

The UK 7%

Fig. 2. Visitors on competition website per country

750,000-800,000 hits. Then hits dropped to increase in January (the month of the jury meeting) to 11,000 visitors in March (the month of the award ceremony). In July 2009 the website still had about 2,500 visitors a month. Most visitors originated from the Netherlands, the United States, the United Kingdom and Italy, with a similar distribution as found for the submissions (fig. 2).

The website lowered the costs for the entrants because they would not be required to print and send their submissions by mail. This decreased the barriers to join the competition. After the participants had registered they were included in a database, which enabled communication via email. It was only possible to submit entries digitally via the website. For the client, choosing a website reduced administrative costs and created more flexibility to adjust the competition structure. The digital format of the submissions created an interesting database and made it possible to analyze and prepare the submissions for the jury evaluation in an easy manner. It can be concluded that the website was definitely worth the investment and fitted the aims of the competition.

The digital communication did raise an interesting perspective on trust in the organisers. In the Building for Bouwkunde case only two participants fileda complaint because they were not able to trace their submission and assumed that their submission had not been assessed by the jury. Despite the fact that all architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

201

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

entrants received an automatic confirmation message after submission, people are never sure if their submission has been taken seriously. And because jury meetings happen behind closed doors, participants just have to trust the organisation in having seriously considered a particular submission. In this case only those participants whose submissions were included in the publication and addressed in the jury report (Faculty of Architecture â&#x20AC;&#x201C; TU Delft, 2009) have proof that their submission was evaluated by the jury.

Also the project team had to trust the database when they created the lists of participants. The jury panel depended on the project team not to have made mistakes. The issue of trust between a commissioning client and the tender candidates is most likely to be more important in tenders than in an ideas competition because of the legal consequences of possible mistakes. However, the social impact of not taking submissions seriously is substantial, and could impact further collaboration in the construction project. It could even lead to a boycott of future design competitions. In this sense clients carry a large responsibility in organising a competition. Publishing a decent jury report and showing an overview of the submissions on a website, contributes to building up the level of trust of participants in the client body as representative of the commissioning field.

Composing a jury panel as expert team Since the composition of the jury panel can be considered as a success factor of a design competition (Danielsen, 2010), the project team aimed for an interesting, internationally renowned jury panel. As a former Governmental Architect the Dean was very much aware of the impact of the jury panel on the popularity of the competition, influencing the amount and quality level of the submissions. The project team aimed for a jury panel consisting of a balanced and diverse group of people who could address all aspects of the assignment. Finally they decided to invite nine jury members. An uneven number of members would make voting easier, and this size also gave the faculty the opportunity to get a significant amount of experts involved.

During the meetings of the project team several options for the composition of the jury panel were discussed. In the beginning the idea was to invite the chair of the TU Board and the minister of Education, Culture and Science to be part of the jury, next to several renowned (inter)national architects. However, the minister declined his invitation for political reasons. To prevent the jury from 202

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

forming an unbalance in the direction of external representatives, the project team decided that the Dean would represent the client, together with a student and a professor (and practicing architect) of the university. The simultaneous process of a Think Tank made it possible to invite only peers from the field of architecture, while the more political and managerial key players already played a role in the Think Tank. This suited the aims of the competition as well as the aims of the Think Tank.

Most of the Dutch jury members who accepted the invitation as a jury member were personal acquaintances of the Dean. Some of them had already actively approached the Dean about their ideas for a new faculty building and the concept of the competition. Most of the international jury members originated from the international network of the Director of the NAi (the Dutch Architecture Institute), who also was invited to be a member of the jury. The project team had also approached several international independent professionals but they were not very interested in participation. Until the last week before the launch of the competition the composition of the jury was uncertain. Especially the international members were not easily confirmed because they had busy schedules and travelled all around the world.

Strategic design of the jury panel opens up possibilities for building expertise and professionalism within an organisation (Salas et al., 2006). The panel member could learn from the feedback they receive from other team members, participants and the media. If juries and project teams are not able to perform repeated tasks and receive feedback on their actions, their experiences cannot contribute to the idea of organisational learning (see for example George and Chattopadhyay, 2008). Despite the fact that a design competition is a rare event for most clients, not creating a learning environment around this kind of event is a missed opportunity for further development of the client organisation and the professional field. The data show that composing a jury panel relies as much on the composition of the panel as on the availability of experts. The project team was aware that in shaping the jury panel, the distribution of fields of expertise, group representation and the amount of experience of the individual members should be balanced against each other and related to the aim of the competition. However, it was our experience that composing a team that would meet the theoretical requirements of an expert team was almost impossible without a proper personality assessment and knowledge of how each person would carry out their function. Strategic and political aspects also had to be architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

203

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

taken into account. Taking all this into account, the composition of the jury panel for the Building for Bouwkunde competition can be considered as the best possible result in the light of the different aims of the competition.

The Dean contributed greatly to both the intended composition of the panel and the process of securing jury members. He applied his tacit knowledge and prior experience as a chair or a jury member in this matter. In this sense the composition process can be compared to the composition process of the project team in the aftermath of the fire: the Dean asked several persons to be involved, and depending on their availability and willingness to participate the project team was composed. The project-based and rushed character of this competition probably contributed to this pragmatic strategy. Compared to other case situations, the professional level and domain specific interests of this client organisation contributed to the success of the team composition. In practice it might be hard to strategically design jury panels and project teams.

Not every client organisation has a well established network in the field of architecture and clients could either feel too confident or too insecure about their knowledge of the field. The danger exists that if clients feel confident they think they do not need support, and if clients are insecure, they do not know whom to invite. Involving domain specific experts is therefore required to organise competitions.

Developing a format for submission display One of the dilemmas faced by a client organisation is to develop a clear ambition and attractive competition format, without minimizing the solution space and potential for participants (Danielsen, 2010, RĂśnn, 2010). Even though the project team aimed for a professional jury to assess the submissions because they would be able to judge large amounts of information in a relatively short period of time, they still realized that as a professional client they should be realistic and modest in setting up the requirements for the submissions.

The literature about decision making (Hogarth, 2002, Hutton and Klein, 1999, Soane and Nicholson, 2008) shows that the format of the information presented should be adjusted to certain traits of the decision making, such as the level of expertise. Previous research indicates that clients asked for more information about the candidates to decrease the uncertainty about the potential level of quality of the participants (Betsch, 2005, Mosier and Fischer, 2009, Volker, 2010). In this case it was clear from the beginning that a jury would assess the 204

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

submissions. However, the format and presentation of the entry documents was never directly connected to the composition of the jury. For example, if people would have participated in the jury who are less experienced in reading designs, such as the Minister or the President of the executive board â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the format could have been adjusted to the composition of the jury panel. More text or abstract visions and less sketch design could have been a good alternative.

The case results indicate that existing competition models do not stress the required balance in the design of the format enough to make clients realize its importance. The level of detail of the required design proposal in relation to the intentions behind the concept of an ideas competition is for example an important issue to consider. A tradition exists in architecture to present designs on boards, sometimes supported by a scale model. In this case the Dean explicitly wanted the ideas to have at least the level of sketch design to create a characteristic architectural design competition. At that time he was also convinced of the added value of a scale model during a competition. However, at the start of the project it was decided that the whole competition would be done digitally through a website. A scale model would not fit the digital format. Next to that it would require the entrants to post the scale model which would result in additional costs for participation.

After consultation with other more experienced organisations and the project team, it was decided that a scale model would not be required. All submissions had to consist of one or two A1 posters with a short explanation in A4. Analysis of the submissions showed that 90% of the entrants decided to submit two posters, while the format provided freedom to submit one poster only. Although all nominees submitted two posters, the number of posters did not seem to increase the chances of winning: the amount of submissions using two posters remains equal in the final 50 (92%). These findings indicate that one poster might be enough to assess the quality of a proposal. This would decrease the workload of participants as well as client organisations.

The digital poster format as required for this competition offered some additional innovative options for the jury members to assess the submissions. The project team could, for example, have chosen online assessments, individual voting before the jury deliberations and a virtual jury meeting. After some discussion with the chair of the jury and the communication department of the university, it was decided however to stick to the traditional way of a real life jury meeting at a secure location near the university and displaying the posters on architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

205

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

Fig. 3 and 4. Overview of all submissions as presented on the display panels and example of interaction between the jury members.

physical panels. Displays would look more professional and the jury members would have adequate opportunities to judge the submissions.

This resulted in a very impressive collection of all 465 submissions in a characteristic environment (see fig. 3). Reflecting on the jury process, the display panels and real life jury meeting appeared to have been beneficial for the cohesiveness of the jury panel. The jury members could walk along the posters and personal contact among the jury members was ensured (fig. 4). It also increased the awareness among the members of the jury panel of the importance of the competition and the large amount of work provided by the participants. The findings of this case therefore indicate that clients also have to acknowledge the tradition of the professional field of architecture, even if it requires an additional financial investment. These traditions do not have to conflict with modern options, like virtual submissions, a website and new ways of communication, since they can strengthen each other by offering a broader range of assessment opportunities.

Developing a display structure based on anonymity One of the characteristics of a design competition is the anonymous judgement of the submissions. This requires a very good registration to link the names of the participants to the submissions, in order to enable the right match of the winner with the winning proposal. In this competition the registration numbers were required as part of the submission format. The personal details of the participants were linked with the registration numbers in a large database, managed by the external consultant. The project team was not able to enter 206

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

the data, which ensured anonymity during the whole assessment process. The registration numbers were used to structure and monitor the large amount of submissions during preparation and assessment.

In line with the tradition in competitions the submissions were assessed anonymously. The findings show that because there was no information about the designer provided, the jury members focused on the content of the idea instead of the background of its creator. Although the jury members were sometimes very curious about the background of the participants, they explicitly wanted to wait with opening the database that linked the registration numbers to the participants until after they had decided about the winners. In this respect a competition is not the same as a public tender, in which the client focuses on the qualifications of the design firm instead of the design itself. Previous research in tender situations (Volker, 2010) showed that a personal explanation given by the designer increases the understanding of the proposal. Anonymous judgement of competition submissions prevents this kind of information from being provided. In this sense it would be interesting to compare a competition jury process to the (anonymous) judgement processes of research proposals or other kinds of grants, as for example done by Hekkert and van Wieringen (1998), Lamont (2009), and Langfeldt (2001).

During the assessment phase a typology was developed by the project team to categorize the submissions and create an overview of the different types of submissions. During the jury deliberation, the panel members received a list of the submissions ordered by type and increasing registration numbers. They also received a handout with the results of the quantitative study made by the project team, including an outline of the most important topics addressed in a portfolio of submissions. In the retrospective interviews, almost all jury members stated that they had appreciated the structure provided by the typology, but that they did not agree on the content and structure of the typology. During the jury deliberations the panel decided that the typology should not be part of the jury report because it was only an assessment means and not an outcome of their evaluation process. Neither the winners nor the short list of the best fifty submissions, represent the distribution over the types of the complete range of submissions. These findings suggest that a pre-developed typology can help to interpret and process submissions but that this structure does not automatically determine the direction or types of outcome of the jury assessment.

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

207

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

Alignment of the decision frames The launch of the competition at the opening of the Biennale in September 2008 induced a strict deadline. This meant that the competition needed to be set up within two months. There was no clear deadline for the end of the competition, apart from the dates that were announced in the competition programme.

The data of this competition indicate that the dynamic context caused changes in the ambitions and the competition boundaries. Without a clear goal and a reliable network of possible actors these changes could cause serious deficiencies in relation to the competition rules. At the start of the competition, the competition brief was communicated via a website. For several weeks participants raised questions about uncertain or missing information. The project team was aware of the fact that the content of the answers would steer the direction of the submitted ideas, since too much deviation from the original assignment could place early starters at a disadvantage against those starting late. Because the project team wanted to focus on a new faculty of the future, they chose to answer the questions in an as neutral way as possible by staying close to the original text.

This meant that no additional information about the old faculty building or the temporary building was provided.

During the period that the participants were working on their submission, the context of the competition had changed, however. The temporary accommodation of the Faculty was put into use, leading to very positive reactions and a great deal of satisfaction among the students and staff members. Further analysis of the biographical traits of the winning participants showed that five out of six (had) studied or worked at the Faculty as an (exchange) student or employee. This indicates that the participants who were familiar with the (current state of the) case situation, had more chances to submit a winning design. They were thus able to utilise the dynamics of the context in their submissions. These findings are in line with Kreiner (2006) stating that specific information and a feeling for the relevance of information would improve the chances of winning because the ideas provide a better match with the assignment.

Cultural differences may, however, also have affected the chances of winning, even in the situation of anonymous reviewing by an international jury panel. The outcome of the competition (winners from the Netherlands, France, Belgium and Finland) and the distribution of the best 50 submissions (mainly originating from the Netherlands, France, United States and other Western countries) imply that the frame with which the jury members assessed the submissions had 208

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

an orientation similar to the context in which the assignment was set up. This meant that for participants who were not familiar with this frame, the chances of winning the competition could have been reduced. On the other hand, it can be argued that in the present internet related society, a lot of information is easily available from all around the world. Certain aspects of architecture might even be uniform around the world. This would be an interesting issue for further research.

In line with this issue, it was found that due to time in process differences the frame of references of the jurors differed from the frame of the participants.

Participants typically expect that the information in the brief would also serve as a starting point for the jury members in their assessment process. This would imply that all jury members are fully informed about the competition and use a comparable frame to assess the participants. However, as the literature on decision making showed that jury members, especially experts, take along their existing frame of references (including their own perceptions in relation to the temporary housing situations) and apply this on a particular situation such as this competition (Hutton and Klein, 1999, Kazemian and RĂśnn, 2009). This does affect the chances of winning. However, the results of the case imply that complete equality of frames among the participants and jury members would be unrealistic. The time span between the announcement of a competition and the evaluation frame simply is too long. At the time of the competition launch, only a few people could have predicted that the winners of the competition would include two submissions that proposed to renovate and transform the building at Julianalaan. Although the sudden cause for and rushed character of the competition might not be typical of all cases, every competition can be confronted with these dynamic contextual changes in relation to the competition assignment.

Reflecting on the communication to the participants, one of the Dutch jury members mentioned in the retrospective interviews that the participants could have been better informed about the positive experiences and new insights about the temporary location. This would have led to a disadvantage to participants who started the preparations for the competition early, but would have decreased the discrepancies between local and international participants.

The dilemma of the alignment of frames illustrates the dynamics of the project context: circumstances can change over time, which affects the availability and importance of information during the competition. A client has an important architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

209

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

role in deciding in which direction to steer the participants and the jury panel.

This could influence the variety of the submissions and the outcomes of the competition.

Sensemaking in carrying out the rules of the game The “playing field” of a competition is determined by its design decisions.

However, as indicated by Svensson (2010), the structure of the competition guidelines is often based on a rational process of decision making, while most of the time sensemaking processes overrule the actual decision making process (Kreiner, 2006, Volker, 2010). The project team had the experience that some violations of the rules actually caused deviations in the playing field (e.g. a difference in the scale levels of the sketches), while others only caused administrative issues (e.g. missing registration numbers). For the project team it was difficult to estimate the effects of a certain rule on the number and kind of participants and submissions. For example, the obligation to be registered in an architect register could disqualify a lot of (international) professionals.

Yet, it remained uncertain how many potential participants would be affected by such requirements until the submission closed. This raised two issues that required sensemaking during the implementation process: 1) How strictly should the rules be applied? and 2) Do the rules influence the character of the competition negatively?

Even with the available expertise within the project team a lot of time was spent on how to design the competition in order to reach the aims of stimulation creativity, research and debate. A call for participation is always a guess, and it is only after the submission deadline that a client becomes aware of the response of the market. At that time officially the moment has passed to make adjustments to the requirements and submission format. Participants have to decide for themselves if they feel the balance between costs and benefits makes it worth taking the risk and investment of participation. We hoped for a response of around 350 submissions, but did not expect that the competition would have such a large impact in the field, resulting in 471 submissions. The relatively high amount of prize money – 60.000 Euros in total – and the unique media attention due to the origin of the competition definitely contributed to that. Despite the fact that only a few of the major players in the field joined the competition, both the project team and the jury panel considered a competition with almost 500 submissions as very successful.

210

architectural competitions – histories and practice

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

To do justice to this enthusiastic response from the field, the jury decided to judge all submissions that could be printed and included an idea that was in line with the aims of the competition. This resulted in 465 submissions that were approved for jury assessment, while 58% officially did not fulfil some (formal) requirements. Since it was a design competition and not a European tender, the competition rules allowed for this kind of flexibility. During a tender, the jury panel would not have been able to accept the submissions that did not meet the requirements. The need for adjustments in the competition regulations can be considered as part of the sensemaking process of clients (Weick, 1995, Volker, 2010, Kreiner, 2006) and should be acknowledged in the design and implementation of a competition.

Conclusion Despite the fact that within the architectural community much interest is shown in the outcome of design competitions, the results of this case show the important role of a client in determining the level of playing field and the range of participants. Several challenges needed to be faced in order to turn a competition into a successful event. In this chapter I have addressed six of these: 1) trust and communication in a digital era; 2) composing a jury panel as expert team; 3) developing a format of submission display; 4) aligning the decision frames; 5) developing a display structure based on anonymity, and 6) sensemaking in carrying out the rules of the game.

A considerable amount of expertise and effort is needed to make sense of the decisions that create the structure of a competition. It is the constant search for a balance that makes every competition unique, providing a wealth of information about clients and architectural design. Since there is no one formula for success, organising a design competition will always be challenging for every client, no matter what the level of experience and professionalism.

For the case of the Building for Bouwkunde ideas competition the large amount of submissions from all over the world indicates that the organising committee did a good job in facing the challenges of organising a competition.

Most of the aims of the competition were reached and the jury decisions supported the accommodation process of the Faculty. These challenges have not been discussed in depth by previous scholars but remain to be an interesting area of research. A more systematic evaluation of competitions could lead to improved practice and valuable datasets for further research. For the future I architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

211

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

hope that other clients will open up their organisations in order to supplement our interesting submission database with new entries and enable a structural comparison between different competition types and contexts.

Recommendations Based on this case recommendations can be made for future competitions.

Communicating via a website was definitely worth the investment and fitted the international character of the competition. Virtual submissions lowered the costs and increased the number of participants. Administratively it also created a lot of advantages in the assessment phase. Combining modern technology with certain competition traditions, such as a jury deliberation of several days and displaying the submissions in an exhibition-like environment, can strengthen the structure and impact of the competition. Publishing a decent jury report and showing an overview of the submissions on such a website could contribute to the level of trust between the participants and the organising team.

The small project team included mainly domain specific experts. This would also be recommended for future competitions since a lot of decisions have to be made that require experience and relevance with the architectural field. The submission format is only one of these issues. The experiences in this case indicate that one A0-poster should be sufficient for a skilled jury panel to judge the idea or design proposal. This decreases the workload of participants and client organisations significantly. In case less experienced jury members or experts from other domains are involved, one should carefully consider the submission format and the composition of the complete jury panel. It also supports creating a learning environment about the jury deliberation process for further development of the client organisation and the professional field.

Essential is also the match between the design of the competition rules and the aims of the competition. 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. A competition could accelerate a building project, but could also cause a lot of resistance from stakeholders within or outside the organisation. The composition of a jury panel should therefore be a balanced consideration of competent key players that reflect the aim of the competition.

The dilemma of the alignment of frames illustrates the dynamics of the project context: circumstances can change over time, which affects the availability and importance of information during the competition. A client has an important 212

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition

role in deciding in which direction to steer the participants and the jury panel.

The need for adjustments in the competition regulations can be considered as part of the sensemaking process of clients and should be widely acknowledged in the design and implementation of a competition. In case of multiple entries a typology can help to interpret and process the submissions since it does not directly influence the direction or types of outcome of the jury assessment.

References Arkesteijn, M. H. & Volker, L., forthcoming. The power of pluralism for urban strategies. Cities.

Bechtel, R. & Zeisel, J., 1987. Observation: The world under a glass. In: Bechtel, R., Marans, R. & Michelson, W. (Eds.) Introduction: Environmental Design Research. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

Betsch, T., 2005. Preference Theory: An Affect-Based Approach to Recurrent Decision Making.

In: Betsch, T. H., S. (Ed.) The Routines of Decision Making Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bloxham Zettersten, G. B., 2010. The building of visions and the municipal client’s role? Findings from an investigation into architectural competitions 1900-1955 for Nordic Civic projects, as reconsidered in the present. In: Ronn, M., Kazemian, R. & Andersson, J. E. (Eds.) The architectural competition – research inquiries and experiences. Stockholm: Axl Books.

Danielsen, T., 2010. New architectural competitions: communication and dialogue. In: Rönn, M., Kazemian, R. & Andersson, J. (Eds.) The Architectural Competition: Research Inquiries and Experiences. Stockholm: Axl Books. de Haan, H. & Haagsma, I., 1988. Architecten als Rivalen, Naarden, Meulenhoff/Landshoff.

Faculty of Architecture – TU Delft 2009. Building for Bouwkunde - Open to Ideas, Delft, TU Delft.

George, E. & Chattopadhyay, P., 2008. Group composition and decision making. In: Hodgkinson, G. & Starbuck, W. H. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.

Glusberg, J., (Ed.) 1992. A decade of RIBA Student Competitions, London: Academy Group Ltd. Hekkert, P. & van Wieringen, P. C. W., 1998. Assessment of aesthetic quality of artworks by expert observers: An empirical investigation of group decisions. Poetics, 25, 281-292.

Hogarth, R. M., 2002. Deciding analytically or trusting your intuition? The advantages and disadvantages of analytic and intuitive thought. Barcelona, Spain: ICREA and Pompeu Fabra University.

Hutton, R. J. B. & Klein, G., 1999. Expert Decision making. Systems Engineering, 2, 32-45.

Jackson, P., 1983. Principles and problems of participant observation. Geografiska Annaler, 65, 3946.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

213

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition Kazemian, R. & Rönn, M., 2009. Finnish architectural competitions: structure, criteria and judgement process. Building Research & Information, 37, 176-186.

Kreiner, K. 2006. Architectural Competitions – A case-study. Copenhagen: Center for Management Studies of the Building Process.

Kreiner, K., 2007a. Constructing the client in architectural competition – an ethnographic study of revealed strategies. In: Working Group 6: Practice-based Studies of Knowledge and Innovation in Workplaces (ed.) EGOS 2007. Crete, Greece.

Kreiner, K., 2007b. Strategic Choices in Unknowable Worlds. Copenhagen: Center for Management Studies of the Building Process.

Kreiner, K., 2010. Architectural Competitions: Empirical Observations and Strategic Implications for Architectural Firms. In: Rönn, M., Kazemian, R. & Andersson, J. (Eds.) The Architectural Competition: Research Inquiries and Experiences. Stockholm: Axl Books.

Lamont, M., 2009. How professors think – inside the curious world of academic judgment, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.

Langfeldt, L., 2001. The Decision-Making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and Their Effects on the Review Outcome. Social Studies of Science, 31, 820-841.

Lipstadt, H., The Competition in the Region’s Past, the Region in the Competitions Future. In: Malmberg, C., (Ed.) The Politics of Design: Competitions for Public Projects, 17 and 18 November 2005 New York. aug 07: Princeton University.

Maandag, B., 2008. Bouwkunde – portrait of the Faculty of Architecture of Delft University of Technology 1970-2008, Delft, TU Delft, faculty of Architecture.

Manzoni, B., 2010. A Content Analysis of 35 Years of Cross-Disciplinary Research on Architectural Competitions. In: Kreiner, K. (Ed.) Construction Matters Conference. Copenhagen.

Manzoni, B., 2011. Equipping Project Teams for Competitions. In: Smyth, H. (Ed.) Managing the Professional Practice. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Mosier, K. L. & Fischer, U. M., Does Affect Matter in Naturalistic Decision Making? In: Stanton, N. & Wong, W., (Eds.) NDM9, the Ninth International Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making, June 2009 2009 London. British Computer Society, 99-104.

Rönn, M., 2010. Architectural Policies, Regulation and Jury Dilemmas. In: Rönn, M., Kazemian, R. & Andersson, J. (Eds.) The Architectural Competition: Research Inquiries and Experiences. Stockholm: Axl Books.

Rönn, M., Kazemian, R. & Andersson, J. (Eds.) 2010. The Architectural Competition: Research Inquiries and Experiences, Stockholm: Axl Books.

Salas, E., Rosen, M. A., Burke, C. S., Goodwin, G. F. & Fiore, S. 2006. The Making of a Dream Team: When expert teams do best. In: Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J. & Hoffman, R. R. (Eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sanger, J., 1996. The compleat observer? A field research guide to observation, London, The Falmer Press.

Silverman, D., 2007. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research, Los Angeles, Sage.

214

architectural competitions – histories and practice

leentje volker: facing the challenges of organising a competition Soane, E. & Nicholson, N., 2008. Individual Differences and Decision Making. In: Hodgkinson, G. & Starbuck, W. H. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.

Spreiregen, P. D., 1979. Design Competitions, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Spreiregen, P. D., 2010. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Design Competition Washington DC, 1980-1981. In: Rönn, M., Kazemian, R. & Andersson, J. (Eds.) The Architectural Competition: Research Inquiries and Experiences. Stockholm: Axl Books.

Sudjic, D., Competitions: the Pitfalls and the Potentials. In: Malmberg, C., (Ed.) The Politics of Design: Competitions for Public Projects, 2005 New York? aug 07: Princeton University.

Svensson, C., 2010. Speaking of Architecture – a study of the jury’s assessment in an invited competition In: Ronn, M., Kazemian, R. & Andersson, J. E. (Eds.) The Architectural Competition: Research Inquiries and Experiences. Stockholm: Axl Books. van Campen, J. & Hendrikse, J., 1997. Kompas – handleiding en voorbeeldmodellen bij het uitschrijven van prijsvragen en meervoudige opdrachten op het gebied van architectuur, stedebouw en landschapsarchitectuur (“Kompas” – Guidelines and models for design competitions), Rotterdam, Uitgeverij 010.

Volker, L. 2010., Deciding about Design Quality - Value judgements and decision making in the selection of architects by public clients under European tendering regulations, Leiden, Sidestone Press/Delft University of Technology.

Weick, K. E., 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations, Thousand Oaks CA, Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Beverly Hill, Cal., Sage Publications.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

215

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

Abstract This essay describes an architectural competition as a fundamentally uncertain task for the participating architects. It is based on a detailed empirical case study. The empirical data show how architects handle such uncertainty by developing a number of practices. The implicit strategies that such practices reveal are analysed.

One finding of the study is the ex post facto definition of the criteria on which the winner of the competition is found. It is argued that such a retrospective setting of the rules is necessary practice given the nature of the competition. How it is done in each particular case will be a reflection of the outcome of the competition. Given such conditions, it becomes difficult for the participating architects to compete strategically and rationally.

One specific practice analysed is the construction of the clientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs and preferences beyond what can be deduced from the competition brief. It can be shown that such construction depends on, for example, prior experiences with the client involved. Another practice is related to the learning after the outcome of the competition is known. It appears that such learning is biased in view of the fact that in most cases the concrete experience is one of defeat. It is discussed how we can understand the persistence of practices which apparently lead to failure.

Key words: competition for primacy; architectsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; practices; ex post facto rules; learning from failure.

Contact: Kristian Kreiner, Professor kk.ioa@cbs.dk Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark

216

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

Constructing the Client in Architectural Competitions An Ethnographic Study of Architects’ Practices and the Strategies They Reveal kristian kreiner

Introduction: Shadow dances and masquerades This essay describes and analyses architects as they prepare their design proposals in architectural competitions.1 It focuses on the routines of such architects, primary in relation to their mental and social construction of the client’s preferences, the nature of the design task, and the rules and conditions of the competition. It seeks to understand the tensions and dilemmas arising when architects search for solid knowledge and information for their design choices, but do so in a competitive context which previous research has characterized as being fundamentally uncertain (Kreiner, 2006, 2007, 2010; Kreiner et al. 2011).

In classical architectural competitions, interaction between the architects and the client is not permitted. In an allegorical sense, each architect is “dancing” with an absent partner, consciously trying to imagine the client and to respond to his or her movements and gestures, needs and preferences. This shadow dancing is further complicated by the fact that the competition jury is also on the dance floor. The jury will eventually decide the fate of the design entries, and its members are believed by the architects to have opinions and aesthetic preferences that will determine or influence the outcome of the competition.

