Menteth, Walter

Portsmouth University Research Portal (Pure)

Competition Culture in Europe: Voices
Project Compass CIC
Edited by Walter Menteth 
 5
1 Contributors’ Biographies ..............................................................................................9
2 Introduction 
 Walter Menteth ..........................................................................................................................15
3 Inderhanvnen Bridge Competition, Copenhagen 
 Cezary Bednarski .......................................................................................................................23
4 Can Ribas. Social Housing, Public Spaces and Industrial Heritage,  
 Palma de Mallorca 
 Jaime Ferrer Forés ....................................................................................................................31
5 Italian restricted competition practice 
 Three illustrative case studies 
 Alessandro Melis .......................................................................................................................37
6 Europan 9: A Decade On 
 Stoke City Waterside 
 Russell Curtis .............................................................................................................................44
7 A breathing, perspiring tower 
 Refurbishing the sleeping giant, Piraeus 
 Spiros Tsitouris .................................................................................................................... 52
8 A Cycle and Pedestrian Bridge 
 Ile Seguin, Sevres, Paris 
 Cezary Bednarski .......................................................................................................................59
9 Mai i te ngahere oranga 
	 A	restricted	competition	in	the	Pacific 
 Alessandro Melis and Michael Davis .......................................................................................64
10 The Dulwich Pavilion 
 Brokering talent and innovation 
 Tamsie Thomson .......................................................................................................................71
11 The Tournai Fine Arts Museum 
 Or architectural competitions as a cultural tool 
 Typaine Moogin .........................................................................................................................79
CONTENTS
CASE STUDIES: ARCHITECT COMPETITORS
CASE STUDIES: ORGANISERS & ACADEMICS
 7
12 “MONIO” Community School 
 Tuusula, Finland 
 Tarja Nurmi  ...............................................................................................................................87
13 Taking Visions to Reality 
 The Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam 
 Cilly Jansen ................................................................................................................................95
14 Accommodating Change 
 Innovation in Housing 
 Hilary French ............................................................................................................................103
15 Design Developer Competition 
 A study on innovation, architecture and affordable housing, Stockholm 
 Magnus Rönn  ...............................................................................................................................110
16 Preparing the ground 
 Juliet Bidgood ....................................................................................................................120
17 COOK8, Greece   
 Or 8 (competition) cooking tips to avoid! 
 Antigoni Katsakou ...................................................................................................................124
18 Competition values and culture 
 Merlin Fulcher ..........................................................................................................................129
19 The Dead Sea splitting prophecy 
 Indira van ‘t Klooster................................................................................................................133
20 Why only architectural competitions? 
 A tale of two bridges 
 Walter Menteth ........................................................................................................................136
21 Competitions and the confusion of words 
 Walter Menteth ........................................................................................................................143
22 Glossary of UK Terms 
 Design Contests and Competitions .......................................................................148
23 Image credits ...................................................................................................................154
24 About Project Compass CIC .........................................................................................155
DISCUSSION
WORDS
142
 
