The following analysis aims to shed some light to the Greek Competition Culture through the evaluation of the research key findings. A series of distinct themes are examined here in relation to: a. each competition brief and folder, b. jury deliberation proceedings, c. interview insights. 

​

Overview | Competitions in Greece are considerably fewer than the overall number of public projects in Greece. In most cases, the authorities responsible for the public works seek to be exonerated by the competition process to avoid the cost and the potential time delays. Recent cases like the Regeneration of Omonoia Square(1) and The Long Walk trial intervention at Panepistimiou Street(2) are characteristic of such practices; in both cases, the Athens Municipality has intentionally bypassed the formal process and directly commissioned the projects to architects still unknown. 

​

In the cases when a competition does take place it often happens that the organising authorities fail to secure the funds necessary to proceed with the implementation of the first prize proposal. This is also evident in Rena Sakellaridou and Fatura Collaborative interviews. There is a long list of first prize winners’ awards waiting to become materialised; in some cases this occurs years -or even decades- after the actual competition. In the case of the TSMEDE building for example, a competition was held in 1995, while the building was finished almost two decades later, in 2013(3). Same story for the new building of the Municipality of Thessaloniki; the competition was held in 1987, while the building was completed in 2009(4). 

 

Some projects have been subject of several competitions and are still not realised. The Acropolis Museum for instance, is a characteristic example; it took more than 4 competitions (!) and almost 35(5) years to finally build the museum at its current location. A new competition for the Tower of Piraeus was held this year (won by PILA Architects), ten years after the 2010 international competition that was held for the same building(6).

 

The Greek Architects’ Association (SADAS) and the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE) have persistently tried to fix the system weaknesses; but it was only in 2011 when they finally succeeded in convincing the Greek Parliament to establish a proper legal framework for Greek Competitions; up to that point, competitions were not mandatory and public works were realised with direct commissions favoring the bigger offices and obscuring any discussion on the country’s architectural production. In her interview with student Katerina Moustaka, SADAS representative Tonia Katerini describes SADAS continuous struggle to ensure that competition results will be respected by the organising authorities and that architects’ rights will be protected. 

​

PUBLIC CONSULTATION | In light of all the above mentioned examples, the fact that public opinion is not taken into account at any stage of a competition, comes as no surprise. Decisions are always made top-down by authorities and citizens do not actively participate in the decision-making processes nor are even aware at times that an architectural competition -one that probably affects them- is taking place. Announcements for new competitions and competition results are openly published by the press, but mostly discussed in special issues of architectural magazines or related blogs and forums making it difficult for people to actually monitor what is going on, while also limiting the exchange just between experts. 

​

The Papafi Stables public consultation was in this regard quite revolutionary for the Greek standards. The participatory design workshop organised by the Thessaloniki Municipality 4th District and the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Architecture, discussed in the interview with Konstantinos Belibasakis was as novel as it was rare; this was a concrete attempt to integrate public opinion at the early stages of the project when it is still possible for people to influence decision-making. And for this reason, this competition is different from all others. The public involvement was not granted for the whole process, but this was a step forward in regard to the integration of the local expertise and towards a more transparent and democratic process of decision-making.

​

RESEARCH | In the Lycabettus competition, on the other hand, the public was not involved in the making of the program nor has there been any official meeting to present the results of the competition to the public until now. However, both the brief and the folder were products of a long and systematic preparatory research stage supported by two publicly funded research programs run by the National Technical University of Athens and the Urban Design Department and the Agricultural University of Athens respectively. Competition folder was later coordinated by an independent private office with vast experience in competitions. Katerina Chelidoni, the architect responsible for compiling the folder described in her interview the strenuous collaboration between all parties involved in setting the competition goals and making sure the competition folder provided participants with all the necessary information.  

​

SUSTAINABILITY |  Based on the Swedish experience, Leif D. Houck (2014), notices that at some point after the year 2000 there has been a change in the assessment criteria in architectural competitions. Apparently, environmental evaluation criteria and sustainability criteria have begun to also be considered and even when they are emitted from the brief, they are still brought up by the jurors. In examining Finnish competitions, Zheng Liang (2014) discovers that rather than following the firm competition tradition in the country, new competition forms are set aiming to “trigger the systematic change on sustainable development toward a carbon low future.” However, there is a lack of clarity towards what the sustainability criteria should be, as well as a lack of understanding as to how much these criteria will be considered compared to purely architectural ones and how much they can influence the jury final selection (Ostman, 2014). 