Thus, the architects are also shadow dancing with the jury, who they also may not communicate with. What promises to create some coordination across the many private dance floors is the fact that all the architects are dancing to the 1 ‘Architects’ is a convenient figure of speech. It is used with the understanding that in all cases the participants in architectural competitions are teams and collectives of actors, not an individual designer or architect. The same goes for the term ‘client’. It should be understood that a client is normally a complex organization and never (or seldom at least) an individual.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

217

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

same tune – in the form of an extensive competition brief describing the design task and its rationale in great detail.

When the architects have submitted their design proposals, the competition jury begins its work. Since the entries are normally submitted anonymously, the shadow dance becomes a masquerade. The architects hide behind their respective design proposals. When the jury appoints a winning design, it also appoints the architect who will work with the client to detail the design and build the facilities. Both the design proposal and the identity of the designer are important to the client. When the masks are removed, if an architect other than the winner now appears the fairest, there will be little possibility of remaking the decision. Such institutionalized masquerading favours creativity over reputation and gives young and inexperienced architects a chance for a breakthrough. On the other hand, such effects are somewhat neutralized because the masquerade gives clients an incentive to invite selectively to the competition, to engage only the “safe bets,” and to control their efforts closely through explicit instructions and directives in the competition brief.

The focus of the present paper will be on the “shadow dancing” and the ways in which the absent dancing partners are made present through imagination and enactment. The focus is strictly on the imagination and enactment, but, as it has become common to argue (Gherardi, 2006; Whittington, 2006a, 2006b), when we focus narrowly we soon discover that the whole world is implicated and linked. Every single act is situated “within a broader field of practices which ramify in every direction” (Gherardi, 2006: xvii), and every organizational practice has an extra-organizational character as well (Whittington, 2006b: 1904). We will soon discover the framing, channelling, and sense making that established practices and prior experiences impress upon the efforts of the architects. Thus, the choice of focus on imagination and enactment is perhaps rather a choice of vantage point. From there we may obtain a richer view of all that goes into preparing an entry in an architectural competition and the strategizing implied when imagining the recipients of the design proposal.

Aim and plan The use of “shadow dancing” as an allegory is meant to signal that ambiguity and imagination play fundamental roles in architectural competitions. Conventionally, the competition brief is an extensive document, and the text requires selective attention and interpretation to provide direction for the design work. Which part 218

architectural competitions – histories and practice

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

of the brief to attend to, and what to make of the information attended to, are choices that are made and rationalized on the basis of an explicit or implicit construction of the client’s needs and the jury members’ preferences. Subsequently, when the jury does not favour particular design proposals, it is commonly assumed that the particular architect misread the competition brief and misconstrued the client’s needs and preferences. In short, it is not the text, but the reading of the text that leads to a false construction of the client and the design task. But the research on which this essay builds has shown that no reading of the competition brief can lead to “correct” attributions of needs and identities to the client, since such attributions are the outcomes of the competition process as much as they are the premises for it. At least in part, it is by reviewing and evaluating the submitted design proposals that the client and the jury discover their needs and preferences. Thus, the client is constructed twice, once by the architects in preparing their design entries, and subsequently by the jury in selecting the winner and rationalizing their decision. From the architects’ point of view, they are aiming not merely at a moving target, but also at a target which, figuratively speaking, is placed only after the shoots have been fired. Such ex post facto moving and placing of the target is necessary for the winning design to be seen as expressing the needs and desires of the client. But if these are the conditions, sophisticated ways of thinking and strategizing are called for, since the architects must essentially aim at changing (not hitting) the client’s needs and preferences.

This essay provides an understanding of the dilemmas faced by architects when constructing the client under Knightian uncertainty (Kreiner, 2007). Empirical evidence will be presented to show how architects cope with such dilemmas and how, in spite of much variability in actual design choices and eventual success, such coping constitutes a shared practice and can be made to reveal a common competition strategy.

The rest of the essay is organized into the following sections. After having introduced the foundation and aim of the essay above, Section 2 discusses the notion of practice as that concept will be central to the arguments developed below. Section 3 describes the empirical study that yielded the data on architects’ competition practices. The sources of data are described and some challenging methodological issues are discussed. Section 4 documents some behavioural patterns among architects when engaged in architectural competitions. The ways in which the architects’ come to understand the design task, and how such understandings are translated into specific design proposals, is described at architectural competitions – histories and practice

219

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

some length. Section 5 analyses the observed work in terms of shared practices, and from these the implicit competition strategies are deduced. Finally, after having reflected upon the ways practices can become institutionalized even when they are likely to lead to failure, a few conclusions will be drawn concerning architects’ competition practices and the implicit strategies they harbour.

practice and architectural competitions An ethnographic study of architectural competitions must have the practices of the observed individuals as a central focus. Competitions serve many ideological and institutional purposes, but the aim of this essay is to understand what people do when they enact the notion of an architectural competition. In a sense, we all know what such a competition is, what it entails and what it requires actors to do and observe in terms of rules and regulations. Normally, we ascribe effects to competitions on the basis of such general understandings of the phenomenon. Generally speaking, most people would be willing to believe that the competition will produce creative solutions to the client’s needs and problems, and that the best and most creative design proposal will be singled out as the winner. It is not claimed here that such effects never materialize – often, they do – but the point is that in order to produce such effects much of the participants’ activities take place under circumstances that are generally neglected or hidden. Such actual activities, and the specifics of the circumstances under which they are undertaken, are the object of the present study. If the sum total of all that needs to be done and accomplished in order to compete under the circumstances defined by an architectural competition qualifies as a practice, the current essay subscribes to the popular view on organizations as fields of practice (Schatzki et al., 2001). By focusing on the practice of architectural competitions, i.e., what people do and the circumstances under which they do it, we may come to appreciate the phenomenon of architectural competitions in less general terms. We may learn, for example, what it means to meet the client’s needs, and what it entails to find a winner.

The label “practice” encompasses a variety of notions. However, Schatzki (2001) may represent the common view when he declares that practice theorists conceive of … practices as embodied, materially mediated arrays of human activity centrally organized around shared practical understanding. (p. 2) 220

architectural competitions – histories and practice

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

While emphasizing the centrality of human activity to a practice, the definition makes sure that there is more to practices than only human activity. The observable human activity will be uniquely embodied, materially mediated, and locally situated. Thus, the activities in themselves may be unique and might potentially be idiosyncratic, were it not for the fact that they are organized around a “shared practical understanding.” Thus, it is not the standardization and repetitiveness of behaviour, but its (in a Deweyan sense) habitual character that constitutes a practice: … Repetition is in no sense the essence of habit. … The essence of habit is an acquired predisposition to ways or modes of response, not to particular acts … Habit means special sensitiveness or accessibility to certain classes of stimuli, standing predilections and aversions, rather than bare recurrence of specific acts. (Dewey, quoted in Cohen (2007) p. 778) The “shared practical understanding” of architectural competitions organizes an array of human activities because “acquired predispositions” to ways or modes of enactment will be operative among the participants. Each instantiation of an architectural competition will be unique, but in the above sense we may still believe that the enactment is habitual, that we can identify some form of shared “course of action” or “action programme” (Ryle, 2000). In short, we may believe that the observed action can be understood as a specific instantiation of a more general, habitual practice.

To understand practices as habits, we need to be able to point out what the practitioners are especially sensitive to, which predispositions and modes of response they have developed and the stimuli they have learned to heed. Such common and shared traits are assumed to be learned experientially and/or acquired in processes of socialization. Presumably, predispositions and modes of response have been retained because they were associated with constructive and beneficial outcomes. Learning implies an increased probability for successful modes of acting to be repeated. But here we encounter a complication in the case of architects’ competition practice. Since such competitions are competitions for primacy (March, 1999), the vast majority of direct experiences will be negative. Thus, we need to explain how practices and habits can develop when they are associated with experiences of defeat and failure, which might otherwise have caught the architects in a “failure trap” of constantly shifting architectural competitions – histories and practice

221

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

strategy and revised dispositions (March and Levinthal, 1999). In this sense, a structural inhibitor to the development of a practice in architectural competitions seems to exist. We thus need to address the paradox that the constant experience of failure will encourage the practitioners to develop a shared, habitual practice.

The development of a practice of architectural competitions is made puzzling not just by its nature as a competition for primacy. The shared practical understanding as foundation for a practice is further challenged by the nature of the task itself. In architectural competitions, the design task is ill-structured (Rittel and Webber, 1973; Simon, 1977; Conklin and Weil, 1998) and the design proposals incommensurable (Karpik, 2010). This means that the conception of the task is an integral part of the competition. Since the contesting architects are individually constructing the clientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs and preferences they are in fact not solving the same problem. The design proposals need to be made commensurable by the jury to justify appointing a winner, but that can only be done retrospectively and only on dimensions and criteria that differentiate between the design proposals themselves (Kreiner, 2012). The competition brief will not provide much help in this respect. When the criteria for winning are defined after the competition, the potential of success is fundamentally unknowable and unpredictable ahead of time. Furthermore, if on seeing the design proposals the client learns about unfortunate implications of stated preferences and wishes, it would be entirely possible and rational for him or her to reconsider and restate such preferences and wishes. Again, such learning on the part of the client occurs only after the architects have submitted their design proposals and will consequently add to the experience of competition outcomes being unknowable and unpredictable. The learning and development of rationalized, habitual practices under Knightian uncertainty seem to be challenging to understand.

These reflections lead to two tasks for this essay to accomplish. First, it is important to describe the practices or habits of the architects enacting architectural competitions that make observations of their actual doings and actions meaningful. Second, it is important to uncover the strategies that such practices reveal in relation to the stabilization of practices in the face of recurrent negative feedback and Knightian uncertainty. The architectsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; construction of the client will be the empirical test bed for accomplishing these two tasks.

222

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

the study This essay builds on a case study of an architectural competition documented

by Kreiner (2006). Technically speaking, the architectural competition studied was a single, sealed bid, invited tender competition. The client was a Danish university and the design task was to transform an existing building located in an old industrial complex into a modern university facility.

Data Data were collected from several sources before, during and after the competition. First, an ethnographic study was conducted in one of the participating architectural firms. A team of architects was observed while working on their design entry for a competition preceding the one studied below. The observations and understandings obtained served as tacit knowledge for the current case study. It informed the types of questions asked and guided the discussions with the participating architects.

Second, interviews were conducted with three of the eight participating architects. The three were selected pragmatically, primarily for ease of access. The winning architect was among the three selected. All three were seasoned participants in architectural competitions and belonged to the architectural elite in Denmark. Competitions were their main or preferred method for work acquisition. All three had worked for the university on previous occasions. The CEO and the partner responsible for this particular competition were interviewed in each of the three architectural firms. In one case, a member of the design team was also interviewed. All interviews were tape recorded and subsequently transcribed. An interview guide was developed, mainly specifying the themes to be covered in the interview. The purpose of the interviews was (1) to reconstruct the design process as it unfolded from the perspective of the directly involved parties, (2) to solicit self-assessments of the design choices behind the entries, and (3) to inquire into the lessons that the participating architects had drawn from the specific sets of events.

Third, the three CEOs and the three responsible partners were assembled for a full-day seminar at which we presented our preliminary observations and analyses. This seminar was tape recorded and transcribed. The discussions amongst the architectural firms provided new data, and their reactions to the researchersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; presentations allowed a triangulation and calibration of observations and interpretations. architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

223

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

Fourth, the author was an ordinary member of the competition jury, representing the client. All written material concerning the competition, the brief, the queries, the competition entries, and the final report of the jury were automatically available. The author was present at all formal meetings of the jury.

The deliberations were highly confidential and permission to tape record the meetings was not granted. The author’s research interest in the process was made generally known, but primarily he enacted the role of a jury member.

Only few references will be made to the jury’s decision-making processes. However, the author’s participation made possible a more informed reading and interpretation of the publicly available documents, not least the brief and the jury’s final report (Kreiner, 2006:4-5).

Methodological challenges: Maintaining a prospective perspective In analysing the case study we already know the result of the competition and the jury’s assessments of the individual entries. Knowing some design choices to be ill-fated and some attributions to be incorrect puts us in a privileged position in comparison with the participants at the time when those choices and attributions were made. “Monday Morning Quarterbacking” (Taleb, 2007) is a constant temptation, implying that what we know now could and should have been known when choices and attributions were made (Fischhoff, 1975).

The temptation only grows when the participating architects readily accept the blame for having erred. However, to give in to such temptations would be to betray the very premise of the study, namely that the architects operate under Knightian uncertainty. All entries were based on design choices which were all subject to error, no matter whether subsequent events vindicated or undermined the premises of the choices. Hindsight renders a less ambiguous picture of history because we can afford to focus narrowly on things that actually happened, to the exclusion of all that conceivably might have happened, and which, had they happened, would have changed the outcome of the competition. A commitment to study the practices of architects requires us to identify with the true circumstances of their performance. We have to accept that the specific future outcomes were unknowable ahead of time, and that, in the case of architectural competitions, the horizon of possible futures is extremely open.

A perspective on human activities as a set of practices implies a focus on the routines and heuristics in processes of task accomplishment. However, if practice becomes too closely identified with actual accomplishment we run the risk 224

architectural competitions – histories and practice

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

of mistaking the task (the effort) for the achievement (the accomplishment) (Ryle, 2000). In this case we would likely come to drain our investigation of experiential content (Weick, 2006) – a content which in the case of architectural design is emotionally charged. An architectural competition is never “just another competition.” The task is complex and subject to tight deadlines; at best, the available technologies are uncertainty; and the stakes are often considered high. Being in control, knowing what to do, and the rational exploitation of established competencies, are not the experiential equivalent of enacting practices and acting habitually. The special sensitivity to the client’s needs and the jury’s preferences will often leave the architects perplexed. To become able to submit a relevant and timely design proposal is a task and a struggle in its own right. Thus, the hallmark of a practice is not a well-established technology that allows the practitioners to accomplish some task easily. In the case of architectural competition, the practice is constituted in a habitual acceptance of a thankless, if not impossible, task. The generally recognizable “ways or modes of response” in no way promise smooth sailing. When the prevailing habits of paying close attention to the competition brief as a source of information about the client’s needs and preferences are described below it is not a given what will be found and how it will inform the design choices. Rather, it will become clear that architects read the brief differently and draw divergent implications from it. In a sense, the trust that such divergence will emerge is the rationale for calling a competition in the first place.

This study accepts the premise that practices are “embodied, materially mediated arrays of human activity” as quoted above, but it conceives of such practices as more task than achievement, more matters of concern than matters of fact (Latour, 2004). It studies architects struggling to embody and mediate their design efforts to become seen as legitimate practitioners of an established practice of architectural competitions.

the practices of competing in architectural competitions In need of additional office and teaching space, a large Danish university invited eight architects to participate in an architectural competition. Perfectly symbolizing current societal and economic change, a knowledge institution planned to move into a large, abandoned industrial building complex. The design object was a storage building that required considerable redesign and reconstruction to become suitable for its new use. architectural competitions – histories and practice

225

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

In aesthetic terms, the building was hardly notable. However, it was located in a complex of buildings considered to be a fine exemplar of the built environment of the industrial age and therefore worth preserving. Furthermore, the building was located in adjacency to a large public park with high historical and recreational value. Thus, it was clearly understood that the authorities, the local politicians and the city planners would have grave concerns over too radical changes to especially the exterior design of the building.

Eight architects took part in the competition. The architectsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; involvement in the competition process spanned a few months, from when the competition brief was received to the ultimate submission of the design proposals. Prior to this was a much longer period of organizing and planning the competition, and subsequently much time was spent on evaluating the design proposal and appointing the winner. It goes without saying that given the time frame the design proposals were kept at a level of ideas and sketches more than spelled-out solutions. The short time frame and the restrictions on the format of the design proposals challenged the architects to strike a balance between the need to communicate an overall design concept and the need to be specific enough to allow an assessment of the technical and economic feasibility of the proposed design.

The architects structured their work in three consecutive phases: 1. The delimitation of a solution space; 2. The search for an organizing theme for the design proposal, and 3. The production of the entry in text, pictures, and sketches.

On the surface of things, this sequence of activities is absolutely mundane.

However, these mundane practices have several implications that will become transparent as soon as we start to consider the details and dilemmas of delimiting the solution space, defining an organizing theme, and choosing a communicative strategy. In this essay, the focus will mainly be on the two initial phases, but scattered hints to the last one will be given.

The delimitation of a solution space For natural reasons, architects started their design work by studying the competition brief carefully. They then continued with the collection of other types of information, such as visiting the building site and investigating the reputations 226

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

of the members of the jury. By the end of this phase they supposedly knew the design task ahead of them. They had established the central requirements, the client’s needs, and the preferences represented among the members of the jury.

Knowing the task, the requirements, and the needs and preferences of the client, the architect could supposedly direct and organize their subsequent efforts effectively.

The presumption that clients express their true identity and needs in the competition brief is problematic, of course. No doubt, competition briefs are also devices for impression management (Goffman, 1959). They portray the clients in ways they like to see themselves and prefer to be seen by others, and not necessarily how they really are and work. For example, they tend to undercommunicate the multiplicity and complexity of the client organization in favour of an image of a coherent, consistent and rational actor. But there are also more innocent biases in the competitions briefs. Such biases surface with the need to explain in words things that are important but possibly tacit (Polanyi, 1966).

In the present case, the competition brief was unusually vague. The university had not decided which functions should be housed in the revamped building. Not even a floor space plan was defined. In essence the brief posed the following question to the architects: “Given that this is the building and given that we are this type of university: How would a university like us want to remodel and utilize a building like this?” The brief left the solution space wide open and gave the architects little guidance in their effort to narrow it down. This was done on purpose to encourage the architects to be creative and visionary: The purpose of refraining from defining mandatory requirements is to encourage visionary solutions which [the winner] in collaboration with the client can develop into a specific floor space plan … (Competition Brief, p. 9 – author’s translation) The open-ended assignment allowed the architects to be visionary, but at the same time the brief gave little direction for how to be visionary. A prescribed floor space plan was substituted for by a very vague indication of the types of teaching and interaction that were supposed to take place in the renovated building: architectural competitions – histories and practice

227

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

[The building] should support and encourage social and professional sparring and become a place where informal learning processes take place. (Competition Brief, p. 6 – author’s translation) The architecture should reflect that it is a dynamic teaching and research institution where knowledge is created and taught in close interaction with the business world and the international community. (Competition Brief, p. 6 – author’s translation) However, such open-ended tasks left the architects at a loss in directing their creativity and effort. To compensate for the admittedly very vague signals and directions, the competition brief contained an illustration of a possible floor space plan. The architects were explicit warned against taking the illustration too seriously and it was pointed out that it was meant … as inspiration and is neither complete nor binding for the entries. (Competition Brief, p. 9 – author’s translation) As we shall see below, this warning was neglected. While being invited to exercise their own judgment, the architects were looking for instruction and direction, and they found such instruction and direction in the illustrative floor plan.

In spite of the immediate impression that the brief contains little information that will direct the creativity and effort of the architects, it was read and reread many times for information, clues and possibly also inspiration. The architects told of how they returned to the brief when they were stuck in their design work and how it was used for internal evaluations. In the process of reading and rereading, some form of closure was in fact reached, but only by interpreting the text richly and by adding personal sense and meaning. For example, in the end the illustrative floor space plan came to serve as a requirement, as they usually do, for all of the architects, and for some of them this “incomplete and nonbinding” illustration became the very point of attention in the design work. For instance, the illustration mentioned a multifunctional auditorium holding 50-70 people, and while an auditorium could be seen to indicate little in the direction of “informal learning processes”, as quoted above, all entries contained such an auditorium of approximately the indicated size. The difficulty of finding room for this auditorium was the central constraint for one of the architects: 228

architectural competitions – histories and practice

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

[Interviewer:] So it was in fact the auditorium that played the central role in your [design process], it was this that created resistance …?

[Architect:] Yes, … and you always learn when you see the final result. When seeing the winning entry, I realised … that they had not taken the m2 requirements in the programme for such a function literally. We gave it priority – yes, we found it important … (Interview transcripts – author’s translation) Reading authority into the illustrative text gave the design work direction. This is not to say that the architect did not explore different solutions to the problem – our interviews with him showed that he did – but that he took the illustration as a revealed real preference and need that might not be expressed explicitly because it could be seen as inconsistent with the proclaimed identity of the university. Consequently, he accepted the auditorium as a fixed-point for the design and set out to find ways of accommodating this requirement without too heavily compromising on other aspects of the design. In the architect’s own words, this was not easy and the auditorium became “a roadblock” for them.

Nonetheless, he stuck with the auditorium and had to make heavy sacrifices on other aspects.

The interview also indicates that the winning entry took the indicative plan for an auditorium less seriously. However, the winning entry also included an auditorium holding only slightly less than 50 persons. This proves that in this case the illustrative floor space plan was still treated as an important design premise, while perhaps not given absolute priority over other concerns.

Why would an architect give such ultimate authority to an illustrative floor space plan? There were many other statements in the competition brief that would encourage them to read a less restrictive message into the suggestion of an auditorium. As would be expected, the reading is not arbitrary, but heavily conditioned by tradition and prior experience.

The Construction of Clients and Jury Members In assessing the image, identity and reputation of the client organization and the members of the jury the architects find other anchoring starting points for their creative processes. These images, identities and reputations are used as premises for interpreting and supplementing the vague statements of the brief. architectural competitions – histories and practice

229

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

All three interviewed architectural firms had previously worked for the university on major projects. They knew the organization and its culture, aims and policies. They had gained insight into the preferences and attitudes of many of the central decision-makers. Such prior experiences and insights influenced the ways in which the architects read and interpreted the competition brief, but were contingent upon their individual and divergent prior histories.

To continue the example from above, the architect explained the priority given to the auditorium in the following way, We were too much influenced by the experience of designing [a previous building for the university], because at that time it proved immensely important that the auditoriums could hold the number of people required in the programme. Back then we worked a long time on that problem. (Interview transcripts – author’s translation) The experience of working with the client on earlier occasions influenced the reading of the brief. Other architects had other experiences, and were not so focused on the size of the auditorium as on other aspects. Another architect referred to prior knowledge in this way, … [it] would create quite different contexts for those exiting break-out situations.

From what we know, after all, about the wishes of the university and the milieu that can be registered on various locations, there exists a strong need for these informal transition zones and in-between spaces which should preferably be naturally integrated into the building. (Interview transcripts – author’s translation) This architect focused creative attention on a different element of the competition brief than the former architect did, but their reasoning was similar.

In both cases, previous experience with this particular client had taught them about the client’s “true” needs and preferences. They read information into the brief which was not necessarily there, but which would be consistent with their picture of the client. Thus they gave priority to one aspect that had earlier proven to be salient, while others gave priority to other aspects that in their experience had proven to be similarly salient.

When direct experience was not available, architects relied on the experience of others, captured in the form of, for example, the reputation of jury members.

230

architectural competitions – histories and practice

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

Much information about the preferences and taste of individual jury members was “improvised” in the sense Shibutani (1966) wrote about it. The composition of the jury was public knowledge. The architects who were competing on this occasion had often served on competition juries in similar competitions and well knew the potential importance of the preferences and biases of individual jury members. For example, one of the consultants was known to dislike reflecting glass facades. Another participant was known to be “politically correct” about certain design strategies. Such information, rumours and reputations were used to further delimit the search for solutions.

In short, the architects construed the competition brief as an important source of information, but needed to interpret the texts extensively to derive sufficiently unequivocal information from it. Such interpretations were not made completely out of the blue, but were heavily framed by prior experience from other architectural competitions, from previous encounters with the specific client and jury members, and from the reputations of the central decisionmakers. A rich reading of the actual text allowed the architects to prioritize between multiple, often conflicting or competing needs and requirements.

Reading richness into vague and contradictory messages in the brief created some delimitation of a solution space for the design efforts.

The Search for Organizing Themes While the first phase concerns establishing an understanding of the design task and defining the requirements that the solution has to meet, the second phase concerns performing the design work. This is a creative and hard-to-manage process. Every indication tells us that the technology of design is unclear. The problem is complex, ill-defined, and multidimensional. Because they are designing very fixed physical spaces, the implications of even small choices proliferate in unpredictable ways. They approach the complexity of the problems, but they also assume that a hidden order, a principle that will produce a “rational” solution to this complex problem, can be found. This central organizing principle, this grand narrative, this Archimedean point from which everything can be derived and to which everything can be referred is important in two ways. It fosters a consistent design and it facilitates convincing communication of the design proposal to even the lay members of the jury.

The importance of finding and experimenting with Archimedean points cannot be underestimated. The metaphorical thinking that it implies encourages the architectural competitions – histories and practice

231

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

asking of new questions; the insistence on consistency becomes another mother of invention. They have difficulties defining what makes a good metaphor, but they know it when they see it. They experiment with alternative metaphors and settle, often late in the process, on the one that organizes and communicates the design proposal most effectively.

In this phase the uncertainty is high and frustrations and disappointments abound at times. The following quotes, taken from the ethnographic study, reflect the changing moods in the design team over a period of four days: In this competition it takes a longer time to find the central idea. In the last competition we had it after one day, but in this case we really cannot find it and it is frustrating because time flies and there is only limited time left. *** We miss the grand narrative. *** I think we have it now, but still it needs to be drawn!

(Field notes – author’s translation) The guarded optimism expressed in the last sentence was disappointed, on this occasion as on many other occasions, because they could not produce consistency when they drew the solution. Thus, the criteria are clearly “performative”.

It is not the metaphor in itself, but its ability to organize things (ideas, solutions, narratives, thoughts etc.) that counts. Even when the central idea comes from luck or a stroke of genius, the architect needs to do the tedious trial-anderror work of applying it. It is easily recognizable, maybe even to others, when it works. In commenting on another competition and acknowledging their own defeat, an architect observed: We pushed the wrong button. They pushed the right one. (Interview transcripts – author’s translation) The button was the metaphor or Archimedean point that was to give order and consistency to an ambiguous design task and world. The point is that if it can order the world for the architect, it can be communicated and potentially order the world for others as well, not least the members of the jury. Even if metaphors are themselves ambiguous, they are often evocative in their ambiguity. They may 232

architectural competitions – histories and practice

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

invite the jury to extend and add to the ideas explicitly described in the design proposal. The jury will likely read much more into the proposal than is actually written, just as the architects read much more into the competition brief. It is not a farfetched idea that the winner will be the proposal that inspires the jury members to see the ideas and potentialities they like the best, whether or not they are explicitly stated.

Let us illustrate how Archimedean points may look and work. In one of the entries, the central form element was an open stairway that ran through the entire building. It was referred to as “The Belt” and it promised to transport people efficiently to all places and functions in the building. The allusion to the industrial history of the building, as a conveyor belt, may not have been intended, but is a possible reading and a natural thought. And it was true that everything could be seen to be organized around this stairway.

The ideal is a simple, but efficiently organizing principle: the hidden key; the right button; the central theme, or grand narrative. To be sure, it is not always found, and supplementary principles and metaphors may need to be introduced. But the ambition is significant in itself since it means that the architects are often willing to bet everything on one single idea. It crystallizes the ideas and inspirations into something very concrete (even if it is often expressed metaphorically).

Above, we suggested that the insistence on finding such an organizing principle or a grand narrative serves the need of presenting a consistent design and a convincing way of explaining it to the client and the jury. These are two additional concerns that need to be taken care of in addition to the concern for the client’s needs and the jury’s preferences. The example of the auditorium shows that these concerns are sometimes conflicting and therefore need to be balanced. Since the final design proposal needs to be rationalized as a true reflection of the requirements of the competition brief, such rationalizations will likely entail a little tinkering with the identity of the client.

strategic perspectives on design practices We know that giving priority to a large auditorium did not pay off, just as the metaphor of “The Belt” did not capture the imagination of the jury members.

In the end, the size of the auditorium was not as important as on previous occasions, and the allusion to the industrial history of the building was less engaging than an allusion to the neighbouring park. As discussed above, we should refrain architectural competitions – histories and practice

233

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

from passing judgements such as “they should have known”. The point is, for every aspect of the building design there were at least two options, and they were to a large extent explicated in the competition brief. For example, one could opt to preserve the original physical structures of the warehouse or opt for increased flexibility by tearing it all down. When the client saw the implications of preserving the original structures they preferred the flexibility – but not until they saw the implications. Had it been inconceivable that a feasible design could be found while preserving some of the original structures, the brief would probably not have encouraged the architect to experiment with such preservation. A winning proposition along these lines is conceivable, and perhaps it was simply not found on this occasion. None of the entries that contained a partial preservation of the original physical structure were seriously considered as potential winners of the competition.

