How to increase the number of architectural competitions in the Czech Republic?

The Czech Chamber of Architects organized an international symposium on Architectural Competitions in Brno on April 9, 2010. The all-day conference presented architectural competitions from the perspectives of competitors, professional organizations, lawyers, and clients. The comparison with the situation in Austria, where over 1,200 various types of competitions and tenders take place annually, and Finland, which has long advocated the holding of architectural competitions in its Architecture Policy, was particularly useful. Each of the four lecture blocks concluded with a discussion involving not only all eight speakers but also several dozen listeners.

ALARMING STATE OF PUBLIC PROCUREMENT
In the introduction, the chairman of the Czech Chamber of Architects, Dalibor Borák, reminded that the state of public procurement in the Czech Republic is alarming. Of the 1,500 public contracts for projects annually, only a fraction is awarded through architectural competitions (just six in 2008). Yet this is an entirely reasonable model functioning in all developed countries.
Unfortunately, if any type of tender does occur, the main evaluation criteria are almost always not the specific construction solution, but merely commercial parameters (company turnover, experience with similar contracts, portfolio, etc.). This often leads to unnecessary financial investment due to inadequate preparation of the procurement assignment.
The Czech Chamber of Architects decided to draw attention to this catastrophic situation among the public, political parties, and the government also because it is legally obliged to care for building culture and to assist in the protection of public interests in the areas of construction, architecture, and urban planning. At the same time, its role is to cooperate with competition organizers and tenderers, assess competition conditions, and prevent irregular competitions and tenders, as explicitly stipulated by the law on professional practice.

LACK OF INFORMATION OR INTENT?
There are many types of architectural competitions - student competitions, exhibitions of completed buildings, conceptual competitions, project competitions, construction competitions, etc. The Czech Chamber of Architects primarily advocates for competitions aimed at awarding public contracts for project development. A competition should take place for every public building whose investment costs exceed 80 million CZK. “The reluctance to organize such competitions is still growing stronger here,” confirms Jan Sapák, a member of the board of the Czech Chamber of Architects and a specialist in architectural competitions. The reasons can be speculated upon. They may include: 1) absolute ignorance of investors regarding the possibility of awarding contracts through architectural competitions; 2) an intention to proceed in an intentionally non-transparent manner; 3) fear of the complexity of the process stemming from inadequate information; 4) fear of financial and time consumption (payment of prizes, payment of jurors), without anyone realizing that diligence and higher initial investments are worthwhile; 5) fear that the jury will choose a building that the public will not identify with; 6) fear of the complicated search for funding for the competition; 7) fear of disputes, etc.
Unfortunately, most investors are truly interested only in price when awarding contracts. Architects themselves often do not improve the situation by claiming that mediocre architecture wins in competitions, or by repeatedly participating in irregular competitions.
Sapák deduces that competitions are fundamentally in the public interest, not primarily in the interest of architects. Hundreds of significant buildings have emerged precisely from architectural competitions (e.g., the Sydney Opera House, the Centre Pompidou, several buildings by A. Aaltonen, etc.). A competition does not have to lead to an extravagant object; all required criteria (whether for the appearance of the building or for cost-effectiveness) can be included in the competition conditions. Competing, even without winning, always brings valuable comparisons not only to the clients but also to the participants themselves.
Architect Sapák reminded at the symposium and in calls to the government to supplement the anti-corruption package, as well as to political parties to enhance their election programs last year:

• Architectural competition is a developed and proven type of competition shaped by long tradition (architectural competition has been refined for over 160 years);
• Its purpose is to select the most suitable design based on a comparison of all received solutions, which opens up a great probability for capable and professional author teams;
• It is transparent and provides an opinion from a qualified expert jury, which consists of both investor representatives and independent experts;
• In civilized countries, it is considered one of the most productive and also the fairest ways to find an author of the building;
• It mobilizes the best human abilities and is a proven way to extract the best results for the public interest within the available means;
• It aims for the best valuation of both public funds and valuable public spaces or land.

