Organizing the space of possibilities of an architectural competition

had been set right from the start. Sorkin points out that every relevant issue had been decided « behind the scenes, without formal accountability » 2005: 108) long before the competition was announced, which resulted in a competition brief so narrow that only a limited number of minor decisions remained to be taken by the competing architecture offices and in consequence in competition entries varying only with regard to the shape of their exterior form.


Introduction
According to Sorkin 2005), the Post World Trade Center Design Competition was a mere « as-if » The decision to run a competition promised opportunity to develop, discuss and maybe even realise extraordinary propositions for « Ground Zero » propositions that would give priority to memorial instead of economical aspects.Yet, it turned out that the result of the competi-tion had been set right from the start.Sorkin points out that every relevant issue had been decided « behind the scenes, without formal accountability » 2005: 108) long before the competition was announced, which resulted in a competition brief so narrow that only a limited number of minor decisions remained to be taken by the competing architecture offices and in consequence in competition entries varying only with regard to the shape of their exterior form.
Referring to Pløger 2008), who has shown the rel-evance of the foucauldian concept of « dispositif » for urban planning, Van Wezemael et al. 2011) con-ducted an empirical study examining a series of early Swiss architectural competitions concerning post office buildings and identified this series of competitions as a foucauldian dispositif.That is, they described it as a « situational ensemble of forces of becoming » which allowed the new founded Swiss republic to « sell » its ideals by transcribing them into its built environment) to a population, which had been sceptical towards the idea of a central state.In the same way, according to Sorkin 2005), the Post World Trade Center Design Competition can be regarded as a staging or a device to « sell » the clients request to the public: running a competition allowed for realising a rather dull project targeting mainly profitable office space) on a site that has been and still is) so much the centre of attention and has been attracting such a diversity of architec-tural propositions.
Although Sorkins description of the Post World Trade Center Design Competition might deal with an extreme case with regard to the approach of the client conduct-ing the competition as well as to the « scale » of the task), it suitably raises awareness for what happens before an architectural competition is officially announced and therefore for the preparation stage of such a competi-tion.This article thus focuses on the manner in which competition briefs organize the competitions « solution space » Kreiner 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2009).
2 Research focus At the very beginning of an architectural competi-tion  there is quite obviously a client with a specific request.In order to develop this request, the client usually hires an architectural office to carry out a so- called « development study » or « preparatory study » This study analyses the clients request with reference to available budget, as well as planning and building laws and regulations.Within the scope of a develop-ment study a number of possible volumetric variants are produced to show how the clients request might look in consideration of the given restrictions.In the course of such a development study, and in particular due to the accompanying frequent exchanges between the architecture offices employees and the clients representatives, the clients request usually becomes increasingly clear, more and more definite and more and more detailed.This defined and detailed request finally provides the basis for writing the competition programme.The question and this papers topic is how this detailed request or relatively) definite idea is translated into a competition programme that encour-ages different, yet comparable and in particular realis-able, architectural propositions; that generates scope for the competing architecture offices and therefore a certain variety of architectural propositions and yet, at the same time, forces the competing architectural firms to produce adequate architectural propositions.
3 Methodology The research approach chosen to explore the above question is an ethnographic study of decision-making processes in the course of four different architectural competitions in Switzerland Figure 1).The study methodologically draws on the work of Latour and Woolgar 1979) and Yaneva 2009).Latour and Woolgar published observations made of scientists working in a bio-chemical laboratory.Over a period of two years, Latour occupied an office within a scientific laboratory and observed how the scientists went about constructing scientific facts.Similarly, Yaneva studied the work of architects at the office of Rem Koolhaas by observing the decisionmaking process of the archi-tects when designing a building.For this article, atten-tion was paid to the process involved in the writing-up of competition programmes.The researcher attended sessions where teams were preparing competition briefs.While observing, the researcher « guess[ ed] at meanings » and « assess[ ed] the guesses       Organizing the space of possibilities of an architectural competition discussed these interpretations with the people being observed.In this manner, he verified/ falsified his inter-pretations during the course of the observation series.
Three extracts from these observations which were originally noted in German and then translated by the author) are presented and discussed below.
