The Nature of Architecture Awards
When it comes to awards, there are three types of architects;
1. The architects that get awards,
2. The architects that don’t,
3. The architects that don’t go after awards to begin with.
Winning an award in architecture involves much more than simply designing and building a great project. There are a host of variables that have influence over which projects receive awards, and which projects don’t.
We’ve noticed this trend over the years and have been able to isolate five variables that go into awards.
Jurors can be wild cards.
Most award ceremonies involve a panel of jurors made up of architects, designers and critics who select the winning projects. What’s important to realize is that these panel members are often brought in from different places; and while this brings fresh perspectives to the discussion, it’s a double edge sword. Different regions have different philosophies of design, different trends, and different methods of design. Often times, jurors also have their own agendas. Maybe they just authored a book on a certain topic, maybe they’re pushing a certain style or cause, or maybe they’ve got an axe to grind with another jury member, who knows.
Submissions imply marketing.
Most award ceremonies require architects to submit a package of information for each project. Along with the submission comes the opportunity to market, enhance or spin the project; subsequently the submission itself can add an exaggerated layer of gloss to a project. With a bit of insight, presentations can also be calibrated to the idiosyncrasies of the jurors (see #1).
Some of the most important project information is never taken into account.
Did the finished project meet the budget? Are the clients happy with the end result? Did the sub-contractors curse the architect’s name from the earthwork to the punch list? As important as these factors are, they are rarely, if ever, taken into consideration with an awards ceremony.
Ideally, the winners represent the institution hosting the awards.
The organization hosting, coordinating and paying for the award ceremony typically wants winners that represent their values. Do the winners pay dues to the hosting organization? Do the winners represent the principles and beliefs of the organization? Do the winners question the nature of award ceremonies on their blog? Whether stated in the criteria or not, these things most likely matter.
The impression of progress.
The very nature of holding an annual award ceremony suggests that the architecture needs to be something new, different and better than last year’s architecture. The nature of an awards ceremony proposes that there is a continued progress. This can steer the jury’s attention toward projects that *seem* racy or cutting edge. New sometimes trumps over good.
We’re not saying that any of these variables are good or bad, but simply that they’re most likely present at an awards ceremony; nor are we suggesting that it should be any other way. To some degree, these factors make award ceremonies exciting and unpredictable. It also takes a clever architectural team to craft a submission with these variables in mind; crafting the project entry requires its own strategy which we admire on a certain level.
The nature of award ceremonies is certainly something we’ve pondered over the years, and after observing many award ceremonies (and even submitting to a few), we finally came to the conclusion that we’re type 3 in the architect breakdown: we simply don’t go after awards. We came to this conclusion based on a very simple reason; that is, time is valuable. The time involved in putting together a submission for an architectural award competition is significant: drawings typically need to be reformatted, images need to be resized, briefs need to be written, bios reworked, etc. For us, the time involved is too significant for a result that is, at best, a shot in the dark (or left up to the variables mentioned above). That same amount of time can be put into efforts that have direct and effective results like updating the website, providing value to readers on our blog, or, most importantly, serving our current clients well.
We’re not suggesting that this stance is right or wrong, nor do we suffer from sour grapes (although undoubtedly some folks will try to take this post there). We’re glad that architectural awards exist and we’ll always be rooting for our favorite entries. With all the hype around awards this time of year, we just couldn’t help but present some alternative thoughts to architecture award ceremonies. As with any of our posts, we look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Cheers from team BUILD
By Geoff J., October 25, 2011 @ 7:16 am
It brings to mind a favorite quote of mine by John McCarthy: “When architects get prizes, the people suffer”
By Richter, October 25, 2011 @ 7:22 am
I’m with you, guys. But I’ve got one criticism: “the time involved is too significant for a result that is, at best, a shot in the dark”. I think that awards are less a shot in the dark and simply more of a guarantee for certain firms. I feel like this years AIA honor awards in Seattle should have been titled the “Olson-Kundig-Miller-Hull-Weinstein Awards”
By lavardera, October 25, 2011 @ 7:27 am
I’m with you on this. I’ll never submit for awards.
By Archi-poor, October 25, 2011 @ 7:34 am
What, no mention of the financial cost of awards? This year’s submissions set me back nearly $800 -which for a sole proprietor is a chunk of change. One would think that too would factor into your analysis.
By mike eliason, October 25, 2011 @ 7:40 am
though it’s nice to see the HA call out things as ‘unsustainable’ for once…
‘Don’t enter awards competitions. Just don’t. It’s not good for you’ – bruce mau
By Kelly, October 25, 2011 @ 7:41 am
The bummer with most award ceremonies (that are not the Oscars) is that all the work you put into the submission only gets you exposure with… your competitors.
