What do people think about the competition system, like they have in Europe (or at least in Germany)? If people might mention the relationship to pre-design stage, the time constraints, the costs born by architects, the use of juries and of course the relationship to the finished, ie. built product?
Just to mention a few.... If you feel like getting philosophical, maybe the cultural role of competitions?

Ok, this thread is possibly lame...
So, I'm going to try and kick it into gear a bit- maybe, someone will reply...

So, one of the things that I've noticed about being in Germany, is that the profession is 'protected'- there's a something called the HAOI (http://www.hoai.de/online/HOAI-Text/HOAI1996.php), (which in english is something like, remuneration for architects and engineers) which is a legally binding schedule of fees, for architects broken down into 9 nominal design-phases, research, pre-design, design, develpment application, construction drawings, specs, tendering, and site management... terminology's a bit wobbly, but I think this is the basic package.

Now at this stage, I want some Germans here to yell out, "Hell no! Well, actually sought of..." because in practice apparently, the architect isn't necesarily paid for each of the phases. That means, that the architect agrees to do the site management, while not being paid for it. I don't know how this is contractually negotiated, but where there's no smoke, well, there's no fire...

Anyway, this is all supposed to maintain the quality and the integrity of the profession and is a kind of anti-competition strategy, at least in the sens of regulating the impact of the market on architecture.

Now, the thing is that a competition entry is basically the equivalent of pre-design stage and if you win the competition, the prize money is subtracted from the first two HAOI design phases.

My daughter just woke up, so bye for now...

But maybe people in other countries might like to say if the profession there is protected or not?

The competition-system in Germany, in Austria has to be discussed.
I studied the competition system for a theoretical work of mine and realized that there is going a lot in the wrong way.

F.e. in France you are paid for competitions when you just are part of it, also each design-effort is better constituted as an alone part.
(- this as once told in an guest lection at university by an French architect), in our countries lots of architects/office compare about a few prizes...
You can`t compare the money of architects with that of medical doctors, lawyers, also our ones have much more (financial) risk, often much more costs,
often much more to do...:mad:

Seldom there is an invited challenge, where each starts with an amount. I don`t think that there is any group of academic jobs out there, which has such seldom conditions like architecture often has. You often can`t compare each hour you work in an amount of money.

I also don`t agree in all chamber things, the chamber often is not a good representation , also you don`t get financial support like you get one when you normally start up a firm when you open an office f.e.:mad:
//
Also the image of architects can be discussed. In my mind the competition make us to pay ourself "cheaper".In my mind the competition system which often is not logical (often not first entry is the one who starts to plan...f.e., etc etc), also the formulations in competitions and the laws combined are discussable....:bang head.

Thanks for replying JoHanneum_Z- you can proly explain this stuff better than me. You said something about the chamber, what does the chamber do, anyway? I guess they're like the ARIA in Oz, or the RIBA, in UK etc. S'posed to represent architects, increase awareness of the profession etc. etc. Don't seem to really do very much practically.
--

I was just talking to some of the colleagues at lunch and they were saying that each of the phases in the HAOI is worth a certain number of points, or percentage of the total job, so that for example, site management is worth 29% and pre-design 10%.
--

Competitions have a good side, because many people get to take part and submit designs and ideas. This is good for the clients and also for the architects, who get to see what others are doing. Also, it is a chance for the public to see what architects are doing- and proposing for their cities.

the down-side of competitions/spec work is that it leaves out smaller firms who don't have the budget, and it could allow potential clients to shop around ideas and then go with a cheaper office to do the drawings (ultimately bad for everyone). My feeling is that people who wish to participate in competitions should receive a stipend to cover their expenses - otherwise only the larger wealthy firms, the starchitects with slave labor, and inexperienced students will be able to do them. the way it is done now in many countries just perpetuates the current system.

the AIGA (american institute of graphic artists) has a good position on this that I think the AIA should adopt.

http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/position-spec-work

this field is different from architecture because in architecture the fee for the initial design is very small compared to the fee for design documents and construction administration... but I think one of the major problems, at least in the US, is that many clients (and americans in general) place very little value on design... because architects give the design away for free, and only charge money for the technical stuff.

-to