Architecture Competitions: Is it Worth it?

When working at a large architecture practice, I remember going to an interview where we were shortlisted for a student services building project and I offered to collect the competition submission my practice had entered, and not won, for a another project within the university.​

I entered the room to collect our physical model and saw that there were dozens of models waiting to be collected. Each one was beautifully made, crafted from wood veneers and etched metal shims. Some had lights within them and model trees. These sat alongside rolls of drawings with well-worked out plans, elevations and hand-sketched views. Each set of information was good enough to at least be submitted for a pre-planning application.

CREDIT. Amanda Moore

And all of this work had been completed for free.

There was no shortlisting process, a winner was selected based on the information submitted and fee proposal. The cost of our submission likely ran into several thousand pounds for the practice in staff fees.

This process differs vastly from the majority of art competitions I enter. Usually what’s required is a written response to the brief including an idea of how the artist will approach the brief, along with images of relevant work and a CV. From there at least three artists are normally shortlisted and paid a fee to do a more detailed proposal and attend an interview, a final artist then being selected. The shortlisting phase often includes a workshop where more information is given and there is an opportunity to ask questions.

This seems a fairer process, paying artists for their time to come up with a submission. If the ideas are used at least in part by the client, at least the artist has been paid for their time. And surely the client gets a better deal as they get 3 sets of worked up ideas over many multiple stabs in the dark regarding what the client is looking for? The client also gets to meet the shortlisted artists and get a sense of what they will be like to work with.

I recently completed a submission for a community centre, producing a plan and 3d views on the back of a very brief brief which listed the spaces required. Months later we were informed that we hadn’t won the project and were given a score out of 100, a very low score. This was based on many aspects regarding form and views out. The selected architect looked to be less of a design-led practice, suggesting that the project was won on fees which may or may not offer best value for the client.

It seems likely that if we had won the project and were appointed, we could have discussed all aspects of the brief with the client and worked from initial sketches through to more worked up designs, rather than submitting developed designs for a competition without much of a detailed brief.

Not all art competitions are the same and many simply select a winner from multiple entries. However, I’ve not yet worked on any architecture competition which has gone through a paid shortlisting phase. Surely a client should be able to shortlist or select an architect based on their fee rates and portfolio of previous work.

Unfortunately, architects have no choice but to be compliant and tender for these competitions as others are willing to do it. However, a good idea may be to publish the submissions at least to prevent ideas being used if they are actually appointed.