ANONYMITY 
ASSESSMENT 
AWARD
CLOSED PROCEDURE  
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
COMPETITION 
COMPETITION DOCUMENTATION 
COMPETITION ORGANIZER 
CONTRACTING AUTHORITY
COMPETITION PUBLICATION
COMPETITION REPORT  
CONFIDENTIALITY   
CONTEST NOTICE   
DESIGN CONTEST 
DESIGN COMPETITION
DESIGNATED CONTACT 
DEVELOPER
DEVELOPER COMPETITION/DEVELOPMENT COMPETITION
DEVELOPER CONTEST/DEVELOPMENT CONTEST
ELIGIBILITY   
EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST (EOI) 
HONORARY MENTION  
IDEAS CONTEST 
INVITED PROCEDURE 
JURY 
JURY REPORT 
LICENSED ARCHITECT
OPEN PROCEDURE  
PARALLEL COMMISSIONING  
PREQUALIFICATION 
PRIZE 
PROJECT BRIEF 
PROJECT CONTEST 
PROJECT COMPETITION 
REGULATED COMPETITION  
SIGNING OFF THE BRIEF 
TECHNICAL (REVIEW) PANEL 
THINNING   
STAGE: OF A CONTEST/COMPETITION 
YOUNG ARCHITECT 
figure 21.1
A list of words, 
among those found 
in competition 
discussion that 
are considered to 
be confusing
 Competitions and the confusion of words 143
21  
Competitions and the confusion of words 
Walter Menteth
Project Compass
Introduction
At the Competition Culture in Europe 
(CCIE) conference in Amsterdam in 
September 2017 delegates agreed to 
improve the understanding of vocabulary 
used for discussing architectural 
competitions, and specifically design 
contests, and to map and agree a 
common understanding covering  
each respective country (Item 1).1 
Many words were noted which 
commonly give rise to confusion. 
A list comparing national understandings 
is being developed and will be published 
in 2018. This will provide a practical, 
professional and academic model for 
improving future understanding.
Project Compass has initailly selected 
a list of words (figure 21.1), and 
describes their understanding of the 
terms, their meaning and their usage 
in the UK, in Chapter 22, along with a 
number that they have sought to map 
previously. The discussions in Venice 
in May 2018 and interim findings will 
then be developed and circulated. 
Background 
Unitary European competition law is 
acknowledged to be complex, yet the 
common sharing of best practices, 
knowledge and the opportunities 
for future improvement and reform 
is constrained by interpretation and 
understanding. It is not simply the 
diversity of national languages among 
member states – but the differences 
in vocabulary within nations (figure 
21.1). The variations that range across 
individual countries can be found 
among people by sector, organisation, 
and according to whether they are 
those making competitive submissions 
or inviting them. This extends to 
simple, frequently-used expressions 
such as an ‘Architectural Design 
Competition’. What does this mean? 
The Information Environment
It has been surprising to find in over 
twenty years of engagement in 
competitions that an ‘Architectural 
Design Competition’ can, in public and 
professional discourse, apparently 
be many different things. It may be 
interpreted as a competition in which 
an architect’s services may be sought 
irrespective of value, whether it’s called 
privately or by a public notice, how it’s 
selected, or by what procedure. It may 
also be a specific form of selection 
of architectural services which may 
engage with who can participate and 
on what conditions, whether design 
proposals are to be given in responses 
to a brief, or simply a PQQ submission 
for a framework appointment, or how the 
submissions are assessed, and whether 
this is anonymous and/or by a jury. 
Expressions such as ‘An Open 
Competition’ can also be confused. 
Is this a competition open to anyone 
or only, for example, to those who are 
professionally accredited?  When a term 
figure 21.2
Pieter Bruegel the 
Elder c.1563. The 
Tower of Babel  – 
which could not be 
built because of 
confusion created 
by languages
144
such as ‘Open Invited Competition’, 
implicitly restrict competition because 
it is not open to everyone, the lack 
of clarity is further compounded. 
Communication is poor in architectural 
competitions because this is typical of 
the current information environment.
In the national context this may 
be attributable to reasons that can 
be summarised as follows:
• Over time national architectural 
cultures have developed distinctive 
legacies to describe their own 
traditions for the competitive 
appointment of architects which 
can be referred to as the ‘linguistic 
tradition of architecture’.2 
• Sometimes the professional language 
of architects is sector-specific and 
doesn’t always overlap with other 
commercial or industrial sectors, 
or into common usage. This can be 
described as ‘architects’ own jargon’. 
It may not necessarily relate back to 
the ‘linguistic tradition of architecture’, 
but it frequently does. An ‘Open Invited 
Competition’ might be considered an 
example, because this competition is 
typically open to registered architects 
meeting specific qualification 
requirements, but to no others.
• Contractors, clients, policy makers 
and government can have their 
own distinctly different professional 
languages which can be called the 
‘vocabulary of other specialists’. This 
describes matters which can have 
the same meanings as may be found 
elsewhere, and these may also have 
developed through linguistic cultural 
tradition. UK Government policy 
makers frequently also use terms 
in procurement, often from market 
economics, having wider meaning 
such as an SME,3 ‘supplier’ ‘bidding’ 
(in architectiure this would mean a 
small- or medium-sized architectural 
firm and/or team making any 
form of competitive submission). 
Value for money (VfM) and value 
engineering as used in construction 
might be thought of similarly.  
• Nations have their own bodies of 
competition law and regulation 
prescribing arrangements under 
contracts, the employment of parties 
and the execution of works and 
services, which define what can be 
called the ‘national legal language’.  
• Furthermore, it is not uncommon to 
find that the public have a different 
understanding. For instance, for 
any public or private commissions, 
the public can easily assume that 
designs for a project that they are 
consulted upon have been invited 
through an equitable process, such 
as an architectural competition 
– whether the architect is a sub-
contracted consultant to a developer 
or has been engaged independently 
through a public architectural 
competition process. This may be 
an interpretation of an appointment 
 Competitions and the confusion of words 145
process by the public, but is manifest 
and can be called the ‘public 
language’. This may be, by the public, 
a commonly received interpretation 
and expectation of a public sector 
appointment, whereas the language of 
procurement clouds understandings.
Whilst these different national languages 
and their vocabularies frequently 
overlap, or have relationships, they 
are also frequently inconsistent. 
From submissions made, previous 
publications, and wider samplings, these 
characteristic differences can also be 
found amongst many EU nations. 
After Directive 2004/18/EC, the 
repealed Directive 2014/24/EU4 
made significant moves towards 
simplifying and clarifying the legal 
definitions of many words commonly 
used in public competition practice. 
• Directive 2014/24/EU provides 
a pan-European vocabulary that 
is the ‘legal language’ with words 
defined, prescribed and codified 
within it. This codification applies 
equally to all national and cross-
border European competitions, 
and as a principle of subsidiarity 
does not extend into other areas. 
As a result of the multiple 
understandings, interpretations and 
applications of vocabulary in use 
across Europe and among members 
states, there remains considerable 
confusion, and there is a clear need to 
address and improve understanding. 
There exists a single legal framework 
which can be better used. This can 
enhance communication in the subject 
of competitions, help share and expand 
opportunities and potential, support 
the promotion of innovative and 
experimental competition practices, 
and sustain cohesion by allowing better 
international engagement by all. 
Mapping better understanding 
Such an initiative has significant value for 
transparency by making the information 
environment more professional. It 
can deliver better understanding of 
competitions, their practices and 
procedures it can simplify accessibility 
for professionals, the construction 
industry and civil society, while 
supporting more effective future lobbying 
and campaigning for beneficial reforms.
The question being addressed is 
how different usages and their 
application may best be mapped 
and described, and how this can be 
done while respecting subsidiarity. 
This might take a number of 
directions, including:
• Describing vocabulary directly 
by citation of the definitions 
provided within the ‘legal language’ 
– wherever terms can be mapped 
and are usable for adoption.
146
• Professionals could work on improving 
their own national use of language 
in competitions by defining, across 
industry and government, existing 
alignments and divergences, and to do 
so with regards to the ‘legal language’. 
• Nations might also seek to adopt 
words from other languages 
where it better describes a specific 
process or approach (see below). 
Language is important for providing a 
conceptual foundation that can both 
shut down opportunities and, as these 
essays illustrate, open them up. 
In the essay by Typaine Moorgin 
on ‘The Tournai Fine Arts Museum’ 
(Chapter 11), the ‘portfolio submission’ 
that is described clearly articulates a 
submission by a designer that specifically 
includes drawings, designs, completed 
buildings and/or projects, and with similar 
artefacts that are the constantly used 
stock-in-trade of an architect. ‘Portfolio’ 
is a word locked into the tradition of 
architects’ education across Europe. But 
portfolio is not a common phrase used in 
UK competition procedures, and possibly 
because this terminology is uncommon, 
then so too is this type of submission – 
with preference being given alternatively 
to a pre-qualification questionnaire or 
an expression of interest. Adopting 
the term ‘portfolio submission’ in UK 
architectural selection processes might 
then contribute to improving qualitative 
selection, based on design capability.
As an architect, the use of the 
expression ‘professional list’ in the 
essay by Alessandro Melis (Chapter 
5) offers an entirely different and 
more appropriate term to apply to an 
architect or other design professional 
than any comparative UK phrase. The 
nearest historic UK equivalent would 
be the ‘approved list’, although this 
term is no longer used, having been 
replaced by the unidentified description 
of a ‘framework consultant’. From a 
practical perspective ‘a professional 
list’ may better sustain professional 
values and ethics, and their benefits.
Conclusion
In the UK a mapping of design contest 
terms has been endeavoured with 
some initial progress.5 Yet much more 
remains to be done nationally and it 
is intended that Chapter 22’s list will 
contribute towards progressing this. 
Clearly by improving the use of language 
within contests and competitions, better 
value, transparency, and innovation in 
public procurement can be achieved. 
The depth and tradition of mis-
interpretation and customs and practices 
 Competitions and the confusion of words 147
References:
 
