International Architecture Competitions

In the realm of architecture, one of the fairest methods for the selection of talent — and at the same time the encouragement of innovations, skills, and the fostering of professional competition — is the holding of competitions. Participation in competitions for displaying one's abilities and winning commissions is customary in no other profession besides architecture and design. This is at once a source of pride and of frustration for architects. Pride, because the candor and democracy essential to civilized human societies find their expression in this arena; and frustration, because architects link their professional fate to events that, in the intensely competitive world of today, can prove unforgiving.

In this context, the strength and coherence of the institution of competition is of great importance in achieving satisfactory outcomes. If this institution is not sufficiently robust and authoritative, it brings suffering to both participants and organizers. Establishing the institution of competition in architecture is both essential and delicate — and difficult.

Architecture competitions are exceedingly varied: competitions leading to a project, competitions for arriving at a design concept, open competitions without qualifying conditions for participants, limited competitions with predetermined conditions, invited competitions, single-stage and two-stage competitions — and competitions whose structure combines various elements of these types. The method of selecting jurors is likewise varied: organizers may select the jurors directly, or delegate this task to a professional consultant; in a number of competitions, the panel is composed of professional architects and other specialists; and in the simplest form, the participants themselves are polled to determine the jury.

Based on the extensive and long-standing experience of holding architecture competitions around the world, one can say that a successful competition possesses the following characteristics — and a competition lacking them will not achieve satisfactory results:

1. The organizer must be familiar with the process of organizing and advancing the competition; must plan in advance the responsibilities of the secretariat and each official; must define the method for selecting jurors and designate in advance the chair of the jury, the secretary of the organizing body, the professional consultant(s), and the technical committee; and must determine the general procedure for reviewing submissions.
2. Capable professional consultant(s) must be engaged. The consultant — generally an experienced architect — must think through all documents and procedures and propose methods and solutions. The technical committee, by contrast, deals only with the technical and qualitative aspects of the submissions. The professional consultant is the brain of the organizing body, with command over the drafting of regulations, criteria, and all competition documents.
3. Complete written, drawn, and photographic documentation of the site and conditions of the proposed project must be provided to participants.
4. The rules and regulations must be perfectly clear and reasonable, allowing for a question-and-answer period, while specifying in advance the rights of winners and of the client.
5. A definitive but realistic timetable must be prepared, containing: deadlines for receiving applications and questions, the end of the registration period, dates for answering questions, deadlines for receiving submissions, dates of jury sessions, announcement of the jury's decision, award of prizes, and the organization of an exhibition of the winning designs.
6. The jury is typically composed of architects, art and architecture historians and researchers, other professionals, and representatives of organizers or end-users. Beyond composition, the jurors' familiarity with design and their command of architectural trends is critical — lest they prove incapable of understanding design ideas and be unduly influenced by the manner of presentation.
7. The costs of competition are borne not by the client but by the professionals themselves — costs so considerable that sometimes their total rivals the project budget itself. The least the organizer can do is provide worthy prizes and promotional opportunities such as publishing the winning designs and mounting an exhibition.

Yet, although competitions are believed to play an important role in advancing good architecture, one cannot in all cases substitute competition for the careful selection of qualified architects, nor ignore broader selection criteria and various other methods.

In the continuation of this article, to provide greater familiarity with the organization of international architecture competitions, we introduce three competitions held in recent years — each representing a different type of competition: the Nara Convention Center competition (open, two-stage); the Constantini Museum competition (open, single-stage); and the Museum of Islamic Arts, Qatar (invited, limited).

The international competition for the Nara Convention Center was held in two stages. In the open first stage, as Fumihiko Kurokawa, chairman of the jury, stated, a great many original designs — the product of considerable thought — were submitted. From among them, one design was selected. In the second stage, five renowned architects from various countries were also invited to participate: Kazuo Shinohara and Hiroshi Hara (Japan), James Stirling (England), Richard Meier (America), and Vittorio Lampugnani (Germany). Also serving on the jury were Makoto Ohtaka, chairman of the Nara Green Space Council; Izumi Shida, former mayor of Nara; and Kyukazu Asakawa, chairman of the Nara City Assembly.

In the 24-hectare development plan adjacent to the Nara railway station, an information center, a hotel, a large shopping center, and several residential neighborhoods were to be built. The Convention Center was the principal component of this complex.

From April 10 to May 31, 1991, a total of 2,918 designs were received — 1,947 from Japan and 971 from 45 other countries. A period was dedicated to the question-and-answer phase, and at the end of the submission deadline, 644 designs — 410 from Japan and 233 from 34 other countries — were received for judging. The professional consultants and jurors immediately examined the framework and content of the designs. The first round of judging took place in early 1992, in which 5 winning designs and 5 commended designs were selected, and 6 designs received special mention.

The winners of this first stage were Goran Rako (Croatia), Yoshitaka Kashiwagi (Japan), Scott Merrill (America), and Bahram Shirdel and Robert S. Livesey (America).

In the second stage, Arata Isozaki and Tadao Ando from Japan, Mario Botta from Switzerland, Hans Hollein from Austria, and Christian de Portzamparc from France were invited to submit designs. The 5 winners from the first stage and the 5 invited architects were asked to attend a session for discussion and exchange of views, followed by a site visit.

