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

​

1. What was it that motivated you to participate in the competition? Were you acquainted with the area of intervention?

​

We did not have any special connection to Thessaloniki. We do have experience, however, in competitions and we rely on the information we retrieve in the competition folder. The brief is also very important to us; we believe that the solution usually lies in the problem description and therefore the brief is crucial in guiding our design choices.

​

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

​

The information provided was thorough, but the requirements were rather demanding. We were challenged by the large number of different uses in relation to the building regulations and the overall coverage ratio.

​

3. 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 did not get in touch with the locals directly. But the brief helped us realise that the organising authority placed a lot of weight on the public character of the intervention. Therefore we did a lot of research on the identity of the area's inhabitants and we tried to embed the area's character in our project's materiality and accessibility. 

​

4. Competition Culture in Greece does not foster direct interaction with the people that are likely to be affected by an intervention. How do you feel about that?

​

If the brief is well-written and has taken into account the social factor during the preliminary research that should suffice. This is what happened in this competition and this is also something that ensures that feedback is accounted for early on in the project when there is still time to ember the people's perspective.

​

5. What was your main objective in designing this project?

​

Our main principal was to ensure that visitors can move freely around the public buildings and that they can read and signify the different uses.

​

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

​

The major problem was the delay in announcing the results. This is not related to the jury; on the contrary, the jury made its selection on time. The problem is bureaucracy and the time-consuming intermediate processes required after the jury selection.

​

7. You have participated in several architectural competitions n Greece. Is there anything that you would like to see changed in the Greek competition culture?

​

We firmly believe in competitions as a means for producing quality architecture. Competitions are open, democratic processes that ensure fair representation as opposed to direct commissions. In this regard, we also believe that all competitions, even ideas competitions, must be seen through to completion.

Another important issue is time. The whole process needs to be abbreviated.  It is also important to know who the jury members will be right at the start of the competition and not a few days before submission.

​

8. Can you share any news on the project development?

​

We know that the funds necessary for the project implementation have been retrieved. There was a delay because of COVID19, but we are back on track and we are currently working on the final study. If all goes according to plan, we estimate that the project will be completed by 2024.