4 Architectural competitions: a basic definition According to Kohoutek 2005) and Van Wezemael 2010), architectural competitions may be seen as « sort-ing machines » Van Wezemael 2010: 274) argues that the « competition process moves step by step towards a new possible actualisation of a place, separating out most poten-tial solutions and manifesting only one urban future » Following Van Wezemael architectural competitions can be regarded as devices that organize a given sites « space of possibilities » DeLanda 2002).Architectural competitions sort the imaginable future scenarios for a given site.By means of a series of sorting processes they determine which future scenarios can be consid-ered suitable and which have to be considered impos-sible.
As mentioned above, the paper at hand focuses on the sorting process accompanying the translation of a detailed request generated through a development study) into a competition programme.
5 Findings of case studies: translating a detailed request into a competition programme The dialogue below stems from the beginning of a jury assessment session.Juror A and B both professional architects) have already been familiarised with the respective project and proceed to introduce it to their fellow jurors.
Extract 1 p. 7) illustrates how the client and/ or the jury of an architectural competition are not simply looking for a project that fulfils all programme givens and specifications.In line 6, juror A refers to the pro-ject, which adheres closely to the competition pro-gramme as « the best pupil » Noticing that some of his fellow jurors understood his remark as clear disap-proval, he adds that this is « no judgement » however, without completely clearing the notion of disapproval.
If one takes into account that the respective competi-tion had a brief comprising a lot of givens and specifi-cations with some of them « tricky to fulfil » as jurors expressed on various occasions referring to the issue of conflicting specifications), juror As remark line 6) might seem rigorous.However, from a different per-spective, that remark simply demonstrates that fulfill-ing the givens and specifications is to be regarded as a sort of precondition and that an important part of the architects work lies beyond it.
At this point, Weicks 2006) terms « fancy » and « imag-ination » as explained in Kreiner 2007b) can be intro-duced.Weick defines fancy as the « power of inventing the novel and unreal by recombining the elements found in reality » and imagination as the « ability to conceive of something, seen only fragmentarily or superficially, as a complete, perfected, and integral whole » 2006: 447).
One can argue that both skills are demanded from competing architecture offices, in the sense that it is project which convinces or even surprises the jury on an overall level.But how can a competition programme provoke these skills and at the same time make sure that the binding requirements are clearly communicated?How can the significantly limited space of possibilities or solution space) as generated through a development study get re-widened without losing the knowledge or precision gained through the same study with regard to binding requirements?Kreiner 2009) states that the competing architecture offices « make and have to make) explicit and implicit judgments about the text of the brief judgments that reflect a read-ing of the brief as instructions delimiting the solution space), as indications e. g. symbolizing the identity and values of the client organization) or as illustrations pro-viding inspiration for exploring what the client could get) » 2009: 10).
From this, one might jump to the conclusion that the translation, that is, the effort to transform a detailed request into a competition programme is not needed as the re-widening of the competitions space of pos-sibilities comes almost naturally with the competing architecture offices fancy and imagination.How-ever, the observation results published here indicate that the way the givens and specifications of the pro-gramme are worded and presented in the competition brief clearly influences the competitions space of pos-sibilities an aspect the authors of the brief appear to be well aware of.
In the following extract, two laymen A and B) and a professional architect C) discuss a draft version of the competition programme for the Basel Kunstmu-seum extension competition.A, B and C are not only involved in writing the competition brief, they will also act as jurors later in the competition process as is often the case).The following dialogue occurred as the authors were going through the list of spatial speci-fications.
