< Previous | Contents | Next >

The Development of a Policy on Architecture for Scotland: Report on the Public Consultation

20.0 COMPETITIONS

20.1 There was no general consensus as to the merits of architectural competitions amongst respondents. For some respondents, the competition system had become discredited and they did not favour its use as a means of selecting either an architect or a design. Other respondents were supportive of the principle of using architectural competitions and felt that more could be done to take advantage of the potential benefits that architectural competitions offer. However, there was common agreement that the current competition system needs to be reviewed to eliminate bad practice and restore confidence in architectural competitions generally.

20.2 Those who did not support the use of architectural competitions were critical of the competition system for a variety of reasons. The principal reasons put forward were that:

• competitions were wasteful of resources and costly in professional time;
• competitions were used to obtain free work;
• competitions were often poorly managed and unclear in purpose;
• winning schemes were too frequently not built;
• competitions did not permit input from end users; and
• competitions did not allow dialogue between client and architect before selection.

20.3 Those who supported the use of architectural competitions put forward a number of perceived benefits. The principal benefits identified were that:

• competitions enabled new talent to be identified;
• competitions encouraged debate and dialogue amongst the general public;
• competitions encouraged openness and transparency in the selection of architects;
• competitions provided a context for experimentation and innovation; and
• competitions encouraged talented designers to remain in Scotland.

20.4 A variety of suggestions were put forward by respondents as to how the competition system might be improved. Respondents felt that careful management of competitions was fundamental to their success and that clients should only commission competitions when their purpose was clear and adequate resources were in place to ensure their proper administration. Other respondents felt that competitions should not be commissioned unless there was a clear commitment to build the winning schemes and the necessary capital was in place so as to avoid lengthy fundraising delays. Respondents called for the rewards of design competitions to reflect the level of resource input required to compete. It was also suggested that consideration should be given to compensating unsuccessful entrants where a large amount of design work had been requested, for example following a competition’s second stage where a shortlist of practices had been invited to carry out further work. A number of respondents felt competitions should only be used on large-scale projects and many felt that public sector work was particularly suitable for the competition system. Some respondents called for a better balance between professional and lay members to be used on judging panels. One respondent suggested that there should be adequate facilities available to exhibit competition entries in order to allow proper public scrutiny and debate to take place.

20.5 There was some discussion amongst respondents about the merits of different types of competition. Open competitions were seen as the most problematical by respondents. It was suggested that they were wasteful in terms of resources and did not provide an opportunity for a client/architect relationship to develop before appointment. Several respondents suggested that more use should be made of two-stage competitions which, it was suggested, overcame some of the problems of single-stage, open competition. For example, it was suggested that two-stage competitions allowed a creative dialogue to develop between the design team and client and users; encouraged feedback to be offered; permitted proper technical and cost controls to be put in place and allowed partnership arrangements to be developed with an established practice should an inexperienced architect be successful. Some respondents favoured the use of the competitive interview for the same reasons. However, other respondents felt that this style of competition tended to favour larger, established practices with a track record rather than new or young practices.

20.6 A number of respondents felt that lessons could be learned from the Finnish and German competition systems. In particular, the Finnish system was seen as a model of good practice that had developed over a long history and had clear management rules. Respondents noted that there was a commitment to use competitions for all public sector projects in Finland and Germany. It was suggested that aspects of the Finnish and German systems could be applied in Scotland; the drawing up of a code of practice for competitions and the establishment of an agency to offer advice were cited as examples of good practice from these countries.

20.7 Some respondents felt that one of the most important benefits of competitions was that they encouraged the exploration of new concepts and ideas. The Scottish Homes HAG¹⁶ competitions were cited as an example of an initiative which could serve as a model in other areas. It was also suggested that ideas competitions could be sponsored to generate new thinking in the private housing market and to investigate areas such as sustainability. There was a suggestion that more use of competitions would be beneficial when developing large-scale urban design strategies. It was suggested that this approach had been successful in Europe.

< Previous | Contents | Next >