Vitaly Ananchenko, an architect who lives and works in Vilnius, has become one of the most active and thoughtful commentators on Archi.ru over the past year. We publish his text with an idea on how to make competitions conformal for architectural firms and to introduce them to the townspeople more closely. We invite our readers to a discussion.
So, Vitaly Ananchenko:
Foreword
Reflections are intended for discussion among creative architects, I hope for a constructive response from colleagues. I think the most promising and democratic, potentially fair form of competition is an open creative architectural competition - in fact, there will be thoughts about this …
Competitions through the prism of the architectural workshop
First, I will try to understand the reasons for the negative view of competitions among architects. I think that the main reason giving rise to a chain of other negative reasons is excessively excessive competition. With more than ten works per object, the chance to win a competition becomes minimal, akin to an accident, and a lot of costs, both labor, financial and time, are required. If there is no win or at least a prize place, the risk does not justify itself, and if several contests are not won in a row, the situation is very bad. It is this situation that causes irritation, because for several dozen, or even hundreds, there are many worthy works, but only one won, and it involuntarily seems: why is my work worse? Unwittingly, you begin to look for flaws and criticize the winner.
And what if the winner is criticized by several dozen architectural bureaus, some of which are very authoritative? The customer or the politician who initiated the tender begins to doubt, which in turn leads to general dissatisfaction with the tender of all parties. Those architects who did not participate also join: they say, this is why we do not participate, everything is not very transparent here, you do a lot of work in vain, but there is no return. In the event of an unsuccessful implementation of a competitive project, or even refusal from it in the future, the competitions are compromised even more: so much effort and for what?
What to do?
Create quantitatively healthy competition without compromising quality. The optimal number of works is between three and ten: in this case, there is plenty to choose from, but the eyes do not run away from the kaleidoscope of dozens or even hundreds of works.
The commission has the opportunity to carefully and in detail study each work, weigh the pros and cons, and make a decision that is much more likely to be adequate and not accidental than if several tens or hundreds of works are being considered. Accordingly, the chance to win will no longer be ghostly hypothetical, but quite real, and even more so to win a prize! When an order is not received just like that, but in a competitive struggle, with a tangible chance of winning - it is this fact that will stimulate many architects to work efficiently and the temptation to engage in criticism, sabotage the winners' projects, the requirement to revise the results of the competition will become minimal.
A bureau with a creative approach, a mindset to work without orders will not remain - after all, with a competition of up to ten works, subject to constant participation in competitions, the chances of getting orders thanks to them will be maximum. There will also be a greater field for self-realization for young teams, even if in large and complex competitions they will often lose to more experienced ones, but in smaller ones, where the competition will be three to five works, this will be an excellent opportunity to start into the future. As a result of the large number of competitions, more buildings and urban spaces will become quality and comfortable.
How can we achieve the required number of architectural competitions? I propose for all cities with historical centers to stimulate architectural competitions for absolutely all buildings located in the zone of historical centers and their buffer zones, as well as all objects located within the visual boundaries of protected natural landscapes. In cities with up to a million residents, hold tenders for all buildings over 5 thousand square meters, in cities over a million residents for buildings over 10 thousand square meters. With such parameters, there will be much more contests than now.
That will cause a uniform dispersion of the creative and design forces of architects and make the competition healthy, and the result will be proportionally better!
Sounds optimistic. Well, how can this be realized: to organize so many competitions, provided that business and politics are practically disinterested in a high-quality urban environment?
Contests through the lens of the public (citizens)
Most of the townspeople are very far from architectural processes, and even more so from architectural competitions. Although the results of architectural activities concern absolutely all city dwellers, even if not in a completely conscious form. I have heard the following phrases: the contests are all purchased, the winner is known there in advance; why these contests - they will draw, do not understand what, and then they cannot build. Let them draw, maybe something unusual and interesting will turn out - perhaps the only positive phrase I have heard from people who are far from architectural processes.
What can be done to improve the image of the competitions among the citizens and their active participation and support?
A banal thought in such a situation: more articles in newspapers, more TV programs, popularizing and explaining the meaning of competitions. All this is undoubtedly true, but there is one more thought. It cannot be called new, but nevertheless, perhaps this version of popularization would be more effective: what if organizing expositions of competitive works in public places, best of all in central shopping and entertainment centers?
Competition works are often exhibited on the Internet and in the halls of the Union of Architects or the premises of the organizers of competitions - everything seems to be correct, but there is one important nuance. The townspeople do not go to the buildings of the Union of Architects or special rooms for demonstrating projects, they also practically do not look at the specialized archportals where the competition works are demonstrated and, accordingly, remain in complete ignorance.
The exposition of the competition works, for example, in Afimalla of the Moscow City will give an opportunity to get acquainted with the works of the competitors to very many citizens! Thousands, tens of thousands of people who are far from architectural processes go to such shopping and entertainment centers: their eyes will stop at the exposition of projects and thus a significant part of the townspeople will be familiarized with the current competitions. Naturally, it is necessary to provide an opportunity to write a comment or a proposal on the work of participants. Thus, I think it is possible to significantly expand the dialogue between architects and society.
Summary
It would be appropriate to note that it is more promising to answer the question "what to do?" Rather than "who is to blame?" The proposed ideas for improving the functioning of competitions and improving the competitive situation, and at the same time improving the image of competitions and the architectural community in the eyes of the public are as follows:
- Optimization of competitive competition to a healthy number of participants: three to ten teams.
- Creation of prerequisites for holding tenders for all types of buildings in historic city centers, their buffer zones and at the boundaries of protected landscapes.
- Creation of prerequisites for holding tenders for all types of buildings from 5,000 thousand square meters in cities with a population of up to one million inhabitants and for all types of buildings from 10,000 thousand square meters in cities with a population of more than one million inhabitants. Thanks to the second and third points, the goal named in the first point - healthy competition - will be achieved.
- Through respectful treatment of the winners and the demonstration of competitive works in places of active leisure with a large number of citizens, create a fertile ground for the implementation and conduct of architectural competitions.
- Thanks to this number of competitions, we will get a more uniform and stable number of ideas for each individual object (now we have most objects with only one idea, often endlessly reworked with the principle of the same result, or the other extreme - one object receives hundreds of ideas, of which sometimes several dozen very worthy - and at best only one is realized).
- Architects will have a real causal relationship between participation in competitions, conscientious work on them and receiving an order through a competition.
- As a consequence of all this, a healthy atmosphere inside and outside the workshop, that is, a respectful attitude of businessmen, officials, politicians and townspeople - which is the most important!
PS. The need for a program for the construction of standard temples is being actively discussed in blogs. The question is - is it necessary so much? And isn't it a great reason for a polygon of creative competitions? I am convinced that temples should not be typical, because a temple is partly the materialization of a spiritual centuries-old heritage - but how can spiritual be typical ?!
Reference: Vitaly Ananchenko, architect. Graduated from the Vilnius Academy of Arts (2007 with a degree in architecture, 2012 with a master's degree in theory and history of art). At the moment, he is a private architect, a participant in many exhibitions and competitions (in particular, his project of the Technopark district for Skolkovo reached the final).