We further know that one could opt to stress the historical context of the industrial complex or opt to stress the link to the park adjacent to the building.

When the jury saw a solution that integrated the greenery of the park into the building they knew that they preferred that option over the alternative. They preferred it so strongly that the reservation towards reflecting glass facades was completely forgotten, as were the few explicit and operational requirements that the competition brief did specify in relation to e.g. technical feasibility, work health and safety, and facility management. Here is what the jury said about the winning proposal concerning the glass facade: The proposed glass south-facade is interesting, but is also technically challenging.

The shown facade is still to find its final form. … In relation to the south-facade a number of issues remain to be resolved, e.g. water-proofing and especially [shading].

The facade must possibly be changed somewhat to function satisfactorily. …The south-facade should be simplified and possibly also modified in order that its expression to a higher extent concords with the identity of the surroundings. Further the jury has doubts about the economic viability of the heat-reflecting glass without any form of sunshades. The facade needs further elaboration and technical documentation. (Jury’s assessment report, various pages – author’s translation) The facade was an integral element in the winning design proposal, and yet in many respects the above quote states in unambiguous terms that the jury did not find it persuasive. It violated the general requirement that “the principles 234

architectural competitions – histories and practice

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

of construction and installation should be simple” (The Jury’s Assessment Report, p. 9); it violated the mandatory requirements of working conditions in the building; it violated technical requirements; it violated the explicit concerns for minimizing the operational costs of the facility, etc. Nonetheless, the jury issued an invitation to the architect to elaborate on the chosen facade solution. It is fairly obvious that the jury might also have decided to disqualify the entry on exactly the same grounds, and that when the jury began its work it would have been impossible to predict to which side the jury would lean in the end.

Because the jury’s final assessment was reached during consideration of the entries, and because these considerations determined which design premises and priorities came to be regarded as decisive, there was no way of knowing ahead of time that, for example, “The Belt” was an inappropriate metaphor.

Conceivably, it could have won, as once again the number of seats in the auditorium might have become the decisive criterion. For the architects, the competition for primacy was in this sense a gamble, which is not to say that anybody at all could participate and possibly win! It takes considerable skills and competence to prepare both a winning and a losing proposal. However, it is a gamble as to whether these skills and such competence are wasted on a futile mission derived from an unfortunate choice of grand narrative, and leading to defeat in the competition rather than victory.

The immediate reaction to this may be one of despair and fatalism. There is really nothing one can do to ensure success in architectural competitions. One may have to rely on one’s good luck. However, there is also a liberating aspect to this insight. We have established that any reading of the competition brief may subsequently be proven wrong, no matter what you read into it. Read it literally, and you will most likely regret it. Read it casually, and you will regret it. Literally or casually, you will most likely come to regret your reading! On the other hand, consider the fact that when most readings have a high risk of being proven wrong, they also have a positive (if slim) chance of being proven correct by subsequent decisions in the jury. However large or small, this constitutes a space for strategizing.

Weick (2006) makes a distinction between fancy and imagination. Fancy is defined as “the power of inventing the novel and unreal by recombining the elements found in reality” (p. 447). Aligning all aspects; achieving consistency; fulfilling all the requirements that are read into the brief, and calibrating solutions against the needs and preferences attributed to the client organization: architectural competitions – histories and practice

235

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

this requires creativity and skill. It may also provide a fair account of the practice of architects. When all the elements can be aligned in the design proposal – when nothing in the brief resists any longer – a viable solution has been found.

However, in Weick’s view “[fancy] plays with what is fixed and dead” (p. 447). The needs and preferences of the client are fixed and dead because the architect has identified, named and solidified them. Having done that, the architects have to enact a fixed and narrow “reality”. The design solution is found when appropriate compromises are found across the various design criteria and requirements.

Weick contrasts fancy to imagination in the following manner: … imagination can be understood as an ability to conceive of something, seen only fragmentarily or superficially, as a complete, perfected, and integral whole. (p. 447) To imagine reality is to start with some tangible clue, and then to discover or invent a world in which that clue is meaningful. (p. 449) If imagination genuinely characterized the ways in which architects engage with competitions they would not read the brief for information. They would not dissolve inconsistencies by choosing sides (either for alignment with the industrial history or the green neighbour) in order to find solid ground for their design efforts. They would rather read the brief for inspiration. They might come to see more than a hidden requirement in the illustrated floor space plan.

For example, they might possibly take the fact that no floor space plan is provided as a symptom of an organization that is looking for a new identity or a new function. In this way, the brief may be extending an invitation to the architects to speculate over what functions and roles – besides teaching, research and administration – a modern university could perform and how the refurbished building might come to symbolize such a new function, role, and identity. The issue becomes not how the architect can design the new building given the university as it is, but to design it for what the university could become. Clearly, such imagination might produce radically new solutions, the fate of which is as unknowable and unpredictable as the fate of more pedestrian solutions. When the brief is read for inspiration, not information, we remove many constraints and set free the creativity of the architect.

Needless to say, even if imagination were to become the strategy hidden in the practice of architectural competitions, constraints would still abound. Our 236

architectural competitions – histories and practice

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

ability to recognize vague symptoms, to imagine alternative realities, and to preserve our imagination in the face of the prevailing understanding of reality (March, 1999) constitute examples of such constraints.

In terms of ensuring a successful outcome of the competition, one strategy is hardly better than the other. By necessity, the chances are high that any strategy will lead to the occasional (random) success, but largely to recurrent defeat. But in view of our analysis of architectural competitions and the nature of the practices they encompass we can convincingly claim that both strategies are defensible on grounds of reason. Reading the brief for inspiration and â&#x20AC;&#x153;changing the rules of the gameâ&#x20AC;? does not necessarily spell failure, because the rules of the game are defined retrospectively anyway. What was perceived as information in the brief, and probably what was also meant as information by the client, later became invalidated by new insights and subsequent events. Such information might also have become validated by subsequent events and experiences. We have no way of knowing ahead of time whether valid information early in the process will still be valid information later in the process.

The practices of architects, as they have been described above, are primarily characterized by habitual fancying. They build an understanding of the needs of the client and the preferences of the jury by carefully attending to the brief and being sensitive to the demands and requirements therein.

If new practices should develop, what would have to change is the habit of searching competition briefs for information and authority. The nature of the competition for primacy might also be understood as an invitation to the architects to read the brief with more imagination. In this sense, the construction of the client would not be a futile exercise of constructing a consistent picture of the needs and preferences from the scattered, inconsistent and temporary descriptions contained in the brief. It would be more akin to offering the client a new identity that would fit the new building designed on other grounds.

The fact that observed practice aligned closely with reading the competition brief for information is especially significant in the light of understanding that alternative practices would be equally feasible and meaningful. Thus, it remains to understand why the fancy-strategy has developed and become institutionalized, over and above the imagination-strategy.

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

237

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

the institutionalization of practices that do not work The practice of granting authority to the competition brief by attending to it for valid information about the client’s needs and preferences cannot have been developed in processes of experiential learning. In the vast majority of cases, the exercise of such practices will lead to experiences of loss and failure, since there can only be one winner in each architectural competition no matter the practice and strategy chosen. We might expect the architects to find motivation to do things differently based on such predominantly negative feedback. We might even suspect that they would be entrapped in a pattern of constantly changing practices, a “failure trap” (March, 1999). It may of course be the case that people ritually repeat well-known patterns of activities, but in search of understanding how practices develop, settle, and change it remains a puzzle why architects continue a practice that apparently does not work for them.

The established practice becomes a little less puzzling if we assume that it is calibrated to the most likely outcome of the competition, namely defeat. Rather than strategizing to win the competition, the strategizing may be aimed at containing the expected losses. Not winning will be rationalized, by the client and everybody else, as an outcome of misreading – of pushing the wrong buttons.

With all the uncertainty surrounding an architectural competition, a misreading represents an innocent mistake (Paget, 1988/2004). Even if mistaken, the effort symbolizes taking the client and the competition seriously. Alternatively, in the most likely event of not producing a winning proposal, a practice of reading the competition brief for inspiration may be taken as a less than serious approach; a mistake which would indicate more guile than innocence. This might give the culprit a negative reputation, which might influence their chance of being invited to future competitions. Thus, in this sense the practice seems to be validated by experience: in spite a bad track record, the architects are repeatedly invited to new competitions – and thereby given future chances (however small) of pushing the buttons that subsequently are determined as the right ones by the jury.

We do not claim that the participating architects are fully conscious of such rationales. The strategies of securing future invitations to competitions are merely revealed strategies, not rationally chosen and planned ones. The practices they are part of will likely have been shared in processes of socialization. The practices work in the sense that architects are building a reputation of being serious players in such competitions and therefore legitimate to invite in the future.

238

architectural competitions – histories and practice

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

In this sense, the necessary construction of the clientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s identity and needs is hidden behind an honest, if most often mistaken, reading of the competition brief. In this sense also, the masquerade that the anonymous architects perform behind the design proposal is continued after the fall of the masks. The honesty of the reading of the brief is important for the chance of being invited to competitions in the future. This implies that the architects accept the blame and openly acknowledge having pushed the wrong buttons. In this way, the competition celebrates the winner but also the questionable moral that what could not be known until afterwards, the architects should have known from the beginning. By acknowledging having made honest mistakes the losing architects symbolically confirm the trust in the competition institution and pave the way for being invited to competitions in the future. Of course, that is another honest mistake since it appears that the involved architects willingly let themselves be fooled by randomness (Taleb, 2007).

conclusions The practice of architectural competitions has been described and analysed. In spite of the variety of proposals and the individual battles fought during the preparation of the design entries, we have identified a shared practical understanding of what it takes to enact the role of an architect in the context of an invited competition. Such a practice involves taking the competition brief seriously as a source of information about the needs and preferences that will be used to evaluate design proposals. It also implies developing an organizing theme that enables the architects to prepare and communicate a consistent design. The observed practices reveal a strategy of fancying the pre-existence of a consistent identity of the client and specific task requirements. It can be shown, however, that such task requirements as well as the specific identity and needs of the client are as much the outcomes of the competition as they are premises for it. This seems to allow for a strategy of imagining the identity of client and the task requirements more creatively. However, the strategy of fancying can be rationalized as an example of end-gaming (Clegg et al., 2006), where the architects optimize their situation in the most likely event of losing the competition. The strategy aims not at winning the competition, but at ensuring being invited to competitions in the future.

The contribution of this essay to practice studies can be summarized by claiming that practice is more task than achievement. It is not clear that practice, competence, skill etc. are necessarily linked to outcomes, at least not in architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

239

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

all contexts. It is possible that practice, competence and skill are related to a nuanced ability to see reality and to appreciate more options for action. But whether such abilities will translate into more or less coordinated action and higher or lower achievement is an open question.

The observed practices of architectural competitions include a reading of the brief for direction; an interpretation of history as rational and efficient; the acceptance of the blame for not winning a competition in which some of the rules are chosen ex post facto; and the search for one organizing theme that will ensure consistency in design and communication. Such practices have developed in spite of the fact that most architects involved will face defeat and failure by enacting them. The practices are far too shared, counter-intuitive and elaborate to be likely to have been invented on the specific occasion by the specific actors studied. They are practices of the field more than individual traits. And these practices can be rationalized as ways of facing the inevitable destiny of competitions, namely the destiny of defeat and loss. They are ways of insuring that if not lucky on this occasion they will be given another chance in future competitions.

The practice literature sees human activity as being organized around a shared practical understanding. This study confirms the productivity of such a perspective. But it also warns against a too naïve and straightforward presumption about what it is that a field of practice is practical about. We saw above that what the architects were practical about was not winning competitions, but handling the recurrent event of defeat. While typically caring about winning the focal competition, the practice could be seen as addressing future competitions and the likelihood of being invited to participate. The task was to prepare a specific design proposal for the client, but the practice and the strategies it revealed had to do with the ways in which such a task was conducted. We observed “embodied, materially mediated arrays of human activity” that went into preparing the design proposal, but the practical understanding that organized such activity involved more than the immediate design task. It also involved an acquired sensitivity to the implications of defeat.

Thus, we can conclude by claiming that a practice will be distinguishable also on the implicit strategic choice of which end-game to prepare for. End-gaming is a form of future-perfect-thinking (Schutz, 1973; Clegg et al., 2006; Winch and Kreiner, 2011) where in imagination actors put themselves in a future state as if it had already arrived – and from there they look back and reflect on the kinds 240

architectural competitions – histories and practice

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

of action that would have led to that situation. For architects in an architectural competition there are two alternative futures that can be thought about in a future-perfect manner. “In which situation will I find myself, should I be lucky enough to win the competition?” has earlier been used to discuss the nature and the quality of the design entries that architects might choose to prepare (Kreiner, 2010). In this paper, the question is different, namely, “In which situation will I find myself, should I not be lucky enough to win the competition?” Imagining such a likely future situation, the worst thing that could happen would be to lose face and reputation as well. One’s performance in this competition might harm or ruin the chances of being invited to participate in other competitions in the future. The practices described here would make sense as a way to avoid giving such a character to the event of not winning. While acknowledging that architects could choose strategically to engage in other end-games, the current practices reveal a concern for future competitions. While necessarily constructing the client as part of preparing design proposals in an architectural competition, the practices of the architects also imply constructing an architectural competition that have participants worthwhile to invite in the future, thereby giving them another chance.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

241

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions

References Clegg, S. R. Pitsis, T. S. Marossezeky, M. and Rura-Polley, T., 2006. Making the future perfect: Constructing the Olympic dream. In Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (Eds.) Making Projects Critical.

New York: Palgrave MacMillan, pp.265 - 293.

Cohen, M. D., 2007. Reading Dewey: Reflections on the study of routines. Organization Studies, 28(5), pp.773-786.

Conklin, E. J. and Weil, W., 1998. Wicked Problems: Naming the Pain in Organizations. [online] Available at: <www.3mco.fi/meetingnetwork/readingroom/gdss_wicked.html>.

Fischhoff, B., 1975. Hindsight foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment of uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception & Performance, 1, pp.288-299.

Gherardi, S., 2006. Organizational Knowledge: The Texture of Workplace Learning. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Goffman, E., 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York, Doubleday.

Karpik, L., 2010. Valuing the Unique. The Economics of Singularities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kreiner, K., 2006. Architectural Competitions. A Case-study. Working Paper: Center for Management Studies of the Building Process, Copenhagen Business School. Available at: <www.clibyg.org>.

Kreiner, K., 2007. Strategic choices in unknowable world. Preparing for success in architectural competitions. Working Paper. Center for Management Studies of the Building Process, Copenhagen Business School. Available at: <www.clibyg.org>.

Kreiner, K. (2010). Architectural Competitions: Empirical Observations and Strategic Implications for Architectural Firms. In Rönn, M. Kazemian, R. and Andersson, J. E., (Eds.) The Architectural Competition. Research, Inquiries and Experiences. Stockholm: Axl Books, pp.101-124.

Kreiner, K., 2012. Organizational Decision Mechanisms in an Architectural Competition. Research in the Sociology of Organizations 36 (The Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice: Looking Forward at Forty), pp.383–413.

Kreiner, K. Jacobsen, P. H. and Jensen, D.T., 2011. Dialogues and the Problems of Knowing. Reinventing the Architectural Competition. Scandinavian Journal of Management 27(1), pp.160-166.

Latour, B., 2004. Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), pp.225-249.

March, J. G., 1999. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. In March, J. G. (Eds.) The Pursuit of Organizational Intelligence. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.100-113.

March, J. G. 1999. The future, disposable organizations and the rigidities of imagination. In March, J. G. (Eds.) The pursuit of organizational intelligence. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.179-192.

March, J. G. and Levinthal, D. A., 1999. The Myopia of Learning. In March, J. G. (Eds.) The Pursuit of Organizational Intelligence. Oxford, Blackwell, pp.193-221.

Paget, M. A., 1988/2004. The Unity of Mistakes. A Phenomenological Interpretation of Medical Work. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

242

architectural competitions – histories and practice

kristian kreiner: constructing the client in architectural competitions Polanyi, M., 1966. Tacit Knowledge. In Prusak, L. (Eds.) Knowledge in Organizations. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp.135-146.

Rittel, H. W. J. and Webber, M. M., 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4(2), pp.155-169.

Ryle, G., 2000. The concept of mind. London: Penguin Books.

Ryle, G., 2000. Courses of Action or the Uncatchableness of Mental Acts. Philosophy 75, pp.331 - 344.

Schatzki, T. R., Cetina, K. K. and von Savigny, Eike eds., 2001. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Schutz, A., 1973. Collected Papers I: The Problem of Social Reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Shibutani, T., 1966. Improvised News: A Sociological Study of Rumor. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc. Simon, H. A., 1977. Models of Discovery and Other Topics in the Methods of Science. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Taleb, N.N., 2007. Fooled by Randomness. The Hidden Role of Change in Life and in the Markets.

2nd.Edition. London: Penguin Books.

Weick, K. E., 2006. The role of imagination in the organizing of knowledge. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, pp.446-452.

Whittington, R., 2006a. Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies.

27(5), pp.613-634.

Whittington, R., 2006b. Learning More from Failure: Practice and Process. Organization Studies.

27(12), pp.1903-1906.

Winch, G. and Kreiner, K., 2011. Building not Dwelling: Purposive Managerial Action in an Uncertain World. Paper presented at British Academy of Management, 2011. Available at: <www. clibyg.org>.

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

243

charlotte

svensson:

inside

the

jury

room

Abstract This paper discusses strategies for evaluating architecture in an early phase. The point of departure is two case studies of jury assessment in architectural competitions, one open and one invited. The practical use of evaluation as part of the design process is set in the context of architectural judgment, decision theory and critique.

In the competition juryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s discussions, the professional evaluation of architecture becomes transparent. In an architectural competition, the evaluation of entries takes place in an early phase of the design process, and the discussion influences the final architectural project. Competition juries consist of both architects and laymen of architecture with the aim to find one single winner among the submitted entries. This makes the evaluative discussion open, critical and a part of the learning process within the jury. The architects must explain their views and point out and mediate the quality of the entries that are hard to see for a layman.

The presentation and comparison of two Swedish jury-situations reveal different strategies of assessment in an informative way. The results indicated the differences between the two processes, but also some surprising similarities, for example in the results of the competitions. The juriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; evaluative discussions are then related to theoretical models of qualitative evaluation of architecture and architectural judgment. Two strategies of decision appeared, a rational process of decision-making and one model of assessment by architectural critique.

Key words: Evaluation, decision-making theory, design practice, quality assessment, architectural competitions, case studies Contact: Charlotte Svensson, PhD Student, Landscape architect Charlotte.Svensson@kristianstad.se Town planning Office, Kristianstad Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

244

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

charlotte

svensson:

inside

the

jury

room

Inside the Jury Room – Strategies of Quality Assessment in Swedish Architectural Competitions charlotte svensson

Introduction To assess and evaluate architecture is an important part of the architects’ professional mediation of knowledge. Architects are trained into the use of architectural critique as a working method, during the designing process as well as in the evaluation of built environment. The jury’s evaluation of the entries in an architectural competition is one example of a professional situation where questions of quality and architecture are discussed in an early phase. Competition juries consist of both architects and laymen [of architecture], which entails making the discussions more clear and pedagogical than if they were held between architects only.

The aim of this study has been to elucidate and discuss strategies for evaluation and quality assessment of architecture. By investigating the assessment process of two architectural competitions, a picture of the professional assessment of architecture in an early phase is provided. The point of departure has been questions at issue concerning the process and its outcome: How is an efficient, fair and professional assessment conducted? How does the jury decide which entry is the best? How do the architects and the laymen, respectively, in the jury treat questions of architectural quality? How can these procedures be connected to theory of judgment and decision-making? Which factors are conclusive to the decision?

The case studies investigate how two different strategies for decision-making are used and favoured by the different jury members. These strategies affect the juries’ work in different ways and they originate from the jury members’ various professional affiliations. My intention is to point out judging strategies in competitions, and how jury members identify architectural quality as a key concept in design proposals. architectural competitions – histories and practice

245

charlotte

svensson:

inside

the

jury

room

Jury decisions In an architectural competition, the assessment of the entries is made by a jury with the task to find one winner. One difficulty with the selection is that there is rarely only one candidate that is superior to the others in every aspect. Studies of similar situations show that a group of professionals that has to select one winner among a group of qualified candidates creates a structure of dominance to facilitate the process. (Montgomery et al., 1990) The significance of this notion is that one alternative, with the advantage in a certain aspect, wins because the reviewing group eliminates the alternatives in the discussion. “Decision making can not primarily be understood as comparing advantages and disadvantages, but rather as a creative process, a search for […] a dominance structure that facilitates the defense and the ability to hold on to a decision.” (Montgomery et al., 1990, p. 27, my translation) The observed jury processes both followed a memo of jury work and judgment from the Swedish Association of Architects. This memo contains advice to the jury and a systematic model of the assessment process. This model contains four steps: “learning > evaluation > comparison > decision.” (PM juryarbete/ bedömning, 2003, p. 3, my translation) This can be compared to Bazerman’s (2006) six steps that constitute a rational process of decision-making: 1. Define the problem.

2. Identify selection criteria for choice.

3. Weigh the criteria.

4. Create alternatives.

5. Grade every alternative in its relation to every selection criterion.

6. Make the ultimate decision.

Rationality refers here to a process that efficiently leads to the best result. Compared to a jury’s work in an architectural competition, the points 1, 2 and 3 are the writing of the programme. Point 4 is the design, handing in and approval of the competition entries. The assessment lies in the points 5 and 6. The key to the process, according to Bazerman (2006), lies in the identification and weighing of the criteria.

This model is an ideal situation that diverges from the actual situation. It is a highly spread model among clients and developers in the building sector in Sweden. They use the model for buying services and selecting constructing 246

architectural competitions – histories and practice

charlotte

svensson:

inside

the

jury

room

companies for implementing projects. In a decision making process there is a number of simplifications that are necessary for practical reasons. It is impossible to get a correct picture of the consequences of every alternative in real situations of choice. Instead, the decision makers search for a solution that is acceptable or reasonable to a certain degree. (Bazerman, 2006). The alternative that is good enough is chosen instead of the one that is indisputably the best design proposal. This is why the model does not solve the judging dilemmas in architectural competition. The jury has to single out the over all best solution.

The competitions task – described in the brief as objectives, demands and conditions – and the criteria for judging architectural quality have to be modified and adjusted to the design proposals from the competing architects.

Architectural critique as evaluative method

Criticism in architecture is included in the architectural education, at the architect’s offices, in the written architectural critique and as self-critique during the design process. Knowledge is mediated as well as created within the profession by the use of architecture criticism. (Lundequist, 2002) In an architectural competition, criticism is an important part of the jury’s evaluative discussions as well as their final report. The jury’s criticism of the winning entry becomes a guideline in the following process.

Criticism is based on ideas of quality and can be expressed in many ways depending on the object or the function. Attoe (1978) identifies three kinds of architecture criticism: Normative criticism, based on doctrines and rules. A normative critique often compares the criticized object to models. Interpretive criticism is based on the object itself and suggests how to understand it. Descriptive criticism depicts or describes the objects and its context.

As a strategy of assessment, architectural critique can complement or oppose the rational decision making strategy and the use of criteria. It is important that the assessing group is conscious of which model to use. One of the jury’s assignments is to define the problem and the relation to the real situation. Instead of excluding alternatives, the strategy of architecture critique includes evaluation of every entry as well as comparison between the different entries to identify a winning entry.

Judgment process The assignment of a jury in an architectural competition is to select one winner among a number of competition entries. The entries are anonymous and based architectural competitions – histories and practice

247

charlotte

svensson:

inside

the

jury

room

on the competition brief. While the jury-process of an architectural competition resembles other situations, it has some unique features.

Firstly, the jury is a group that includes representatives of different professions. One third of the jury must have the same professional competence as the competitors; other members are representatives of the competition organizer and the user. (Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament…, 2004) This means that the different representatives have different interests and responsibilities towards the competition project.

Secondly, the decision of the jury is not based on architecture itself, but on representations of architecture mediated through the graphical presentation of the entries. Non-architects in the jury need to be guided by professional architects in order to understand the representations: drawings, illustrations and the fundamental ideas behind the design.

Thirdly, the decision of the jury has to be made in consensus. The jury must make a thorough evaluation and assessment of the entries, point out strengths and weaknesses and then discuss until they reach a common decision. If one member of the jury does not agree on the decision, he or she has to make a reservation against it. (Kazemian et al., 2007) As mentioned above, the jury for an architectural competition deals with the evaluation of architecture that not yet exists as built environment. The basis for the jury’s judgment are representations of architecture made up by illustrations in plans, sections, façades, perspective drawings, and text. A project competition is only one step in the realization process of an architectonic project, which makes the quality assessment complex and important. The entries show a possible future – that is if the project is going to be implemented according to the design proposals in the competition. This assumption is the basic foundation for judging in architectural competitions. The future is tested by design, evaluation and critique inside the jury room.

Architecture is an interdisciplinary practice that requires a wide range of knowledge. A recurring concept within the estimative discussion of architecture is ‘architectural quality’. This concept includes technical and functional aspects as well as esthetical and socio-spatial characteristics. The technical/esthetical duality within the concept of architectural quality shows the difficulties of evaluating architecture. While the technical and functional qualities, for example the choices of materials and the organization and patterns of movement, often can be measured, the esthetic qualities have to be assessed. (Lundequist, 1992) In an 248

architectural competitions – histories and practice

charlotte

svensson:

inside

the

jury

room

architectural competition, the technical aspect of quality assessment includes a comparison of the entries to the demands in the competition program. The jury can confer with experts to calculate the costs, measure physical properties, and check the functions, acoustics and energy efficiency. The evaluation of the esthetical aspects relies to a greater extent on the jury’s interpretation of the architectonic solution and their assessments of the appearance of the building.

The competition entries are the first stage in a long process, which makes the evaluation of the technical qualities uncertain. The judgment of the esthetic qualities is complicated in another respect, partly due to the seductive presentations of the entries, and partly to the jury member’s various subjective experiences and expectations of the result. In interviews concerning architectural competitions, experienced jury members pointed out that the technical and esthetic criteria are important as foundations and guides to the assessment, but the overall picture is more than the sum of its parts. One entry is rarely superior to the others in all aspects. The jury process is like one long negotiation where the members discuss the issues in order to come to an agreement to nominate the best proposal. (Kazemian et al., 2005) The graphical presentation of the competition entries: drawings, illustrations, texts and disposal of the contents, have an unavoidable impact on the judgment process. From a communications point of view one can argue that the correspondence between reality and representations of reality used by architects in their presentations are not important. The main purpose of the representations is to mediate information to the spectator. (Lethonen, 1993) The assessment of entries in an architectural competition can be seen as a search for answers to the following fundamental queries: • What does the competitor mean? The jury has to relate to the competitor’s vision of the project as architecture.

• How do the competitors communicate their visions? The representations give notions about the competing architect’s ability to communicate.

• How will the result (design proposals) become judged by jury members? The jury must visualize the entries as built architecture and assess their quality in relation to the brief.

• How good is the design? The more the jury gets to know the entries, the more critical they get during the judging process. It is easier to identify shortcomings than merits. architectural competitions – histories and practice

249

charlotte

svensson:

inside

the

jury

room

Rhetoric, the art of persuasion, is usually associated with the art of speech.

But all types of presentation contain purposeful and persuasive arguments.

(Tostrup, 1999) Rhetoric appears throughout the competition process, in the competition program, in the entries and in the jury’s discussions and final statement.

Tostrup identifies a threefold of rhetoric in competing in architecture: (1) the design by the winning architects, (2) the graphic and visual representation and (3) the texts. (Tostrup, 1999) Architects are trained to combine functions, materials and values into a holistic and conceptual design. In this process the theoretical, text-based parts of the professional task are usually given little attention. (Östman, 2005) In a competition, the designers use the entries as visual rhetoric to convince the jury of their various solutions of the competition task.

