Design competitions are a warning sign

Architectural competitions have a long and illustrious history, but we’re kidding ourselves if we think every little project deserves one. Most are a tremendous waste of time.

Centuries ago, France’s best architects competed for the most important commissions in the nation. Of course, this meant that some of their most highly trained professionals only built one or two buildings in their lifetime, but we have beautiful watercolors of alternate versions of realities that could have been in addition to the influential structures built. Those paintings and drawings are still a rich source of study for Eurocentric architects and historians.

Today, architects are invited to come up with their boldest and most innovative thoughts to apply to major projects all over the world. These buildings are so important that, on occasion, the architects might even be paid a stipend for their efforts. However, in most cases the architects are expected to be flattered to associate with such wonderful potential clients, no matter the long odds (or even entry fees) linked to the project.

Open competitions fuel the dreams of upstart firms everywhere. The big break, the recognition for radical and new ideas, is a tempting prospect, and one that occasionally does lead to immense recognition. This happens most often on smaller projects such as memorials, but there is a very real chance that these can kickstart a new designer’s career.

Most of the time, however, competitions are simply a way for clients to put a positive spin on having no idea what they want to do. In fact, if a client sends out an RFP that asks for a rendered design concept on a fairly standard building type, odds are about 10:1 that they are new to the industry and don’t even have a clear program in mind to test the project’s financial viability. They’re looking for a free consultation to jumpstart their work. Last week I even saw an open competition posted for a “global company’s” office reception desk.

Some are invited and paid affairs, which obviously make more sense to enter, but the deliverable expectations are much higher, and can tie up essential staff for weeks or even months. The monetary calculations design firms make tend to reflect their odds of winning. For a fee payment of $30,000, the firm may spend over $100,000 in pursuit of a very large commission with a 3:1 chance of winning. One win will pay for the other pursuits in this case, but no wins will severely strain a firm’s finances. A win also may guarantee a free revision of the concept, since there is no way it can effectively meet the owner’s needs without good dialog.

Still, architects are all too willing to leap at the chance to give away their ideas, especially if they have unpaid student labor willing to produce the work. Never mind the fact that they usually aren't even good ideas, because a truly innovative building design doesn't come fully formed from the head of a dissociated architect. Good work takes collaboration and input from all of a project’s stakeholders.

Extremely high-profile state commissions and memorials stand apart from this criticism if handled well. An expert client that requires a custom design to fit their unique market position or function generally does not exist for these sorts of projects, and when they do a heavy client involvement with all teams will take the process to fruitful territory. The competition allows them to move forward in a brash (or sometimes thoughtful) new way.

However, by the nature of their speed and the lack of client dialogue on the process, the designs provided via the competition are often recycled from the last one, or from other work. Repackaging old ideas into new forms is generally the most effective way to approach a design contest. In almost every case, there simply isn’t time for a full thesis—based on in-depth research and truly innovative thinking—to be formed, and the design team is faced with compiling their own preferences and existing work into a package that can be rendered.

That sort of thinking and research required for most projects, including basically all commercial ones, needs the special input that the client must bring to the table. The idea that a design firm will develop a concept without that input, without fully understanding the necessary branding, the specific target audience, the timeline of user experience that the owner bases their business model around, makes no sense and suggests that the owner most likely doesn’t have the vision–or money–required to complete such a project.

The past several years of a struggling economy have meant that dreamers, whether small town councils or unfunded developers, have relied upon idle design teams to help generate enthusiasm for new work. Reaching out with a request for proposal from an architect is essentially free, and adding a requirement for a concept design can generate artist’s renderings and new ideas at no cost to the owner.

Recent economic improvements have shifted that behavior slightly. Today design firms are busier and clients limit the RFP to three or four firms that have been pre-approved. But the net result for the design team is the same: a lot of free work for a project that is unlikely to be built, because the client does not know what they want or what will work. If they knew, and could afford it, they would do their homework and hire a firm outright, and get to work. The competition is simply a delay tactic for undercooked project ideas.

Architects and designers are not giving up on competitions anytime soon; they’re too ingrained in the culture. Still, we all need to look hard at anyone who proposes holding one today. Competitions are a warning sign, one that says to look closely at the competence and capabilities of the client.

Architectural staff, software and media

The empowerment of new hires (and existing staff) is strongly affected by two different causes: software and media.

