A competition design for Kharkiv by Chris Williamson Source:&nbsp Chris WilliamsonRIBA president-elect Chris Williamsons defence of architectural competitions has provoked a heated debate Williamson, who won this years RIBA presidential election, said in a recent LinkedIn post that design competitions were critical for young architects and helped to form Weston Williamson +Partners (now WW+P).The architect, in his piece In Defence of Architectural Competitions, praised well-administered competitions that didnt ask for too much work [which] dont ask for detailed designs and [are] primarily interested in ideas.He went on: True, there is always the risk that the organiser will take the ideas and give them to someone else. But it depends how precious you think your ideas are. I belong to the school which thinks there is very little that is truly unique we all re-use, rather than invent.'AdvertisementHe added: I have often had difficulty convincing my partners who are much less supportive of the competition process and much more prone to the disappointment of not winning. For me not winning is not taking part. Losing is learning. And Ive learnt a lot.However, his post on the networking platform, split commentators, with some greeing with Williamson while others condemned competitions over unpaid work and fairness.Sarah Wigglesworth, founder of the recently closed Sarah Wigglesworth Architects, argued in a reply to the WW+P co-founder that competitions perpetuate the condition of form over substance instead of a clients needs.She argued: Seductive drawings lure clients into a false sense of power and security. [But] they wont know whether the proposal works until too late. Architects should beware and not participate in this sham.Meredith Bowles, director at Mole Architects, suggested that although competitions have been around for centuries they are poorly conceived, poorly administered, and a massive waste of resource.AdvertisementHe added that competitions have become the de facto method of procuring architects services, leading to a massive financial burden just to win work, concluding: Come on, lets get this issue sorted, Chris.Others pointed to the loss of money working on competitions using Williamsons own example of a 2004 competition for Urban Splash to deliver a 1.4ha scheme on the River Irwell in Manchester. WW+P won the design job but the scheme was never realised.Keir Regan-Alexander, founder of Arka Works, commented: The Urban Splash example: lets assume all of the entrants to the competition spent 10,000 in resource (a conservative estimate) 100 entrants is a total cost of 1,000,000 in wasted resource. [So] the risk to reward makes no sense any more, yet we have to keep bidding on bad terms because there is no alternative.Others, however, agreed with the WW+P founder, including architectural designer Dominik Arni, founder of Stiller Projects. He commented: Brilliant! Couldnt agree more with Chris Williamson. From the perspective of a young architectural practice without all the necessary references and insurance covers, well-run competitions are an essential tool for acquisition, experimentation, portfolio building and finding your own language.Williamson said in further comments to the AJ (read the full length version here) that competitions allow young architects the opportunity to show their ideas on a level playing field, and that young architects need more help now than ever.He added in defence: What I was trying to say on LinkedIn obviously not very well is that competitions need to be well-run, inviting a response to a problem, not a detailed solution, and a conversation with the client. Done properly, it is an opportunity to demonstrate our worth, not to give it away.Williamson was recently shortlisted in the competition run by the Norman Foster Foundation to rebuild the Saltivka neighbourhood of Kharkiv, Ukraine. Source:Chris WilliamsonA competition design for Kharkiv by Chris Williamson2024-10-31Gino Spocchiacomment and share