The professional eye becomes a tool for judging architectural quality. To win an architectural competition, the designer has to present his or her entry in the most persuasive way by using the available means of argumentation. (Tostrup, 2007) In the assessment process of the entries, the jury members use oral rhetoric to persuade each other.

Competing in architecture From the participant’s point of view, an architectural competition is a kind of outreach work (Bjerg, 2002). Based on the competition program, the competitors submit entries with the aim to get an assignment. The architectural competition system is highly respected among architects. A sign of this is the usually large number of entries, made through many hours of work without payment, handed in to open competitions. (Östman, 2005). There is a widespread belief that the competition instrument generates architecture of high quality. This is enforced by the fact that many important buildings are the result of architectural competitions. Several architects have had winning competition entries as a foundation for their professional careers. (Kazemian et al., 2007) In the competition regulations from the Swedish Association of Architects (SAA), a competition is defined as a situation where several participants “… simultaneously compose entries for the same task, on the basis of the same preconditions, competing for a promised assignment and/or a prize sum. […]

Competitions are a sort of qualified development and inquiry work that provide alternative solutions to a given problem.” (Competition rules for architecture competitions in Sweden, 1998, 28§, my translation) 250

architectural competitions – histories and practice

charlotte

svensson:

inside

the

jury

room

This paper focuses on two architectural competitions. The studied competitions were both carried out in accordance with the Swedish Public Procurement Act, LOU. Both were arranged in cooperation between the municipalities and the Swedish Association of Architects. The Swedish Competition Rules divides competitions up into two different categories: either as competition types, related to the result, or as competition forms, related to the selection of competitors. The types can be a) a project competition with the purpose to realize the winning entry or b) an ideas competition with the purpose to receive different principles of solution without any promise of realization of the project. The forms are either a) an open competition, available to all participants, or b) a restricted competition, directed towards a limited number of pre-selected participants. (Competition rules for architecture competitions in Sweden, 1998)

Conducting the studies A comparative study on architectural competitions in the Nordic countries indicated that the greatest difference between the different types of competitions was that between open and restricted competitions. Usually 4 to 5 design teams are invite in prequalified competitions. While a restricted competition often comprises a small number of competitors, hundreds of entries can be handed in to an open one. In the year 1999-2000 the number of design proposals varied in Finland from 30 to 330 (Kazemian et al, 2007). This naturally affects the assessment process. The organizers of an invited competition also have a larger amount of control since they know who the competitors are. Based on this information one open and one invited competition was selected in order to get cases of maximum variation. (Flyvbjerg, 2006) The two cases were: the open competition The house of the song in Västervik (Visans Hus i Västervik)1 and the restricted competition Educational and cultural centre in Hagfors (Bildnings- och kulturcenter i Hagfors)2. The cases were chosen in order to acquire as much knowledge of the assessment process in competitions as possible and still be able to compare the cases. Both competitions were project competitions arranged by municipalities in Sweden, which made them comparable. The important difference was in the number of entries, due to the different forms of competitions.

1 The house of the song in Västervik (my translation) 2 Educational and cultural centre in Hagfors (my translation)

architectural competitions – histories and practice

251

charlotte

svensson:

inside

the

jury

room

The empirical foundation of this study lies in case studies of architectural competitions. The cases have been two competitions, one open and one restricted. The studies have been made by observation of the jury meetings, discussions with key persons of the projects and reviews of the competition entries and other competition documents. During the jury meetings, I have tried to be part of the group, which has been facilitated by the fact that a competition jury is a temporarily composed group. My presence as an observer during the jury meetings did not appear to influence the participants. To be sure of this, I avoided making evaluative remarks or professional statements about the entries. Also, the jury did not have any access to my notes.

The house of the song in Västervik The first case was the open competition for a cultural building in Västervik.

The municipality of Västervik arranged the competition in cooperation with a private/public foundation. Västervik is a small town known for its yearly song festival. The task was to design a building for cultural events on Slottsholmen, a small islet within walking distance from the town centre. The site was solitary, adjacent to water and to a ruined castle, which encouraged a building of landmark character according the organizer. The target was to create a house for cultural activities, but also to create an attraction for visitors.

97 entries were submitted to this competition. The jury comprised eight persons: four architects, two local politicians and two experts from musical arrangements and production. The jury needed five meetings to find a winner.

The Swedish Association of Architects appointed two of the professional jury members, according to the competitions rules.

At the first meeting, only the architects participated. They made a first, professional review of the entries, with an initial sorting and classification of them.

Three categories were used: A, B and C, where A was “very good”, B was “approved” and C was “not approved”. Half of the entries ended up in category C. At the following meetings there was a gradual elimination of entries. The sorting of the entries meant that the jury could be more and more detailed in their analysis of the entries. Through this process the jury created an increasing understanding of the remaining entries. Quick reviews with decisions made through “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” were exchanged for more thorough sorting strategies. In the last sorting procedure but one every jury member should pick out their five favorites. The five most often selected entries should 252

architectural competitions – histories and practice

charlotte

svensson:

inside

the

jury

room

Fig. 1. The winning entry in Västervik by Nikolaj Findanis, Peter Kinnmark and Francesco Matucci.

Fig. 2. The laymen’s favourites in Västervik by Maria Block, Per Lieder and Christer Pettersson.

remain in the competition. Here a difference appeared between the preferences of the architects and the laymen (non-architects). All the laymen selected one favorite that none of the architects liked. Also, a crisis arose in the jury, when no entry seemed to be good enough to win the competition.

At the beginning of the last meeting, the outcome of the competition was uncertain. Then a study model of the entries was made: Styrofoam models of the five finalists were placed in a model of the town. Suddenly all of the jury members agreed on which entry that was the best on that spot. The visual rhetoric of the two entries and the verbal rhetoric of the jury made them both finalists, but in the end it was the eye that settled the competition. The jury saw that one of the remaining design proposals was better matched on the plot. It was one of the architects’ favorites that finally were appointed as a winner. The architects behind the winning entry were three architects, newly graduated.

Educational and cultural centre in Hagfors The second case was the restricted project competition for an educational and cultural centre in Hagfors. The municipality of Hagfors arranged the competition. architectural competitions – histories and practice

253

charlotte

svensson:

inside

the

jury

room

The competition project grew out of an ongoing depopulation of the Hagfors area, with a decreasing number of pupils in the schools as one consequence. A solution was to unite four schools into one large educational centre to minimize the operation costs. (Nordberg et al., 2005) This was a competition held in accordance with both the competitions rules and the Swedish Public Procurement Act (LOU). The selection of the competing design teams was preceded by a prequalification procedure. 33 offices handed in notifications of interest and four were selected to compete. This selection was made by four of the jury members; the offices were placed into four different categories. Of the selected competitors, two were from the category “Celebrity/ New thinker”, one was from the category “Well known/Competent” and one was categorized as a “Dark Horse”3. The competitors had four months to design their entries.

The positive intentions and the open ambition from the municipality were followed by a local debate concerning the project. Several inhabitants of Hagfors regarded the uniting of the schools as negative. The debate led to some anxiety among the jury members who were representatives of the municipality.

In this case the jury had nine members: three local politicians and two experts on education, one representing teaching staff, one local expert arrangement and production and two external architects appointed by the Swedish Association of Architects. The jury had three meetings to reach a decision. This is a relatively short time for a jury of a project competition to decide on a winner.

(Nordberg, 2006) The process was affected by the time pressure, which was a consequence of the negative opinions and a need for the municipality to have a winner to show.

This jury process revealed two different strategies of decision, advocated by the different representatives within the jury. One strategy was the rational model of decision-making, which is used in many decision-making situations. This strategy includes the identification of the problem, definition of criteria and evaluation and sorting of alternatives in order to reach an efficient decision. The laymen in the jury were used to this strategy of decision-making. They wanted to move forward as soon as possible. The second strategy was the method of architectural critique that was advocated by the architects. The judging process starts in this perspective with an elucidation of the competition task by analysing and comparing the alternatives. The entries are used as tools for learning, 3 The fourth category was “Others”.

254

architectural competitions – histories and practice

charlotte

svensson:

inside

the

jury

room

Fig. 3. The winning entry in Hagfors by Larsson, Lindstrand and Palme arkitektkontor, Berg arkitektkontor & Nivå Landskapsarkitektur.

both about the challenge in the brief and about the qualities that can be found on the specific plot. Through the evaluation and comparison of the alternatives, the best solution will appear. The principle behind this strategy is: the longer you wait to make a final judgment the better qualities in architecture can be identified in the entries by critique of design responses to the design question in the brief.

The different strategies resulted in methodological discussions where the chairman and some of the laymen wanted to exclude two entries in an early phase, in order to come to a clear position for a decision, while the architects wanted all the entries to remain until the judgment ruling at the very end of the evaluation. In spite of it, the jury succeeded with their task and was able to appoint a winner during the last meeting. This shows how strong the need for bridging the gap is inside the jury room. During the process the jury developed the assessment criteria and used these to identify differences between the entries. The winner was the office categorized as a “Dark Horse” by the jury.

Comparison between the cases The two cases were chosen to represent different forms of competitions: open and invited. In the open competition the jury had to decide between 97 entries, while the jury in the invited competition had four entries to choose between. architectural competitions – histories and practice

255

charlotte

svensson:

inside

the

jury

room

This led to different processes of assessment and use of different decision-making strategies. To enable the strategy of architectural critique in the open competition, the jury had to start with a ruling out of entries. Thereby the two different strategies were combined in a way that is logical to all parties. In this case, the judging of quality involved changing the form of process in a smooth way from an elimination procedure to a deeper analysis of the remaining entries that seemed to be good solutions to the design problem in the competition.

The large number of differing solutions in an open competition also illustrates how complicated the task is and the need for a thorough analysis. But the jury has to identify quality in quick way, otherwise the assessment will be too time consuming.

Another difference between the cases was that the jury in Västervik had the possibility of changing media of presentation by the last meeting. Through the study model and its visual presentation of the entries, the jury members were able to agree on one winner. Judging architectural quality was supported by a scale model in three dimensions that showed how the entries matched the plot.

The procedure had a learning outcome and produced fundamental knowledge of architectural quality, which made it easy for the jury to choose among the remaining design proposals.

A third difference between the cases was the relation to the world around.

While the open competition in Västervik was held without any debates, the assessment process in Hagfors was affected by the local debate. However, the winning design in Hagfors did become implemented. This was not the case in the open competitions in Västervik. The organizer hade not secured financial support in the program phase for implementation.

One similarity between the cases was the idea of the organizer to use architecture in order to increase the attractiveness of the area. This is shown both in the competition programmes and in the arguments from the organizer’s representatives in the juries. The architecture itself is seen as an attraction and is used for marketing. The competition seems to be the single answer to different questions, needs and perspectives in the organizing body.

Another similarity was the obvious difference of preference between the architects and the laymen of the jury in the jury room. This can partly be due to a tendency towards professional positioning, but also to the fact that the different representatives of the jury have different interests and aims with the competition. While the organizers are aiming for attention, the architects have 256

architectural competitions – histories and practice

charlotte

svensson:

inside

the

jury

room

professional concepts of quality to watch. Also, the architects have their professional skills to read and interpret the entries, and the task of mediating this to the laymen of the jury.

One last similarity was that it was young and newly established architects that won the competitions in competition with older and well-established architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s offices. Thereby, these two competitions are examples of the idea that competitions are a way to bring forward young talents and give them a possibility of getting assignments. However, the restricted competition usually favours wellknown architecture offices that can provide a suitable reference project (RĂśnn, 2012). Young architect and newly established firms are sorted out already in the prequalification. For this reasons the open competitions have a conserved reputation as a method for renewal of the profession and an experimental arena for design innovation, especially among young architects.

Discussion In the case studies, two different strategies appeared, promoting evaluation and resolution: one rational process of decision-making and one model of assessment by architectural critique. This was more obvious in the invited competition with fewer entries than in the open competition. The rational process emanates from an ideal situation and it is used as model of various decisive situations. The laymen in the juries were experienced decision makers and wanted to follow this model.

Their wish was to rule out alternatives through the use of specific criteria in order to get two finalist alternatives to compare. But it was only possible to use the rational strategy in an effective manner at the beginning of the open competition when a lot of entries have to be excluded.

The architects advocated the model of assessment by architectural critique. Architects are educated to assess and evaluate architecture by using the alternative solutions as tools. Comparison and discussion are central elements, and criteria are used as a way to identify differences between the alternatives. The best solution is identified through analysis of the entries as well as the competition task.

The architectural critique as a work method inside the jury room represents a judging competence that is developed and transmitted by architectural critique of student proposals in basic education, in professional practice at architect bureaus via peer criticism by colleagues, in the press through architectural critique texts and at the drawing board as self-criticism of assignments (Lundequist, 2002). architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

257

charlotte

svensson:

inside

the

jury

room

The two strategies seemed harder to combine in an invited competition than in an open one. This is due to the large number of entries in the open competition. The many alternative solutions make the complexity of the task obvious to the jury. An elimination of entries must start early in the assessment process.

Thereby, the two strategies are naturally combined. In an invited competition, the jury has few alternatives, which appeared to complicate the combination of the strategies. The identification of the two strategies became a way for me to understand the process.

The findings of the case study analysis can be concluded as follows: The jury’s evaluation of the entries in an architectural competition is a creative process that follows general guidelines. A general model of jury assessment in architectural competitions exists but it has to be adjusted to the actual competition. It is impossible to fully predict the jury’s meeting with the entries. This finding is supported by Montgomery et al. (1990) in their study of how professors in architecture got their positions at universities. The selection committees singled out candidates in a creative process, in order to find a dominance structure that provided a person with best merits.

The architects’ way to evaluate by architectural critique can be questioned in a jury due to time pressure. The laymen representing clients are usually not used to this working method that can appear as time demanding. To have several entries to choose between in the final selection can generate uncertainty. But there was a common interest among jury members to bridge the gap between architects and laymen and single out the winner. The client has to have a sense of ownership to the winning proposals, securing that this entry is going to be implemented.

In spite of the fact that the jury process shall be carried out behind closed doors, the assessment process is affected by external opinion. The jury work is in this sense dependent on the context. The world outside the jury room will influence the judgment and have an impact on the assessment. This is very clear in one of the competitions, even if competition rules demand that the jury founds its judgment on criteria in the brief, within the jury room.

During the jury process, a positioning between architects and laymen may appear.

This is partly due to professional training and partly due to the different interests and responsibilities of the different jury members. However, the task is to single out one winner. This is a sign of success. If not, the jury has failed.

There is a strong moral obligation to come to a unanimous decision in the end, 258

architectural competitions – histories and practice

charlotte

svensson:

inside

the

jury

room

at least in the Nordic countries. This was also the case in both competitions. A split decision is very rare in jury reports. In this regard, the selection of a Pope in Rome provides similarities to how jury members choose winners in architectural competitions in Sweden.

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

259

charlotte

svensson:

inside

the

jury

room

References: Attoe, W., 1978. Architecture and critical imagination. Chichester: Wiley.

Bazerman, M. H., 2006. Judgment in managerial decision making (Ed.). New York: Wiley.

Bjerg, T., 2002. Arkitektkonkurrencen som fænomen, (The architectural competition as a phenomenon) Copenhagen, Kunstakademiets Arkitektskole.

Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. 2004, available at: http://eur-lex. europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_134/l_13420040430en01140240.pdf Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245 Kazemian, R., Rönn, M., & Svensson, C., 2005. Jämförande analys av arkitekttävlingar: Erfarenheter från tre nordiska länder. (A comparative analysis of architectural competitions: Experiences from three Nordic countries) Stockholm: KTH. Kazemian, R., Rönn, M., & Svensson, C., 2007. Arkitekturtävlingar i Finland. (Architectural competitions in Finland) Stockholm: KTH. Lethonen, H., 1993. the Janus Face of Visualization. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 6. 30-39 Lipstadt, H., (Ed.) 1989. The experimental tradition: Essays on competitions in architecture. New York, N.Y.: Princeton Architectural Press.

Lundequist, J., 1992. Kvalitetsbegreppets två dimensioner. (Two dimensions of the Concept of Quality) In Engfors, C. (Ed.) Arkitektonisk kvalitet – arkitekturmuseets årsbok 1992 (Architectonic Quality – Year Book of the Museum of Architecture 1992). Stockholm, Arkitekturmuseet Lundequist, J., 2002. Kritik som kunskapsform. (Critique as knowledge) In C. Engfors (Ed.), Arkitekturkritik årsbok / arkitekturmuseet, 2002 (pp. 6-27). Stockholm: Arkitekturmuseet.

Montgomery, H., Hemlin, S., & Johansson, U.-S., 1990. Professorstillsättningar i arkitekturämnen, på vilka grunder sker besluten? (Appointment of Professorships in Architecture, on What Basis Are the Decisions Made?) (No. 0282-9630). Stockholm: Byggforskningsrådets vetenskapliga forskningsnämnd (BVN) Statens råd för Byggnadsforskning.

Nordberg, T., 2005. Bildnings- och kulturcentrum i Hagfors, Tävlingsprogram, (Educational and cultural centre in Hagfors, competition programme), Hagfors kommun.

Nordberg, T., 2006. Personlig kommunikation, kommentar vid jurymöte den 3 mars 2006.

PM Juryarbete/Bedömning (PM Jury work/Assessment), 2003. Stockholm, the Swedish Association of Architects.

Rönn, M., 2012. The prequalified competitions – how are architects appointed to invited architectual competitions? ARCC Journal, No 1.

Tostrup, E., 1999. Architecture and rhetoric: Text and design in architectural competitions, Oslo 1939-1997.

London: Andreas Papadakis.

Tostrup, E., 2007. Troverdighet og forförelse. (Credibility and Seduction) In Rönn, M. (Ed.) En fråga om kvalitet. (A Matter of Quality) Stockholm. Östman, L. E., 2005. A Pragmatist Theory of Design: the Impact of the Pragmatist Philosophy of John Dewey on Architecture and Design, Stockholm, KTH.

260

architectural competitions – histories and practice

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

Abstract The subject of this text is the 1939 architectural competition; it articulated key ideals of architecture at the time, spearheading a nationwide modernisation project while also containing paradoxes and exaggerations that stood at the root of recurrent problems.

After the July 22, 2011 terror bombing, the buildings in the Government Quarter in Oslo have been subject to a thorough discussion and evaluation, which concern not only their practical economic value, but also cultural value in a broad sense.

Riksantikvaren (The Directorate General for Cultural Heritage) had already prepared a case of listing for preservation, when the devastating damages occurred.

The modern Government Quarter, and especially høyblokken (the high-rise building housing the Prime Minister’s offices), is the result of the open architectural competition held in 1939–40. This was the case in spite of the competition concluding that the site was unsuited for its purpose, and no winner was selected.

It took nearly twenty years, and a World War with the country being occupied, before part of the competition programme was realized with høyblokken, which was inaugurated in 1958.

Key words: Competitions 1939-40 for new government buildings, modern architecture Contact: Elisabeth Tostrup, Professor Elisabeth.Tostrup@aho.no Thor School of Architecture and Design, Oslo, Norway

262

architectural competitions – histories and practice

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

High ideals on a tricky site The 1939–40 Competition for the New Government Building in Oslo elisabeth tostrup

After the July 22, 2011 terror bombing, the buildings in the Government Quarter in Oslo have been subject to a thorough discussion and evaluation, which concern not only their practical economic value, but also cultural value in a broad sense. Riksantikvaren (The Directorate General for Cultural Heritage) had already prepared a case of listing for preservation, when the devastating damages occurred (Figs. 1–2). The modern Government Quarter, and especially høyblokken (the high-rise building housing the Prime Minister’s offices), is the result of the open architectural competition held in 1939–40. This was the case in spite of the competition concluding that the site was unsuited for its purpose, and no winner was selected. It took nearly twenty years, and a World War with the country being occupied, before part of the competition programme was realized with høyblokken, which was inaugurated in 1958. More than half a century has passed until today. Therefore, retrospective conceptions might easily and wrongfully overshadow the facts that were the case with the competition before World War II. Architect Erling Viksjø did not win the competition, and speculations are difficult to verify about his acquisition with regard to the later commission, through Einar Gerhardsen, subsequently Labour Party Prime Minister, in the prison camp at Grini in the outskirts of Oslo. The final design of høyblokken was made in the 1950s, after a long process with many instances and alterations involved.1 1 Some voices have claimed that Erling Viksjø won the competition in 1939–40, and shown his postwar proposals as if they were the competition 1. prize project, for example Lars Roede at a conference at the Oslo School of Architecture and Design, 04.09.2011; Mari Hvattum’s account that Erling Viksjø and the later Prime Mininster of Norway Einar Gerhardsen started the planning of the government building when they were prisoners at Grini during Second World War, is one of several examples of historiography that emphasizes powerful persons talking together at the cost of the official process of committees, city council and national assembly. Mari Hvattum, “Skal angrepet lykkes?”. Aftenposten, 23.12.2011, Del 2, 5. See also note 39 on the jury in 1946; The

architectural competitions – histories and practice

263

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

Fig. 1. The Government Building, Høyblokken.

Fig. 2. Høyblokken, July 22, 2011.

264

architectural competitions – histories and practice

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

The subject of this text is the 1939 architectural competition; it articulated key ideals of architecture at the time, spearheading a nationwide modernisation project while also containing paradoxes and exaggerations that stood at the root of recurrent problems.

Preliminary skirmishes The invitation to the competition for the New Government Building was launched on July 18, 1939, with deadline January 5, 1940, which later was prolonged until January 25. Stortinget (The National Assembly) had made the necessary decisions in advance.

The State Administration had increasingly been obliged to rent premises at different locations around the city in order to satisfy the need for offices, something that was considered both expensive and inexpedient. A committee was appointed by royal decree on September 24, 1937, to examine the situation concerning offices for the ministries and other state institutions in Oslo. Their conclusion, cited in the royal proposition of March 24, 1939, was that “The need for government offices in Oslo will be solved by erecting a new building – adjoining the existing wing of the government building.”22 The existing wing is the southernmost wing of the large H-shaped complex designed by architect Henrik Bull and based on the 1891 winning project by Stener Lenschow, and which was inaugurated in 1906. The building has housed the Ministry of Finance since then, and temporarily one or two other ministries in addition.

The site was owned by the government, and the low buildings on Akersgata (Aker Street), Arne Garborgs plass (Square) and Grubbegata (Grubbe Street) drawings in the Erling Viksjø archive at the National museum of art, architecture and design, show the different phases of the project, from the competition entry via alterations in the late 1940s, to the final project in the 1950s.

2 Cited in “St. prp. nr. 1. Tillegg nr. 7 (1939)”. RA/S–1063 /E/L0024/0001, Finansdepartementet, Administrasjonskontoret E og F (og W), Riksarkivet, Oslo, 1; The architectural competition was public in the spring of 1887. Then, following a new competition between five of the entries, and after both Bull and Lenschow were allowed to correct their proposals further, Lenschow was finally appointed as winner. The financial means were not granted until 1898–and then only the southern wing of Lenschow’s plan–Lenschow declined the commission for health reasons, and the commission was given to Henrik Bull. Bjørn Sverre Pedersen, “Gatens arkitekturhistorie”, in Akersgaten, ed. Tryggve Juul Møller, (Oslo: Tryggve Juul Møller Forlag, 1967), 114. This comprehensive article provides a thorough and interesting account of the various phases in the history of the government quarter as well as Akersgata.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

265

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

4 1 3

2 5

6

Fig. 3. Map of Central Oslo. 1. The Government Quarter, 2. The Parliament Building, 3. Vestre Vika, 4. The Royal Palace, 5. Oslo City Hall, 6. Oslo Opera House.

– Empirekvartalet (the Empire [Style] city block), were not regarded as a hindrance for a new building; these buildings were not mentioned at all in the royal proposition.

After the committee had delivered their first recommendation, architect Ove Bang had on his own initiative promoted a plan which implied that the new government building should be located in Vestre Vika (Western Bay), an area closer to the harbour, and the ministry decided that Bang’s proposal deserved further consideration before the recommendation was submitted to the parliament (Figs. 3–4). Bang’s proposal was not pulled out of thin air, because several of the awarded projects in the 1937 architectural competition for “Area development plan for Vestre Piperviken in Oslo”, had included government office buildings. The 1.. prize project by architect Sverre Pedersen, for example, 266

architectural competitions – histories and practice

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

Fig. 4. Ove Bang. Proposed Government Building in Vestre Vika, 1939.

implied tearing down Victoria terrasse (a row of patrician residential buildings erected 1884–90) and replacing them with new government buildings.3 In 1935, Ove Bang had already made a proposal for the western part of Vika (short name for Pipervika) together with architect Johan Ellefsen, a plan with seven to nine storey high building blocks placed in a fan shape; the project was given a broad presentation in Byggekunst, the Norwegian review of architecture.4 In the debate that followed the 1937 development plan competition, architect Herman Munthe-Kaas referred to this proposal by Bang and Ellefsen in very commendatory terms, such as “a freer view of the task”; the freedom referring to the restrictions that the existing property boundaries put down for the competitors.5 Returning to the royal proposition of 1939, the committee rejected Bang’s proposal for the following reasons: Bang’s plan will provide a government building in Vestre Vika with a prominent location, light and airy offices, and the proposed new area development plan appears 3 “Resultatet av konkurransen om regulering av Vestre Piperviken i Oslo”. Byggekunst 19 (1937), 97.

4 Ove Bang og Johan Ellefsen, “Forslag til regulering av Vikas vestre del i Oslo”. Byggekunst 17 (1935), 181–191.

5 Herman Munthe-Kaas, “Vestre Vikas byplan”. Byggekunst 19 (1937), 103.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

267

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

very attractive. On the other hand, a building in Vestre Vika cannot be commenced until the area is expropriated and demolished, something that will take a long time and will delay the new building. The decisive objection, however, in the opinion of the ministry is that a new building in Vestre Vika depends on buying a vastly expensive site, because the property prices in the area are high.6 Bang’s proposal displayed an edifice with eleven storeys and a ground floor in a design that presupposed a totally different development plan for the area than that which was decided by the Oslo City Council. Riksarkitekten (The Director General for Public Construction and Property Management) remarked that it could not be taken for granted that this height would be permitted: “among other reasons there is the risk that such an extensive and high edifice close to Victoria terrasse will appear disturbing in the shaping of this distinctive city outline”.7 A promising project from an idealistic point of view was turned down for financial and timesaving reasons, and we shall see the very same ideals and arguments recurring in the 1939 competition on the Akersgata site.

“The new objectivity” conquers Norwegian architects in the 1930s These projects, and in fact Norwegian architectural competitions as a whole in the 1930s, clearly show that Norwegian architectural hegemony had adopted the ideals from international and especially European modernism.8 This turn to functionalism is said to have occurred in a short time and extremely widely, even the fathers of romanticism changed to the new style, according to Christian Norberg-Schulz.9 Johan Ellefsen’s lecture “Hvad er tidsmessig arkitektur? (What is contemporary architecture?)” to the Oslo Association of Architects (OAF) October 1927, and immediately printed in Byggekunst, is called the manifesto of functionalism in Norway. Ellefsen argues in favour of strict and objective logic and the “logically constructive imagination”, which is innovative as opposed to primitive 6 “St. prp. nr. 1. Tillegg nr. 7 (1939)”, 1–2.

7 Gunnar Øvergaard Jørgen, “Er Vestre Vika låst fast?”, Byggekunst 21 (1939), 114–15; “St. prp. nr. 1.

Tillegg nr. 7 (1939)”, 1; Fr. Crawfurd-Jensen i brev til Det kongelige finans- og tolldepartement, 13. januar 1939. RA/S–1534/1/Da/L0366, Statens bygge- og eiendomsdirektorat, Riksarkivet, Oslo, ref. no. 1.

8 Elisabeth Tostrup, “Nordic Competition Architecture in the Thirties”, Rassegna 77 (1999).

9 Christian Norberg-Schulz, “Norsk arkitektur i femti år”, Byggekunst 43 (1961), 67.

268

architectural competitions – histories and practice

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

people’s introvert, subjective endeavours. Instead of seeking renewal in the local whirlpools and shallows of popular imagination, the architects are urged to join the great international stream which celebrates the triumphs of science and technology: The art of that time is precisely technology, and the scientist and the engineer are the ones who have expressed the thoughts of the period clearest.