The result of the discussion in extract 2 p. 8) was an agreement to keep the exact square metre figures, but to attach the information that the foyer could « pos-sibly be combinable with the connection wing » and the connection wing could « possibly be an extension to the foyer » Regarding the museums shop it was for-mulated « that the foyer includes 20 square metres for information desk, shop and special exhibition » but the issue of allocation was purposely left up to the com-peting architecture offices cf. the competition pro-gramme for the Basel Kunstmuseum, Burghof Exten-sion, p. 22).Juror As remark line 22) in extract 2 again indicates that the client/ jury in an architectural competition does not seek a project that merely has processed all the givens and specifications.Aside from this, juror As statements line 1, line 17/ 18 and line 23/ 24) indicate that by the time the competition brief is written, a quite clear and specific idea an assemblage of wishes and restrictions) with regard to the future buildings specifications has formed.As statement in line 10/ 11 regarding the exact square metre specifications partic-ularly   indicates that this assemblage possesses rather sharp boundaries.In order to « generate scope » line 24) for the competing architecture offices, this assem-blage has to be « deterritorialised » that is, its bounda-ries have to be blurred to a certain extent DeLanda 2006: 13).The decision to insist on the exact square metre figures but at the same time to leave the allo-cation of the rooms up to the competing architecture offices particularly demonstrates that this process of deterritorialisation is already organized by the authors of the brief and will not simply be performed by the competing architecture offices through their interpre-tation or slight) « misreading » of certain programme givens and specifications.
The next example shows the conflicting relationship between provoking creativity on the one hand and guaranteeing the fulfilment of binding requirements on the other.It is drawn from the field notes of the author from a housing competition in Zurich.Since A: These guys have a long text on their first plan.By means of which they want to underline that they internalised our competition programme completely.
In fact they stick really close to our programme givens and specifications.This project is something like the « best pupil » which is no judgement.
Extract 1 cle access.The development study recommended that the site be accessed from the north and that the exist-ing road be broadened.Similar to extract 2, extract 3 presents a dialogue between three people talking about a draft version of the competition brief.All of the speakers are part of the team writing the brief.Further, they are professional architects and will act as jurors of the competition later on.This discussion led to a final version of the brief which implemented Bs suggestions in line 29 and 30.Extract 3 p.9) demonstrates how the authors of the brief try to formulate a programme specification as clearly and as detailed as possible in order to provide hints as to how it should be understood.Extract 3 shows, in particular, that the intention of the authors is to prevent the competing architecture offices from speculating whether the point « access from the north » should be understood as an « instruction » « indication » or « illustration » to borrow Kreiners 2009) terms.
The three brief authors and future jurors, A, B and C, try to make clear that blurring the boundary of the assemblage of wishes and restrictions with regard to the point « accessing the site » is not recommended.The way that this point is formulated and represented in the final version of the brief, i. e., with reference to the attached detailed development study made by a well- regarded architecture office which specifically recom-mends accessing the site from the north, clearly indi-cates that a better way of accessing the site is difficult or even impossible) to find.This formulation, thus, makes this programme specification in fact almost) an instruction.
During the observation period, it became clear that the authors of the brief worked through the whole programme repeatedly to identify critical points similar to those cited in extracts 2 and 3).They then made particular effort to provide as much and as pre-cise information as possible about these points, i. e., where a more « creative » more « open » interpreta-tion of the programme specification is worth pursu-ing and where it is advisable or necessary to under-stand the specification as a « direct » instruction.It can therefore be noted that not only the competing architecture offices play with or speculate about) the programme specifications and in this way create a certain variety of solutions), but also the authors of the brief « play with the competing architecture offices » as well: they create formulations and specu-late about how these formulations might interact with the competing architects, that is, what solutions and what variety of solutions) they might create or provoke respectively.I feel a bit uncomfortable with these figures.They are too exact, too definite.
They exactly represent the needs of the users.
No, I think we have to keep in mind that they represent the wishes of the users.I mean the wishes as the users have them now.
What is your point?
I mean for sure it would be nice to have 600 square meters for the foyer and another 450 square meters for the connecting wing next to it.But maybe some architectural offices have another perception in this respect.Maybe they come up with a better solution.A solution we and the users do not have in mind yet.Let us imagine an architect thinking of merging the foyer and the connection wing.Let us imagine that he has something in mind like three to four europallets as a sales stall.This would mean that the required space we postulate would be much too large.I think our list of spatial specifications has to become more abstract again.
But we know what we need.But we do not want a box that simply covers all our needs.That is the reason why we do a competition.We have to say what we want but in a way that generates scope for the architects.
