Architectural Competitions

Progress, Volume XII, Issue 1, 1 September 1916, Page 720

Architectural Competitions

From a paper read by Mr. H. Mandeno at the monthly meeting of the Otago Branch of the New Zealand Institute of Architects on July 19, 1916.

Architectural competitions apparently date back a very long way, and I am indebted very largely to Mr. H. V, Lanchester for the following short history:— Although no authenic cases of Architectural Competitions can be traced to early Greece there is little doubt that they existed. It is inconceivable that a nation that made such a feature of competition and where the spirit of emulation was so pronounced, should not have had architectural competitions. It seems unlikely that a people who have left us so much that is noble and beautiful in art could have so perfected their architecture by any other means than by competition. We all know that public competitions were held in connection with literature, rhetoric, sculpture and stage production, while the old Olympic Games are a bye-word in all the civilised nations of the world. I have read too of the beautiful Choragie monument at Athens that commemorated the victory of a chorus trained by Lysicrates in a dramatic contest. Then too the four facades of the Mausoleum at Hallicarnassus were decorated by four different sculptors so that the public might compare their work. Early in the fourteenth century Competitions were held under the auspices of the Comacine Guilds and members of the Guild were accepted as qualified to adjudicate. At Siena Cathedral a council of monks with masters of the Guild met to consult on the placing of the columns and also to choose between two designs of columns by Francisco Talent! and Orcagna. When each candidate elected two masters as arbiters, as might have been expected, these two could not agree and an umpire had to be called in. Later on, about the year 1400, A.D. a competition was held for the dome of the Cathedral at Florence. Vasari gives the following account—

Fresh from the close study of many ancient Roman domes, Brunelleschi had determined upon the constructional principles he should adopt in the event of his services being retained for the work. But, although he had made a model, he was afraid to exhibit it, “knowing,” to quote Vasari’s words, “the imperfect intelligence of the assessors, the envy of the competitors, and the instability of the citizens who favoured now one competitor, now another, as each chanced to please them;” The attempts to explain his ideas without exhibiting either plans or models in illustration of his proposals led to his being regarded as a fool and a babbler, and he was more than once dismissed, and on one occasion forcibly ejected from the public meeting at which he was vainly endeavouring to elucidate his proposal. This threat caused Brunelleschi to say in after years that he dared not,

at that time, pass through any, part of the city lest someone should shout out after him, ‘ ‘ See, there goes the lunatic”! The architect’s final triumph, his quarrels, with his colleague Ghiberti, and an extremely appreciative description of the famous dome, are set out at some length by Vasari. The following is an extract from an account of a competition for the completion of the Louvre in Paris 1665:

A competition was held, and the criticisms of architects invited on the designs it produced. Among those who submitted schemes were Francois Mansart, Jean Marot, and Pierre Cottart. Another competitor was Claude Perrault, one of the most eminent savants of his time, distinguished for his works on mathematics and natural history, who had made a study of architecture, and was introduced to Colbert’s notice by his own brother Charles, a confidential clerk in the minister’s offices.

Mansart might have been selected, but his refusal to make a final choice among the alternatives he had submitted at Colbert’s request, led to his rejection. The criticisms on the remainder proved inconclusive, and intrigues in favour of this or that competitor were rife. The King was too much taken up with Versailles to bestow much interest on the matter. Colbert, in this dilemma, sent the drawings to Poussin to obtain the opinion of the Roman Academy. They thus came under the eyes of Bernini who condemned them all.

Bernini (1598-1680), then at the zenith of his fame, was the chief exponent of the baroeco school, and was considered the first architectural authority in the world. It was decided to invite him to Paris to give his advice on the spot. Received in France with almost Royal honours, such as never fell to the lot of an artist before or since, he soon produced a new scheme which he attributed to divine inspiration (1665). The foundation-stone was laid by the King with great pomp, but the design was not really approved by anyone in France, and it soon became evident that it would not be carried out. Bernini returned home the same year in high dudgeon, but royally paid, leaving the field clear for the Frenchmen. The King was induced to believe that he preferred a fresh design prepared by Claude Perrault; and this with minor alterations was carried out (1667-80), though the work remained under the charge of Le Van, and later of d’Orbay.