WHY COMPETITIONS IN AUSTRIA
Most of the planet's population lives in cities, in built-up environments (3.5 billion people). “Proper planning is a necessity because it affects our lives and the lives of our children,” says Georg Pendl, president of the Austrian Chamber of Architects. “The better we decide at the beginning, the better the outcome. Because the public sector spends taxpayers' money, we want it to be spent the right way and transparently. And this is enabled by architectural competition,” he adds. Since 2002, Austria has had a new public procurement law that supports competitions. It is not permissible to only ask for the lowest price for a project. Generally, the lowest price often yields only poor planning. In Austria, they try to monitor the following aspects in competitions:
Project Quality - even the largest real estate companies in Austria primarily follow quality, which is always sought at the initial phase (project work constitutes 10-15% of total investment costs). The competition brings a wide range of possibilities. They are looking for a project developer who will provide the best specific solution for the given subject of the contract. A renowned studio does not always have to be the best.
Money - it is necessary to ensure sufficient funds for the realization of the competition at the outset (and have assurance of funds for construction).
Transparency – the possibility of detailed monitoring of the course of the competition, including the jury's work.
Opportunities for newcomers – the competition opens the door for emerging architects.
Precise definition of assignment – the looser, clearer, and more concise it is, the better.
The Austrian Chamber of Architects (2,300 members) conducted a study to determine the participation of architects in competitions. In Austria, about 1,200 competitions and tenders for projects take place annually (not all are approved by the chamber, and many are irregular), and each office participates in an average of 3.5 competitions, with the costs for one competition entry approximately 14,000 euros.
On www.architekturwettbewerb.at, more detailed information can be found – a sample assignment, a calculator for competition costs for jurors and prizes according to investment costs, etc.

THERE WERE MORE COMPETITIONS DURING NORMALIZATION THAN TODAY
Competitions in the Czech Republic before 1989 - Professor Miroslav Masák described the practice of architectural competitions from the 1960s to the 1980s. The jury then held greater respect than today, the competition rules were simpler, and jury evaluations were less constrained. Later, the organization of competitions shifted to administrative offices, and public interest in the results of competitions gradually faded. After 1972, the participation of some competitors or jurors was restricted. “There were neither few nor many competitions, but there were undoubtedly more than today,” said Professor Masák. For example, Viktor Rudiš participated in ten national and four international competitions in the 1960s, and his participation was similar in subsequent years. However, participation in international competitions was limited - distributed in the 1960s by the Union of Czechoslovak Architects, which assisted in most significant competitions. In later years, it was possible to eliminate the Union. Among the most significant events of that time were competitions for the Czechoslovak pavilions at Expo in Montreal and Osaka, as well as competitions for the Main Railway Station hall in Prague, the completion of the National Theatre, Ruzyně Airport, the building of the National Assembly, and the Ještěd TV transmitter. Competitions for urban complexes also took place. Just like today, many competitions were held whose results were not realized.
Public space is on the edge of interest - According to M. Masák, the small number of competitions is partly due to a loss of dialogue between architecture and the public. Public space and quality buildings are marginal. The media should welcome architectural topics and ensure awareness. Organizers are also discouraged by higher entry costs - here, targeted financial support for competition organizers, for example from the Ministry of Regional Development, is suggested. He also pointed out deficiencies in the competition rules and prepared proposals for changes for the Czech Chamber of Architects. Professor Masák concluded his remarks with the words: “Competitions have been held for centuries and are held all over the world. Architects around the world also complain about competitions. And they continue to compete.”

