Where Architecture in the U.S. Fails

The article “A Failure of Vision” by Nicolai Ouroussoff (June 3) misses the larger implications of why there is such an ambivalent climate around architectural competitions in this country. And while he laments that the government-sponsored competition for a $300-million federal courthouse here did not produce a visionary design worthy of such a competition, he misses the bigger picture.

The culture of competition in this country is, for a variety of reasons, suppressed by the organization that supposedly supports the architect, feared by the organizations that sponsor the projects and trivialized by the media.

Indeed, in the United States, there really is no culture of competition. First of all, there are too few to go around and, as Ouroussoff rightly notes, they are revered for a “small cultural elite.” Second, there is no support for them from the organization that should be behind them: the American Institute of Architects (AIA), which is the representative organization of architects and is often mistaken as their licensing arm.

This organization does not like competitions, fearing the loss of relevance if only design excellence is rewarded, and relies instead on the concept of connections and protectionism for its members, especially older and richer members.

An organization that does not want to question itself and the profession at large, the AIA has failed to set regional or national guidelines, standards and procedures for the competition process that might otherwise dissipate the Wild West atmosphere currently surrounding competitions in this country.

It is not surprising then that clients who would benefit from competitions, whether in the public or the private sector, view the process of competition as complicated and antagonistic, and are scared by impossible visions and out-of-control budgets. In this country, anyone can organize a competition, either for a museum where there is no money to build one, or for a private project with no prize money but the chance to give up your design for a song.

It is the absence of guidelines that are clear and understandable to the public and to the architects themselves that make for a bad competitive climate.

In my native Austria, competitions are clearly understood and regulated. Competent jurors, adequate remuneration (which is based on the size of the project) and pre- and post-publicity around the competition build a climate in which architectural excellence and visionary outlooks are rewarded with a real commission. This allows younger and established architects to compete on the level of architecture, not on the level of connections.

In order to increase the level of architectural excellence, it is important not only to celebrate a few geniuses and their projects but also to seek out and discover the talents in the making. The media has a responsibility to raise public awareness through the appraisal of architecture and its potential in our environment. Instead, they focus on the already approved architectural celebrities. The few architectural critics in our popular press need to advocate and proselytize the culture of competitions in order to write about the new and undiscovered.

While competitions have undoubtedly improved the culture of architecture in Europe and around the world, with exceptions for single mishaps, it has been the absence of the very same that characterizes this country.

One can easily see the fruits of this competition culture in the recent selections for buildings by famous architects Rem Koolhaas, Herzog & De Meuron, Zaha Hadid, Coop Himmelblau, Daniel Liebeskind and Steven Holl. Thom Mayne won his Austrian commission through a competition, and even Frank Gehry won the Disney Concert Hall through a competition. But even more important is the process of competition for the younger architects, allowing them to compete for architectural projects for which they are not yet “qualified.”

Most competitions in this country are actually qualified selection processes, where previous experience and already completed buildings are a requirement.

Ouroussoff, by dwelling on the failings of one such unsuccessful selection process, does not illuminate the public and contributes even more to the misunderstanding of the nature of competitions. There are not enough competitions, and not only the ones for courthouses and elite museums but for other neglected sectors of our environment such as housing, commercial buildings and public facilities.

It is perhaps more important to educate the lay public about the benefits of a competition and of the real need for a culture of competition in this country than to dwell on the one that got away.

Mark Mack is a Venice-based architect and a professor of architecture at UCLA.

Counterpunch is a weekly feature designed to let readers respond to reviews or stories about entertainment and the arts. Please send proposals to: Counterpunch, Calendar, Los Angeles Times, 202 W. 1st St., Los Angeles CA 90053. Or Fax: (213) 237-7630. Or e-mail: Counterpunch@latimes.com. Important: Include full name, address and phone number. Please do not exceed 600 words. We appreciate all proposals and regret that we cannot respond to each.