AN IMPORTANT COMPETITION PRECEDENT
The Wimbledon Municipal Buildings Conditions
The proper conduct of competitions is a subject of continual interest to architects, so that any new development which concerns the drawing up of competition conditions or the methods of assessment will be watched very closely, not only by candidates for the great prizes which the competition system offers, but by all these who have at heart the welfare of the profession as a whole. It is notorious that within recent years the awards of several important competitions have led to acrimonious disputes. Disappointed competitors have written angry letters on the ground that conditions clearly set down were deliberately set aside by the prize-winners. The short reply is, of course, that the competitors accept as a primary condition of their entry that the assessors’ award must be considered final; and those who wish the competition system to be preserved must insist that the assessors’ decision, whether right or wrong, is unconditionally accepted.
While it may be right for some notice to be taken of the complaints made by disgruntled competitors, it is far better to so draft the conditions that subsequent protest is unnecessary.
The Competitors ’ Charter.
Many of the disputes arising out of competition awards are due to the fact that the conditions are ambiguously worded. On other occasions, however, it may occur that the very precision with which the conditions are drafted causes embarrassment to the competitors, inasmuch as they feel that their powers of imagination have been placed under unjustifiable restraint, and that the problem has been prescribed so as to leave no loop-hole for the exercise of their originality. It is with special satisfaction, therefore, we read that in the Wimbledon competition for designs of a Town Hall and Municipal Buildings Mr. Henry V. Ashley, F. R. I. B. A., who has been appointed assessor, has inserted a clause which we here quote:
“The following schedule indicates the accommoda
tion which the Corporation considers should be provided, but the competitors are at liberty, in the preparation of their designs, to make any modifications they may think fit, while carrying out the general spirit of these conditions and instructions. It may be assumed, however, that compliance with this schedule, while not absolutely binding, will be a matter of first importance with the assessor, and it must be understood that any material departure from it must be justified by compensating advantages to the buildings as a whole, having regard to their particular purpose. ’’
Is it not obvious that a clause such as the preceding one, if it had been inserted in the conditions of those architectural competitions which have been productive of so much discord in the profession during recent years, might have effectually prevented the disputes in question from having arisen at all? For it stands to reason that no competitor has grounds for complaint against the assessors for going outside their own conditions when the assessors themselves prescribed the occasion when these conditions would be set aside with propriety. Although the clause does not exempt the jury from the duty of formulating the “programme” of the building as precisely as possible, it enables the jury to escape from the pretence of omniscience which not only irritates the competitors but actually makes it more difficult to obtain the best design. For it must be borne in mind that the competition system rests upon the assumption that the collective intellect of the competitors is capable of producing designs superior to that which the assessors themselves could create. If this assumption did not hold good, the obvious procedure would be for the building owner or the Corporation responsible for the project to appoint the assessors as architects for the work forthwith. For as it may be taken for granted that the promoters of every new building enterprise want the very best design they can get, they would dispense with the labour and cost of
The Wimbledon Municipal Buildings Conditions
The proper conduct of competitions is a subject of continual interest to architects, so that any new development which concerns the drawing up of competition conditions or the methods of assessment will be watched very closely, not only by candidates for the great prizes which the competition system offers, but by all these who have at heart the welfare of the profession as a whole. It is notorious that within recent years the awards of several important competitions have led to acrimonious disputes. Disappointed competitors have written angry letters on the ground that conditions clearly set down were deliberately set aside by the prize-winners. The short reply is, of course, that the competitors accept as a primary condition of their entry that the assessors’ award must be considered final; and those who wish the competition system to be preserved must insist that the assessors’ decision, whether right or wrong, is unconditionally accepted.
While it may be right for some notice to be taken of the complaints made by disgruntled competitors, it is far better to so draft the conditions that subsequent protest is unnecessary.
The Competitors ’ Charter.
Many of the disputes arising out of competition awards are due to the fact that the conditions are ambiguously worded. On other occasions, however, it may occur that the very precision with which the conditions are drafted causes embarrassment to the competitors, inasmuch as they feel that their powers of imagination have been placed under unjustifiable restraint, and that the problem has been prescribed so as to leave no loop-hole for the exercise of their originality. It is with special satisfaction, therefore, we read that in the Wimbledon competition for designs of a Town Hall and Municipal Buildings Mr. Henry V. Ashley, F. R. I. B. A., who has been appointed assessor, has inserted a clause which we here quote:
“The following schedule indicates the accommoda
tion which the Corporation considers should be provided, but the competitors are at liberty, in the preparation of their designs, to make any modifications they may think fit, while carrying out the general spirit of these conditions and instructions. It may be assumed, however, that compliance with this schedule, while not absolutely binding, will be a matter of first importance with the assessor, and it must be understood that any material departure from it must be justified by compensating advantages to the buildings as a whole, having regard to their particular purpose. ’’
Is it not obvious that a clause such as the preceding one, if it had been inserted in the conditions of those architectural competitions which have been productive of so much discord in the profession during recent years, might have effectually prevented the disputes in question from having arisen at all? For it stands to reason that no competitor has grounds for complaint against the assessors for going outside their own conditions when the assessors themselves prescribed the occasion when these conditions would be set aside with propriety. Although the clause does not exempt the jury from the duty of formulating the “programme” of the building as precisely as possible, it enables the jury to escape from the pretence of omniscience which not only irritates the competitors but actually makes it more difficult to obtain the best design. For it must be borne in mind that the competition system rests upon the assumption that the collective intellect of the competitors is capable of producing designs superior to that which the assessors themselves could create. If this assumption did not hold good, the obvious procedure would be for the building owner or the Corporation responsible for the project to appoint the assessors as architects for the work forthwith. For as it may be taken for granted that the promoters of every new building enterprise want the very best design they can get, they would dispense with the labour and cost of