​

Despite the alarming facts of climate change and the Northern European countries’ willingness to go fully circular by 2025 or 2030(7), Southern Europe and/or the Balkans still have a long way to go. Greek Competition Culture has not yet integrated or addressed these issues in a consistent manner nor is there a particular policy to be followed for such matters. Both competition briefs lack any specific reference to project sustainability. Although the Lycabettus competition brief asks participants to consider the bioclimatic aspects of their proposals (Brief for the Lycabettus Pan.Orama Architectural Competition, article 11), in the competition evaluation criteria (Brief for the Lycabettus Pan.Orama Architectural Competition, article 16) there is no mention of specific sustainability criteria nor of any elements required to be considered in regard to the project’s durability. The jury, however, selected the proposal that has “an environmental perspective, minimises the need for new constructions and has a small energy footprint” (Proceedings of the Lycabettus Pan.Orama Architectural Competition, 2020). It remains elusive whether this was a casual selection or whether it marks an important shift in competition evaluation criteria.  

​

In the Papafi Stables competition brief, sustainability is originally discussed in the competition aims within the limits of the economic domain. Although the evaluation criteria (Brief for the Papafi Stables Architectural Competition, article 6) are only briefly described, the adoption of bioclimatic and energy saving design solutions are included. In arguing for their first prize selection, however, jury members favored the solution that “had a strong concept, was functional and sufficiently managed its expressive means, while also incorporating the building complex into the neighborhood in a subtle manner” (Proceedings of the Papafi Stables Architectural Competition, 2019). Jury also commented on the winning proposal’s modest construction budget, rejecting other solutions for their excessive use of materials and energy. In fact, some proposals were scrutinized for not complying to the Greek climate. 

​

AESTHETICS - ICONICITY | Many competitions worldwide have repeatedly redefined the aesthetics of their time; buildings like the E. Saarinen Sydney Opera House, the R. Piano and R. Rogers Pompidou Museum in Paris or the FOA, AZPML & FARSHID MOUSSAVI ARCHITECTURE, Yokohama Port Terminal -all products of competitions- are still considered to be iconic buildings years after their completion. In this regard, many competitions still opt for iconic projects; Antigoni Katsakou dwells on the paradoxical tension between quality and iconicity, while Emmanuel Caille supports that the international quality of architecture has been almost entirely overshadowed by starchitects (Chupin et al, 2015). 

​

The Greek competition culture has a very brief history so far and this is why it is hard to assess whether any buildings that were products of recent Greek competitions constitute points of reference for the overall Greek architectural scene or have any relevance to the international one. However, numerous public buildings and public space interventions that were products of Greek competitions such the “Redevelopment of the New Thessaloniki Quay(8)” have been broadly published in international journals and magazines and have been appraised both for their aesthetic approach as well as their capacity to address complex spatial issues. 

​

Both competitions examined here are products of pragmatic thinking rather than a quest for grand architecture. They mostly aim at providing solutions to complex existing problems rather than impose a morphological imperative. The Lycabettus competition promoted a solution that was “subtle” and “doable” (Proceedings of the Lycabettus Pan.Orama Architectural Competition, 2020), while the Papafi Stables competition awarded the first prize to the proposal that “would be successfully incorporated into the neighborhood scale” (Proceedings of the Papafi Stables Architectural Competition, 2019).

​

JURY SELECTION CRITERIA | Interviews with jury members and participants of both competitions specifically mention the importance of the morphological and the functional aspects in their deliberations and their proposals respectively: Rena Sakellaridou mentions the importance of the concept and the constructibility of any project; Maria Dousi claims in her interview that she focused more on the area’s spatial qualities. Fiore Architects specifically chose to focus on the brief and to follow the guidelines. However, almost all interviewees, like Platon Issaias from Fatura Collaborative, have argued for solutions that have a social relevance.   

​

The Lycabettus competition jury awarded the first prize to Topio 7(9) for managing to create “an open space, freely accessible to people 24/7 (...) for allowing for multiple different views of the panorama (...) and for using only a few and subtle new buildings to complement the Zeneto’s theater” (Proceedings of the Lycabettus Pan.Orama Architectural Competition, 2020). All three awarded prizes were appraised for their environmental sensitivity in regenerating the natural landscape. In particular, the first prize proposal was appraised for the way it has handled new plantations; the second for creating a new urban park and the third for introducing new creative variations of plants. Topio 7 proposal was eventually preferred over all others because of its versatility and its minimal impact onto the landscape. 

