Some Thoughts on Greek Architectural Competitions

Ath. Zoulias - Architect, Planner

Taking cause from a recent publication by Eleftherotypia (May 7, 2003) concerning the criticism raised against the way architectural competitions are conducted and the way the winning studies are implemented (the article refers to the negative critiques that the new design of Omonoia Square has received and its overall architectural and environmental design), I would like to attempt to state some comments that may be viewed as somewhat "heretical".

First, I find that the general conclusion of the newspaper, regarding the universal agreement and support of architects for architectural competitions as they are currently conducted and especially the support for this specific solution for Omonoia Square (but also others, e.g. Syntagma etc.), is particularly unfounded and moving within the general mindset that Greek architecture is a matter of just a few, self-appointed judges who have the spare time to participate in some groups or commitees, undertaking at their own initiative and inspiration the representation of thousands of other architects who do not have the spare time to participate in such commitees. But things are not quite like that.

I will try to calmly present the situation concerning the way Greek architectural competitions are conducted, as I have understood it and as, perhaps, many other architects - systematically abstaining from Greek architectural competitions - also understand it. I would like to reassure that my comments are totally well-meaning and their only aim is the facing of the problem, and that is why they end up in specific suggestions for impoving the way Greek architectural competitions are conducted.

A. If one looks at the prizes of the last n years (where n is probably more than 20) one can observe that Greek competitions are an affair of a rather narrow group of architects who, depending on the case, switch roles as judges, award winners or obvious (in the best cases) or "silent" (most of the times) consultants of some very young architects who, right from the student benches find themselves by the side of Santiago Calatrava and Jean Nouvel.

B. The way architectural competitions are conducted in Greece, does not in any way guarantee the secrecy of the judgement process. The members of the judging panel are known from the start of each competition and, given the acquaintances and friendly relations existing between judges and some of the participants, who as mentioned switch parts in these roles, I do not understand the point of having 5-digit codes inside wax-sealed envelopes and other similar nonsense.
If someone finds him/herself in a participant's studio and sees their solution, during the months-long process of its preparation, what kind of secrecy, and from whom, does the 5-digit code offer? Even if the good conscience and integrity of several judges bars such influences, the mere possibility of influencing them through the dominant cliques in the process of ill-defined social and public relations, as well as the high cost of participation in each competition are particularly discouraging factors for the participation of the vast majority of architects who, for better or worse, move and live outside of these cliques.

I wonder what would happen if another process of conducting architectural competitions was implemented, completely guaranteeing the secrecy of judgement in the face of every skeptic (like myself).

There are so many and simple ways of guaranteeing this secrecy, but also limiting the cost of participation, at least in the initial phase, that could encourage the majority of architects to participate, that I really wonder why they are not implemented.

Allow me to express some thoughts on these simple ways with the certainty that other colleagues will surely have even more and smarter ones to suggest.

1. Competitions could take place in two phases: An initial one, of "ideas" and initial selection with low-cost demands (no maquettes and expensive designs). A few sketches or some computer-generated 3-D designs that every studio can now produce without significant cost would suffice. There will be a small entry fee.
2. The judges for this pre-selection will be drawn from a pool of judges from all-over Greece that will include all active architects with 10 or 15-year experience. The draw will take place 20 days before the entries' judgement. The judges will move on to the evaluation (justified for all entries, even the ones rejected) and the selection of "n" finalists for the second phase.
3. The selected "n" participants will receive a certain financial aid (of the fees collected during the 1st phase) and move on to the detailed development of their ideas in maquettes and any other means that could help in their presentation.
4. The judges for this phase will also be drawn by a "pool" of architects, perhaps of greater experience than those of the 1st phase, randomly, also a few days before judgement. Their judgement for each one of the "n" entries will have to be thoroughly justified, for every point.
5. I briefly mention the possibility for the public's participation in the final selection, just as it happened for the Ground Zero architectural competition in New York. The final selection of the Libeskind solution and its almost general acceptance acts, I believe, as a solid proof of the "lay peoples'" ability to decide on their own for the kind of buildings and city that they experience; much better than the self-invited and self-appointed judges of Architecture who seem to prosper particularly in these places.