The article mediates Le Corbusier’s message from Vers une architecture and promotes reinforced concrete, orthogonal angles, flat roofs and mass production.

While connecting to the great epochs in Western architecture–the Egyptians and the Greeks–Ellefsen calls upon the spectators to identify with this long and proud, shared history. The article is a work of art in the way it embraces and incites a broad professional audience without being polemically offensive.10 Prominent architects and cultural celebrities had for some time spoken up in favour of a radical confrontation with the past in the fields of architecture, art and crafts. “Vor holdningsløse arkitektur (Our spineless architecture)”, an article by architect Lars Backer from 1925, was more polemical than that of Ellefsen, and called for an architecture “in the spirit of our time and truthful character”. He followed it up in the 1927 presentation of Skansen restaurant in Oslo, Norway’s first functionalist building: “To build is not ‘architecture’ in the antiquated sense of the word. …To build has ceased being an art.”11 The struggle for the new objectivity was the struggle against “the hopeless hunt through the tangle of all conceivable historical styles”, against national romanticism and neo-classicism which prevailed around 1920–25, according to Harald Aars, City architect of Oslo, on the occasion of the jubilee exhibition of OAF in 1931. And furthermore: “Norway has joined this immense orchestra which is attempting to give the wonderful rhythm and melody of the twentieth century form and colour in stone, glass, concrete and steel.”12 Contributions like these from leading Norwegian architects accompanied photographs and drawings displaying the new ideals. The examples entailed a way of organising built environment, from area development plans to detailed 10 Johan Ellefsen, “Hvad er tidsmessig arkitektur?”, Byggekunst 9, november (1927).

11 Lars Backer, “Vor holdningsløse arkitektur”, Byggekunst 7 (1925), 174; Lars Backer, “Skansen”, Byggekunst 9, september (1927), 129.

12 Harald Aars, “Byggekunstens utvikling gjennem de siste 25 år”, Byggekunst 13, nr. 5, (1931), 8.

Regarding Norwegian architectural competitions in the 1930s as a whole, it is striking how pure functionalism prevails in the eastern part of the country while an affinity to the arts-and-crafts movement can be clearly traced in the western part. Tostrup, “Nordic Competition Architecture in the Thirties”, (1999).

architectural competitions – histories and practice

269

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

shaping of the buildings, which differed definitely from romanticism as well as neo-classicism. “Fake decoration” was banned, as was the role of symmetry and axes as ruling principle of composition. New construction techniques–reinforced concrete and steel and glass–were to provide an architectural expression other than granite with carved animal ornaments. The question of monumentality represented a special challenge in the new objective architecture, in which dwellings, offices and industrial premises were esteemed tasks. Johan Ellefsen wrote about this as early as 1931, a topic undoubtedly relevant to the architecture of the government building.13 Norwegian architects had experienced full-scale architectural models while visiting the modern exhibitions in Germany, especially the 1927 exhibition in Stuttgart, and a large group of architects had made a study tour together to Holland in 1928. Finally, the 1930 Stockholm exhibition with Gunnar Asplund’s light and elegant buildings had greatly inspired many Norwegian architects.

The Competition Programme The royal decree put down regulations for the competition programme in 1939.

Estimates of cost had been carried out based on floor heights (net) respectively 3.20 m, 3.10 m and 3 m, and Riksarkitekten’s office had calculated alternative construction costs implying thinner walls–35 cm for external walls and 15 cm for inner corridor walls. This led to a cost span between NOK 9,170000 and 10,270000. Aiming at housing all the ministries except the Ministry of Defence and Riksrevisjonen (The Office of the Auditor General) in the new and the old government building together, the demand for new constructions was set at 15,000 sq.m offices and 3,500 sq.m archives.14 The competition programme, approved by the Association of Norwegian Architects (NAL), states that: “The jury will emphasize an economic plan, but at the same time the new building should have a distinguished appearance suited for the purpose, and the new building together with the existing government building should appear as a whole.” According to the planning regulations, the cornice towards Arne Garborgs plass was set at 42 m above 13 Johan Ellefsen, “Ny monumentalitet”, Byggekunst 13 (1931). This was some years ahead of the international discussions on New Monumentality in the 1940s involving among others Josep Lluis Sert, Fernand Léger and Sigfried Giedion; a reminder of one of modernism’s invariable challenges.

14 “St. prp. nr. 1. Tillegg nr. 7 (1939)”, 2.

270

architectural competitions – histories and practice

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

sea level, but the programme indicated that this limitation could be altered.

“In general it is recommended that the building height should not exceed 5/4 of the distance to the opposite façade [which could lead to buildings two to three times as tall as 42 m above sea level].”15 Arne Garborgs plass, an oblong fan shaped square sloping down towards the garage gates of the new main fire station where Grubbegata passed over in a bridge, represented a particular challenge.

The programme is extremely matter-of-fact, outlining the needs for space for the six different ministries: “The depth of the ordinary office rooms should not exceed 5 m and the net height approximately 3.20 m, 3.45 m from floor to floor,” and so forth. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was given special treatment with a separate specification of needs enclosed, and the ministry “should be given a prominent location in the new edifice with a convenient access”.16 The demand for parking places was estimated as “a large number (35–40) of automobiles”, perhaps an issue where the contrast to the present situation is most striking.17

The assessment The competition jury of five members consisted of riksarkitekt Fr. CrawfurdJensen, Director General J.M. Colbjørnsen, director M. Ormestad and architects Herman Munthe-Kaas and Frithjof Reppen, the latter two as renowned architects, appointed by the Association of Norwegian Architects, NAL. Thus there were three MNAL in the jury, in accordance with the requirements of the association.18 A total of 49 entries were delivered, a large number considering that NAL at that time had around 300 members altogether, and that every entry often had more than one (architect) author. The jury remarked that the entries included valuable contributions that shed light on the task, and furthermore: 15 “Program for Konkurranse om tegninger til utbygging av Regjeringsbygningen i Oslo”, RA/ S–1534/1/Da/L0366, Statens bygge- og eiendomsdirektorat, Riksarkivet, Oslo, ref. no. 2, 2; “Program”, 1.

16 “Program”, 5.

17 “Program”, 6.

18 Harald Hals (President of the Association of Norwegian Architects (NAL) and head of the Oslo city planning office in Oslo), letter to Riksarkitekten, Oslo, 25. May 1939. RA/S–1534/1/Da/ L0366, Statens bygge- og eiendomsdirektorat, Riksarkivet, Oslo, ref. no. 3.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

271

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

But the result of the competition shows that the task involved great difficulties. Primarily this is due to the site and to the existing building, which with its large masses [four storeys], forms a barrier to the south, and its architecture is not easily adaptable to the demands now being made for the further extension of the complex.19 “Sun lighting of the offices” was a central criterion in the assessment, but an ideal which met obstacles due to the planning regulations for the site which implied less satisfactory light conditions both towards Arne Garborgs plass and Akersgata “where the sun won’t reach the rooms until after 3 PM, and these facades will practically have no sun light during the winter period”.20 Entries which had totally disregarded the development plan and its regulations, could obtain better sun lighting for the offices by placing the building more freely and with a large distance to the surrounding buildings.

The best solutions are therefore to be found among the proposals that have concentrated the complex the most, and in order to gain adequate space, extend the height. This, however, can only be recommended if satisfactory open space is laid out around the high-rise. … If, additionally, the high-rise is placed at an acute angle to the old building and nearly in the north–south direction, good sunlight conditions for the offices can be achieved.21 The jury disagreed on the matter of high-rise: Director General Colbjørnsen was not able to join the statement cited above. He admits that a high-rise placed in a more or less north–south direction largely provides the best lighting conditions and the most concentrated solution. However, “he doubts that such a strongly concentrated and extreme high-rise building would be a practical solution for the purpose, and then there is the question whether such a giant high-rise building would have a stifling effect on the old government building and its surroundings”.22 Moreover, he states that the task also can be resolved by a lower building complex with a larger base which can be monumental and 19 “Angående konkurransen om tegninger til utbygging av regjeringsbygningen i Oslo. Juryens bemerkninger”, RA/S–1534/1/Da/L0366, Statens bygge- og eiendomsdirektorat, Riksarkivet, Oslo, ref. no. 4, 1. Utdrag av dette materialet samt utdrag av forfatternes beskrivelser og utvalgte tegninger er gjengitt i “Konkurransen om ny Regjeringsbygning”, Byggekunst 22 (1940), 34–56.

20 “Juryens bemerkninger”, 1.

21 “Juryens bemerkninger”, 2.

22 “Juryens bemerkninger”, 2.

272

architectural competitions – histories and practice

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

appear in better harmony with the old government building and the surroundings as well: “A free-standing, huge high-rise building will hardly constitute a whole together with the old government building, as was a precondition of the brief.”23 Director Ormestad agreed with Colbjørnsen’s doubts regarding the matter of exaggerated high-rise buildings.

The jury decided to divide the total sum of prizes in another manner than presupposed in the brief. The majority, Crawfurd-Jensen, Colbjørnsen and Ormestad, that is the members appointed by the promoter, voted for the sum being divided in 4 equal prizes and 4 equal purchases. The NAL-appointed jury members Munthe-Kaas and Reppen voted for 3 equal prizes and 5 equal purchases. Moreover: The jury members Munthe-Kaas, Ormestad and Reppen are of the opinion that the competition has shown that the site Akersgata 44–Grubbegata 9 is unfit for a government building complex which is simultaneously monumental and practical; therefore they want to advise against the new government building being erected on this site and propose that a new open competition is arranged on another site, which–contrary to Akersgata 44–Grubbegata 9–can accommodate the monumentality that the nation’s government building requires.24 The other jury members found that none of the awarded or purchased proposals could be used in the present form, and proposed that the authors should be allowed to elaborate their projects further, if it was decided to use the site on Akersgata 44–Grubbegata 9. The 1930 competition for the government building offered no clear solution to the task, and the majority of jury members recommended a new competition on a new site.

Shared prizes and purchases Among the four shared prize entries Ove Bang and Øivin Holst Grimsgaard’s project with motto “Rytme” (Rhythm) was awarded unanimously. It is the most idealistic project: a clean cut high-rise placed at an oblique angle to the old government building, and with a separate wing for the Ministry of Foregin Affairs in the shape of a small three-storey “box” between the high-rise and Grubbegata (Figs. 5–6). The project is praised for displaying “a good grasp of the 23 “Juryens bemerkninger”, 2.

24 “Juryens bemerkninger”, 20.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

273

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

Fig. 5. Motto “Rytme”, perspective.

Fig. 6. Motto “Rytme”, site plan.

development plan”, both by gaining excellent light conditions for the offices as well as for Arne Garborgs plass. The proposal provides “the most orthogonal and firm organisation” of the area, in spite of the oblique placing of the building in relation to the old government building. Whereas the advantages “will benefit the environment to a great degree, they will on the other hand imply that the total government building complex will lose considerably with respect to monumentality”.25 25 “Juryens bemerkninger”, 18.

274

architectural competitions – histories and practice

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

“All offices will have sun”, wrote the author, and proposed a 60 m high building, which is exactly 5/4 of the shortest distance to the opposite buildings on both sides. This solution provides larger spaces than required, but the author argues in favour of utilising the site fully when it can be done with such a free and open development plan.26 The actual design of the building was not praised to the same degree as the development plan: “Viewed as a whole, the mistake of this project is that the author has not given lobbies, entrances and such an important connection as that between the main edifice and the diplomat wing the spaciousness and architectural appearance that a complex of this category requires.” On the exterior, the jury writes: “The architecture is simple, even somewhat schematic. The short facades do not attain the architectural quality of the long facades.”27 Interestingly the jury has used much more space on the review of this project than any of the 48 other entries, except for the motto “Vestibyle” and “Tone”, which were given shorter but still relatively extensive reviews.

The awarded entry “Vestibyle” was designed by Erling Viksjø, who at that time was employed at Ove Bang’s office. How they had arranged these parallel competition processes is not known. “Vestibyle” also features a large rectangular building block – a concentrated solution–but placed orthogonally in the central axis of the old government building (Figs. 7–8), and 49 meters tall. The jury remarks that the project allows for large free spaces surrounding the building, but that the solution becomes “rigid” in relation to Arne Garborgs plass. The plans have good and less good aspects, but “clear and light corridors and excellent archive conditions” are favourable according to the jury. The author had emphasized “a centralised and readily understood complex with easy and short connections. … a form of connection between the offices that is more monumental and suited for a government building, than the usual long, dark and infinitely dull corridors of office blocks”.28 The plan drawings show this nuanced solution of offices and communication spaces (Fig. 9).

“Sun, light and air to all offices”, this author also claims, and has emphasized the relationship to the environment in this way: “The intention is to obtain a contrast, but simultaneously an interplay between the old building and the new in the choice of materials. The same kind of stone which is used in the 26 “Konkurransen om ny regjeringsbygning i Oslo”, Byggekunst 22 (1940), 41.

27 “Juryens bemerkninger”, 18.

28 “Juryens bemerkninger”, 14; Byggekunst 22 (1940), 43.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

275

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

Fig. 7. Motto “Vestibyle”, perspective.

Fig. 8. Motto “Vestibyle”, site plan.

old building is repeated as a granite wall in the two lower floors of the new.”

The exterior appears more rustic and material in the drawings than in the case of “Rytme”. Conspicuously the stones in the walls are drawn by hand exactly similar to the chiselled stones on the facades of the old government building – a rhetorical means of substantiating the architectural interplay between new and old edifice (Fig. 10). Moreover the jury says that “The facades, particularly those facing Akersgata, have a certain firmness but are disfigured by a series of artificial effects such as the top floor and the oblique recesses in the gables.”29 29 Byggekunst 22 (1940), 43.

276

architectural competitions – histories and practice

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

Fig. 9. Motto “Vestibyle”, plans.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

277

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

Fig. 10. Motto “Vestibyle”, elevation towards Akersgata.

Fig. 11. Motto “Fri” I, perspective.

Motto “Fri” I, also awarded a prize and designed by the architects Morseth & Wiel Gedde, involves a tall office wing placed at an oblique angle to the old government building, and a lower wing alongside Arne Garborgs plass (Figs.

11–12). The greatest height is 51 meters. The project is praised for large open spaces on the ground and well lit facades, stating that “the north facing façade towards Arne Garborgs plass is used for archives in a favourable manner”. The masses are well distributed, but the facade towards Arne Garborgs plass will 278

architectural competitions – histories and practice

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

Fig. 12. Motto “Fri” I, site plan.

appear disturbing, the jury commented. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is located well in its own wing near the main entrance, and represents at the same time a monumental feature towards Akersgata.30 The author’s main demand in relation to the project was that “no office shall face north”. Therefore the offices are located in the main volume, and the block is turned southwards in order to attain the right distribution of sunlight between east– and west facing offices. It was this entry that the NAL-appointed jury members Munthe-Kaas and Reppen voted for purchase instead of shared prize.

The fourth awarded project, motto “U” I designed by Nils Holter, shows an approach different from the three others. A symmetrical complex forms a city block connected to the old government building, with low wings alongside the streets and a long, high-rise in the centre and two sheltered courtyards in between (Figs. 13–14). According to the jury, the development plan is not solved satisfactorily. However, the complex is commended for providing a firm façade towards Arne Garborgs plass with a certain symmetry towards the Deichman library on the opposite side of the square. The greatest height of this project is also 51 meters. The project is praised for qualities such as well lit corridors and monumental and dignified entrances and connections. However “the intense utilisation with 3 wings will block the offices in the north façade of the old government building, which weakens the proposal”.31 The spacious system of 30 “Juryens bemerkninger”, 10–11; Byggekunst 22 (1940), 37.

31 “Juryens bemerkninger”, 13.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

279

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

Fig. 13. Motto “U” I, site plan.

Fig. 14. Motto “U” I, elevation towards Arne Garborgs plass.

lobbies and corridors as well as the abundant archives, make the economy of the project poor.

On the other hand, the drawings are beautiful and illustrate fine spatial qualities. According to the jury the facades are “proficiently solved, and provide the proper monumental character for such a building. As a whole the proposal reveals architectural imagination”.32 32 “Juryens bemerkninger”, 13; Byggekunst 22 (1940), 39.

280

architectural competitions – histories and practice

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

Oslo Association of Architects requests a new site The projects as well as the jury remarks clearly demonstrate the conflict embedded in the competition. On April 4, 1940, three weeks after the competition result was made public, the Oslo Association of Architects (OAF) arranged a meeting in order to discuss the problems of a practical and esthetical nature related to the new government building. The meeting attracted exceptionally many participants, in particular a large number of young architects. The awarded and purchased projects were presented by the authors, and the association decided to address the following statement to the government: The Oslo Association of Architects wants to support the majority of the jury’s statement in that the competition has shown that this site is not suited for the new government building. We request of the government to find a better and more dignified site whereon a new open competition for the new government building is organised on the new site.

Before this competition is arranged the building programme should be given a thorough renewed report based on the experience gained by the recent competition, and the Oslo Association of Architects requests that the architectural profession is strongly represented in the committee that will work on the case.

A photograph taken from Slottsplassen (the Royal Palace Square) with the new government building inserted as a high-rise is enclosed.33 This is a sensational move. The photograph was meant to be a deterrent, used as an argument in order to make the impossibility of the competition result convincing (Fig. 15). As Reppen said: a concentrated high-rise was the most favourable, but would tower too much in the cityscape.34 The problem concerns not only the size of the programme in square meters in relation to the site, but also the ideals and values that were embedded. The OAF meeting articulated different points of view, with Harald Hals (head of the Oslo city planning administration) fronting the conservative wing. His main argument was primarily related to Arne Garborgs plass, where, he claimed, a new building had to form 33 Byggekunst 22 (1940), 44.

34 Sitert i Lidvard Hallset, “En diskusjon om regjeringsbygningskonkurransen i Oslo Arkitektforening”, Byggekunst 22 (1940), 56.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

281

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

Fig. 15. Proposed Government Building viewed from the Royal Palace Square, by jury member Fritjof Reppen.

a regular wall facing the square in order to achieve balance in relation to the axis. In his opinion motto “U” was the best proposal, from a city planning point of view. Others asserted that a high-rise with surrounding open spaces could endow the area with “a decisive dominant that would reduce disharmony in the area”. Ove Bang opposed the point of view of Hals most clearly: “Good architecture is not made from the outside. Free solutions independent of traditional axis systems and street lines can be very valuable and give richer and a more varied city outline”.35 The stand of Riksarkitekten also appears in contrast to the most progressive architects, expressed through his jury members and also in the debates ahead of the competition. He was critical of towering high-rise buildings in the cityscape, and forwarded pragmatic considerations with respect to the choice of site and economy.

Sun light as a socio-hygienic instrument The health political aspects and arguments are striking in the 1939 Government Building competition. The ideal of sun lighting of the offices marks the competition as an absolute requirement, and decides the direction and shape of the building volumes, and their placing on the site. Hygiene was a core issue of modernity, and an important concern of the Labour Party government before the Second World War. Healthy dwellings and improvement of the built environment in general, were part of “the socio-hygienic” project aimed at bettering 35 Cited in Hallset, 56.

282

architectural competitions – histories and practice

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

public health. “It was a victory of modern society, which “figuratively speaking” pulled “mankind from the microbe infected swamps into light and sun”, hygiene professor Th. Thjøtta wrote in 1932.”36 “Sanering” from Latin sanitas – to make something healthy – and “razing” of old, crooked, ramshackle and ugly buildings were positive words until the late 1960s.

Improving human conditions is and has been a central objective in architecture, throughout history and in modern times as well. Various architectural and structural means have marked different periods, displaying the architectural preferences of the time. The preferred building types of the 1930s were slim and orthogonal, clean cut without ornaments, and placed so that the sun lighting could be optimised. The buildings could be considerably taller than earlier due to technological innovations, with load-bearing structures in steel and reinforced concrete, and elevators.37 In addition to meeting the hygiene demands, the new architecture also expressed core values in society such as objectivity and rationality, and a conciliating unity between poor and rich and other differences in society.

Simultaneously it was evident that the new government office building should display dignity and monumentality in its architecture, and it should have a good appearance in the cityscape, the public space with the old government building, Trefoldighetskirken (Trinity Church) and the Deichman library as pronounced components. It was the combination of all the demands with the architectural ideals of the time that could not be solved on the given site in the 1939 competition.

36 Cited in Knut Kjeldstadli, “Et moderne samfunn?”, in Aschehougs Norgeshistorie 1-12, 10, eds.

Knut Helle et al. (Oslo: Aschehoug, 1994), 96. In 1900 tuberculosis was the cause of every fifth death in Norway, but when the disease was fought so efficiently by 1930 that cancer now was the most frequent cause of death, this was the effect of better “social hygiene”–increasing the general standard of living, which had made people more resistant; Elisabeth Tostrup, Architecture and Rhetoric. Text and Design in Architectural Competitions (London: Andreas Papadakis Publisher, 1999), 39–44.

37 The first elevator in Kristiania (Oslo) was installed in 1896, and in the 1900s elevators became more normal in office buildings and more affluent residential buildings. The shell of Oslo city hall with its two towers was erected by 1939. There were intense debates on high-rise buildings in the 1930s, and Harald Hals stated: “One does not build cathedrals any more, but high-rise buildings can fill their place in the cityscape.” Quoted in Herman Munthe-Kaas, “Fra nyklassisisme til funksjonalisme”, Byggekunst 38 (1956), 140.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

283

elisabeth

Epilogue

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

*

Five days after the OAF meeting and before the competition material was printed in Byggekunst, the Germans occupied Norway. Historian Knut Kjeldstadli confirms that Norway was unprepared for the possibility of the world war reaching the country. Thus it is not surprising that not a word is mentioned about the war when the result of the competition for Norway’s government building was published, even after the occupation was a fact.38 The need for state office premises increased after World War II, and it was decided to erect a state office building on the site next to the old government building on Akersgata, a new building that could “be handed over to any office usage when the future government building is erected [presumably on another site]”. A committee ( jury) of five men, the majority architects, was appointed to select one of the four awarded entries from the 1939 competition for the government building, best suited for further elaboration aiming at such an office building. On March 22, 1946 the committee recommended unanimously that the project “Vestibyle” by Erling Viksjø was to be worked out, revised and reduced.39 Viksjø elaborated the project several times. First it was “trimmed”–the building height was reduced from thirteen to eleven storeys, and each storey from 3.5 to 3.25 m from floor to floor. The length of the building was shortened with two axes, 9–10 m, and the width reduced by 1–2 m. The building was pulled further back from Akersgata, but as was typical for the alterations in the last part of the 1940s, different decorative attempts at “monumentalising” the facades were also introduced, such as a centrally placed gable motif towards Grubbegata or 38 Knut Kjeldstadli, interview April 16, 2012.

39 K.M. Sinding-Larsen, “Offisielle uttalelser”, Byggekunst 31 (1949), 92. The jury consisted of the architects Georg Eliassen, Eivind Moestue, Herman Munthe-Kaas, and Director General Walløe and Senior Architect Westbye. Sinding-Larsen, riksarkitekt at the time elaborates further: “The question of the future government building depended on a number of factors which would take time to clarify: the choice of site, regulation, possibly expropriation, planning, possibly removal of existing buildings etc.” According to Sinding-Larsen the term “New government building” on the Akersgata site is misleading; the question concerns an office building, “the State office building”. The account also implies that Ove Bang, author of the awarded motto “Rytme” died in 1942, and Viksjø had taken over Bang’s practice together with Sofus Hougen and Odd Borgrud Pedersen–a partnership that ended in 1946.

284

architectural competitions – histories and practice

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

sculpture niches placed on the facades.40 Complete working drawings from this period are kept at the Norwegian museum of architecture.

“The Empire [Style] City Block” delayed the construction The National Assembly decided on June 22, 1949, to start the construction of the state administrative offices building, but “the press debate continued and increased strongly, the public opinion was truly aroused”, the editor of Byggekunst Eivind Alnæs wrote.41 The preservation interests were now active.

The Ministry of Finance had asked in 1947 that the case was presented to the antiquarian authorities as was usual, but the request had not been carried out.

The buildings in Empirekvartalet had been treated as listed buildings after the Act of Building Preservation took effect in 1921. However, in the 1939 competition programme nothing was mentioned about the old buildings. It was taken for granted that they could be removed, and the question had not been presented to the antiquarian building authorities, as was prescribed by law.

Several instances and groupings, architects included, now demanded that the buildings were preserved, and Byggekunst showed a proposal featuring a long, lower office block between the old National Hospital on Grubbegata and the old maternity ward on Akersgata. Vestre Vika came up again as a possible site for new government offices, either by demolishing Victoria terrasse or by erecting a new building in the area below, which was ready to be razed.42 The commotion aroused by the case delayed the construction. The military hospital, which was a log construction, was taken down and stored, and later it was nicely assembled on Grev Wedels plass. The National Hospital and the maternity ward, which were brick constructions, could not be saved and were torn down in 1954. Only the avenue of lime trees is left of the old Empirekvartalet.

40 Berit Johanne Henjum, “”Det beste jeg noen gang har laget”. Erling Viksjøs rådhusutkast i Bergen (1951–53)”, in Espen Johnsen, ed., Brytninger: norsk arkitektur 1945–65 (Oslo: Nasjonalmuseet for kunst, arkitektur og design, 2010), 108; Erling Viksjøs tegningsarkiv, EVI 077.

41 Eyvind Alnæs, “Statens kontorbygg”, Byggekunst 31 (1949), Tillegget, 32.

42 An architectural competition had been arranged on this site in 1947, in which the awarded projects had demolished Victoria terrasse. A new building was later erected for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as an extension to Victoria terrasse, which was not removed.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

285

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

Fig. 16. Erling Viksjø. The Government Quarter. Drawing, Byggekunst, 1959.

Fig. 17. Erling Viksjø. San Marco, Venezia. Drawing, Byggekunst, 1959.

Modifications anno 1958 The turn to a markedly narrower and shorter building and the simple, clean-cut design we know featuring a rough façade grid in “natural concrete”, did not occur until the 1950s. In the final design two low pavilions were added, a canteen, towards Grubbegata and meeting rooms towards Akersgata. An aspect unique to the building is the works of art by Norwegian avant-garde artists integrated in the architecture. The adjacent Y-blokken (a lower, Y-shaped office building) was indicated in the plan, and Viksjø made a number of sketches as visual arguments in favour of the “neutral” grid façade of the new government building that was in contrast to the rich lineaments of Trefoldighetskirken and the grand architecture of the Deichman library. The height and the composition as a whole provide the representative quality or the monumental character of the complex. (Figs. 16–18).43 43 Erling Viksjø, “Det nye regjeringsbygget”, Byggekunst 41 (1959), 1–5; Erik Rolfsen, “Bygg for regjeringskontorer”, Byggekunst 41 (1959), 6–15. A number of sketches involve extension of the area with new buildings on the other side of Grubbegata as well as Akersgata (Dittenkvartalet), all with narrow, clean-cut building blocks.

286

architectural competitions – histories and practice

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

Fig. 18. Erling Viksjø. ’The neutral grid facade of the Government Building in contrast to the rich lineaments of the Trinity Church’.

Drawing. Byggekunst, 1959.

The elaboration of the project after World War II modified the conflict involved in the competition. The sun light ideals that were pronounced in the competition appear highly exaggerated today, because health promoting and good work places depend on much else than sun directly into the office – although light and a view are also unquestionable benefits. In the end the building was placed better on the site from the point of view of open air spaces and the environment and not, for purely schematic purposes, in a north-south direction. In the Y-blokken the original sun light ideals were adjusted further.

Fig. 19. Erling Viksjø. The New Government Building, elevation.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

287

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

The high-rise, høyblokken, came out far less towering in the cityscape than “Vestibyle”, with a base approximately one third of that in the competition project. The design is precise and the proportions and materials well considered in the high-rise that Viksjø intended to become “a centre and dominant in a future ministry quarter” (Fig. 19).44 He succeeded on this point, and provided a building complex that combines a simple dignity and suitable distance with openness towards the surroundings. Kjeldstadli uses the term “marker building” (markørbygg) about the government building; it expresses the community of the people rising above the rest of the built environment.45 The competition for the government building in 1939–40 and its realized result is an example of the character of public power, of a mixture of great moves and hesitating implementation resulting from the corrections that occur in the interplay between the state and the population.

