A Note Upon Architectural Competitions.

Progress, Volume XV, Issue 4, 1 December 1919, Page 669

A Note Upon Architectural Competitions.

By C. Reginald Ford, F.N.Z.I.A.

Some forty years ago a great English architect, the late Edward M. Barry, R.A., neatly summed up the case against Architectural Competitions. In response to an invitation to enter into a competition for the design of a proposed building he wrote as follows: “I have to ask yon to express my best thanks to the Committee for this mark of their confidence, and, as I am sure that the invitation was intended as a compliment, I feel it due to them to acknowledge it gratefully. Considerable experience has led me, however, to the conviction that competition is one of the worst , modes of obtaining good designs, and that it is bad for the employer, bad for the architects, . and bad 'for art generally. It is bad for the employer, inasmuch as, among other reasons, it prevents that intimate communication of ideas with the architect, during the preparation of the designs, which is necessary to prevent , future disappointment, and even to secure a correct understanding of what is ultimately : - proposed. This is one main reason why so many complaints are heard (when it is too late) that the convenient use of the building . has 1 been , sacrificed to mere showy considerations, such as it is the tendency of competitions to foster and develop. It is bad for the architects, inasmuch A as [several "men] are expected to waste their ’ time, labour, and even money, as no architect can prepare competition designs without in- . curring considerable expense. Nothing of this kind is expected of other professions ... No

■ one thinks of asking six lawyers or six physicians to expend their ability and funds in order , that one among them may receive professional employment. It is bad for, art generally as it induces the preference for showy drawings to really good architectural design, and because it generally ends in disputes and heartburnings. ”, ’ If the architectural profession were the only sufferer from the competition evil, and architects were foolish enough to go on competing, despite much ; bitter experience, then, perhaps, nothing ~ more should be said upon the subject. Barry, however, rightly placed first among the objections to architectural competitions the fact that they are opposed to the true interests of the promoters of them. He himself, refers to one grave fault inherent in the competition system, that the resultant design is most unlikely to be the best possible solution of the problem set, owing to the necessary lack of cooperation, while the design is being worked out, between those who have to use or control the building and the architect designing it. Very little experience in the planning of buildings, even of those of comparative unimportance, suffices to prove that the evolving of a successful plan is very rarely indeed a straightforward and simple matter —the easy arrangement of certain abstract requirements. In practical design the solution of the problem confronting the designer almost invariably requires the careful consideration of many conflicting and ofttimes irreconcilable claims. In order to gain one desired object another must be sacrificed. ■ This of course is true of purely architectural considerations which the architect alone can decide upon. But especial reference is now made to points in planning concerning the' successful functioning of the completed building upon which the advice of those.who were to use it would be invaluable. Any architect of. experience will readily . acknowledge that, his most successful works have been those in which he has had the close co-operation of an intelligent and sympathetic client. One sees a point, the other develops it, .and this in turn, perhaps inspires- some other idea, and so the plan grows. This is not to suggest that, the layman docs his own planningthe competent architect by his training and experience is alone fitted to cope successfully with the problems of the arrangement of varying spaces with proper means of access and communication, so as to make of a conveniently and economically arranged building an architectural unity. .But, as has been suggested above, the planning of modern buildings, particularly those of a more complex nature, means the adjusting of. conflicting requirements, and the decision which requirement must give way can best be made by those who. are, perhaps, to spend their days in the building, or who have expert knowledge of the processes to be carried on in the same. In the very nature of the competition system this co-opera-tion between client and architect is impossible. The chance fitting together of a nebulous puzzle replaces the skilful working out of a “scientific problem. ,; (

Whenever a competition is proposed its advocates claim that it will bring to its promoters .the

services of all,- or of a number of, the best men in the profession in the district in which the competition is to be held, whilst a fee will only have to be paid to one of them. Disregarding the meanness (unconscious, we are prepared to believe) involved in this consideration we may ask, Is this claim justified? < We believe not. - Quite the contrary is true. ■ Except in such a time as that we have just passed through, when in the offices of even the most successful practitioner there were idle times, at least some of the best men in the profession are certain to be too busy to take part in a competition gamble at the time of its promotion. • Beyond this some of them will not, at any time, for any consideration, do so. The services of these men are, therefore, lost to the promoters. “The selection is thus limited to the less capable, but really needy.”

There is, too, another vital point to be considered by any person or body before they decide to choose their architect by means of a competition. What are the functions of an architect'? Too often the fact that he must be capable of far more than preparing successful “sketch” plans if he is to render full service to his client is overlooked. After the sketch plans are complete he must be able to prepare the working drawings to enable the building to be , successfully • constructed. There is the design and computation of supporting materials; computation of footings and sustaining powers; preparation of large scale and full drawings; the writing of specifications and drawing up of contracts; the investigation and selection of materials of construction, both concealed and exposed; design of sanitary and heating equipment ; arrangement of artificial lighting; design of architectural ornament, etc. To this list, by no means complete, must be added the most important, responsible, and onerous duty of supervising the construction. What assurance have the promoters of a competition that the man who Avon it by a set of beautiful drawings can perform to their satisfaction these very necessary duties? On the contrary, there are instances innumerable where the winner of a competition has completely failed to carry out the promise of his design, and where the resultant building has been a grave disappointment, or worse, to all concerned. This disappointment would have been avoided had the - architect been chosen, not by the gamble of a competition, but by the only proper method of selection, that is, a choice based upon the knowledge of the man, his' accomplished work, and his character. It is worth noting, also, that it is not unknown, even in New Zealand, for the winner of a competition not to be. the actual designer of the winning plans at all! 'The design has been prepared by someone with a facile gift of draughtsmanship, but with a very limited knowledge of the principles of construction. When the building is complete it is found to be entirely lacking in the grace which found the design favour in the eyes of the judge, structurally it is weak, the construction, is poor. But again it is too late, the evil is wrought. - ; • ‘ • , (To be continued.) . v ‘ V ;