Architectural competitions, the art of finding a winner

This licentiate thesis investigates architectural competitions and quality assessment of architecture in an early phase. The project is developed out of a need of knowledge about the role of architectural competitions in design quality improvement and their outcomes in society. It focuses on a central part of the competition: the jury’s judging process and how jury members discuss and evaluate entries in order to select and award a winner.

Usually, a competition jury comprises of both architects and laypersons in the Nordic countries. The discussions of architecture become pedagogical and straightforward, which facilitate my observations and understanding of the entire process. Besides showing a professional assessment of architecture, the jury situation reveals preferences in a more obvious way than a discussion among only architects.

The study strives to accumulate knowledge of architectural competitions, jury judgment and evaluations of architectural design quality. It is keen to find out: How is an architectural competition conducted and organized? How does the jury process work? How do they appoint a winner? Is the design assessment a matter of expertise or personal preferences? What are the architect’s roles in a competition? Which are the jury’s central problems?

The research results from the study have been quite unique and informative. One of them was the development of a preliminary model of a jury judgment process and how it is conducted. The study also indicates that the selection of cases should be made at least by one open and one invited competition in order to get a variation-rich foundation.

The feasibility study and criteria analysis provides important information that is useful in the organisation and conduction of the case studies. Based on these premises, two project competitions were selected as case studies, one was open competition and the other was invited competition. The first study was the open competition of Visans hus i Västervik, in the south-east of Sweden. The major task of the competition was to design a building that should be used for conferences and cultural events in Västervik. The jury needed at least five meetings to find a winner among the 97 entries that could best meet the requirements of the competition program. The assessment process started with an out-sorting of entries and a gradual and thorough analysis of the remaining ones. The study showed how rhetoric influences the jury’s work. The entries contained both visual rhetoric in the way they were graphically organized and presented in written rhetoric in the way the texts were prepared. The jury members used verbal rhetoric in their discussions.

The different types of rhetoric reveal the preferences and points of interest from the actors in a competition. The architects behind the entries direct themselves toward different parts of the jury. The jury members have different aims with the competition and different interests to look after. By the fourth meeting, the jury comes to a critical point when no entry seems to be good enough. Then in the last meeting the jury studies the entries in a scale-model. This makes them finally to agree upon one entry that appeared as fitting in the surroundings.

The second case study is the invited competition called Bildnings- och kulturcentrum i Hagfors. Hagfors is a small town in Sweden. The task was to re-design an existing school. The building should be expanded and rebuilt to give space to the pupils from four other nearby schools that were facing to be closed down. The competition was used to find appropriate architects to cooperate with them as well as to promote the municipality through its attractive architectures. This project appeared to be controversial and created a debate among the inhabitants who were unhappy and complaining about the closing down of the four schools in their town. There were four competition entries, and the jury used three meetings in order to select a winner. In this process, two different strategies of assessment appeared. The experienced decision makers in the jury were in favour of an effective selection procedure that meant sorting out entries and using criteria in order to reach a final decision. To implement this desire was difficult because it needed to be combine with the particular method architects are used to evaluate design solutions. The architects in the competition carried on their main evaluation through architecture criticism. Their strategy was to compare and analyse all the entries in order to reach a common solution. The time pressure made it difficult for the jury members to see the other points of view. But by the last meeting, the jury succeeded to agree upon a winner.

The research findings can in some extents be generalized and concluded as follows:

• Jury’s judgment of the entries in an architectural competition is a creative process that follows general directions in combination with the unique competition’s preconditions. A general model of assessment exists, but it has to be adjusted to the actual competition. The jury’s meeting with the entries cannot be fully predicted.
• The architects’ particular way to assess architectural design aspects in its early evaluation phases can be questioned by other non-architect jury members due to time pressure. The assessment process must contain quick decisions as well as in-depth analyses of the entries.
• In spite of the fact that the jury’s decisions are made behind closed doors, the assessment can be influenced by the external debate. The jury’s works, is in this respect, are dependent to the context.
• There are some fundamental evaluation criteria that have decisive impacts on how the jury evaluates proposals in competition. These evaluation criteria indicate a common ground of professional thoughts and understanding of design quality among architects.
• In jury assessments, a positioning between architects and laymen that represent the arranger can appear. This is due to a different professional belonging among the jury members as well as to differences in the interests and aims of the competition.
• There is a genuine insecurity inherent in the assessment and decision making process of a competition. This is due to the fact that there can always be more than one good solution for a design task.