Ideal architecture competitions
 

Dear colleagues,

How would you define an ideal architecture competition?

Is it the perfect match of: an interesting theme + detailed brief + effective q&a + great jurors and detailed feedback from them + low-to-no entry fees + low-to-no costs (digital submission only) + a lot of great prizes + good exposure in the media + ... ?

Does such a competition even exists?

I have participated in 'Designing Absence' competition (design the missing tower for the cathedral in Antwerp) simply because it was a very interesting theme. No entry fee, no cash prizes, no starchitects in the jury. 400+ submissions. In the end, I was disappointed because of the lack of feedback from the non-professional jury and the overall quality of the winning ideas.

I have also participated several times in the Shinkenchiku competition organized by the Japan Architect magazine, back when the 'paper only' submissions had to be shipped to Japan (and that is quite expensive). Motivation? Starchitect jury (Steven Holl, Koolhaas, etc) and intriguing brief. Disappointed again, not because I didn't won, but because I could only see the top10 submissions (and those in 'thumbnail' size) from the 500+ works entered in the competition.

A couple of years ago, I've submitted a design for a green housing competition in the UK (digital submission), because of the good and detailed brief and because it 'guaranteed' the publishing of all the entries in a competition catalog. In the end it proved to be a scam, with no winners announced, no catalog, not even a 'sorry guys' announcement on the website.

And what about those idea competitions that crowdfund the prizes budget (eVolo, Arquitectum, etc) and in the end the prizes are only 20% of the total amount gathered from the poor designers? What about the idea competitions that asks you to pay an entry fee but does not provide any prize at all (ICArch)? Or the project competitions (Upto35) that award a commission for the actual building but in the end fail to do so (sorry but we've decided not to build anything...)

What motivates you to join in a competition? What do you expect from submitting your hard-worked designs in a competition?

Please share with us not the way you see an ideal competition, but at least a FAIR one.

None of the above. (even though I checked off feedback)

We compete because it drives us to be innovative and keeps us sharp.

Sure exposure is good, as is feedback, but it is about pushing yourself and your firm.

Dear Coldrsx,
If we do competitions only because we want to address design issues that we don't deal with on a day-to-day basis, why don't we just 'solve' some problems in our community and go to the mayor or the press to present our design?
Or do we badly need a specific brief and, above all, a deadline?
Please expand your view on the architecture competitions model.
Thank you and we expect the valuable input from other fellow skyscraper-afficionados.