By TOI, October 25, 2011 @ 7:43 am
Submitting for awards and being part of the design culture is your duty as an architect. The effort you put into the awards, the time, and the fees are simply part of the dues you pay to organizations like the AIA. Opting out isn’t an option in my book.
By John Hill, October 25, 2011 @ 8:22 am
Regarding badge #3, perhaps the most important thing that is not take into consideration is the quality of the building as experienced. Speaking from experience on a design jury, the majority of buildings up for award were ones I’d never seen in person, and it was a local/state award even. Therefore our judgment was influenced by image, quality of presentation, and other factors divorced from any actual experience. The only award I can think of that takes experience into account is the Mies van der Rohe award, since they have each juror visit the finalists, something far too expensive for other awards competitions.
By Steven Kingsley, October 25, 2011 @ 8:49 am
Good insights. I agree when architects win awards it usually a big ego trip for them, not sure the best if always chosen either?
By archaalto, October 25, 2011 @ 9:44 am
definitely with john on this one-experience should be a factor in the awards and more often than not isn’t.
our firm does submit for awards, and it is actually sometimes recommended or promoted by the client. if there is a project that stands out for one reason or another, it can bring very positive exposure to the institution or organization.
lately, we’ve been searching for awards submittals that are geared less towards peers [AIA, etc.] and more to ones that would have a bigger impact or exposure to the general public. this can be a bit tricky without getting caught up in ones that are simply a fee to “advertise” your stuff. we try to be really discerning about which ones we participate in and retain a level of control in the way it will be displayed.
as a side note–i did experience a #4 in the worst way at an Young Architects [AIA sponsored] awards event this past year. all the winners happened to be associate members of the AIA and the winning projects were of the worst kind of hypothetical academic trash i have ever seen. not a single built project was awarded [and there were many], so since then I have become part of the “no longer will submit for awards” category. it probably had to do with the fact that the jury had 3 or 4 folks associated with the local university / AIA, but who knows?
By Michael Brown, October 25, 2011 @ 9:59 am
I have always advocated not entering competitions in which there is a fee. It is simple statistics. You are only competing with the sub-group of firms who were also willing to pay, not against all architects. Therefore, winning such a contest has no meaning, unless you think there is something statistically significant about firms willing to pay X dollars to essentially buy a trophy. The Nobel Prize, baseball batting titles and Pulitzers are valid because to you don’t “pay to play.” Such prizes are earned. Anything with an entry fee is a purposeless, hollow and empty waste of money and time.
By mike eliason, October 25, 2011 @ 7:07 pm
john,
i believe the AIA seattle takes jurors to visit finalist projects (or at least, have in the past) – but this is still based on image fodder.
By Matt Aalfs, October 26, 2011 @ 10:56 am
As a lead architect at Weinstein A|U, I find the posting and the discussion a bit odd. Yes, we spend significant time to develop our submissions. We find this to be a valuable exercise in clear, concise, and direct communication about our work. And yes, is it a form of marketing, like maintaining a blog in which you frequently highlight your work. Finally, yes, we do take pride in receiving peer recognition for projects designed under challenging circumstances for not-for-profit, institutional, and public clients; projects that exceed owner’s expectations, enhance their communities, and are innovative and meaningful at the same time. cheers, Matt
By Build LLC, October 26, 2011 @ 12:38 pm
@Matt -great points on all fronts. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.
By TDI, October 26, 2011 @ 1:12 pm
Matt -I don’t think they’re saying that anything is wrong with awards, or that going after awards needs to be justified. But simply that there are other factors involved with winning an award. An award doesn’t necessarily mean that the project is the “best” residence, patient house or fire station -there are other considerations.
By Shooter, October 26, 2011 @ 2:21 pm
God, you architects are obtuse. Regarding #4, “Ideally, the winners represent the institution hosting the awards”. The winners don’t just represent the institution hosting the awards, the winners ARE the institutions. Regarding your recent AIA Honor awards, a quick Google search exposes the following information:
Miller Hull: the recipient of 2 honor awards this year. Managing partner Norman Strong has, as the Seattle AIA website states “extensive AIA leadership” and currently serves on the AIA national Board of Directors. He was Seattle AIA president from 2000-2001. Craig Curtis, another partner, is currently on the board of directors for the Seattle AIA.
Olson Kundig (formerly Olson Sundberg Kundig Allen): the recipient of an honor award and a merit award this year. Rick Sundberg is the current Seattle AIA president.
