The project is dedicated to one of the most painful problems of modern architecture - the procedure for holding competitions. This is a rather extensive document of 58 articles, written with a sincere feeling and in some places makes its reader recall the relatively recent precedents - first of all, the competitions for the Palace of Congresses in Strelna and for the theater in Kaliningrad.
Reading this document, you feel the desire of its authors by the forces of law to make it impossible to repeat the well-known incidents. Thus, Article 10 prohibits the simultaneous holding of a closed (ordered) and an open competition on the same topic, as was done in the case of the Palace of Congresses - recall that there was an open competition among Russian participants, and a closed competition among invited foreigners.
Several times (Art. 5, 20, 54) the project "Order …" states that the winner has the right to the subsequent implementation of the project. This right is called "full pre-emptive" (Article 5), and the organizer (Article 20) "ensures the use of competitive projects for their intended purpose." There are, however, several reservations - the priority right of implementation is valid only when it is stated in the conditions of the competition (Article 5), and if the jury did not find among the submitted projects not a single one (!) Suitable for implementation, then it can release the organizers from the need to order project to the winner.
The jury must be two-thirds professional (Article 43), and its decisions are binding on the organizers (Article 48). This significantly weakens the position of the organizers - as a result, it turns out that the customers, announcing the competition, give themselves entirely to the judgment of professionals; their own opinion becomes advisory.
Also obligatory is an exhibition of all projects submitted for the competition, financed by the organizers, open for at least two weeks and free for visitors. And yet - participation in a competition of one of the organizations of the Union of Architects (Article 15) - the union should be involved in the development of the program and conditions, the holding of the exhibition and for the dissemination of information. The work of the Union is paid by the organizer of the competition (Article 41).
The minimum terms allotted to the participants for the preparation of work are stipulated rather rigidly. For an open competition in one round - four months, for two rounds - six. Here, again, one can recall that the open (Russian) competition for Strelna aroused the indignation of the architects - members of the jury, among other things, that too little time was allotted for the creation of projects.
Potential attempts by organizers to save money are suppressed in various ways. The amount of remuneration for the winners of the open tender has been agreed - not less than the cost of design work with a similar task (Article 35). It will be almost impossible not to award the first prize, following this "Procedure" - this is allowed only if there are fewer projects submitted to the competition than the established prizes (Article 37). But the entrance fee for students participating in competitions of ideas and concepts is prohibited (Article 22).
There are also touching details - for example, "Order …" asserts that in an open competition, participants should be anonymous (probably this is correct), and hide under numbers ("mottos", Art. 31) in the form of six or seven-digit numbers (why not eight-digit and not five-digit?), indicated by all means in the upper right corner. At the same time, despite the absolutely correct requirement for the openness of the results of the competition, it is proposed to announce the names of only the winning participants (Article 50), and leave the rest anonymous. Why? It’s interesting not only who won, but who won.
Also interesting is article 18 - it says that an architect who is not invited to a closed or ordered competition can submit a “counter project”. Such an uninvited person, wishing to participate, must notify the customer of his intention, and the latter, no later than 10 days, either accept his application or refuse. And if he doesn't have time to refuse?
Obviously, the project "Procedure for Conducting Competitions" seeks to protect architects from the arbitrariness of the organizers, putting customers in a rigid framework. However, it is not very clear who these organizers are, who have so many responsibilities. Article 2 lists everything - from state "executive authorities" to legal entities and individuals. The initiators of large state or public projects and the customers of an office center who want to choose a suitable project are placed on the same level and in the same conditions. There is something utopian in this - everyone seems to be equal.
However, for a resounding public project, federal or municipal, the named conditions - an exhibition, a jury of professionals, open information - are quite logical and even obligatory. But for comparatively "small" on this scale commercial tenders for some office building or sanatorium, the mass of restrictions seems excessive. Will customers who choose a project to their liking want to contact a professional jury, whose decision cannot be avoided, even if they do not like it, not to mention the financing of the local union's activities to develop the conditions of their local competition and two-week exhibition?
It is unlikely that such a utopian organization will stimulate the development of private competitions. However, it's too early to judge - we have a project before us. Time will tell how he merges with reality.
