Thematic file

Competition

Thematic Dossier

COMPETITION

text: Stephane Perianu

caption><img src= I have been asked, in a friendly way, to express my opinion on architectural competitions in general and my personal experiences in this field in particular. Quite an exercise to put my ideas into some sort of order!
Unlike other types of competitions, the architectural competition is not only intended to crown a winner, but in particular to choose the most interesting proposals, those that stand out for the pertinence of their response to the multiple and rigorous demands of a program. Of course, to be one of the authors chosen is undoubtedly a source of satisfaction and added notoriety. A way of asserting oneself and putting oneself to the test that attracts and stimulates.
That's how I also threw myself into the competition arena as a student, apprenticing myself in the shadow of the most accomplished and, alone or with my good friends, later, with more daring, as soon as I felt in control of my own abilities. With patience, effort and tenacity, the results did not take long to appear. For this early period, I owe it to architect Octav Doicescu, an exceptional mentor, a fine critic and of good judgment, for having accepted and guided me. Competitions attracted me even later on, when circumstances forced me to fly on my own wings, in Romania and then in France, where together with brothers Dan and Mihai Munteanu we created our own practice.

While most countries in the world, in many areas, follow the Anglo-Saxon and implicitly American model, France has stubbornly cultivated its own concepts. Fear of disorientation, perhaps, for small and medium-sized businesses, but also a major handicap for the economy in general, by having to operate on two different systems in international trade. This also applies to construction, including architecture. The architectural profession has been subject to a specific law since 1977, probably as a result of cases of nepotism or various irregularities in the award of public contracts. The law obliges, therefore, to award public commissions of a certain importance only by competition.
The procedure is as follows:
The public client (le Maître d'ouvrage) begins by ordering the program of the operation, by tender, from a specialized design office. The program defines in detail all the requirements of the subject, the mode of operation, the sectors of activity, etc. It (possibly) fixes the cost of the project. An advertisement is published in a representative construction journal. It specifies the conditions for participation and the closing dates for applications, as well as the deadline for submission of the project. Candidates form their team (Maîtrise d'oeuvre), in which the architect is the trustee, coordinator and main contact for the client. The team also includes structural, installation, economists and various other disciplines, such as decorators, acousticians, etc. The trustee negotiates the respective fees with each of them. The formed team procures the program and the rules of participation and puts together a file to send to the client. A jury, appointed and chaired by the client (or his/her representative) and including, among others, two representatives of the Order of Architects, judges and selects the most credible applications (generally 3 or 4) and communicates the results to those chosen. Judging is based on the points assigned to the various criteria, weighted on a percentage basis. The importance of the amount of fees is preponderant, followed by functionality. Architectural quality is often a minor concern. On the positive side, the projects admitted to the competition are remunerated at an early stage of study (avant-objet).
This mechanism, which seems designed to ensure a fair outcome, was initially simple and easy to follow. Over time, attempts to hijack it began to appear. Persons vested with local powers at various levels were reluctant to share with a jury the (ostensibly) regal power. The composition of the jury would therefore include "trusted" personalities. Our confreres, chosen from around the neighborhood, will have a vested interest in not displeasing whoever may be a client in the future. As for judging criteria, handling percentages is a malleable game. The architects and their teams, those located in the regions concerned, considered it legitimate to profit from the sums invested by the state or the region, hence some tacit but effective pressure to this effect. The cost of the work is often fixed in advance. It is seldom set in relation to the quality level of the requirements, sometimes leading to caricatural situations. It is an open door to further slippage, from which only the 'favorite' team will have the privilege of benefiting.