In looking for some information about competitions I came across a most interesting account of the lowering of the Vatican obelisk and the re-erect-ing of it in front of St. Peters. A full account of the competition held for the carrying out of this work was given in the Builders’ Journal of October 13th, 1915. In 1748 a competition Avas held for a monument to Louis XV., while in 1768 a competition was held in the British Isles for the new Exchange, Dublin. Over sixty designs. were submitted and Thomas Cooley Avas successful. In 1797 a competition Avas held for the East India Company’s buildings. The fourth decade of the nineteenth century Avitnessed three important competitions. The first Avas that for the Houses of Parliament. Ninety-seven designs Avere submitted to four Commissioners, who

on 29th February, 1836, unanimously selected that of Charles Lorry as the best. For St. George’s Hall, Liverpool, there were eighty-six competitors, among whom H. L. Elmcs was successful, subsequently winning the Assize Courts Competition in 1841. The two buildings were combined and carried out during the succeeding ten years. The third was that for the Royal Exchange. Robert Smirke, Joseph Gwilt, and Philip Hardwick were the assessors. The first premium was awarded to William Grellicr, the second to A. de Chateauncuf and Arthur Mec, and the third to Sydney Smirks. Designs by T. L. Donaldson, Richardson, and David Mocatto were commended, but were considered to exceed the stipulated cost of £150,000. None of these designs was carried out.

The competition for the LaAv Courts in 1866 and 1867 aa as conducted by a Commission, with Avhose concurrence the following were : appointed as judges: —Chief Justice Cockburn, Sir Roundcll Palmer, W. E. Gladstone, W. Stilling, (Maxwell). W. Uowper, h irst Commissioner of ’Works. In response to an application from the competitors, tAvo professional men John Shaw and George PownallAv r added. The judges took into consideration every interested party they could call to mind, asking for verdicts on the plans from each special point of vicav. As may be imagined, though the designs submitted Avere only ten in number, the affair got into a desperate tangle. As an example, a report on ninety-nine various points of detail based on the views of heads of departments and other authorities shows that every competitor scored somewhere. Edward Barpy was an easy first, and G. E. Street near the bottom of the list. This might in itself be regarded as a sufficient proof of the futility of this method of analysis, but if a further one be needed, an inspection of the mass of reports and investigations resulting, Avill more than suffice. It is probable that there r as never a more conscientious and painstaking jury, but the value of their Avork was neutralized by an almost complete ignorance of the technique of design. The professional members were evidently overweighted by the ideas of their distinguished confreres, and the ultimate results Avere so inclusive and confused that everyone concerned must have been relieved when the great beauties of detail in Street’s design Avere made clear, and a justification Avas found for aAvarding him the work. One of the earliest undertakings of the Royal Institute of British Architects was the appointment of a committee to consider public competitions. Their icpoit is ell worth perusal but I can only iioav give you a few extracts showing the point reached at the date of the report, 24th January 1839. In view of the close approximation of this date to that of the creation of Pecksniff perhaps the most amusing paragraph is one running as follows; “A much more serious train of evils is entailed upon the public and the profession by the facility with Inch the system lends itself to collusion, many instances of which have been amply proved to your committee, but to AAdiich they think it inexpedient more fully to refer ” •

There are other paragraphs that bear more seriously on the problems of the present day. une runs as follows:

••me arguments advanced in favour of competition are sufficiently forcible. Emulation is said to be the soul of excellence in the arts and sciences—the recognized talents of the eider professor are supposed to be maintained in activity and progressing improvement, and his employers to be protected from the routine manner which security in public patronage and private practice are too apt to produce : while the opportunity is afforded to the young aspirant to take that place in public estimation to which his talents may entitle him." The following is taken from the R.1.8.A. report of 1909: —

■‘in 1908 the R.1.8.A. appointed a special committee on the Jury system of Assessing Competitions, which reported on the 10th November 1908 as follows —

(1) That in competitions for works, estimated to cost £IOO,OOO or over, the jury system be adopted, subject to the following conditions:•

(a) That such jury shall consist of three architects of experience and ability. (b) The chairman of such jury shall be nominated by the president, and the other members by the Competitions Committee. (2) That in competitions for works estimated to cost between £30,000 and £IOO,OOO there shall be one assessor and two assistants, subject to the following conditions:—

(a) That the assessor shall be nominated by the President and shall be responsible for and make the award. ,

(b) That the assistants shall be nominated by the Competitions Committee, and their duties shall be advisory only. (3) That in competitions for works of less value than the above, the present system of assessing shall continue.”

The many important competitions of the last few years need not be mentioned here except to say that names like Ralph Knott and Gilbert Scott would not be the household words that they are but for competitions.