44 Viksjø (1959), 2.

45 Kjeldstadli, interview April 16, 2012.

288

architectural competitions – histories and practice

elisabeth

tostrup:

high

ideals

on

a

tricky

site

References Alnæs, E., 1949. “Statens kontorbygg”. Byggekunst 31. Tillegget (1949): 32.

Backer, L., 1925. “Vor holdningsløse arkitektur”. Byggekunst 7: 173–175.

Backer, L., 1927 “Skansen”. Byggekunst 9: 129–134.

Bang, O., & Ellefsen, J., 1935. “Forslag til regulering av Vikas vestre del i Oslo”. Byggekunst 17: 181– 191.

Byggekunst 19, 1937. “Resultatet av konkurransen om regulering av Vestre Piperviken i Oslo”: 96– 102.

Byggekunst 22, 1940. “Konkurransen om ny regjeringsbygning i Oslo”: 34–56.

Byggekunst 31, 1949: 89–96, and Tillegget: 17–20.

Ellefsen, J., 1927. “Hvad er tidsmessig arkitektur?”. Byggekunst 9, november: 161–170.

Ellefsen, J., 1931. “Ny monumentalitet”. Byggekunst 13: 19–28 (99–108).

Finansdepartementet, Administrasjonskontoret E og F (og W), 1939. Riksarkivet, Oslo. “St. prp. nr.

1. Tillegg nr. 7: Utbygging av Regjeringsbygningen”. RA/S–1063/E/L0024/0001.

Hallset, L., 1940. “En diskusjon om regjeringsbygningskonkurransen i Oslo Arkitektforening”.

Byggekunst 22 : 56.

Henjum, B. J., 2010. “‘Det beste jeg noen gang har laget’. Erling Viksjøs rådhusutkast i Bergen (1951–53)”. In Brytninger: norsk arkitektur 1945–65, ed. Espen Johnsen. Oslo: Nasjonalmuseet for kunst, arkitektur og design: 106–115.

Hvattum, M., 2012. “Skal angrepet lykkes?”. Aftenposten 23.12, Del 2: 5. Øvergaard, J. G., 1939. “Er Vestre Vika låst fast?”. Byggekunst 21: 114–115.

Kjeldstadli, K., 1994. “Et moderne samfunn?”. In Aschehougs Norgeshistorie 1–12, eds. Knut Helle, Knut Kjeldstadli, Even Lange and Sølvi Sogner. Oslo: Aschehoug: 94–109.

Munthe-Kaas, H., 1937. “Vestre Vikas byplan”. Byggekunst 19: 103–104.

Munthe-Kaas, H., 1956. “Fra nyklassisisme til funksjonalisme”. Byggekunst 38: 135–148.

Norberg-Schulz, C., 1961. “Norsk arkitektur i femti år”, Byggekunst 43: 57–102.

Pedersen, B. S., 1967. “Gatens arkitekturhistorie”, in Akersgaten, ed. Tryggve Juul Møller. Oslo: Tryggve Juul Møller Forlag: 14–192.

Rolfsen, E., 1959. “Bygg for regjeringskontorer”. Byggekunst 41: 6–15.

Sinding-Larsen, K. M., 1956. “Offisielle uttalelser”. Byggekunst 31: 91–93.

Statens bygge- og eiendomsdirektorat, Riksarkivet, Oslo. RA/S–1534/1/Da/L0366.

Tostrup, E., 1999. Architecture and Rhetoric. Text and Design in Architectural Competitions. London: Andreas Papadakis Publisher.

Tostrup, E., 1999. “Nordic Competition Architecture in the Thirties”. Rassegna 77: 108–114.

Viksjø, E., 1959. “Det nye regjeringsbygget”. Byggekunst 41: 1–5.

Aars, H., 1931. “Byggekunstens utvikling gjennom de siste 25 år”. Byggekunst 13, no. 5: 7–8 (87–88).

architectural competitions – histories and practice

289

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

Abstract During the reconstruction of German cities after the Second World War the question, how to deal with the ruins of architectural gems, has often been discussed very controversially. Some support the removal of the remains and a new utilization. Many prefer the preservation of the remains – sometimes the façade only – combined with a contemporary new building, while others demand an original reconstruction. Here the balancing act between historicism and monument protection begins – between reconstruction of the old prototype – preferably so that one can not distinguish between the new and the old parts – and the preserving and maintaining of the structures worthy of protection. Because this design problem is very often the object of German architectural competitions, in relation to practice, the paper will show – based on four case studies – how important guidelines in the competition brief are.

Two case studies deal with the competitions for the reconstruction of City Palaces: the Berlin City Palace and the Herrenhausen Palace in Hanover. Both are typical examples for historicism. Both facades had to be exactly reconstructed according to the historic design. Two further case studies deal with competitions for reconstruction and conversion of historically significant castles: the conversion of Beeskow Castle into the “New Art Archive” and the conversion of the Moritzburg into an Art Museum. Both competitions focused on monument protection, but without historicist designs.

Although these are only a few examples, one can nevertheless draw two fundamental conclusions: At first one can see how important competitions are also for the “reanimation” of important historic buildings. Only with competitions is it possible to get a variety of solutions and clients are then offered the best of these designs. And, secondly, my case studies demonstrate how important the invitation of tenders with their guidelines – the “corset” of the competition – is. The tighter this corset is tied and the stricter the guidelines are, the fewer viable alternatives can be pointed out.

Key words: architectural competition, historicism, monument preservation, restrictive competition brief Contact: Thomas Hoffmann-Kuhnt, Dipl.-Ing. Chief editor and founder of the German competition journal wa wettbewerbe aktuell Freiburg, Germany hoffmann-kuhnt@wa-journal.de www.wa-journal.de

290

architectural competitions – histories and practice

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

The balancing act between historicism and monument preservation in some international competitions in Germany thomas hoffmann-kuhnt

introduction We identify our towns by their historic centres, which all have their individual character. This is shaped by the traces of development and historic buildings which give the town its soul. To maintain the town’s soul is a fundamental duty.

Therefore it is important to take care of and maintain historic buildings, thus to provide a future for the past. Over and over we are confronted with the destruction of historically valuable buildings and monuments. The question constantly arises what to do with the ruins, with opinions mostly wide apart. Some support the removal of the remains and a new utilization. Many prefer the preservation of the remains – sometimes the façade only – combined with a contemporary new building, while others demand an original reconstruction. Here the balancing act between historicism and monument protection begins – between reconstruction of the old prototype – preferably so that one can not distinguish between the new and the old parts – and the preserving and maintaining of the structures worthy of protection.

During the last six decades in Germany we had these difficulties quite often.

The cities, which had been destroyed by area bombing at the end of the war had to be rebuilt. The necessity to create new living areas and work spaces led to a massive construction boom which resulted in the end in a high concentration of architects. The number of architects increased in the last 20 years from 80.000 to over 120.000. [fig. 1] To encourage building culture and economic feasibility the legislative organs decided that all publicly funded buildings had to be assigned by architectural competitions. These not only comprised new buildings, but often planning in consideration of historic building substances, architectural competitions – histories and practice

291

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

Fig. 1: Development of architects 1990-2010.

the

balancing

act

Fig. 2: Development of competitions 1990-2012.

thus planning with monument preservation aspects in mind. Before 1990 there had been an average of 500 to 600 architectural competitions per year, but in the last 20 years the number of yearly competitions dropped to 300 per year [fig.2], whereas on the other hand the number of architects has risen.

Since I founded the publishing company and the journal wa wettbewerbe aktuell in 1970 we have published countless competitions. Many of them deal with the issue of monument preservation. I should like to stress that we always report impartially, which means we publish the plans and designs of the prizewinners with photos of the models and the assessment of the jury without our own evaluation or judgment. However, I cannot refrain from commenting on the subject of monument preservation versus historicism. I would ask you to take into account that I am not a scientist. An academically excellent research about this topic is Steven W. Semes´ book “The Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism and Historic Preservation”. I just rely on my experience with a journal, which deals exclusively with architectural competitions since over 40 years.

In each large office, in each ideas workshop the solution of problems is achieved by using “brainstorming” to find a reasonable solution. The same applies to the architectural competition which offers the best opportunity for clients to choose the best from a variety of designs and architects are given the chance to compete with colleagues in a sporting sense. Out of the various competitions that focus on the problem of historicism versus monument 292

architectural competitions – histories and practice

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

preservation I would like to present some projects, four cases, which dealt with the reconstruction and conversion of palaces and castles which have been of historical significance. They not only demonstrate the difficulty of the subject clearly, but they also show how important specifications in the competition brief are. The stricter and tighter the specifications are, the narrower is the range of solutions. This is particularly apparent in my first case study.

the competition for the reconstruction of the berlin city palace The project of the reconstruction of the Berlin City Palace in connection with the development of the Humboldt-Forum is the subject of extraordinary controversial discussions. To understand this one has to know the history as well as the specifications of the tender. Its preamble states: “The Center of Berlin and its unique cultural and scientific topography of the Museum Island, the German Historical Museum, the Humboldt University and the National Library form a real and symbolic future oriented site of maximum importance for reunited Germany. […] This urban center can be rediscovered as the intellectual center of the European Metropolis Berlin.” (competition brief p.3). But first to the historic background based on the competition brief: Since its foundation the history of the Berlin castle is inseparably connected with the development of the city. At the beginning of the 13th century along the banks of the river Spree two towns were founded, Berlin and Cölln. For its development it was important that at the beginning of the 15th century it was decided that this double-town should become the residence of the Hohenzollern dynasty [fig. 3]. The fortress has been continually converted into the City Palace,

Fig. 3: Plan of Residences Berlin and Cölln, after J.G. Memhardt 1652 © SBB-SPK.

Fig. 4: Schlüterhof 1930. © Bildarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

293

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

Fig. 5: Aerial photo 1919. © Bildarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz.

the

balancing

act

Fig. 6: Destroyed Schlüterhof 1945. © Bildarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz.

from this time on. At the end of the 17th century Andreas Schlüter started the remodeling of the palace [fig. 4]. Eosander and Böhme continued the development of a Baroque palace complex [fig. 5]. At the end of World War II in 1945 the entire center of Berlin, including the City Palace and other cultural historic monuments had been destroyed by the area bombing of the Allied Forces [fig.6].

After the founding of the GDR in the Soviet-Russian occupied sector of Germany the newly-founded state council decreed its decision in 1950 to blow up the ruin although the palace could have been restored. Memories of the days of the emperor contradicted the objectives of the Socialist State. At the beginning of the 70s the “Palace of the Republic” was built on this location. After the reunification of Germany in 1989 the further utilization of the building, which was contaminated by asbestos, became the subject of a very controversial debate.

Basically there have been two trends: on the one hand, the supporters of the restoration of the “Palace of the Republic” to create a memorial for the recent history of Germany and its separation in east and west and on the other hand, the

Fig. 7: Historical ground plan, (red) marked.

294

Fig. 8: Historical Southwest Façade the facades to be reconstructed.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

supporters of the demolition of the “Palace of the Republic” and reconstruction of the city palace, with any utilization whatever. In the end it was decided by the German parliament to demolish the “Palace of the Republic” and to raise a new building instead of it, reconstructing the historic baroque facades [fig. 7] and a cupola above the main west gate [fig. 8]. The utilization concept HumboldtForum comprises approx. 40.000sqm and combines the non-European collections of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Prussian Cultural Heritage parts of the scientific history collections of the Humboldt University, associated media collections of the Central and State Library and a large event - and meeting area, the so called Agora (competition brief ).

There had been 129 entries for the competition in 2008, which all had been approved, but only 85 architects actually participated. 57 of them had been eliminated after a “special round” because of breaches against the binding guidelines. In the end only 30 entries reached the 2nd phase including some who had been in the “special round”, whose breaches did not seem too serious. These figures speak for themselves given that there have been more than 1,100 entries at the competition Spree Island in 1993. I firmly believe that a similar number of entries would have

Fig. 9: 1st Price, Franco Stella, excerpt from wa 1/2009 page 34+35.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

295

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

been reached without the binding guidelines or if it only had been the client´s wishes. The jury, chaired by Vittorio Magnano Lampugnani, awarded one 1st prize, four 3rd prizes and one special award and two honorable mentions. We published the competititon result in January 2009, page 33-48. The 1st prize and the special award demonstrate an interesting contrast.

The 1st prize, endowed with € 100.000 went to Franco Stella, Vicenza [fig.

9]. The jury stated: “With great self-conception this design succeeds in reconstructing without restrictions the facades of Schlüter and the historic cupola.

All facades – including the interior facades of the Eosander courtyard, which have not been reconstructed – have been fabricated massively with a depth of 1m. Three of the six gates have been spatially reconstructed, the others are displayed in the façade layer...” (wa 1/2009 p. 34). Stella´s design envisages the Schlüter courtyard – as required – in the same size, while it shows the Eosander yard nearly completely covered. The jury comments: “The clarity and functionality of the floor plan is contrary to an essential reorganization of the access routes and to the reinterpretation of the historic floor plan” (wa 1/2009 p. 35).

The special award, endowed with € 60.000 went to Kuehn+Malvezzi, Berlin [fig. 10]. The jury did not comment on the design, because it resulted from the “special round”, which comprised the designs, which did not comply with the binding guidelines. This building lacks the cupola and instead the authors designed a large dimensioned translucent roofing of the Eosander courtyard. The architects explain their idea as follows: “The design´s main idea is an extended concept of the agora as layout, which integrates the exterior with the interior

Fig. 10: Special award, Kuehn+Malvezzi, excerpt from wa 1/2009 page 36+37.

296

architectural competitions – histories and practice

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

Fig. 11: Special award, excerpt from wa 1/2009 p.36.

and the Humboldt-Forum with the city. The Eosander courtyard is designed as public foyer and display window of the museum…” (wa 1/2009 p. 36). The authors include the Schlüter courtyard as required. The area of the former Eosander yard is covered as well, but towards the main gate a large free space had been created – an Agora with a translucent covering, encircled on three sides by the historic palace facade, thereby made object-like readable as an artifact – quasi incorporated in the museum context as exhibit. This design interestingly proposes for the 1st building phase – regarding the façade – to create an exposed brick building as “completed structural work”. In the 2nd phase the partial application of ornaments in the facade could be implemented to create a further coherent building phase with the cladding of the gates and balustrade and the portico in the Schlüter courtyard [fig. 11]. In additional building phases the complete old façade could be reconstructed – which, I think, is not necessarily desirable.

The four 3rd prizes, each endowed with € 30.000 went to: • Prof. Kollhoff, Berlin [fig. 12] “The jury´s approval applies to the careful reconstruction of the Schlüter courtyard and the adjoining inner courtyards. Here – introduced by the architect – the ‘festive urban space’ can architectural competitions – histories and practice

297

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

Fig. 12: 3rd Price Prof. Kollhoff, Berlin, excerpt from wa 1/2009 p. 38+39.

Fig. 13: 3rd Price Kleihues + Kleihues, Berlin, excerpt from wa 1/2009 p. 40+41.

Fig. 14: 3rd Price Prof. Christoph Mäckler, Frankfurt, excerpt from wa 1/2009 p. 42+43.

Fig. 15: 3rd Price Eccheli e Campagnola, Verona, excerpt from wa 1/2009 p. 44+45.

298

architectural competitions – histories and practice

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

come into existence. But the agora has more the appearance of a movie theatre...” (wa 1/2009 p. 38).

• Kleihues + Kleihues, Berlin [fig. 13] The jury comments et.al.: “The reconstruction of the Baroque facades is intended, however as two-shell construction and firstly with an interim facade with fiber cement. The proposed cupola was controversially discussed by the jury because of its superelevated tambour and the contemporary design. It was considered as inappropriate…” (wa 1/2009 p. 40).

• Prof. Christoph Mäckler, Frankfurt a. M. [fig. 14] The jury comments: “This design is primarily convincing because of its high coherence of layout proportion and the reconstruction of Schlüter’s facades. The interaction of new utilization, corresponding facades and former floor plan has been achieved to a large extend...” (wa 1/2009 p. 42).

• Eccheli e Campagnola, Verona [fig. 15] The jury comments: “The authors propose a design full of references. Parts, which did not belong to the original building – such as the quote for brick exterior walls of Schinkel’s ‘Neue Wache’ (new guardhouse) and the design of Mies van der Rohe for the Reichsbank and some reconstructed parts, which had not been required from the client – have been quoted intelligently... Also the cupola appears, as if it had been destroyed just now – referring to the inner cupola of the Berlin Cathedral, exposed after 1944, under the skeleton of the exterior cupola…” (wa 1/2009 p. 44).

In the end the client decided to commission the 1st prize winner with the realization of the project. Currently the planning is in progress. The facades are already revised [fig. 16+17]. According to statements from Prof. Franco Stella the laying of the foundation stone is planned for 2013 and the official opening is scheduled for 2019. In his explanatory note Franco Stella writes amongst other things: “The new building consists of reconstructed and newly constructed building structures, which are individually recognizable within the unity of the ensemble … The design envisages the reconstruction of the three gates towards the former large Eosanderyard and the Stüler cupola from 1850. The reconstructed facades are no curtain backdrops but individual massive wall architectural competitions – histories and practice

299

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

Fig. 16: Revised South- and West-Facade by Franco Stella.

Fig. 17: Revised Schlüterhof-Facade by Franco Stella.

constructions, which repeat the original form and substance of the past. The reconstructed building parts shall be able to credibly claim that they have been there forever” (explanatory note Franco Stella). This is a clear position for historicism, which is still the subject of controversy.

From my point of view, for this project it would have been of significant advantage if the client had abandoned the restrictive specifications in the competition brief. Without doubt many more architects had taken part in the competition with alternative solutions. The question whether a better result had been achieved I leave unanswered, but at least the special award would have got a much better chance for realization.

300

architectural competitions – histories and practice

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

competiton for the reconstruction of the herrenhausen palace, hanover Another example on the subject of historicism is the competition for the reconstruction of the Herrenhausen Palace in Hanover. But here the conditions are different, because the premises have not been converted in the meantime – as in Berlin – and the reconstruction shall match the ground plan of the original – only in the visible upper floors, however. But first a brief history of the premises, based on the competition brief.

Herrenhausen Palace has been founded in the middle of the 17th century and became the summer residence of the Kings of Hanover. At the beginning of the 19th century the building was badly in need of repair and 1817 Georg Ludwig Friedrich Laves had been assigned with the restoration. In 1936 the city of Hanover acquired the proprietary rights. Parts of the building have been open to the public as a museum until during World War II when it was destroyed by bombs. In the future it shall be accessible to the public again as a museum.

The former orangery east of the palace, built in 1698, has been renovated and is currently used as gallery. In 1966 Arne Jacobsen designed a one-storey glass building, which serves as foyer for events. At the former location of the palace kitchen a restaurant was designed by architects Schweger & Partner.

The objective of the competition was to reconstruct Herrenhausen Palace on its original location [fig. 18] and put it to a contemporary use. The historic volume, as redesigned by Georg Ludwig Friedrich Laves (1818-1821) shall be

Fig. 18: Situation at the time when the competition was launched, excerpt from wa 6/2010 p.45.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

301

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

Fig. 19: 1st prize Jastrzembski Kotulla, Hamburg, excerpt from wa 6/2010 p.46.

developed as a modern multifunctional conference centre. The Historic Museum of the city of Hanover shall get additional exhibition areas in the side wings. The conference centre shall be complemented by an auditorium in the basement. The program comprises totally 6.800sqm. The competition was launched with a preceding EEA-open selection procedure for 15 participants, in the end 14 teams did participate. We published the competition in our issue 6/2010. The jury awarded three prizes.

The first prize went to architects Jastrzembski Kotulla, Hamburg [fig. 19].

The jury commented amongst other things: “...The central idea of the design was a distinct axial alignment of the major uses and an elegant coordination of visitors in the basement within the foyer area of the auditorium, whose lighting is implemented by two lateral arranged inner courtyards integrated into the garden at ground level...” (wa 6/2010 p. 46).

The design of the 2nd prize winner ASP Architects Hanover, Wolfgang Schneider and Prof. Wilhelm Meyer [fig. 20] is - as mentioned in the assessment of the jury – “also characterized by a consequent strict axial alignment. However the direct connection to the Arne Jacobsen-building is not convincing...” (wa 6/2010 p. 47).

302

architectural competitions – histories and practice

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

Fig. 20: 2nd ASP architects Hanover, Wolfgang Schneider and Prof. Wilhelm Meyer, excerpt from wa 6/2010 p.47

Fig. 21: 3rd Price Prof. Peter Kulka and Philipp Stamborski, Dresden, excerpt from wa 6/2010 p.48.

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

303

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

Fig. 22: Revised draft by Jastrzembski Kotulla Architekten, Hamburg.

The jury comments regarding the 3rd prize of Prof. Peter Kulka and Philipp Stamborski, Dresden [fig. 21]: “The design is also completely oriented at the axial alignment of the palace complex. In contrast to the other prize winners the central entrance at the heart of the building and the flight of steps in the inner courtyard are used as access for the auditorium in the basement, although its floor plan is unfavourable” (wa 6/2010 p. 48).

The project is being realised by the first prize winners Jastrzembski Kotulla [fig. 22]. In my view this reconstruction according to the historical model is acceptable in terms of “historicism”, because – in contrast to the Berlin City Palace – the above-ground appearance complies with the original and is not only a fancy façade like a backdrop. Uses, which surpass the existing cubature - such as the large auditorium – are planned in the basement.

competition for the conversion of beeskow castle into the “new art archive” The object of the third case study is the competition for the conversion of Beeskow Castle into the new art archive and was based on completely different conditions. The call for tenders required “an exemplary new building in the historic context, which constitutes a message of contemporary and sustainable planning. The client is aware that the new building could present a contradiction to the objectives of monument preservation and that not all requirements can be achieved” (competition brief ). But first, I will outline the history of the castle complex, based on the competition brief.

Beeskow Castle was developed in 1225 as moated castle. In 1520, the wellfortified complex, built with bricks, was converted into the residence of the 304

architectural competitions – histories and practice

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

Fig. 23 & 24: The preserved building parts of Beeskow Castle. © Museum Brandenburg.

Bishop of Lebus. In the middle of the 16th century the complex came into the possession of the Hohenzollern, who used it as administration building up to 1915. Afterwards the town of Beeskow purchased the estate. After the end of the Second World War especially the east side of the castle had been destroyed. The preserved building parts of the west side are currently used as cultural centre and regional museum [fig. 23+24].

In line with the competition carried out in the summer of 2010 a new building was to be planned near the historic brewing house at the east side of the castle for the art archive Beeskow including the stocks of the Artothek der Sozialen Kunstförderung Berlin. The art archive is a documentation centre of the visual arts of the former GDR. The main part of the new building will comprise the archive areas for approx. 38.000 exhibits and a small exhibition area on approx.

2.900sqm of floor space. With a European wide open application procedure, 15 participants have been selected for the competition. The jury chaired by Professor Mrs Donatella Fioretti awarded 4 prizes and 4 mentions, which were published in wa issue 8/2010.

The 1st prize went to Max Dudler, Berlin [fig. 25]. “The jury acknowledged in particular the urban aspect of the design, to complement the ensemble with a calm, large building volume, which adopts the ‘house’ typology of the castle and blends in to scale – even if the silhouette no longer complies with the historic brewery. The design manages to complement the castle with a self-confident new building block, which adds a worthy attraction to the building project...” (wa 8/2010 p. 56).

The jury commented on the 2nd prize for architects Marte & Marte, Weiler [fig. 26]: “The design is impressive because of the strong sculptural building volumes and its reduced and convincingly developed architectural expression. architectural competitions – histories and practice

305

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

Fig. 25: 1st Price Max Dudler, Berlin, excerpt from wa 8/2010 p. 56.

Fig. 26: 2nd Price Marte.Marte Architekten, Weiler, excerpt from wa 8/2010 p. 57.

Fig. 27: 3rd Price CO A. Berlin, excerpt from wa 8/2010 p. 58.

306

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

Fig. 28: 4th Price Staab Architekten, Berlin, excerpt from wa 8/2010 p. 59.

The jury acknowledges the concept of the further development of the castle characteristics, symbolizing the shifting of the main uses in the castle complex. Especially the arrangement of clearly defined program parts to the individual building structures meets the requirements of the user. It allows the observer to experience the new utilisation even without further explanations” (wa 8/2010, p. 57).

The comments of the jury on the design of the 3rd prize winner CO A Berlin, Jakob Koenig [fig. 27] are as follows: “The project is conclusive in terms of urban development due to the organization of the courtyards and the moderate height development with two carefully accentuating flanking elevations. However regarding monument preservation issues the mass of the building with the elevated eaves height and width seems problematic. The design shows subtle openings to allow for appropriate proportion and scale. The continued building of the remnants of the wall is presented in a convincing way imparting an optimistic approach to the history” (wa 8/2010, p. 58).

The 4th prize went to Staab Architects, Berlin [fig. 28]. The comments of the jury are: “The building structure is looking for a balance between a gentle introduction to the historic complex and an independent contemporary placing.

The positioning and dimensioning of the longitudinal building along the east side generates well-proportioned and appropriate exterior areas within the castle complex. However it is highly controversial whether the architectural impact of the building structure has the necessary power that the context of the castle requires, or whether a certain complaisance prevails… In a convincing way the ruin of the former brewery has been exposed, but whether the gesture of the building consequently bridging the ruin is appropriate is the subject of a controversial discussion” (wa 8/2010, p. 59). architectural competitions – histories and practice

307

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

The 1st prize winner, Max Dudler, will presumably be commissioned with the realization, but financing has not yet been secured. I think it is remarkable how the first three prize winners enhance the listed historic brick building by using brick facades for their various new buildings without being historicizing. The designs demonstrate how – by using the same building material – a homogenous complex can be generated, which becomes more fascinating by the contemporary stylistic devices and only now seems to be complete.

competition for the conversion of the moritzburg halle (saale) into an art museum This case study focuses on monument protection based on the example of the conversion of the Moritzburg Halle into an art museum. The project is already completed and it shows how by a deliberate contrast – with stylistic elements and material – an exciting dialogue between old and new can be created, if the competition brief does not have too tight restrictions. But also at first to outline the history of the castle based on the competition brief: The Moritzburg in Halle is one of the most impressive late medieval castle complexes in Middle Germany. It was built around 1500 at the edge of the town as the magnificent and at the same time well-fortified residence of the Arch-Bishops of Magdeburg [fig. 29]. It can be classified as a combination of a well-fortified fortress and a prestigious palace. The castle´s individual wings towards the courtyard are mainly Late Gothic style, while the exterior was committed to the Renaissance. The Moritzburg was surrounded by moats, and its towers, originally with pointed spires, were clearly visible from afar [fig. 30].

After various owners and occupants the castle became uninhabitable during the Thirty Years´ War. A fire destroyed the entire west and north wing in 1637.

Around 1900 the south wing was converted into the Town Museum. After the destruction at the end of World War II the castle courtyard has been used as open-air museum [fig. 31]. At the time of the GDR it was attempted to reconstruct the applicable building parts into a cultural centre. After the reunification the opportunity was provided to use the castle again as art museum [fig.

32].

In 2004 a competition was launched including a European application procedure. Out of 300 applications 20 participants were chosen with further 7 invited offices. We published the competition result in our issue 9/2004. The jury, chaired by Peter Kulka, awarded 5 prices.

308

architectural competitions – histories and practice

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

Fig. 29: The Moritzburg, Plan of 1550. © Archiv Moritzburg.

Fig. 30: The Moritzburg, anno 1600. © Archiv Moritzburg.

Fig. 31: The Open Air Museum. © Archiv Moritzburg.

Fig. 32: Aerial photo 2008. © Archiv Moritzburg.

The first prize went to the Madrid architect couple Nieto Sobejano [fig. 33].

The comments of the jury were: “The sculptural roofscape is the distinctive feature of the project. The new roof as connection between the north and west wing blends in with the urban context, because it refers to the irregular roofscape of the south and east wing and the chapel. At the same time it forms a symbol to show the museum´s utilisation of the Moritzburg…“ (wa 9/2004, p. 84).

The design excels by treating the ruin as building envelope. A spacious interior has been created in the west wing, which incorporates the ruin as an impressive entity accentuated by special lighting via skylights.