The judging process in both stages proceeded by elimination. The final vote of the first stage was announced after 7 rounds of review, and in the last round a heated debate took place among the jurors. All designs that reached the final round received prizes. The judging of the second stage was conducted with greater scrutiny. A small exhibition was set up and the panels and models of each design were displayed in a separate booth. The 9 jurors evaluated the designs with ample time: Arata Isozaki received 9 votes, Tadao Ando 7 votes. The designs of Botta, Hollein, Shirdel and Livesey, Ryoji Nakamura, and de Portzamparc each received 4 votes, and three other designs received 3 votes. After further deliberation, from among the 5 designs with 4 votes, those of Botta, Hollein, and Portzamparc were selected for the final round.

Regarding these 5 finalists, a passionate debate ensued concerning technology, design, exterior appearance, integration, and feasibility. The opinions of the three professional consultants were heard. Following a vote of confidence, the design of Isozaki was declared the first-place winner.

This project was part of the program for the World Architecture Exhibition in Nara in 1998.

Within the framework of the Seventh International Architecture Biennial in Buenos Aires, Argentina, the International Union of Architects (UIA) organized an international, open, and single-stage competition in 1997 for the design of the Constantini Museum.

The goal and requirements of the competition were clear: the building should house the functions of a museum; the spaces for displaying various collections should have the necessary flexibility; maximum security should be ensured; worthy services should be provided; a link between the building and the neighborhood should be maintained; and the construction and maintenance should be cost-effective, with all mechanical and safety systems controlled from a central intelligent hub.

The eleven jurors were: Sara Topelson de Grinberg, president of the UIA; Mario Botta (Switzerland); Kenneth Frampton (United States); Sir Norman Foster (England); Josef Paul Kleihues (Germany); Enric Miralles (Spain); Terence Riley (United States); Cesar Pelli; and Bernardo de Jonghe and Jose Ignacio Miguens (Argentina).

In the competition brief, the client, the organizing body, the responsibilities of the committee chair, the objectives, conditions for participation, the competition calendar, and the general criteria were all clearly specified. Prizes from first to third were pre-announced, with the stipulation that if a contract was not signed with the winner within 24 months, compensation equal to the prize amount would be paid.

The regulations fully complied with UIA standards regarding the management of competitions, the publication of designs, the rights of client and designer, and the conduct of exhibitions. The professional consultant prepared the program and regulations, managed progress and schedule compliance, ensured adherence to the established rules, oversaw the technical committee, communicated with jurors, and served as secretary to the jury. The technical committee verified the conformity of designs with the competition program but did not have the authority to disqualify any design — only to communicate its assessment to the jurors.

The government of Qatar, wishing to house the collection of Islamic arts belonging to the Al Thani family, commissioned the design of a museum to the Special Projects Department of Qatar. This department selected the Aga Khan Cultural Foundation as coordinator. The foundation formed an organizing committee consisting of Sheikh Saud bin Muhammad bin Ali Al Thani, Majdi Boustami, Nir Ali Dada, Luis Monreal, Domenico Negri, and Suha Ozkan.

The jury comprised Ricardo Legorreta (Mexico), Fumihiko Maki (Japan), Luis Monreal (Spain), Domenico Negri (Italy), and Ali Shu'aibi (Saudi Arabia). Suha Ozkan, the foundation's senior director, also served as professional consultant.

The Aga Khan Foundation — with its extensive experience in museum studies, the education of Islamic arts, the promotion of architecture in Muslim countries, and the restoration and reconstruction of historic monuments and cities — entered into negotiations with the client. Meetings were held with professors of Islamic arts, curators, and the Special Projects Department to understand the project goals. A comprehensive report was then prepared covering the design intentions, architectural considerations, functional units, technical requirements, evaluation criteria, cost calculations, conditions and regulations, and design documentation.

The competition announcement was published in the international press, and interested architects — not firms — were invited to submit their qualifications. Eighty-four architects responded, and after review, eight were invited to participate:

Rasem Badran (Jordan), Oriol Bohigas (Spain), Charles Correa (India), Arata Isozaki (Japan), Zaha Hadid (Iraq), Hans Hollein (Austria), Richard Ramirez (England), and James Wines (America). The selection reflected a wide range of architectural tendencies and ideas. The competition documents emphasized the cultural, environmental, and historical values of the project context. Instead of a traditional question-and-answer phase, a half-day symposium was arranged for dialogue among the architects, the client, and future users of the museum — the free and productive discussions of which are regarded as one of the distinctive and innovative features of the Qatar competition.

After receiving the submissions, the jurors met for three days in Doha in the summer of 1997 and carefully reviewed each project, weighing its strengths and weaknesses and its alignment with the competition requirements.

All five jurors selected the design of Charles Correa as the winning entry. The design of Rasem Badran — with 3 votes in favor and 2 against — was chosen as the second-place design. Both designs were presented to the client, and Badran's was conditionally approved. The Special Projects Department then entered into negotiations with Badran and shared the jury's recommendations. Badran's revised design was once again presented to the client and was accepted. The museum was expected to be completed and inaugurated by the year 2000.

Regarding Badran's design, the jury noted that it is rooted in the culture and heritage of Islamic architecture and creates an urban landscape that retells the history of the city in the language of architecture. Their recommendations concerned issues of safety, floor area, and the project's costs.