These two causes often get mixed together because of younger generations’ familiarity with both, but they are distinct issues that need to be treated as such, even though they can feed into each other.

If not taken seriously, they can pull a successful traditional firm down by a lack of enthusiasm or engagement, and by a loss of ambitious people. If handled properly, they can engage and invigorate an entire company, and build a strong and respected company team. In the broader scheme of architectural design, these are key factors that are going to widen the gap between architects hired for great design, and those hired for production or necessity.

1: Software

Tools change constantly. People are proud of their skill sets with software, and if a firm’s are old or not working well with their hardware, employees will think they are falling behind their peers in computer technology. If a company’s principals don’t take advantage of new technology, not only will they lose to competitors in terms of productivity and speed, they will lose their most ambitious workers. This has been the case in the past with building technology and professional development, but the tools architects use have never before changed as fast as they are now. Continued training on how to draw and build models was rarely needed before the past decade.

Designers and architects will find temporary fixes for deadlines, but constantly being behind on the technology curve sends a stronger negative message to employees than even to clients. If an architect’s skills drop, then they will have fewer potential employers, and ultimately will need to be replaced even in the same company. New employees know this even subconsciously.

A lack of focus on production technology, even if solely for firm competitiveness, is in fact a lack of focus on employee development. Architects and designers who aren’t supported by good software will inevitably see their companies as uninterested in their professional growth.

2: Media

Today's most talented new interns are motivated designers that want to stay part of the national and global conversation on design. This isn’t new, but the opportunities to be a part of that are more apparent today, and waiting to be much more seasoned for this engagement is no longer the norm. Online and social media have changed where engaged design enthusiasts go for information, and have (obviously) opened up tremendous new outlets for public expression.

When I started out as an architect, my peers and I were looking to be guided and trained by mentors, and to be given responsibility. We didn’t expect to be authoring papers or representing our company. We did not demand empowerment, because it wasn't realistic. In retrospect that’s difficult to imagine.

Today we're seeing a broader and more diverse group of younger people representing companies globally, learning and demonstrating new technologies and processes, as well as in social media. What that has meant for many seasoned architects is that they must make additional efforts in media and outreach in order to catch up with new interns and young architects in terms of writing and sharing. We can no longer build our reputations by virtue of our experience, but must demonstrate the gathering of that experience to the world.

The research-supporting-teaching model of academia has, thanks to the internet and social media, come to the architecture and design profession in a small way. Research can be simply gathered with experience as in the past, but in order for it to enhance a design reputation, to build on the practice, that research must be demonstrated and shared as it becomes available. If an architect intends to be seen as an expert in their field, they must actively show their expertise to the public, not just to their clients.

Leading architects are doing this very consciously with external initiatives, either through teaching, internal research, hosting industry panels, publishing, TED talks and other options. Without it, an architect can still be hired for their portfolio and production capability, but they will be trusted much less on their abilities and creativity, and will miss out on the top commissions. This has long been the case, but the need is more urgent today due to the relatively recent changes in sharing and reporting. Barriers to publishing are lowered and confident firms do not hesitate.

Fifteen years ago an architectural firm wouldn't be looking to an intern or unlicensed architect to lead an initiative or contribute publicly, but now many companies must in order to retain those people. This isn’t because the younger generation simply feels entitled to more promotional experience, but because technology has changed to a point where they can be and have been more globally focused, and they don’t want to enter a creative company to suddenly be stifled. Instead they want to be empowered. Further, savvy clients expect it, and expect to see more experts representing a firm’s initiatives than before.

Many of those empowering initiatives are in the creative use of new software, thus bringing these two items together, but that does not mean we should confuse them.

It’s important to remember what empowerment really means. Empowerment is not simply responsibility, but responsibility with trust and support. Without that trust and support, responsibility becomes a burden, and not a reward. Without being encouraged by management to speak out, make decisions and pursue new avenues of knowledge, fear of failure becomes the primary motivator, stifling creativity. In that case, the intelligence or talent of the new designer is no longer even useful, since they know they must be second-guessed and will soon step back from making recommendations at all.

There is already a gap between respected design architects and the rest, but those positions are still fluid. The positions may remain so for smaller companies, even as the gap continues to widen. But for larger architectural firms, ignoring the changing needs of junior architects will either cement a status as hacks or will lead them out of business. Giving them the tools to contribute to the firm as well as to the design profession can allow these companies to thrive.