​

The main objectives of the jury selection for the Papafi Stables were: a. keeping the overall intervention at a relatively modest scale; b. successfully distributing the open space amongst the different uses and c. integrating the new building complex in the Papafi neighborhood in a subtle manner. Jury members focused primarily on the open space rather than the buildings even though members of the jury claim in the proceedings that their evaluations are founded on the competition criteria and are not subjective (Proceedings of the Papafi Stables Architectural Competition, 2019).

​

RELEVANCE | Greek competitions -when they happen- are hardly ever a part of a greater plan or policy; they are usually casual and fragmentary. The goals set each time depend on the aspirations of the organising authority: if the authority ceases to exist, so do its plans. However, the two case studies examined here offer a more integrated approach.  

​

The Lycabettus competition was fruit of a long and systematic research by Anaplasis SA, a semi-public organization run by NTUA Professor Nikos Bellavilas who tried to create a holistic strategic framework for public interventions in Athens and Piraeus. This explains the time and money spent for the two parallel research programs and the efficiency in creating an exhaustive competition folder. 

​

Papafi Stables on the other hand, form part of the General Urban Plan for the Metropolitan Centre of Thessaloniki as K. Belibasakis mentioned in his interview. The decision to allocate the numerous services into this new building complex was facilitated by the site’s proximity to the new Metro Station which -once completed- will be adjacent to the lot. The numerous delays in the Metro Line implementation, however, make it hard to predict when the building users will actually benefit from this plan. 

​

CONCLUSIONS |  The 1427/2011 Law (and its two consecutive amendments in 1494/2012 and 3537/2019) has finally established an operational framework for conducting architectural competitions in a more transparent and democratic manner. However, this research has demonstrated that there are still some issues that remain unresolved. These include the following:

1. Greek competitions could greatly benefit if the current categories were reduced to only a few types to avoid misinterpretations, 

2. Greek competitions could greatly benefit if the time limits currently needed to organise and oversee a competition were minimized, 

3. Organising authorities must be compelled to secure the funds necessary for the project implementation prior to organising a competition,

4. First prize winning proposals must be respected and first prize winners must be protected and commissioned the project design and implementation,

5. Architectural competitions can be used in an instrumental way to assist the younger generation in expressing their talent and their creativity. Furthermore, competitions can help young designers acquire experience and knowledge and to become known. However, submission requirements must be minimal to ensure that all interested parties can afford to participate and that no discrimination is made between the larger offices and the smaller studios. 

6. New processes for public consultation should be integrated; as Jeremy Till (2018) claims, “competitions are just the start of a process, not its end” and therefore, decisions must be made in their social context. Competitions should be able to help develop the conversation among the multiple stakeholders instead of offering ready made solutions. In this regard, publication of results and open presentations are essential in keeping the public informed and aware of the ongoing discourse. Up to now, the competition process has painstakingly reproduced the original Beaux Arts design studio structure; the case study problem, the expert jury, the prizes. However, this undermines the role of competitions as a time and a space where academia and praxis connect (Guilherme, 2014). Examples such as the Haus der Statistik Initiative have shown that public participation can be critical in determining societal needs and that involving the public ultimately ensures the projects’ sustainability (Berg, 2019). 

7. Greek competitions should start investing more on projects that are environmentally friendly and have a minimal energy footprint. Circular economy principles also ought to be considered in resources management and sustainability goals. Projects should be evaluated in regard to their durability and their life cycle costs and jury members must be able to acknowledge these qualities. 

​

Competitions can become instrumental both in assisting a wider architectural public discourse as well as promoting issues of the contemporary architectural and urban agenda. So, on one hand, organising a competition can enhance intercommunal relations and also link academic research to practice; on the other hand, competitions should be able to contextualise policy objectives that are broader in scope and to facilitate the adoption of these policies and their materialization in tangible projects. In light of the current research, it seems that Greece is still struggling to establish a framework that ensures that competitions are well prepared without wasting time or resources and therefore, jeopardising the projects’ sustainability. The two competitions examined here are exemplary in setting solid foundations for further design research, but both are exceptions of a rather generic and basic legal framework that needs further elaboration and refinement.

​

In any case, since architectural competitions -like many of the interviewees have admitted- are the only way to ensure a fair process, they need to be safeguarded. Legal frameworks should be able to protect the rights of all the parties involved and to ensure that the whole process remains simple and effective. What is more, if, as Bechara Helal says (Chupin et al, 2015), competitions are indeed “a type of experimentation with an impact on the future of architecture,” monitoring competition culture and learning from past experience is essential not only for the sake of any single project, but also for the architectural discipline as well. For a country like Greece whose competition culture history is as brief as it is rocky, keeping the conversation on architectural competitions alive and open to all parties involved, is the only way to establish the institution’s locality and longevity.

 

​