DESIGNS ARE RESULTS OF CREATIVE INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY
Lawyers Jakub Matějček and Veronika Křesťanová summarized the competition for designs and the assignment of contracts according to the Public Procurement Act and the associated copyright implications.
Negotiations with the competition winner / Connection to public contracts for project documentation - If only the winner of the competition is invited to the subsequent negotiation procedure without publication, it may happen that they are not the most suitable for producing project documentation. The client also cannot compare, for example, the prices for creating project documentation according to the winning design from multiple contractors. On the contrary, when the negotiation procedure without publication led with the winner or winners of the competition does not follow the competition (which is permissible), and the client selects from bids from several bidders for project documentation based on the winning design in one of the usual types of procurement procedures, it must again be resolved in terms of consent for the use of the copyrighted work (the winning architectural proposal) and there may be serious complications associated with the author's right to supervision and subsequently with dual copyright issues during construction.
Two-round procedure - The Public Procurement Act does not recognize two-round architectural competitions; they are usually linked to the risk that the anonymity of the proposals will not be maintained, which must be ensured according to the law throughout the competition until the moment the jury decides on the selection of the most suitable proposal or proposals.
Binding nature of the jury's decision - The amendment to the law being debated by the Czech Parliament presupposes the cancellation of the client’s right to decide on selecting the most appropriate proposal differently from the jury's decision.
The proposal is the result of creative intellectual activity – in law, therefore, the competition for designs is described differently than for other contracts. A design competition brings actual fulfillment, while contracts select the best design for agreements.
Copyright – primarily belongs only to individuals (architects); legal entities (studios) cannot be authors; they can only have rights derived from the actual authors - creators. Lawyers recommend that the competition conditions explicitly require participants (who can also be legal entities) to provide information on who the author of the design is, further state the legal relationship between the team participants, and also that the participant be authorized to optionally conclude contracts in a negotiation procedure without publication. The team of authors (not just the studio name) should always be indicated on competition proposals, all of course with the awareness that the author has the right for their name not to be published (anonymous work).
Renovation - may involve an intervention in the original architectural work. With exceptions, permission from the original authors/heirs must be obtained. Even for works that are already out of copyright (the author having been deceased for more than 70 years), there exists a legal right to posthumous protection and prohibition of using the work in a way that diminishes its value. This right can be asserted primarily by relatives in a direct line.
Spiritual value – we differentiate between the design as an intangible asset (spiritual value) and the design as a tangible carrier (paper, CD). These terms should also be differentiated in the competition rules.

IN FINLAND, PUBLIC BUILDINGS MUST BE A GOOD EXAMPLE
The Finnish Architecture Policy considers architectural competitions as a means to achieve quality. “We are taxpayers; we must strive for quality (energy efficiency, functionality, ecological approach, low cost, aesthetics, etc.),” points out Paula Huotelin, Secretary General of the Finnish Association of Architects. Architectural competitions have a tradition of over 130 years in Finland, with the first competition being for the building of the Bank of Finland (1876). P. Huotelin presented approximately fifty of the most significant competitions in Finnish history, including their statistics. Competitions are maximally open, even to students, who can find a partner to sponsor the contract in case of success. Fees are negotiated during the negotiation procedure without publication – price estimates are established by comparing selected proposals. The Finnish Spatial Planning Act stipulates that several proposals must always be selected. Individual municipalities discuss construction with their citizens both before and after the competition. The media greatly assist in promoting architecture and competitions, although there is still a trend to publish mostly negative news.

THE INVESTOR SHOULD RESPONSIBLY CONSIDER THE ASSIGNMENT
Martin Svoboda, director of the National Technical Library, was the only representative of the competition organizers. The institution needed to modernize and expand, and therefore the first idea for a new building appeared in 1998. M. Svoboda was involved in both the concepts and the assignment of the competition and its organization, as well as the project and realization of this unique building, which opened last September in Prague-Dejvice (authors: Projektil Architekti – Roman Brychta, Adam Halíř, Petr Lešek, Ondřej Hofmeister). Before the competition assignment was created, the client's requirements were transferred to a feasibility study, and the construction cost was estimated. An exact competition assignment was then prepared, which included, among other things, openness, friendliness, comprehensibility, flexibility, low energy and operating costs, modest use of cutting-edge technologies, and integrity of interiors, exteriors, and artistic elements, etc. Everyone was satisfied with the winning design, but there was a problem with assigning the contract to the team. At that time, there was a different public procurement law that did not allow the contract to be awarded directly to the winner. Thus, in 2004, a competition for the construction contractor had to be held. Negotiations between the authors of the winning design from the architectural competition and the winning project designers did not always run smoothly. A contract with the contractor for the complete realization of the building, including furniture, navigation systems, and selection of subcontractors (who were consulted with the investor and prices compared), simplified matters somewhat.
What we learned - for every contract, it is necessary to have a specific plot of land and assurance of a steady flow of funding. It is also important to have good partners (colleagues, architects, designers, contractors, etc.). It is essential to realize that we are building for the future (unknown future) and that we must be flexible in designing and decision-making. We have learned humility, seeking good advice, and adhering to ideas.