Extract 2 Chupin 2010) and Van Wezemael 2010: 281-282) both argue that architectural competitions imply three different judgements: « The judgements which submitting planners or archi-tecture offices) make with regard to what they believe the jury might honour [ authors comment: as well as to what they think is appropriate for the site concerned]; the judgement of the jury which eventually picks a winner and which unfolds in a relational space as opened up by the projects; and the judgement of the public with regard to the outcome of the competition, which is also, of course, a judgement on both of the prior ones » Extracts 2 and 3, however, suggest viewing the judge-ment process in architectural competitions as fourfold since both extracts point out that the process of trans-lating the definite idea or assemblage as generated through the development study into a competition programme involves judgement as well: the judge-ment of the authors of the brief with regard to how the competing architecture offices might interpret their formulations.
Thus, from the discussion above, it is clear how the list of programme specifications, and especially the way they are formulated and presented, generates a space of possibilities.However, when discussing competition briefs one must not forget the fact that they do not just comprise the list of specifications but also feature a list of jury members as well as a list of evaluation and assessment criteria.
It is argued here that the latter list has no influence on the definition of the competitions solution space as almost every competition programme draws on exactly the same list of key criteria.Although these criteria may be worded differently and grouped in different ways as the borders between the criteria are diffuse), a set of roughly five key criteria apply in every archi-tectural competition: urban design, architecture, func-tionality, cost effectiveness and ecological sustainability.
In the brief for the Basel Kunstmuseum extension, for instance, the set of key criteria Chapter 4, « Evaluation and Assessment Criteria » p. 33) is formulated as follows: « Access from the north will be sought » Thats too weak.
Thats a good remark.Youre absolutely right.We have to paraphrase that point.In the programme we have to show what is technically possible in order to give the architects a clear idea of the scope.We are looking for creativity.
Everywhere.Also when it comes to the underground parking.However the sites main access point is rather finalized.We should indicate that we are open to propositions we have not thought of.The architects are free to develop a better solution than ours.But we should also indicate that the main focus of the competition lies somewhere else and that we would recommend accessing the site from the north since that solution is appreciated from nearly all sides, also from the local residents.
But how do we formulate that in the brief?
I would suggest attaching the development study to the brief.In that way the competing architects realize that we spent money and energy on that issue and that we have reached a level they can build on.
I would really favour that.In our last competition we were offering a large scope considering the sites main access point.I think we used a similar formulation but did not attach the development study we commissioned.If we look at that competition in retrospect, I mean if we compare what we had on our desk before that competition to what the competing architects submitted, we clearly have to admit that providing that large a scope was not the right decision.We should really assist the architects with the development study.So that they dont have to or do not start from zero.
So lets attach the study and make the respective line something like: « The objective is to access the site from the north » Extract 3 -Urban design and planning, integration into the building history and context -Architecture -Functionality of the building operation, meeting the special specifications -Operating feasibility; compliance with the budget; cost-efficient maintenance and operation -Ecological sustainability.
In contrast to this highly generalized list, the list of jury members can definitely influence the competi-tions solution space.As Jack L. Nasar 1999: 152-153) writes: « In selecting the professional advisor and jury, the client is probably selecting the winner.According to the archi-tect Steven Izenour, clients who use design competitions dont understand that by picking the jury youre in fact picking the architect.() Similarly, the British Secretary of the Royal Fine Arts Commission asserted: The cru-cial decision is to appoint the jury.If you want a Classical building set up a jury that is likely to award it to a Clas-sicist.

»
Or, as Chupin 2010) argues: one cannot ignore judges preconceptions the same way one cannot imagine that a designer approaches his project without pre-conceptions.
Chupin further points out that numerous well-known researches have shown preconceptions do not only filter the view of the designer, but that they have a determining, in fact, a necessary role, in the launch of the design process.Referring to Schön  1983) and Darke 1979), who spoke of these pre-conceptions as a « primary generator » a broad initial objective or small set of objectives, self-imposed by the architect, a value judgement rather than the product of rationality), Chupin 2010) asks: How can one deny the fact that each member of a jury carries their own preconceived ideas, if not their prejudices?According to Kreiner 2007b), competing architecture offices construct an image of the client/ jury by speculating about the clients/ jurys preferences and tastes in order to gain a better understanding of what is being looked for in the competition.Against this background two aspects become clearer: a) when wondering if they should enter a certain competition, architecture offices take the list of jurors into account, that is, they speculate about the jurors preconceived ideas with regard to the task at hand; b) when taking part in the competition, architecture offices might bring their projects into line with what they think the jury members will like.
