investor competitions
In recent years, more and more investor competitions, usually closed ones, have been held locally. It is worth noting that the need for a competition is assumed by many local plans for particularly important plots of land, especially in Gdynia. Gdynia's records also refer to the observance of "principles recommended by SARP or relevant professional chambers; the composition of competition juries should include representatives of the Municipality of Gdynia - selected by the Municipality." This brings positive results, especially since the results of the competitions are presented and discussed in the local media.
Competitions have to their credit, among others, Invest Komfort (for example, for the development of plots of land at the intersection of 10 Lutego and Świętojańska streets in Gdynia or the successful Botanika estate in Jelitkowo, proj. Maarte), Euro Styl (a housing estate on Powstańców Warszawskich Street in Gdańsk, where the second place ex aequo went to the concepts of the Rayss Szymański Architekci studio from Gdańsk and S.A.M.I. Architekci from Warsaw) or, most recently, the AB Inwestor company, which held a competition for an office building at InfoBox in Gdynia. Also noteworthy is the competition settled in June for the Training and Education Center of the District Medical Chamber, in which Rybnik's Toprojekt won. To avoid being accused of local nepotism, architects from outside the Tricity were invited to join the jury (chairman Pawel Majkusiak of JEMS and Malgorzata Dembowska of WXCA).
Unique in the Tricity, addressed to more than twenty world-renowned studios, was a private competition for a master plan for the Imperial Shipyard, announced after the investor - a consortium of Belgian companies - purchased the site. The final three included the winning Danish firm Henning Larsen (in consortium with BBGK and A2P2), MVRDV (with Studio Kwadrat) and Studio 017 by Paola Vigano, and the results were widely covered in the local media. Instead of a typical competition jury, a council was set up, composed of representatives of both the investor and local communities (including academia, government offices, NGOs). The competition was not anonymous - there was a review of the progress as the concept was being developed - but the participants did not know the ideas of the competition.
competition juries
Usually, competition regulations stipulate that architects who have a business relationship or family relationship with members of the competition jury are excluded from participation. The small industry environment, which is what it is in the Tri-City (despite the large number of architects registered with the Chamber), means that doubts about the impartiality of the court can arise at every turn. Especially since many local architects either work closely in the Chamber or SARP, or work in the Department of Architecture. However, the profile of the Department is changing a lot - Gdansk University of Technology has been given the status of a research university, and for several years now, due to reforms in science and higher education, research staff are expected to produce more scientific than design work. This means that in the next few years a greater separation between practitioners and researchers can be expected, and a full-time position at a university, until recently an attractive springboard for architects, will prove to be an impediment to parallel business.
Although the composition of the court is one of the most important incentives to participate in the competition and a guarantee of the quality of the evaluation of the works, the juries of Tricity competitions are often staffed with the same people. Architectural superstars rarely appear - an exception here was Daniel Libeskind in the competition for the World War II Museum or George Fergusson and Eva Jiricna in the competition for the ECS, among others. In competitions organized by the city, usually most of the court members, and even as chairmen, are officials, in those organized by SARP - local SARP judges. Tri-City architects, who regularly win competitions, also complain about the repetitive composition of the courts. There are also "exchanges" that occur. - winners of competitions are members of the jury and vice versa in the next competition round. Resistance to inviting architects not connected with the local community is completely incomprehensible. SARP's database is so rich that it is possible to invite architects (and female architects, who are particularly underrepresented here) from the other end of Poland to the jury without much problem, which is also practiced in other cities.
information
"I find out about competitions in Gdansk the moment they are decided, if at all. Information about their announcement somehow eludes me. Maybe it's my gawking, but I don't have this problem with the rest of Poland, and I follow the information from Gdansk diligently, as it seems to me, because I would love to take part in some competition." - Maciej Kaufman of Warsaw-based Archigrest, a graduate of Gdansk University of Technology.
There are more similar voices coming in from all over Poland, especially from young studios that would like to win commissions for projects that may be less prestigious than museum edifices, but that really change urban space. In the case of open competitions, their wide announcement also translates into a larger number of works, which means a greater choice and the likelihood that not so much the best work as an outstanding one will happen. The competition for the design of the Maritime Museum in an extremely prestigious location, settled at the beginning of 2005, received only thirteen works; last year's competition for the reconstruction of the City Theater in Gdynia - two (!).
Competition for the reconstruction of the City Theater in Gdynia, 1st place: WXCA
vision: © WXCA
A chance to break with the negative image and at the same time attract more submissions could have turned out to be the recent series of municipal competitions for public spaces as part of Gdansk's revitalization (Biskupia Górka, Orunia, Nowy Port). However, they were again so poorly publicized, again with juries composed primarily of officials and with such uninviting conditions, that only a few works were submitted for each. Although solid projects were eventually selected, there was no guarantee that there would be "anything to choose from," which is, after all, the main premise of open competitions.
What's next?
For the situation to change, first of all, it is necessary to identify who would have an interest in repairing the tarnished image of the Tri-City competitions. This would include well-known local architects, who would gain in terms of image (at the moment, regardless of the quality of the proposals submitted to the Tricity competitions, suspicion of nepotism falls on them). Designers who would stop avoiding the Tri-City and open the way to new orders. Contracting authorities, acquiring more higher-quality designs in competitions (which cost time and money). SARP, which would not risk involvement in opaque procedures. Residents and users, gaining facilities and public spaces of higher quality and spatial order.
New players are entering the Tri-City design market, drawn here by investors who have worked with them in other cities. A lasting change in the perception of local competitions, however, requires, first, a frank discussion - not backstage gossip, but an open exchange of experiences - and, second, some transparently organized competitions. Decently advertised in the trade media, with a jury, the majority of which will be architects not affiliated with the contracting parties, and preferably from outside the Tri-City, with clear rules and regulations.
The question is who is to be the initiator of these activities. Not likely private investors, since they are not bound by public procurement law. Local governments? In 2017, Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz issued an ordinance regulating these issues - the construction or reconstruction of public buildings and investments in public space, carried out with public funds of the City of Warsaw, are to be prepared through an urban planning or architectural competition. The question is whether the current budget problems will result in no new investments. Public institutions? They are also struggling financially, and the pandemic has thwarted many of their plans and changed the way they access culture. Careful spending of money all the more demands quality, and this is, after all, the basic premise of competitions.
Participation in a competition, especially a large one, is a huge effort for studios. It is difficult to risk several weeks of intensive work that may not be rewarded in any way. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that architects avoid Gdansk by a wide margin. No one wants to be a laboratory mouse on which a cure for a painful disease will be proven to have been invented and implemented. A remediation plan requires reflection, discipline, cooperation between industry and contracting organizations, and above all, a willingness to change from all sides. Young studios seem to be the most important target group here - the next generation of architects, who know the stories of the past dozen years at best from the stories of older colleagues, have a chance to look at the Tri-City as any other competitive location. For this , however, a series of solidly and transparently prepared and conducted competitions is needed.
{AuthorA&B}
illustrations from the A&B archives
