Architectural competitions are considered in the architecture community as the most effective tool for selecting the best projects. The question that both organizers and participants of competitions should ask themselves at the outset is the meaning of the word "best" - in the context of the competition criteria, the current needs of the audience of their projects, but also professional and social responsibility. In the face of the climate crisis, shouldn't the most accurate response to environmental issues be the main criterion for evaluating competition entries?
A frequent argument in discussions about the influence of architects and architects on construction practice, climate change, or investors in general in choosing solutions to reduce the negative impact of buildings on the environment, is that of limited possibilities and being bound by budgets and the requirements of the contracting authority. Completely out of sight of those raising these issues are architectural competitions, i.e. a procedure in which architects are the ones organizing the process (most often as SARP), co-creating the evaluation criteria, as well as often ensuring themselves a numerical majority in the competition juries, in which, in addition to the designers, also sit representatives of the investor, users and various institutions. Such conduct is not only the privilege of a professional group, but, above all, it carries great responsibility and a real impact on what projects will be earmarked for implementation, and therefore indirectly - on what impact the selected project will have on the environment.
changes on the horizon
However, an analysis of the competition criteria of more than a dozen recent proceedings announced by the Association of Polish Architects leaves no illusions - environmental issues have not been considered as one of the most important factors so far. A lot of space the competition juries have to devote to the visual expression of buildings, fitting into the (architectural) context, functional solutions, or even meeting the requirements for parking spaces and the economy of the proposed solutions.
SARP's latest competitions take environmental criteria into account
photo: organizer materials
Of the competitions announced recently, in the most recent ones the jury has been required to analyze the submitted projects in terms of ecology. The regulations for competition No. 1000 for "Construction of a research and teaching building on Furmanska Street (social sciences)" read that:
The highest mark will be given to the study that proposes the best fit of the architecture and materials used with the urban and landscape-nature context.
Competition 999 includes a provision for evaluating "the degree and relevance of the inclusion of pro-environmental solutions in the concept," and competition No. 1002 for the development of an architectural concept for a sports center building in Zabieniec explicitly includes a criterion for "the application of pro-environmental and energy-saving solutions of the building and development."
These provisions are not revolutionary, of course, but it is the first step toward an interest in environmental issues, and it is gratifying that such provisions are appearing more and more often. What is uncertain, however, is their translation into results, in the absence of a weighting against other criteria.
need for decisive action
A tougher approach to environmental issues would require, first of all, a clear stance on the part of professional organizations such as SARP and the Chamber of Architects, preparing and implementing guidelines in the competitions organized by the Association. On the other hand, members of the jury would have to demonstrate a willingness to self-restraint - restraint in terms of their own tastes and interests, but also ego and unfettered freedom of choice. If we recognize the common good, defined in this case as the state of the environment and climatic safety of all users of the designed building, or more broadly, the place, then it is this aspect that must take precedence over all other qualities that a good architectural design should meet.
Another way to ensure that climate and environmental issues have their proper place in the selection process for competition projects is to give one seat on the jury to a person specializing in climate issues, not necessarily representing the architectural industry. This, in turn, would require self-restraint by the SARP and members of the competition juries in awarding jury seats.
All the ways of introducing the postulated changes are bound by one thing - the need to limit and change the way of thinking about the responsibility of those who organize and participate in competitions. After all, the work they do affects not only the directly interested parties, clients or people who will use the designed spaces in the future. The process of construction and the subsequent operation of completed concepts is a huge impact on the environment and context in which they are created. The professional responsibility of architects in the face of the challenges of the climate crisis should push for collective action. We are all subject to restrictions - from segregating trash, reducing travel, using collective and non-carbon-emitting modes of transportation, choosing eco-friendly products or a vegetarian diet. However, it is the production of building materials that accounts for 11% of global carbon emissions, and the subsequent use of buildings that accounts for another 28%. And this is where there is an opportunity for real qualitative change. Participation, but especially the organization of an architectural competition, is a privilege, but also an obligation.
