Entering an architecture competition is basically a form of speculative investment. Time is money, and competitions tend to require a lot of both. Models, renders, and prints—not to mention wages—can deplete the coffer quickly, especially for a young practice. A studio will invest their time and money in an entry in the hope that, at a later date, it will generate a return: a commission or some recognition. Unfortunately, competitions tend to be risky investments.
You have a 46.36% chance of winning at blackjack. The odds of winning the Guggenheim Helsinki competition? About .06%. Of course, the comparison doesn’t really hold. The rules of blackjack are set, while architecture competitions are subject to opaque procedures, inherent biases, and jurors’ tastes. “There are many competitions that claim to be fair but, in many cases, they always choose projects from experienced architecture firms,” state Escobedo Solíz, the winners of this year’s Young Architects Program at MoMA PS1. “Others, don’t allow young firms to participate.”
Read the Full Story HERE >>>> Source: Upping the ante: the high and low culture of architecture competitions | Features | Archinect