WHAT DO ARCHITECTS EXPECT FROM COMPETITIONS?
Jiří Plos, secretary of the Czech Chamber of Architects, structures competitions on three pillars – client – jury – competitors, creating a complex background for the public (at what stage should they be involved in the discussion about the solution?), the client's office, and various affected bodies (how and in what form should they determine the conditions, comment on the assignment, or possibly participate in the assessment). How to potentially cooperate with competitors and the jury. Between these entities, supervisory institutions - the Office for the Protection of Competition and the Czech Chamber of Architects also enter the process. Competitions represent a relatively complex process intertwined with layers of mutual relationships. Architects should clarify their positions and state what they expect from each party both individually and in mutual cooperation. What competitors can do for the successful course of competitions, what the jury can do, and what the client can do. In order to choose suitable strategies and tools, the Chamber must openly and without evasions clarify the actual situation, assess the main reasons why competitions do not take place, and then seek tools by which it can effectively take action, primarily itself.
What the Czech Chamber of Architects can do for the success of competitions - It can effectively act in relation to the jury, even though it cannot appoint it. It can adjust the rules of competitions so that the organizers/clients are not afraid to hold them and want to realize the outcomes. It can influence the public by repeatedly providing information about the profession and competitions. It can offer further consultations to jurors – not just training. It can negotiate more effectively with authorities responsible for certain areas of public administration (cultural heritage, nature and landscape protection, and others) – for these purposes, it should have a basic concept for the protection of cultural heritage and nature (and others) in relation to the exercise of the profession, especially in competitions. It can support the freedom of competition conditions.
Amendment to the Public Procurement Act - The Czech Chamber of Architects has proposed several changes that align the chamber's competition rules with this regulation. The changes primarily relate to explicit reference to the Chamber's competition rules, the composition and activities of the jury, the conditions for publishing competition results, compensation for competitors in case of competition cancellation, and the determination of prices and rewards, as well as the overlap with contract assignments. It will further engage in intensive discussions with the Office for the Protection of Competition regarding the execution of profession and competition conditions to support rather than hinder the processes.

THE PARTICIPATION OF LOCAL POLITICIANS IS IMPORTANT
Peter Gero is the coordinator of urban concepts for the city of Hamburg, including the extensive HafenCity development project. He claims that developers are usually not enlightened and only announce competitions when pressured by public administration. A good example is indeed the HafenCity project. Before the architectural competition for the master plan was held, the investor organized a competition for the creator of the competition conditions, which involved six studios. In April 1999, 175 teams from all over the world competed for the master plan, eight of which proceeded to the next round, with the Dutch-German studio Hamburgplan (in collaboration with Kees Christiaanse / ASTOC) winning. The master plan was exhibited several times, and discussions were held with the public. Currently, more than 100 teams from around the world (including Erik van Egeraat, Behnisch Architekten, Ingenhoven Architekten, Richard Meier, David Chipperfield, Rem Koolhaas) are realizing buildings in HafenCity. Architectural competitions were held for “defined” areas. For “undefined” areas, investor and development competitions were organized. The main city architect oversaw the entire process.
In Hamburg, around 15-20 competitions approved by the chamber take place annually, with roughly the same number occurring without chamber oversight. If it is a public land, a competition should always take place. According to Peter Gero, it is essential to involve local politicians in competitions who will promote the competition and its results. Individual proposals should be displayed and accompanied by publicly comprehensible written evaluations from the jury. Proposal anonymity, determination of prices and rewards, and precise and realistic assignments regarding content, finances, and timing should be a given. A well-composed jury, evaluators of the competition proposals, and cooperation with the professional chamber are also essential.

DISCUSSIONS AND PROCEEDINGS
The symposium included discussions after each lecture and a comprehensive panel discussion at the end. The complete texts of the lectures and selected discussion contributions will be reprinted in the proceedings for the conference, which will be published in the summer.