Although this paper does not offer empirical data to support the following statement since it was not the focus of the field research presented), it appears very likely that the publication of the jury panel be it intended or not constitutes a sorting process in the sense that it creates an adjusted field of applying architects mainly architects who consider their pre-conceptions and as a consequence their architectural propositions to be more or less in line with those of the jury board) and in that way obviously manipulates the competitions space of possibilities.

Conclusion
This paper offers observational data to support the hypothesis that the writing of a competition pro-gramme is an important part of the process of organ-izing an architecture competitions space of possibili-ties.It argues that the process of translating a detailed request which reflects a clients initial request and includes an elaborated development study) into a com-petition programme should be considered a fourth pro-cess of judgement in the set of judgement processes for-mulated by Van Wezemael 2010) and Chupin 2010).
Further, it complements Kreiners 2009) observation of the judgement process involved in the interpreta-tion of the competition brief by the competing offices with the judgement process involved in the formula-tion of the brief by the authors themselves with regard to how they assume the competing architecture offices might interpret their formulations).Extract 2 shows how the authors of the brief tried to generate scope for the competing architecture offices, that is, to re-widen the competitions space of possibilities.Extract 3 shows how they tried to determine the outcome of the compe-tition with regard to certain features, that is, to narrow the competitions space of possibilities.
The complex nature of the interplay of the four pro-cesses of judgement in the course of an architectural competition makes it impossible to exactly predict the solutions the competition will generate.Still, if one thinks of an axis defining the role an architectural com-petition may play an axis ranging from an extremely narrow space of possibilities at one end a competition considering a project which is almost entirely deter-mined)   to an extremely wide space at the other end a competition which searches for far-reaching and pos-sibly unforeseen architectural propositions) it can be postulated that the competition brief including the list of jurors) is a tool to carefully position the architec-tural competition on this axis.As such, it is an instru-ment to adjust the competitions solution space or its space of possibilities to the problem at hand, thereby making it useful for setting up an effective competi-tion.
« A competitions success depends fifty percent on a sound and precise competition programme » as Fritz Schumacher, Kantonsbaumeister Basel-Stadt Cantonal Master Planner for Basel-City), put it in a personal communication to the author on the 27th of April 2009.
Weick, K. E. 2006): The role of imagination in the organizing of knowledge.
In: European Journal of Information Systems 15: 446-452.Yaneva, A. 2009): The making of a building: a prag-matist approach to architecture.Bern: Peter Lang.
Summary: Organizing the space of possibilities of an architectural competition In order to develop an idea before conducting an architectural competition, clients often select an archi-tectural office to carry out a « development study » Within the scope of such a study different possible volumetric variants are produced exploring how the clients request might look in consideration of given restrictions budget, planning and building laws and regulations).Thereby, and in particular by means of the accompanying regular exchange between the employees of the architectural office and the clients representatives, the clients idea becomes more and more clear, definite and detailed.Drawing on findings of an ethnographic study of four on-going architec-tural competitions in Switzerland, this article describes how the authors of the competition programme trans-late such a detailed request or definite idea) into a document that both generates scope for the compet-ing architectural offices, as well as constrains them by expecting the fulfilment of specific requirements.Put differently, the paper investigates how the authors of a competition programme organize the competitions space of possibilities.Keywords: architectural competition, competition programme, space of possibilities, ethnography, Swit-zerland Zusammenfassung: Zur Organisation von Möglich-keitsräumen bei einem Architekturwettbewerb Um vor der Durchführung eines Architekturwettbe-werbs das betreffende Bauvorhaben zu präzisieren, geben viele Bauherren eine « Potentialstudie » in Auf-trag.
the site this competition targeted was particularly narrow and very steep, special emphasis was placed in the development study on a suitable concept for vehi- Key facts of the four architectural competitions observed Basisdaten zu den vier untersuchten Architekturwettbewerben Eléments clés des quatre concours darchitecture considérés not enough to simply work through the list of givens and specifications but to integrate them into a con-sistent