Institute of Biology

We entered this game with confidence and optimism. Few references, insufficient acquaintances and no connections, but we had no choice. Over time, the number and quality of referrals grew and some new acquaintances became connections. In the early days, we ran ten competitions a year and won a good proportion of them. Entry was a relatively simple process. A cover letter, a list of references and a certificate of registration and solvency in the administrative register. Three or four pages in all! Today, the same approach requires a reference book illustrated with precise dates for each achievement, cost, year of commissioning, etc., a motivation note for the subject of the competition, preferably several pages long, avoiding of course to confess that one of the main reasons is to secure one's livelihood, a note invented as a purely useless piece of bureaucracy, and a file containing all the administrative and banking documents. I have estimated the current cost of such an application file at around €2,000 to be multiplied, depending on the number of files required and the number of competitions likely to be of interest.
The drawbacks cited above have become more frequent and sclerotic with time. Of course, not all competitions suffer from these shortcomings and I can attest to this, but the trend is unfortunately in this unfortunate direction. Perhaps the system has reached its limit of credibility and there is a need to reflect on something less cumbersome, more open and innovative.
I am not very up to date with the situation in other countries, the few notions are those I have experienced from the competitions I have participated in. However, I think that the competition is reserved for subjects of a certain importance, worthy of the widest possible, possibly international, search. Entry is rarely free and the product, in time, staff and supplies, is expensive, thus limiting access. I have participated in a few over the course of a fairly long career and have had the satisfaction that some have been fruitful. These competitions are organized on much the same structure, whether in the USA, Japan, Egypt or Romania. Switzerland reserves competitions for local architects. There was only one exception at that time, and I don't know if it has been repeated since then, in which I took part, in a binding alliance, a bizarre attitude, with a Swiss firm. These are competitions of ideas first and foremost, and few of them cross the threshold of realization. Remarkable events, bearers of the trend and evolution of the age, and perhaps of some hope for the future.

Revolution Square

One competition struck me as worthy of reflection. It took place in London for one of the buildings in Trafalgar Square. An English firm asked us to participate, in alliance, the English side being interested only in the on-site realization. The competition was run in two phases, the first of which served to retain a small number of designs for the deciding phase. The jury was made up of architects, a pure emanation of the Royal Institute, the client, a private company, had only an advisory role. The projects retained in the decisive phase, ten if I remember correctly (including our own), well completed, were judged, and the jury proposed the three most deserving to the client, who then chose his favorite. This formula seems interesting to me insofar as the architectural image and its urban insertion is guaranteed by knowledgeable and competent people, but leaving the client the pride of final choice. Of course, such a model may not be applicable everywhere, but it is worth considering.
Art and architecture competitions are not an invention of modern times. The Italian Renaissance already used them to sublimate achievements of capital interest.
Lorenzo Ghiberti's bas-reliefs for the gates of the Baptistery in Florence, marking the beginning of the Renaissance, were the result of a competition in 1401, to which Brunelleschi, Lamberti, Della Quercia, among others, were invited, great masters of the time. The young and almost unknown Ghiberti's proposals won the unanimous approval of the jury, a decision that was unreservedly endorsed by many of the competitors. They sensed the freshness of a new, irresistible breath. A wonderful lesson in honor and dignity without a trace of envy or dissatisfaction.
Filippo Brunelleschi has won, by competition, the dome of the Duomo of Santa Maria del Fiore. It was a delicate decision for a reluctant jury, as his project was to be executed without scaffolding, an innovative and unconvincing process. However, the architect managed to have a smaller dome made using the same method, and so obtained approval to start work two years later, in 1420.
These are two examples, among others, of the capacity for emulation that competition can generate. Of course, qualitative leaps in quality also depend to a large extent on the intuition and acumen of the jury to find the right seed.
For Architecture, the confrontation of ideas in competition must be promoted as a vital necessity. I was and remain a firm believer in this principle. Indeed, I owe much of my entire career to it. The French model has the merit of allowing a large number of architects, especially young ones, to take part in this competition in an uncritical, optimistic atmosphere. As with all models, it must be understood and adapted to the particularities of the place, retaining only what is favorable. The negative aspects mentioned above can be avoided if they are tackled vigorously. Let us not forget that urban images and the built landscape are assets that belong to all of us, and it is worth cultivating them. In these actions, architects have a heavy but noble responsibility.