The 2nd prize went to Gernot Schulz architecture, Cologne [fig. 34]. The jury commented: “The decision, to hand over the stage to art, with the re-allocation of the spatial sequences – from entrance hall to exhibition areas – and to withdraw the architectural interferences, surprisingly displays the high quality of architectural competitions – histories and practice

309

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

Fig. 33: 1st Price Nieto Sobejano Arquitectos Madrid, excerpt from wa 9/2004 p. 84+85.

Fig. 34: 2nd Price Gernot Schulz, KĂśln/Halle, excerpt from wa 9/2004 p. 86+87.

310

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

this approach for the interior […]. The careful handling of the historic fabric is convincing” (wa 9/2004, p. 86).

The 3rd prize winners were Schulz and Schulz, Leipzig [fig. 35]. The jury commented: “The authors proposed an independent timber structure following the former wooden truss of the ruin, which no longer exists. A three-storey exhibition space was created with rectangular wooden components closely arranged together – similar to rafters. This building structure occupies the entire west wing and is clearly detached from the walls of the ruin. The distinctiveness of form both in its exterior appearance and in the inner arrangement was convincing” (wa 9/2004, p. 88).

The jury commented on the design of the 4th prize winner architects Konermann and Siegmund, Hamburg [fig. 36]: “[it]…was a glass cube, which was arranged in the western ruin, with one floor towering above. It allows some distance to the walls of the ruin, which are developed as corridors at the east and west side and as summer foyer in the south. The external smooth glass cover creates a striking contrast to the rough stonewalls of the ruin. The ruin acts as casing for the new building. This entry impresses by its clarity and simplicity. The restraint of the new structure referring to its size and the consequential under-usage of the floor space required is the price to be paid” (wa 9/2004, p. 90).

Fig. 35: 3rd Price Schulz & Schulz, Leipzig, excerpt from wa 9/2004 p. 88+89

architectural competitions – histories and practice

311

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

Fig. 36: 4th Price Konermann Siegmund, Hamburg, excerpt from wa 9/2004 p. 90+91.

Fig. 37: 5th Price Plasma Studio, London, excerpt from wa 9/2004 p. 92+93.

312

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

Fig. 38: Moritzburg Halle, the realized project © Archive Moritzburg.

The 5th prize went to Plasma Studio, London [fig. 37]. The jury stated: “In a very subtle way the existing structure of the old building fabric with its elements of wall, support and cross vault was incorporated and transformed into a world of modern construction and form. The principle of the folded roof, when seen from a bird´s-eye view on the model appears very strong and excessively formal. But from a normal perspective the effect is more reserved. Ultimately there is only a gently curved structure visible protruding over the walls of the ruin. In the interior the folded layers can be perceived much strongly. The walls are open scenery-like and the ceiling openings provide views of the old masonry and of the upper and lower floor…” (wa 9/2004, p. 92).

The 1st prize winners Nieto and Sobejano have been commissioned with the implementation of their design. We published the realized project in our November issue 2008 [fig. 38+39]. The comments of the authors were as follows:

Fig. 39: Inside Moritzburg Halle © Archive Moritzburg.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

313

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

“The design … is based on a simple but sophisticated architectural idea: West and north wing of the Moritzburg will be bound together by an aluminium roof sculptured by skylights. It rises and falls just like an irregularly folded platform, which flatly retreats above the wall coping. Thus a modern roofscape was created between the chapel and the Talamt, which responds to the lively language of the historic saddle roofs and gables and becomes the symbol of the new museum. The new building elements of the Moritzburg represent the renewal of the museum and symbolize its incorporation into the 21st century” (wa 11/2008, p. 98). This project can probably be classified as an excellent example of monument protection, without any historicism.

conclusion All projects presented are characterized by this incorporation into modernism by contemporary architectural means. But the projects use different strategies: The city palaces in Berlin and Hanover with historicized reconstruction and with sensitive addition of building parts in the projects of Beeskow and Halle, whereby only via the new building parts the monument protected historic building complex became impressive in its function and impact. It should be noted that all four projects have been characterized by completely different historic backgrounds and developments. But two fundamental conclusions can be drawn for all four projects: First, one can see how important competitions are also for the “reanimation” of important historic buildings. Only with competitions is it possible to get a variety of solutions and clients are then offered the best of these designs. This conclusion is based on the investigation of countless competitions in combination with my long professional expertise as editor in chief for wa wettbewerbe aktuell since 1971. However one would like to see more open competitions, where all interested architects could participate. There are three different kinds of competitions in Germany: the “open”, “limited-open” and “non-open” competition. The open competition allows all architects to participate. Only invited participants are able to enter the non-open competition. Limited open competitions – unfortunately the most popular competition type in Germany – allow every architect to apply for the competition, but the client chooses the participants after previously announced criteria. Frequently the competitors have to provide evidence that they have at least implemented a comparable project and have an appropriate office capacity. Consequently, many times one can find the same names in 314

architectural competitions – histories and practice

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

the list of the prize winners and only very rarely young offices with fresh ideas have a chance. Fortunately at present one can register an upward trend of open competitions, often as two-staged competitions with the first phase carried out as ideas competition, and with the participants for the more labour-intensive second phase selected as based on these ideas.

And, secondly, these four projects demonstrate how important the invitation of tenders with their guidelines – the “corset” of the competition – is. The tighter this corset is tied and the stricter the guidelines are, the fewer viable alternatives can be pointed out. This particularly applies to the project City Palace Berlin with the mandatory specification of the historicizing reconstruction of the most important facades and the design of a cupola. Without these restrictions surely there would have been a broader range of solutions and the special award would not have been an individual case.

Accordingly, the more refreshing and exhilarating are the results of competitions, where the client even encourages attempting contrasts to the protected historic buildings – as shown with the projects of Beeskow and Halle.

Of course one cannot derive an unwritten law based on these four case studies as described by Robert K. Yin in his book “Case Study Research”, but there are lessons to be learned: Monument protection does not need to be historicizing – on the contrary, the gentle alliance between old and new can offer the historic heritage a contemporary utilization, which can serve future generations as well.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

315

thomas

hoffmann-kuhnt:

the

balancing

act

References Dolgner, D., 2011. Die Moritzburg in Halle. Mitteldeutscher Verlag Competition brief 2003, Auftraggeber: Stiftung Moritzburg Kunstmuseum des Landes SachsenAnhalt, Dr. Katja Schneider, Friedemann-Bach-Platz 5, D-06108 Halle, 13.11.2003, The Conversion of the Moritzburg Halle (Saale) into an Art Museum.

Competition brief 2008, Herausgeber: Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bauwesen und Stadtentwicklung, International Design Competition Reconstruction of the Berlin Castle | Construction of the Humboldt-Forum on the site of the Berlin Castle.

Redecke. S., 2009. Schloss Berlin/Humboldtforum. Berlin: Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung.

Semes, S. W., 2010. The Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation. W. W. Norton & Co. Yin, R. K., 2009, Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Fourth Edition, COSMOS Corporation, SAGE Publications, Inc. Archive The archive of wettbewerbe aktuell: wa wettbewerbe aktuell, 9/2004. wa wettbewerbe aktuell, 11/2008. wa wettbewerbe aktuell, 1/2009. wa wettbewerbe aktuell, 6/2010. wa wettbewerbe aktuell, 8/2010.

Electronic Sources Beeskow Castle, Competition brief available at: http://www.museen-brandenburg.de http://www.beeskow.de Moritzburg, Competition documents available at: http://stiftung-moritzburg.de/moritzburg/baugeschichte

316

architectural competitions – histories and practice

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

Abstract The Stockholm-Bromma Airport is situated 7 km west of the city centre. It was inaugurated in May 1936 and was Sweden’s main civil airport until Stockholm-Arlanda Airport opened in 1962. The search for a suitable plot of land for the airport in the neighbourhood of the city began in 1919. In 1921, a seaplane port was opened at Lindarängen northeast of the city centre. In the same year a seaplane connection Stockholm-Helsinki-Tallinn was established, the first regular airline from Stockholm.

A definitive location for the land airport was found west of the city, in Bromma, in 1929. A municipal board for the airports of the city was formed. An airport of this magnitude had not previously been planned or built in Sweden. As such, the necessary knowledge was only partly to be found in Sweden. Wide-ranging consultations with airport managers, international specialists and airline companies were carried out.

A combined state-municipal committee was appointed in 1933 to answer for the continued planning of the new airport. A programme was compiled for an architectural investigation of both a master plan and the design of the airport buildings. In 1934, four architects were invited to undertake parallel investigations on the basis of the programme. In various contemporary descriptions concerning the planning of the airport, this exercise is, however, termed an “architectural competition”.

The essay is based on a study of the archives of the municipal board in charge.

It is also based on books on the Bromma airport construction, articles from professional journals and biographies of the participating architects. My personal knowledge of the airport´s history, as gathered during periods of architectural consultations at the Bromma Airport, also acts as a source. The essay introduces the planning of the new land airport and the architects’ work 1934-36 with the purpose of finding the best solutions for a functioning national airport for regular traffic.

Key words: Architecture competition, Airport planning, Airport master plan, Airport networks, Land airports of the 1930s Contact: Mats T Beckman, Tekn Lic ma.beckman@telia.com Independent Architecture & Planning Professional, Stockholm, Sweden

318

architectural competitions – histories and practice

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

The architecture competition for the Stockholm – Bromma Airport, 1934 mats t beckman

Introduction The Bromma Airport today functions as the City Airport of Stockholm, with 2,3 million passengers last year. The first air station building and Hangar A, the result of four architects’ investigations, are still used for a range of different airport purposes, but are unfortunately in a partly altered condition.

The original air station buildings (the terminal building and hangar A) of the Bromma Airport were declared a National Building Heritage by the Government in the year 2000. As a result of the airport being privatized in 2010, a new building heritage decision1 was made by the County Administrative Board of Stockholm, which among other things is the regulative body for listed buildings. The new decision has the same protective provisions for the buildings, as the governmental decision from 2000 had: • The buildings may not be demolished, moved and the exteriors may not be changed in such a way that the historic value is diminished.

• Encroachments may not be carried out in the building structure, in the remaining parts of the original room plan or in remaining original fittings and fixtures.

• The buildings must be maintained in such a way, that the historic cultural values are not altered or reduced.

1 Länsstyrelsen i Stockholms län; Beslut 2010-09-23; Byggnadsminnesförklaring av Bromma flygplats i Stockholms stad och län; Beteckning 432-10-7160.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

319

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

The justification of the County Administrative Board for establishing these protective provisions was, that the Bromma Airport is considered a monument from an important period in the Swedish history of Communication. The listed buildings have good architectural qualities and are early examples of modernistic airport architecture. The airport as a whole should be considered an educative example of a still functioning whole. In spite of additions and alterations carried through, vital parts of the listed buildings and their structures are still intact.

The history of the airport can be interpreted in the architecture of the buildings.

The Stockholm Airport Project of 1919-1936 The period of time singled out in the title of this opening chapter could be described as being both optimistic and full of prospects, in Sweden as well as in the rest of Europe. The war-torn parts of Europe were characterised by reconstruction after WWI, but also by technical development and the establishing of modernism in architecture, the visual arts and literature. However, the same period also suffered from economic depression and high unemployment.2 Aviation was still a young phenomenon, evolving towards its objective: to be the new rapid, worldwide means of communication. During the 1920s, many European cities established land airports. Long distance travel by air however demanded a network of airports, which was still far from complete.3 The very first land airport in the greater Stockholm area was a military airfield in Barkarby, 18 km northwest of the city; it opened in 1915. As there wasn’t a civil land airport in Stockholm in the early years of the 1920s, the National Swedish Post had to use the Barkarby field when airmail to overseas destinations was introduced. In 1921, the Royal Swedish Aero club opened a seaplane port at Lindarängen, a protected cove at the bay of Lilla Värtan, 5 km northeast of the Stockholm city centre. The seaplane port was eventually taken over by the City, and regular seaplane traffic to Finland began operating.

Many European capitals and larger cities did operate their own land airports in the middle of the 1920s. Of the four Nordic capitals, only Copenhagen had an operative land airport with regular international air traffic, which opened 1925. The cities of Helsinki, Oslo and Stockholm were all situated near open water and had established seaplane ports, with regular flying boat operations in 2 In 1933, 23% of all Union members in Sweden were unemployed, the highest figure ever.

3 In 1930, there were about ten airports in European capitals with regular international air traffic. M.T. Beckman; Flygplatsens Arkitektur; pages 81-88.

320

architectural competitions – histories and practice

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

the beginning of the 1920s. For obvious reasons, those seaplane ports could not operate during the icy winter season. The public demand for land airports grew in these capitals. But it would take until the last years of the 1930s before those needs were met.

As civil aviation developed and grew in Europe during the 1920s, Sweden discussed its aviation issue: the lack of a land airport in the capital, and the absence of airports in the bigger cities, besides Malmö and Gothenburg. In those days, aeroplanes did not have the capacity to fly long distances non-stop. This necessitated the construction of a series of stopover airfields, with intermediate beacon lines along the main air routes. The construction costs for a complete national network of land airports would be considerable. Such a system was not actually completed until the end of the 1950s.

In 1930, it was still unclear which bodies should be responsible for and finance a programme for the planning and construction of a Swedish airport network. People also still had a sense of uncertainty regarding the new means of transportation, the aeroplanes. Would flying ever be economically within reach for the common man, and would it develop technically to constitute a reasonably safe means of transportation?

The lack of a land airport in Stockholm allowing regular flights to other European cities grew more and more problematic for the business people of the emerging export industry and for the central public bodies. The high rate of unemployment around 1930 also meant that the preconditions for labour-intensive projects, like the construction of an airport, were favourable. A joint statemunicipal investigation was launched in 1919 to find a suitable location for a land airport in Stockholm. In 1921, the investigation proposed the Skarpnäck fields, about 7 km south of the city centre. The Stockholm City Council then reserved the Skarpnäck fields as a location for the prospective land airport.

Doubt eventually arose with respect to the suitability of the Skarpnäck fields.

Following considerations raised by the Swedish CAA,4 a unanimous decision was made to change the location of the new land airport to the Riksby fields in Bromma, the main reason for this change being that the preconditions for visual orientation were better and the surroundings less hilly than in Skarpnäck.

The distance to the city centre would be almost the same in the two alternatives.

In 1929, the City Council finally stated their choice of the new location and 4 CAA, Civil Aviation Administration; referring to the Swedish CAA from 1920 onwards. The aviation authority was a part of the National Civil Engineering Board until 1949.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

321

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

Fig. 1. Stockholm City at the end of the 1930s. The map shows the Lindarängen seaplane port in the east and the Bromma Airport in the west, marked with dark colour.

reserved the Riksby Fields. The same year, drainage works were initiated for the reserved airport area, as state-municipal relief works. In 1930, an agreement was reached between the Stockholm municipality and the State to share the costs for the construction of the airport; the municipality, it was decided, should take responsibility for all the operating costs.

A municipal board,5 Flyghamnsstyrelsen, FHS, was appointed for the management of the seaplane port at Lindarängen and of the future land airport, and was given the immediate task of compiling a design programme for a modern commercial land airport at the Riksby fields. In 1933, a combined state-municipal committee with two delegates from the FHS and two from the CAA was appointed. This committee was to be responsible for the further detailed planning of the airport. The committee took over the preliminary programme for the new airport from the FHS. The start of the final step in the planning process was to invite four Swedish architects to each make proposals for the master plan and for the design of the air station buildings. A design programme was compiled for the assignment.

5 Flyghamnsstyrelsen, in English: The Board of the Seaplane Harbour, appointed by the municipality of Stockholm.

322

architectural competitions – histories and practice

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm â&#x20AC;&#x201C; bromma airport

Fig. 2. The Riksby fields in Bromma 1929. The first airport map with the operative borders and seven runway directions marked. The hilly surroundings are clearly visible.

The programme was in part comparable to a modern, regular brief for a closed architecture competition.

The aim of the essay and methods used This essay deals with the planning of the first land airport in Stockholm, how the master plan was envisioned by the authorities, how the airportâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s structure (which it still mainly retains) was arrived at, and how this among other things was achieved through an invitation to four Swedish architects to work out a master plan and the location and design of the airport buildings.

The compilation of facts is based on a documentary source study of the archives of the responsible municipal board, FHS, including the proceedings of the board and other documents concerning the preparations for the architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

323

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

construction of the airport.6 As a basis for my analysis of the design programme, I have used the Rules for Swedish Architecture and Urban Planning Competitions, determined in 1934.7 I have also reviewed contemporary professional magazines and literature that describe the planning and construction of the Bromma airport. A background to my writing and an influencing factor to be considered is my personal knowledge of the Bromma airport, accumulated during different architectural consultations for the airport during my years (1990-2005) at the LFV (the Swedish Civil Aviation Administration), which is partly described in my dissertation from 2010, “Airport Architecture”.8 The subject of concern in this essay is to what degree the programme for the “parallel investigations” corresponded to rules for architecture competitions at that time. In most printed sources, the investigations of the four architects are termed the products of an “architecture competition”. In the studied documents from the City Archives, the term is not used until the final assessment report, where it is described as a “limited architecture competition”.

My aim is to give answers to the following questions: What was the aim of the investigations performed by the four architects? Were there any common rules for architecture competitions in Sweden in 1934? If so, and if compared with these rules, was the 1934 arrangement really an “architecture competition”?

The early planning process General knowledge in Sweden of how to plan and construct an airport of this magnitude was insufficient in the beginning of the 1930s. Therefore, a broad approach to the master planning process was chosen from the start, focused on collecting and checking necessary knowledge from both foreign and domestic sources. A number of airline companies – Swedish ABA, German Lufthansa, Danish DDL and Dutch KLM – had announced their interest in the project and their wishes for the performance of the prospective airport, and consequently submitted different proposals.

FHS actively consulted a number of experts to undertake different detailed investigations. Lufthansa made a proposal for a master plan with specifications of the necessary airport buildings in 1930. Such a proposal was also compiled

by ABA through its technical director, chief engineer Karl Lignell, who also 6 Stockholm City Archives.

7 National Library of Sweden; The archives of Svenska Teknologföreningen.

8 M.T. Beckman; Flygplatsens Arkitektur; Lund 2010; ISBN 978-91-978994-0-6, pages 126-132.

324

architectural competitions – histories and practice

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

functioned as a kind of aviation reference expert during later planning. A study tour to the Tempelhof airport in Berlin was organised early in the process and a German aviation scientist was consulted for the detailed programming of the airport buildings. All these investigations and proposals, together with technical data from Germany and from the USA, were eventually compiled into an outline of a general programme, with more or less detailed preliminary requirements.

The state of knowledge within the project gradually improved among the organisations, individuals and companies involved. But this collective knowledge about what the best final solution would be was uneven, provisional and in many cases dependant on personal experience. There were no established international technical requirements for airports of Bromma’s magnitude and with Bromma’s geographic preconditions.

The construction works continued at the Riksby fields, as state-municipal relief works. Four years after deciding to locate the airport in Bromma, a decision was finally made to undertake the organisation of the final planning. On the basis of the earlier decision on joint financing of the new airport, a statemunicipal committee was appointed in 1933, and was given the task of formulating a programme for a detailed master plan and for the airport buildings.

The committee consisted of two persons from the FHS and two persons from the CAA. This arrangement would hopefully ensure that getting the necessary operational approval for the prospective airport would be easier. No kind of instruction for the task of the committee has been found in the archives.

Realising the previous, fragmented state of knowledge within the project, the committee decided that the next step would be to arrange a study with a group of invited architects, who should prepare proposals for a master plan and the design of the air station building. On the basis of the programme material compiled up until that point, the committee formulated a programme for the architects’ work. The evaluation of the result was to be made by the committee, as a recommendation to the FHS for the final outline of the airport.

The place and the requirements of aviation The city of Stockholm is situated where lake Mälaren enters the sea, in a fragmented and hilly landscape, originally a forested environment, where the few reasonably flat parts of the land have, step by step, been occupied by agriculture or townships. The Riksby fields in Bromma were far from ideal for the construction architectural competitions – histories and practice

325

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

of a modern airport, either from an aeronautical standpoint or as a construction site. But it was the best place within reasonable distance of the city. To create an airport at this place demanded extensive blasting, drainage, filling and stabilisation in order to establish a basis for the construction of an acceptable airfield.9 The reserved airport area covered 175 hectares. There was no direct model for an airport that could be used as a prototype for a piece of land like the Riksby fields. The basic requirements for any airfield at the beginning of the 1930s was an obstacle-free flat ground of sufficient size and with enough carrying capacity for the aeroplanes to start or land against any wind-direction. In 1932, the Swedish CAA published “Provisions concerning approval and classification of airports for land aircraft”, one of the first complete Swedish airport regulations, which was to become an important basis for the programme of the forthcoming architecture investigations. It was decided that the new airport should meet the requirements for a First Class Airport, consistent with the new airport provisions. The decision to choose the Riksby fields originated in the presumption that it would be possible to construct at least four runway strips, of minimum 800 m x 250 m, in several directions and to obtain an obstacle-free ground surface of sufficient size within an inclination of 1:15 around these strips.

The basic requirements for the airport were now outlined in the programme.

The first, essential task for the architects would be to arrange the necessary buildings and other basic functions in a master plan. Most important was the air station building, today termed the airport terminal. Its main task was and still is to process the passengers, their luggage, post and any air cargo. Other important buildings were two hangars, located in a suitable relation to the station building, to protect and service the aeroplane. The air station area should be connected to the public road network and a sufficient number of parking spaces arranged within reasonable walking distance from the station building. The passengers should be able to walk safely through the air station, to and from the parked aeroplanes.

A fuel storage should be located at a practical but safe distance from the air station building. Requirements for different kind of navigational aids, as well as for the supply of electricity and freshwater and the disposal of sewage, would also be met.

The architects and their task Four well-known younger Swedish architects were invited to undertake the parallel investigations: Gunnar Asplund, Paul Hedqvist, Sigurd Lewerentz and 9 Bromma flygplats - Beskrivning av dess tillkomst och utbyggnad; Stockholm 1936. Pages 47-50.

326

architectural competitions – histories and practice

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

Sven Markelius. They were considered to belong to the Swedish architecture elite of the early 1930s. They had all won prizes in architecture competitions and received prestigious assignments. They also had been active as architects in the preparation of the renowned Stockholm Exhibition in the summer of 1930, which eventually established modernist architecture in Sweden. The committee’s choice of architects suggests that the modernist model of analytical planning and its unaffected design idiom were considered to be in accord with the imagined modernity of aviation.

The task of designing a modern airport for regular air traffic of Bromma’s intended magnitude had not, before 1934, been executed by any Swedish architect. The architects invited had no earlier experience of airport planning. The programme of the investigation was, in addition, rather ambiguous. Many of the requirements were formulated as “should”. For example, there was no fixed positioning of the airport buildings and their relation to the airfield features.

The only really fixed prerequisites were the outer boundaries of the airfield and the position and size of the runway zones.

The design programme underlined that the airport buildings with their aprons for the aeroplanes were not allowed to interfere with the runway strips.

Thus it was important for the architects to understand and explain in their proposals how the aeroplanes should move (taxi) to and from the aprons. Of the four architects invited, only Sven Markelius had any previous knowledge of airports, gained from his 1927 study-tour to airports in four European countries.

He had also designed a hangar, built at the Lindarängen seaplane port in 1930.

The design programme No letter of invitation to the architects has been found in the archives of FHS. It seems reasonable to suggest that they were contacted in advance and that they had accepted the assignments before the start of the investigation. Nor is it known if they had any possibility of considering and accepting the programme in advance, as an agreed document of assignment.

The programme is dated March 13, 1934. The proposals were to be submitted at the latest on May 15, in the same year. The programme found in the archives is typewritten on four pages, folio size, supplements not included. The supplements were an airport map showing the runway layout, the outer borders of the airport and the surrounding terrain and roads. There were memorandums on necessary room areas in the air station building and in the hangars. If needed, architectural competitions – histories and practice

327

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

the architects could also apply to a specific member of the committee and order additional informative material listed in the programme or put questions to the committee. All answers would be submitted to the architects engaged. The fee for carrying out the investigative programme was set at 500 Swedish crowns per architect, a sum that today corresponds to 14,700 Swedish crowns, according to contemporary standards a meagre fee for the work involved.

The task specified in the programme was to work out a proposal for a master plan for the airport, showing the intended plan for the runways, the position of the necessary buildings, and the layout of the aprons and the approach roads to the station building including parking spaces. In addition to this plan, proposals for the design of the station building should be submitted, together with a cost estimate. Expansion opportunities and eventual supplementary buildings should also be presented. It was not necessary to present a design proposal for the hangars.

Recommended positions of the airport buildings were identified in the programme, on the west side of the Ranhammar hill (see map, fig. 2, page 323). In the programme, nevertheless, it was also clearly stated that the architects were free to choose alternative positions for the buildings, as long as this could be justified. When positioning the station building, the appropriate taxiways for and the line-up of the aeroplanes in front of the station building had to be taken into account. The station building should be possible to extend in three stages.

Attention should be paid to the problems of the passenger flows through the station building. The different flows should be easily orientated, fast, effective and comfortable, and the passage from the station building to the aeroplane safe and protected. The air traffic control room should be placed with a maximum view over the airfield and its surroundings.

The programme does not include any reflections of an aesthetic or architectural nature. It appears as if the committee and its predecessors did not have any ambition or idea about how the architecture of the new Swedish principal airport would appear to the international as well as the Swedish public. Nor is such an ambition to be found in the documents from the FHS archives.

It should have been natural that a design programme for the buildings of the capital’s new airport also would have expressed the developer’s ambition to promote a beautiful and dignified architecture. The programme rather exclusively, however, concentrates on the aviation features of the airport. The committee may have contented itself with the fact that it had invited four talented 328

architectural competitions – histories and practice

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

architects with professional profiles, and that this would ensure that the architecture of the airport would be of a well-designed, modernist nature.

Completing a credible submission that corresponded with the requirements of the programme and with the expectations of all the individuals and companies engaged in the preparations of the airport project would have involved intensive work by the architects. All the architects were under fifty years of age and had their own, private practices to take care of. At the same time, Hedqvist was head of a division at the National Board of Building and Asplund held the professorship in architecture at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).

In the absence of a decent fee for the assignment, the possibility of being appointed architect for the new Swedish main airport probably must have been an important incentive for the architects. The architects submitted their proposals duly. The committee had their first meeting as “jury” on the 29th of May. The minutes from this meeting are very short and mostly recorded the group’s intention to visit the Bromma site in order to investigate the different proposals there. The committee worked over the summer months and submitted their assessment report to the FHS on the 4th of October, 1934. I have not found any further minutes from the work of the committee, beyond those documenting the first meeting.

The submissions Two of the four invited architects submitted more than one proposal. Markelius submitted two very different variations on a master plan, with different types of station buildings. Lewerentz submitted one master plan, but with three variations of the station building and its surroundings. Asplund and Hedqvist submitted one proposal each. The committee consequently had seven alternatives to assess. The images of the proposals shown in this essay are scanned from publications made available for this study.

All the proposals, except Markelius´ two, located the airport buildings at or beside the west part of the Ranhammar Hill (see map, fig. 2). This is roughly the same area where you can still find the original station building and hangar. It is approximately the situation that the programme recommended for the buildings, which should have given the best preconditions for the use of the runway system and for aeroplane movements on the field.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

329

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm â&#x20AC;&#x201C; bromma airport

Gunnar Asplundâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposal is characterised by the fact that the passenger functions of the station building have been confined to a covered bridge, with a free span of about 50 m out into the field, extending to a support on a refuge on the apron, around which the aeroplanes could taxi and park. Free height under the bridge was suggested to 8 meters, so even the tallest aeroplanes of that time could pass under the bridge. The bridged building was arranged on two floors in the part adjoining the hill, one stretching out over the approach road.

The bridge was also directly connected with a separate administration building, situated on the upper side of the approach road. Cars and buses dropped passengers below the upper floor of the bridge and people then could walk safely and in a protected manner, with a splendid view over the airfield, through the station and down to the refuge, from where they could board the aeroplanes.

Check-in and other controls were carried out on the way to the aeroplanes and vice versa. A slender three-floor administration building was linked to the inner

Fig. 3. Gunnar Asplund; Master plan for Bromma Airport. Note: north to the left. Dark markings are roads, buildings or aprons.

