Case Study 2: Building Complex for Municipal Welfare uses in Thessaloniki

1. Let's talk about the competition brief; what would make you want to enter a competition?

​

I would say its theme, the location and the organizing authority.

​

2. Did the folder of the Papafi stables' competition offer sufficient documentation in regard to the area of interest for competition participants?

​

Yes, it was rather informative and thorough. It specifically aimed at proposals that would account for all project requirements described in the brief and in accordance with the building legislature. It opted for projects that could eventually be feasible and sustainable to implement. The reading the brief, however, is also related to how the reader prioritizes this information, so, in a way it is always a subjective process of interpretation.

​

3. You live and work in this city and you also teach at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. One could assume that you have a certain familiarity with the area of intervention. Does this pre-existing knowledge about the place influence your design decisions? Can it be considered as an advantage towards the rest of the competition participants?

​

I don't think that at all; had anyone read the brief carefully and visited the site at least once, they could have an inclusive perspective of the architectural condition all the same.

​

4. The brief placed considerable emphasis on the project connection to the surrounding urban space and the neighborhood. Did you try to get to know the area's inhabitants?

​

We visited the site several times, but we focused on its spatial qualities rather than its sociological ones. Our understanding has been that the integration of green spaces and places of encounter were the main elements that needed to be addressed as the project's primary goals.

It would have been beneficial, however, to be able to integrate people's perspectives at an early stage of the research and to use that input to support the competition brief. The participating teams usually don't have enough time to do that and the ex-post evaluation of the competition results can hardly influence its outcomes. In our case, due to the pandemic, we never got the chance to discuss the results nor with the jury or the people affected.

​

5. Did you encounter any difficulties in regard to the competition process?

​

The most challenging task was to combine the different and perhaps contradictory or even conflicting uses. We were under the impression that we had to respond to a considerable sum of unrelatable needs all of which had to be accommodated in the rather limited space we were given. We would have preferred having to address a more consistent program and to be able to embed the new uses in a more flexible way.

​

6. I can see that you have entered several architectural competitions and you are also an active member of the academic community which is often entangled in the competition processes. Is there anything that you would like to see changed in the Greek competition culture?

​

I believe that competitions are the only unassailable process available at this time that allows for quality-based architectural work. Some of its main weaknesses relate to insufficient documentation at the early stages of the creation of the brief mostly because the technical services' employees lack the necessary knowledge or expertise required to make one. Another troubling issue regards the jury selection process and the jury members' eagerness to promote a strong architectural language even if it disregards the competition brief requirements; this might come with a minor cost for ideas competitions, but it can be very damaging to preliminary study design competitions. It creates issues of inequality between participants and it can also jeopardise the implementation phase.

​

7. Is there a margin for evaluating the judges' decisions?

​

You can always do that silently between colleagues, but there is certain reluctance in openly discussing competition results in fear that criticism would be considered as moaning for not being awarded with a prize. There are also those rare cases, however, where some participants have openly denounced failures of the jury and even took those cases to court.