Weinstein A|U Architects (formerly Weinstein Copeland Architects): the recipient of one commendation award and one citation award this year. Lee Copeland was the Seattle AIA president from 2007-2008.
Schacht Aslani Architects: the recipient of one commendation award this year. Walter Schacht was the Seattle AIA president from 2006-2007.
Maybe it’s just *coincidence* that the winners are heavily involved in the AIA, but I think your post needs another category: #6 Are you, or have you ever been, the AIA president? The sooner architects can admit that the profession is incestuous and self-centered, the sooner architects will stop worrying about awards and concern themselves with designing good buildings.
Sources:
http://www.aiaseattle.org/node/6169
http://www.aiaseattle.org/board
http://www.aiaseattle.org/archive_honors_presidents.htm
By Gus, October 26, 2011 @ 2:37 pm
[In my very best Ricky Ricardo accent] Architects, you got some ‘splainin to do!
By nc, October 26, 2011 @ 3:00 pm
Well, personally making money doing building and create jobs for employees is more important than any awards.
By Knudsen, October 26, 2011 @ 3:10 pm
Sounds to me like the AIA Honor Awards need an oversight committee. AIA, can you put a panel together for this?
By Madison, October 27, 2011 @ 8:06 am
I think people take awards too seriously -architects, homeowners and the industry in general. I like award ceremonies, I think they’re fun to attend and I always enjoy seeing work that I wouldn’t otherwise be privy to. At the same time, awards just represent a handful of project that a group of (typically) out of town architects were drawn to. An award doesn’t mean that the winner is the Shangri-La of architecture.
By Lou Maxon, October 27, 2011 @ 12:21 pm
I think awards are marketing. You win some you get your name out there. Marketing is an investment of time and money to spread the brand name and to gain attention of your peers, of prospective clients, etc. There is no good or bad when it comes to awards its how you use it (them) to your marketing advantage. My two cents.
By ryan, October 27, 2011 @ 6:59 pm
What are your thoughts on 2nd place? History shows some of the best, and often most radical designs, don’t place first but second.
I have a soft spot for second place winners particularly in architecture, as these are sometimes the actual “better” designs, whatever your criteria for “better” may be.
By Jim Zack, October 28, 2011 @ 3:50 am
We recently were hired to design a new house, a good project for our firm. The client found us by reviewing all of the award winners of our local AIA chapter for the past ten years.
This seems to me to be a good “reimbursement” for the many entry fees we have paid.
I am not at all surprised by the coincidence of firms with involvement in the AIA also winning awards. These are exceptional practitioners who have distinguished themselves on many fronts. How can anyone question the quality and award winning merit of Kundig or Miller-Hull, it is consistently superior work.
Full disclosure, I am a local AIA board member, I have chaired and been on juries and our firm submits for, and occasionally wins awards.
As described in No. 1, juries are strange beasts that take on a life of their own. Ultimately though awards, be it AIA or magazines, are a time honored way to mark the status and growth of a firms work.
By Stephanie Pure, October 28, 2011 @ 11:05 am
Thank you for this great discussion regarding awards programs. Speaking of our recent Honor Awards, just wanted to clarify a couple items. 1) Jurors visit as many finalists as they can in a 24 hour period. (Mind you, sometimes a visit can increase a firm’s chance at winning, sometimes it can decrease it.) 2) AIA Seattle makes every effort to ensure that the jury and moderator, which is always from out of town, does not see the project team names of the projects they are reviewing. They are only allowed to see the information the firm submits and we do no allow firms to identify their submittals with any firm, individual, or project team information.
Lastly, the audience for this program is generally our own industry, but it does get out there a bit more than that. AIA Seattle works to promote the submittals and winners to a broader audience beyond our own profession. Also, editors and writers often look at the online gallery of submissions to find story ideas. From there, stories can show up in publications months after the awards (magazines have long lead times, for example). If you’d like to browse through the online gallery, visit: http://2011honorawards.aiaseattle.org/ We also have archives from years’ past here: http://2011honorawards.aiaseattle.org/
By E. Golden, November 4, 2011 @ 7:11 am
Seattle is a small city, with a core group of architects. Of course the same firms will win over the years. The jurors this year were of a very high caliber. Jennifer Yoos is a partner with VJAA out of Minneapolis (one of the best offices in the US in my opinion) and Marlon Blackwell is a very well respected architect from Fayetteville, Arkansas. Both are as far removed from the Seattle architecture scene as you can get, and as jurors, I doubt either really cared or even knew which local office designed what building. I think they selected what they thought were the best projects. As for the “wild card” aspect, that’s just the nature of all juries for competitions and award panels. Having distinguished practitioners from other places judge the work is essential.