330

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm â&#x20AC;&#x201C; bromma airport

Fig 4. Gunnar Asplund; Bromma Airport; Detailed plan for the air station area.

Fig. 5. Gunnar Asplund: The Air Station Bridge from the approach road, view towards the northwest. The administrative wing is visible to the right. Coloured presentational drawing.

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

331

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm â&#x20AC;&#x201C; bromma airport

part of the bridge. The control room was placed on top of the end of the bridge, towards the field.

The approach road was arranged as a loop around the hill, with only one connection point to the main road. The two required hangars were located north of the hill. A continuous apron linked the station with the hangars.

Paul Hedqvistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposal apparently showed that the location of the buildings proposed by the committee was also the most functional, even if Hedqvist

Fig. 6. Paul Hedqvist; Proposal for a master plan for Bromma airport.

332

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

remarks in his written description that, “... from an aesthetic point of view, the location is one of the least attractive possible, but from almost any other point of view the best”.10 Hedqvist located his airport buildings close to the hill.

The required aprons in front of his station building and the hangars do not interfere with the runway strips. The approach road is formed like a half circle.

It starts with a roundabout in the main road and connects after passing the station with a T-junction. Hedqvist’s master plan does not present any details besides the explicit requirements formulated in the programme. His proposal was assessed as comprehensive, clear, obvious and aesthetically pleasing.

The plan and the entrance elevation of the building follow the soft curve of the approach road, which is adjusted to the curves of the hill behind. The proposed plan of the station building is presented in a fully developed state, with departure and arrival functions divided into two separate halls, a solution which, whilst very forward-looking, was not after all implemented. The two hangars were located north of the station building, with sufficient space in-between for a possible future airport building north of the station. A continuous apron links the station to the hangars. Landside of the station buildings, a forecourt is formed.

Sven Markelius submitted two proposals for a master plan. For both plans he suggests that each runway-strip would be separated into two runways, one for landings and one for take-offs. This arrangement theoretically appears to make sense but would probably been hard to carry out in practice. To illustrate his proposal, he submitted eight separate drawings showing aeroplanes taking off or landing in different wind directions. A consequence of his proposals would have been that the runway system already under construction would have to be changed and the airport area expanded.

In master plan alternative I, the station area with the hangars has been located at the northwest corner of the airport area. This implies that the road distance to the city centre would increase by about 1 km, compared to the suggested location on the Ranhammar Hill. The airport buildings in the proposed area would also seriously impinge on the planned approach and departure directions from the northwest.

In master plan alternative II, a circular three-storey station building is located in the middle of the field, connected to the public road system with a road 10 The Stockholm Archives; The participating architects’ written descriptions of their proposals; Appendix 2a to protocol from “Flyghamnsstyrelsen”, Nov 2, 1934.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

333

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm â&#x20AC;&#x201C; bromma airport

Fig. 7. Sven Markelius; Proposals for master plans. Alternative I and Alternative II.

tunnel, that ends in an enlarged basement under the station building, with a passenger entrance, parking and a bus-stop. The aeroplanes park around the station building, which holds all the necessary functions (including a top-floor restaurant) under the control room. An apron of sufficient size around the station building leads to the fact that the runway strips must be moved and the airport area consequently enlarged. The two hangars are located on the western and eastern sides of the field respectively, forming an inconvenient partition in two hangar areas.

Sigurd Lewerentz submitted one master plan with the required airport buildings located next to the Ranhammar Hill, but with three different proposals for the station building. His written descriptions of the three alternatives are extensive and thorough and present many detailed solutions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; e.g., construction of a new type of doors, weather protective devices and so on. The hangars have the same location in all three alternatives, directly north of the place for the different station buildings. The apron is common to both.

Alternative A has the boarding gates in a pavilion about 80 meters out in the field, connected with the station building through a pedestrian tunnel. The pavilion is surrounded by an apron that permits the aeroplanes to circulate and park around it. The station building is located very close to the hillside, 334

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm â&#x20AC;&#x201C; bromma airport

Fig. 8. Sigurd Lewerentz: The air station area, Alternative A. A boarding pavilion on the apron, connected via a tunnel to the station building.

Fig. 9. Sigurd Lewerentz: The air station area, Alternative B. The aeroplanes must be towed in/out of the hall.

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

335

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm â&#x20AC;&#x201C; bromma airport

Fig. 10. Sigurd Lewerentz: The air station area, Alternative C. The station building in a basement under the apron.

with car access either from the northern or the southern end of the building.

Car parking and a hotel building are located on the northwest slope of the hill.

Alternative B is an indoor station for two aeroplanes. The passengers enter a covered hall where they can board or disembark two aeroplanes at the same time. Close to the hill is a building that accommodates the control functions and supports the landside end of the roof of the hall. At the outer end of the hall, the roof is supported by a similar structure, holding other functions. The free height of the hall is 8 m above the apron. To shut out bad weather, the open sides of the hall can be closed with a complex system of doors.

Alternative C is based on the ambition to leave as much of the airfield surface as possible free from any building. That is achieved by installing all the station building functions in a basement underneath the apron. The passengers walk down a staircase to reach the station from landside. After check-in etc., they walk up other staircases to reach each of six parked aeroplanes on the apron. A parking area and a hotel is located up-hill.

336

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

The assessment of the airport committee After working for four months with the proposals, the committee submitted an assessment11 to the FHS, dated October 4, 1934. The assessment begins with a description of the committee’s task and points out that the committee chose to arrange what now, for the first time in the chronologically studied documents, is called a limited architecture competition. The reason seems to be that the competition is seen as a method to test the partly contradictory requirements of the programme and get more comprehensive basic material for the final judgement on what was to be constructed. Before compiling its assessment, the committee also asked the airline companies, who had been active in previous planning, about their comments on the prioritized proposals.

An observation, when reading the committee’s assessment, is that aesthetic comments are rare and very short and with little motivation. The programme did not stipulate anything about aesthetic matters. It is reasonable to believe that those responsible for the programme of course were concentrated on aviation matters. Therefore, it would have been natural to settle for the professionalism of the architects, which should guarantee good architecture as a result.

Another reasonable explanation is that no one in the committee had any architectural education or experience.

The committee analyses and describes Asplund’s proposal much more thoroughly than the others. Asplund is given credit for the beauty of the proposed station building and the clever way that he takes advantage of the adjacent hill.

The committee concludes that the proposed air station area fulfils most of the formulated requirements concerning the flows of aeroplanes, passengers and goods. Ultimately, however, they stipulate that the proposal cannot be considered for execution, primarily due to the bridge being an obstacle for the free movement of the aeroplanes. Regardless of being a well completed and presented proposal, it was put aside by the committee.

The committee dismisses Lewerentz’ Alternative B and C, but discusses Alternative A, the pedestrian tunnel to a boarding refuge on the apron, with a certain curiosity. The proposal was considered so interesting that a special cost-estimate was done and the airline companies concerned was asked for their opinion. After positive answers from a majority of the companies, it was decided to submit the proposal to the FHS. 11 Stockholm City Archives; Flyghamnsstyrelsens handlingar; Flygplatsdelegerades utlåtande 4 oktober över de inlämnade förslagen. Bilaga 1 till Flyghamnsstyrelsens protokoll Nov 2, 1934.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

337

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

Fig. 11. Stockholm-Bromma Airport; Plan of the air station area 1937, as it appeared after the completion of the airport.

Both of Markelius’ proposals were considered interesting and well worked out. However, as they both meant changing parts of the airport layout, already under construction, they were unacceptable for the committee.

Hedqvist’s proposal is considered aesthetically attractive, developable and is thought to possess a practical station area plan. In the assessment, Hedqvist appears to be “the winner”, even if that term is not used.

The final result and the submission to the FHS is that Hedqvist’s proposal is proposed to be carried out and supplemented with Lewerentz’ alternative A-tunnel, to be built as a preparation for a future boarding refuge. The final choice is submitted to the airport owner, the City of Stockholm. As a consequence of reviewing the architects’ submissions, an adjustment of the programme for the buildings is made. After consultations with the CAA, the FHS finally decides to choose Hedqvist as architect for the new airport. But his original proposal for the station building is revised and the programme reduced.

Comments on the proposals Reading the assessment of the committee does not give me sufficient insight into the nature of the proposals and their architectural qualities. The committee devotes itself practically exclusively to the operational qualities. I have supplemented the assessment of the committee with my own comments, with the aim to clarify a broader picture of the proposals. My comments are based on images of the submissions, found in literature and professional magazines. The purpose of the architects’ investigations was to produce an adequate starting 338

architectural competitions – histories and practice

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

point for the final design of the airport. To assess the suitability of the proposals, I have used the requirements stipulated in the programme, as a pattern of properties.

The proposals represent different approaches to the questions asked in the investigative programme. The answers constitute interesting examples of how qualified Swedish architects were able to analyse ”the modern civil airport” at the time. The seven submissions indeed indicate what was said earlier in this essay – that there were no simple and obvious answers to the questions. The architects’ investigations can be considered part of the on-going process for the new airport. The final choice of solution and design architect was transferred to the prospective commissioner of the airport, FHS. Eventually the final solution had to be approved by the CAA, fulfilling the Class I-airport requirements.

Asplund took a bold grip on the issues of the programme and presented an elaborated and very elegant and safe solution for the basic flows of the air station. The building is formed as a covered bridge, starting at a suitable part of the slope of the hill and stretching out to a platform on the apron. The aeroplanes should move and park around the platform and under the bridge. It is a new and untested way of securing the passengers’ way to and from the aeroplanes, a kind of premonition of today’s air-bridges.

The natural inclination of the hill is taken as a starting point for the solution, which focuses on the passengers’ comfort and security. Asplund copes with the requirements for the passengers’ protection against a harsh climate and the possibility of separating departing passengers from those arriving. The solution appears to be a unique idea. A slight drawback is that the apron in the proposal intrudes on one of the runway strips. A more serious drawback is a certain lack of flexibility and expandability, both properties asked for in the programme.

The access road is laid out as a one-way loop around the Ranhammar Hill, with only one connection to the main road. The placement of the loop is close to an optimal harmonisation with the contours of the hill. Buses and cars stop under the projecting second floor of the bridged station building. If Asplund’s proposal had been realised, Bromma would probably have had a rather unique air station building in the world. The proposal had strong and weak sides to it. Hakon Ahlberg, one of the founding fathers of the National Association of Swedish Architects, SAR, and a colleague of Gunnar Asplund, in an essay describes Asplund’s proposal for Bromma airport as “... artistically brilliant but over-emphasised, falsely rational, costly and hardly appropriate.” architectural competitions – histories and practice

339

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

If Asplund’s proposal was considered bold and innovative, one can describe Hedqvist’s proposal as being without daring solutions and without great architectonic gestures. What Hedqvist proposed was a seemingly simple and buildable solution, with respectable architecture in the modernist spirit. His solution largely fulfilled most of the requirements formulated in the programme.

The runway system would work well together with the proposed station area, which had an inherent adaptability and expandability. It seems natural that the committee prioritised Hedqvist’s proposal.

Lewerentz seem to have been working with an almost desperate energy. His wordy written description of the three alternatives reflects his way of reasoning, going from one detailed issue to another, often with interesting and thoughtfully detailed solutions but without one comprehensive and plausible solution for the air station area as a whole. Being slightly positive towards Lewerentz’ alternative A and after getting positive reactions from the engaged airline companies, the committee eventually decided to forward this proposal to the FHS, as a part of the prioritized Hedqvist project.

Markelius describes and motivates his two different proposals for the master plan in a skilful and convincing way. In a series of drawings he clarifies that his proposals are functional, even if they don’t match the decided airport area. Of the seven submissions, his two proposals deviate the most from the assumptions of the programme. A fundamental problem is that both his plans would demand costly and time-consuming changes in the airfield’s disposition and outer borders. The proposals are architecturally elegant, interesting and thoroughly elaborated, but complex and risky.

My assessments of the proposals have been interposed into two scales: simple-complicated and untested-well proven. With the requirements of the programme as a basis, the SWAT-table positions show my overall evaluation of the average qualities of the four architects’ proposals H = Hedqvist, M = Markelius, L = Lewerentz, A = Asplund

340

architectural competitions – histories and practice

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

Parallel architectural investigations, or a competition?

This essay is supposed to give answers to some questions in connection with the investigative process that was part of the original planning of the Bromma Airport. Were the investigations actually carried out and organised in the same way as a regular architecture competition would have been in 1934, or was it simply a similar investigative procedure? Was it a procedure arranged just to choose an architect? What general requirements or rules were at hand in 1934, for an orderly arranged architecture competition? If such rules were at hand, which of the requirements were met by the programme for the Bromma Airport?

The first Swedish rules for architecture competitions were established in 187712. In the autumn of 1934, revised rules were adopted by the Swedish Association of Architects. 13 In 1936, a reformed organisation for architects was established, the National Association of Swedish Architects, SAR, which adopted the same rules from 1934. From this time we have a national association trying to impose the competition rules both among the members as an obligation and among clients in the building sector as a professional laboratory.

At the time of the planning and construction of Bromma Airport (19191936), architecture competitions were discussed and the results presented in the professional media as well as in the daily newspapers. The four architects had participated in a number of regular competitions before 1934. When invited to participate in the Bromma Airport investigation in 1934, they should have been well aware of the wishes for discipline in competitions (this being part of the collective endeavour of architects for a very long time), as well as the rules that were at hand.

The requirements for the correct procedures and structure for an architecture competition set out in the rules of 1934 were substantially the same as the rules of today.14 It is an interesting fact that the establishment of modern rules for architecture competitions at the beginning of the 1930s coincides with the breakthrough of modernism in architecture and planning. It also coincides with the fact that the professional role of architects more and more was characterised by developments in urban planning, housing and general communications during the 1930s. Architecture competitions became one of many instruments that were supposed to bring about solutions to the new societal questions.

12 R. Wærn; Tävlingarnas tid; page 61.

13 Meddelande från Svenska Teknologföreningen; nr 75, Nov 1, 1934.

14 www.arkitekt.se/s12794; 2012-10-01.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

341

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

The design programme for the Bromma Airport is partly set out as a regular competition brief, according to the 1934 rules, but lacks important prerequisites – e.g., a jury with professional architects in it, anonymity for the competitors, an agreed competition brief, etc. The question of eventually transforming the planned investigation into a regular competition or adapting the programme to existing competition rules does not occur in the studied documentation. In order to consider to what degree the Bromma programme met the requirements of the 1934 rules for architecture competitions, I made a list of fourteen key qualities in the 1934 rules and compared the Bromma programme with the help of this list.

Only three out of fourteen qualities were fulfilled by the Bromma programme. It does not, for instance, account for who is the real organiser. Nothing is said about anonymity for the participating architects. The aims of the investigation are described but nothing is said about prizes, assignments after the competition, etc. The programme states that the organising committee will also act as a jury and that one of its members will act as an intermediary between the architects and the jury. There are no members of the architecture profession in the jury. Nothing is said about appointing a winner or how the organiser intends to use the submitted proposals.

A reasonable conclusion from my analyses of the Bromma programme is that the part of the overall planning process that was completed by the four architects should preferably be termed parallel architects’ assignments.

Discussion To compile a programme for the parallel assignments to locate and plan the station area of a new international airport was not an easy task around 1930. FHS started the initial investigation of the requirements in 1929, after the decision to reserve the Riksby fields in Bromma. The method chosen was a kind of staged investigation, where part-solutions would be tested by specialists – e.g. by international air carriers and different individual specialists. There was not sufficient knowledge of airport planning in Sweden at that time. An airport of Bromma’s significance had not been planned and built in Sweden before.

The answers received from those consulted about the suitability of the proposed partial solutions were unfortunately ambiguous. Divergent positions on the layout of the runway system, the placement of the station area and the principles of how to organise the flows of passengers and goods in the airport 342

architectural competitions – histories and practice

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm â&#x20AC;&#x201C; bromma airport

buildings are examples of ambiguity. But the staged investigation method meant nevertheless that the FHS, step by step, approached a final solution.

It seems natural that the FHS hesitated the longest over locking down the technical and other requirements for the functions of the air station building.

The ideas varied about how passengers and goods should be processed and how the station building should be planned. There were not yet any definitive references to be found in Europe or the USA. FHS knew very well that money was short and the forthcoming costs therefore must be carefully monitored.

The programme that was completed in 1933-34 was still somewhat indeterminate and broad and the pressure to get the airport constructed was strong. At the same time, the FHS appeared to have a strong wish to keep the process open for new possibilities and solutions. That was probably also one of the reasons why the FHS so strongly supported the thought of a common airport committee in the first place. Another way to keep the process open was through the organising of parallel investigations for the architects. The possibility of inviting contemporary German or British architects with airport planning experience apparently never occurred to the committee.

There is nothing to suggest that the committee tried to contact the four invited architects or their professional organisation about the content and meaning of the programme before the start of the investigations.

Conclusion The establishment of Bromma Airport was a crucial step to include Stockholm in the growing Swedish and international airport networks. But the process was extended. From the appointment in 1919 of a state-municipal investigation to find a suitable place for a land airport in Stockholm until the inauguration of the airport in 1936, sixteen years elapsed. Until the agreement of 1929 on cost sharing between the state and the municipality, and the parallel decision to locate the airport at Bromma, no proper airport planning took place. Such planning did not begin until 1930, when the cooperation FHSCAA was established. The size of the field and the runway layout was then largely settled as definitive and construction work had already commenced in 1929.

Stockholm-Bromma Airport was inaugurated May 23, 1936, by his majesty King Gustav V and the royal family. At that time, the airport was not completed, due to the plans for the first stage. One of four runway strips could only partially architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

343

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

be used. At the same time, an international aviation exhibition, ILIS, took place at the Lindarängen sea-plane harbour in Stockholm. Several international air carriers, the air forces from several European countries, many aeroplane manufacturers and many individual aviators visited Bromma in honour of the inauguration. With them came visiting aeroplanes that participated in the air-shows and competitions arranged by ILIS. During the inauguration day it rained, but the days after were sunny and bright, with thousand of spectators watching the air-shows and experiencing the eagerly awaited land airport. Aviation was the new fascinating and breathtaking means of communication. Stockholmers crowded the field and the surrounding heights and enjoyed the sight of more aeroplanes in Stockholm’s skies than ever before. The late 1930s meant important years for Nordic aviation with the opening of three new national airports: StockholmBromma in 1936, Helsinki-Malmi, Finland, in 1938 and Oslo-Fornebu, Norway, in 1939.

Fig. 12. Aerial photo, Stockholm-Bromma Airport, 24th of May, 1936, the day after the inauguration. The new hangar, the air station building and the recently paved runways are clearly visible. Many aeroplanes are parked on the apron and on the end of runway 1. The eastern end of runway 2 is not yet completed. Photo: Ahrenbergflyg AB.

344

architectural competitions – histories and practice

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm â&#x20AC;&#x201C; bromma airport

Fig 13. The Air Station building to the right, the hangar to the left, probably summer 1937. Photo: C.A. Rosenberg.

The planning and the establishment of Bromma Airport, as the first land airport in Stockholm, is an interesting example of state-municipal planning in Sweden in the 1930s. From the material studied, it is reasonable to continue to try to clarify the way in which a seemingly evident and delimited planning task could be so prolonged and, to my eyes, so tangled. My long-term objective is to continue deepening my studies of the planning, construction and management of the Bromma Airport.

The aim of this essay, to define the true character of the architectsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; contributions to the planning of the airport, perhaps constitutes more of an academic

Fig 14. Paul Hedqvist, architect; The Air Station building, summer 1936. Photo: C.A. Rosenberg.

architectural competitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; histories and practice

345

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

problem. The “parallel investigations” are primarily considered and described as an architectural competition. In spite of the lack of coherence with contemporary competition rules, the process in any case ended as an architectural competition should: one of the four architects, Paul Hedqvist, was afterwards assigned as project architect. The result of his proposal was mainly implemented, and still exists. In the years after 1936 he furthermore designed six of the more significant buildings at Stockholm-Bromma Airport, the last one being a fireand rescuestation completed in 1952.

Acknowledgement: The English texts have been reviewed by Helen Runting, Urban Planner.

346

architectural competitions – histories and practice

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

References [in Swedish] Ahlin, J., 1985. Sigurd Lewerentz, arkitekt; Byggförlaget i samarbete med Arkitekturmuseet; Uddevalla 1985; ISBN91-8519-63-8. (S. 162-163).

Allpere, C., 2009. Paul Hedqvist – Arkitekt och Stockholmsgestaltare; Stockholmia Förlag, Värnamo; ISBN 978 91 7031 209 0. (S. 145-155).

Beckman, M. T., 2010. Flygplatsens arkitektur – om flyget, flygplatserna och deras byggnader; Licentiatsavhandling, Lunds Universitet, Institutionen för arkitektur och byggd miljö, avd för bebyggelsevård. Lund. (Sid 128-131). ISBN 978-91-978994-0-6.

Dittrich E., 2006. Der Flughafen Tempelhof in Entwurfszeichnungen und Modellen 1935-1944; Lukas Verlag, Berlin. ISBN 3-931836-52-X. Dahlstedt, E., 1993. Starter och landningar. En personlig odyssé i Luftfartsverkets historia; Privattryck. (sid 43-48).

Henrik Gartz, H., 1999. Bromma flygplats. Ett infrastrukturellt kulturminne; Examensarbete, Bebyggelseantikvariskt program, Göteborgs Universitet, avdelningen för kulturvård 1999-3; ISSN 1101-3303.

Hagelqvist, S., 2010 Arkitekttävlingen som föreställning. Den svenska arkitekttävlingens ideologiska, institutionella och professionella villkor under 1900-talets första hälft; Akademisk avhandling, Konstvetenskapliga Institutionen, Stockholms Universitet, Stockholm. ISBN 978-91-978598-3-7.

Holmdahl, G., (Red) 1981. Gunnar Asplund arkitekt 1885-1940 – Ritningar, skisser och fotografier; Med essay av Hakon Ahlberg; Ursprungligen utgiven av tidskriften Byggmästaren 1943; Faksimiltryck, Byggförlaget; ISBN 91-85-19422-0; Rudberg, E., 1989. Sven Markelius, arkitekt; Arkitektur Förlag i samarbete med arkitekturmuseet.

Uddevalla 1989: ISBN 91-860-5022-2.

Rudberg, E., (Red) 1992. Funktionalismen – värd att vårda! Skrift av svenska DOCOMOMOgruppen; Stockholm; ISBN 91-7192-869-3.

Sanz, M., 1996. Bromma flygplats. Flyg, folk och händelser 1936-1996; Förlag Allt om Hobby; Falköping 1996; ISBN 91-85496-87-1.

Wærn, R., 1996. Tävlingarnas tid – Arkitekttävlingarnas betydelse i borgerlighetens Sverige; Akademisk avhandling; Arkitektur Förlag AB, Stockholm; Borås; ISBN 9186050-37-0.

Tidskriften Byggmästaren nr 32, utgiven 1934, arkitektupplagan II. Artikeln Arkitekttävling om flygstationsanläggning vid Bromma. Arkitekturmuseets arkiv.

Meddelanden från Luftfartsmyndigheten nr 1 1932, kungörelse med bestämmelser rörande godkännande och klassificering av flygplatser för lantflygplan, utgiven i Stockholm 2 januari 1932.

Stockholms Stads Flyghamnsstyrelse; Bromma flygplats. Bekrivning av dess tillkomst och uytbyggnad, i anledning av flygplatsens invigning den 23 maj 1936. K.L. Beckmans Boktryckeri, Stockholm 1936.

Stockholms Stadsarkiv; Flyghamnsstyrelsens arkiv:serie AII, kar:1-3, protokoll med bilagor och andra handlingar från åren 1931 t o m 1937. a) Flyghamnsstyrelsens protokoll med bilagor fr o m styrelsemöte 19/2 1931 t o m styrelsemöte 22/12 1937.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

347

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport b) Flyghamnsstyrelsens utlåtande 15.6.1933 till Stadsfullmäktige ang flygplatsprojektet. c) Kommunikationsdepartementets skrivelse 13.1.1933 till Flyghamnsstyrelsen ang preliminära förslag till utföranden. d) Deltagande arkitekters skriftliga beskrivningar av inlämnade förslag. Bilaga 2a till Flyghamnsstyrelsens protokoll 2/10 1934. e) Program för utarbetande av förslag till flygstationsanläggning vid Bromma daterat 13/3 1934. Bilaga 1 till Flyghamnsstyrelsens protokoll 2/11 1934. f ) Flygplatsdelegerades utlåtande över de inlämnade tävlingsförslagen daterat 4/10 1934.

Bilaga till Flyghamnsstyrelsens protokoll 2/11 1934. g) Berättelse (från Flyghamnsstyrelsen till Stockholms Stadsfullmäktige) över flyghamnsstyrelsens verksamhet under 1936; ingiven 11/9 1937.

348

architectural competitions – histories and practice

mats t beckman: the competition for the stockholm – bromma airport

Acronyms and terms used ABA

Acronym for AB Aerotransport, a Swedish airline company founded 1924. ABA was 1948 one of the founding companies of the Scandinavian Airlines System, SAS. FHS My acronym for the Swedish term “Flyghamnsstyrelsen”, meaning the communal board that from 1929 on was responsible for the planning and construction of the Bromma Airport.

CAA The common acronym for the national “Civil Aviation Administration”.

LFV Luftfartsverket, the Swedish CAA from 1948-2008.

Aeroplane The usual term for aircraft in the1930s, mostly used for aircraft constructed to operate from land airports. Seaplane is the corresponding term used for aircraft constructed to operate from lakes or the sea.

Airfield An open field with sufficient size, gradient conditions, surface properties, carrying capacity and absence of surrounding obstacles, possible to operate aeroplanes from. In the 1930s the airfields most often were plains of grass with a diameter of 600-900 m, equipped with ground lighting and sheds (hangars) for the aeroplanes.

Airport The term airport is used for an airfield constructed with a runway layout and equipped with buildings and navigational aids to permit regular air traffic. The term “land” airport is used for to specify that it’s an airport for aeroplanes intended for landing on land. The term “seaplane port” is used to describe a harbour for seaplanes. The term “aerodrome” is used by the ICAO (the International Civil Aviation Organization) as a collective term for all kinds of airports , at land or on water.

Apron The airport ramp or apron is usually an area at the airport, where aircraft are parked, unloaded or loaded, refueled or boarded.

Master Plan A term for the comprehensive plan of an airport, today internationally regulated as to its content by the ICAO. Taxi A verb used for the ground movements of an aeroplane. Taxiway (TWY) is the term for a paved road for the aeroplanes on the airfield.

architectural competitions – histories and practice

349

editors Jonas E Andersson, PhD joa@sbi.aau.dk Danish Building Research Institute, SBi at Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark Gerd Bloxham Zettersten, Associate Professor g.b.zettersten@gmail.com Chalmers University, Gothenburg, Sweden and University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Magnus Rönn, Associate Professor magnus.ronn@arch.kth.se Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

authors Jonas E Andersson, PhD joa@sbi.aau.dk Danish Building Research Institute, SBi at Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark Mats T Beckman, Tekn Lic ma.beckman@telia.com Independent Architecture & Planning Professional, Stockholm, Sweden Pedro Guilherme, PhD Candidate pg.sspg@gmail.com CHAIA, Univ Évora, FA, Univ Tecn Lisboa, Portugal Thomas Hoffmann-Kuhnt, Dipl. Ing. wa wettbewerbe aktuell, Freiburg, Germany hoffmann-kuhnt@wa-journal.de Maarit Kaipiainen, PhD Student maarit.kaipiainen@pp.inet.fi Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland

Antigoni Katsakou, PhD antikatsakou@yahoo.gr University College London, London, England Kristian Kreiner, Professor kk.ioa@cbs.dk Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark João Rocha, PhD rjoao@uevora.pt CIDEHUS, Univ Évora, Portugal Magnus Rönn, Associate Professor magnus.ronn@arch.kth.se Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden Judith Strong, Consultant judith@judithstrong.com a+ap consulting, London, United Kingdom Charlotte Svensson, PhD Student Charlotte.Svensson@kristianstad.se Town planning Office, Kristianstad/Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden Elisabeth Tostrup, Professor Elisabeth.Tostrup@aho.no Thor School of Architecture and Design, Oslo, Norway Leentje Volker, PhD L.Volker@TUDelft.NL Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands