< Previous | Contents | Next >

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

21.0 PRIZES AND AWARDS

21.1 The majority of respondents felt that prizes and awards had an important role to play in acknowledging excellence and raising awareness of architecture. Opinion was divided, however, about the award system as it currently stands. A number of respondents were concerned about what was seen as a proliferation of awards schemes which respondents felt undermined the concept of rewarding excellence. It was suggested that the number and range of awards led to confusion in the public mind about the purpose of awards and reduced media interest in awards of significance. Other respondents took a counter-view, suggesting that limiting awards to a number of prestigious schemes would reinforce the perception of architecture as an elitist subject divorced from public involvement. These respondents were in favour of a more extensive portfolio of smaller scale awards at a local level.

21.2 Respondents put forward a number of general criticisms of current award schemes. A recurring comment was that, irrespective of the type of award, awards generally had little impact outwith the architectural and design professions. It was suggested that many awards appeared self-congratulatory in nature and were characterised by respondents as architects rewarding themselves. Respondents suggested that the criteria applied by juries in reaching an assessment were not always made clear in their judgements or followed consistently. It was also suggested that the criteria used by juries were often regarded as abstract by members of the general public. Respondents felt that awards focused too much on aesthetic values and insufficiently on technical competence and performance in use. Some respondents queried the role of sponsors in award schemes, suggesting that the promotional interests of sponsors often distorted judgements with regard to design quality. Several respondents noted the high cost of both administering award schemes and submitting entries and suggested that this may be responsible for limiting the number of proposals put forward for review.

21.3 Respondents made a number of suggestions as to how current awards schemes might be improved both in terms of their administration and their scope. It was suggested by many respondents that ways should be found to give greater involvement to the general public or lay assessors on award juries. It was also suggested that buildings should not be eligible for an award until a suitable time period had elapsed so that a building’s performance in terms of such issues as energy efficiency or durability could be properly assessed. Time periods of between one and five years were suggested as appropriate. In the same vein, it was suggested that an award should be established for projects between five and ten years old which had continued to meet the social, environmental and economic objectives of their brief over the longer term. Several respondents suggested that more should be done to publicise award-winning projects, particularly to the general public. It was suggested that winning schemes might be illustrated on postcards, postage stamps or on the sides of buses or buildings. It was also suggested that award schemes should be scheduled and managed so as to link with other promotional events such as Doors Open Day in order to maximise public involvement and interest. Respondents identified a number of areas where there were felt to be gaps in the portfolio of awards available. For example, it was suggested that consideration should be given to awards for:

• projects involving exemplary collaboration between artists and architects;
• best practice in sustainable design and development;
• the contribution of clients and members of the design and construction team other than architects; and
• projects involving community or user participation.

21.4 Respondents suggested that, as a first step towards improving the effectiveness of current prizes and awards, a comprehensive review should be commissioned. It was suggested that the review should seek to identify gaps in the range of awards available, to develop a framework to rationalise entry and assessment criteria for awards and to co-ordinate the programming and timing of award announcements.

< Previous | Contents | Next >