1 Competion Culture in Europe Conference 
Amsterdam 2017, Resolutions. http://projectcompass.
co.uk/index.php/2017/10/04/ten-steps-to-
improve-architectural-competition-culture-in-
europe/#more-563 (accessed: 09-05-2018)
2   The Royal Institute of British Architects 
(RIBA) established their first UK set of model 
rule and regulations for competitions in 1871
3 Commission Recommendation 
of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of 
micro, small and medium-sized enterprises 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX:32003H0361 (accessed: 09-05-2018)
4  Directive 2014/24/EU. Art.2 
provides specific ‘definitions with further 
matters defined elsewhere throughout the 
document. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014L0024 
(accessed: 09-05-2018)
5  Menteth, W. O’Carroll, O. Curtis, R. Sawyers, 
B. Design contest guidance: for selecting architects 
and design teams. Project Compass 2015 http://
projectcompass.co.uk/publications/Project_Compass_
Design_Contest_Guidance.pdf (accessed: 09-05-2018) 
. 
that go with it, require addressing if 
general architectural competition culture 
is to be improved. This can start with 
the formulation of a “Unified Language 
Model” (ULM), led by the professions with 
the support of public sector procurors, 
promoted and lobbied for by professional 
and academic agencies, and delivered 
and adopted by public sector regulators. 
We aim to improve transparent use 
of language within design contests 
and competitions, along with our 
interpretative understandings, and to 
do so jointly with colleagues from other 
nations. We welcome engagement, so 
that architectural culture can grow and 
thrive more successfully across Europe.
A well-developed, defined and mapped 
vocabulary and terminology is essential 
to basic communication, offering pan-
European benefits. We hope you will 
join us in discussions that will bring 
forward and elaborate upon this change.


Competitions and the confusion of words

https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/ws/files/10535732/Confusion_of_Words_CCIE_Voices_E1_220518_PRINT_3.pdf

Competitions and the confusion of words

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Portsmouth University Research Portal (Pure)