Architecturally Speaking

Innovative Architecture: The Role of Design Competitions

• Ontario Association of Architects • Season 1 • Episode 9

Share episode

Join us for an insightful episode of Architecturally Speaking, as host Ryan Schwartz, dives into the fascinating world of design competitions with architect Joe Lobko. 

Known for his community-focused and socially impactful projects, Joe shares his experiences and insights on the role of design competitions in the architecture industry.

Whether you're a student, a young professional, or simply interested in architecture, this episode offers valuable insights into how design competitions can foster innovation and creativity in the field.

Subscribe now to Architecturally Speaking on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.


OAA Episode 9

Innovative Architecture: The Role of Design Competitions


Ryan Schwartz: 00:04.388 - 01:32.952

Hi, and welcome back to another episode of Architecturally Speaking. I'm your host, Ryan Schwartz, and this podcast series is presented, as always, by the Ontario Association of Architects. It aims to pull back the curtain on the world of architecture to give you a little peek behind the scenes. We're talking with architects about architecture and plenty of other professionals about design, construction, housing, sustainability, and anything else related to the world of architecture. So, today's topic is very specific and it's incredibly interesting and it's one that I've been looking forward to. And we're talking specifically about design competitions today. And we're lucky to have Joe Lobko with us. He's known for his community focused and socially impactful projects. He's been in the industry for some time, but just last year he founded Joe Lobko Architect Inc. as a means to focus on community revitalization and urban design. He's played a key role in some notable projects that you might recognize around Toronto or even on the East Coast. These include the Evergreen Brickworks and Waterfront Toronto's West Donlands. And he recently served as professional advisor for the 2024 Landscape Design Competition at the OAA headquarters. And we'll definitely talk about that in a little bit. So, Joe, thanks for joining. Lovely to be here, Ryan. Thank you. So we're talking about design competitions today and you've led a handful of these. This is a pretty niche role in our industry. So what, what was your first experience with design competitions? Were you, did you submit an entry years ago or anything like that?

 

Joe Lobko: 01:32.952 - 03:29.185

Yes, actually. when I began a firm with two other people we decided to enter two design competitions, which is often what younger firms like to do as a means of, you know, flexing their design skills, if you will, and also seeking opportunity. Uh, one was for the, one was an actual competition to build a new office building adjacent to City Hall in Burlington, Ontario, which we were lucky enough to win and follow up with an execution. And the other was an ideas competition sponsored by the Toronto Society of Architects for a new ballet opera house in Toronto. They were both very positive experiences in their own way, and they both had a lot of benefits to our young burgeoning practice, which is why we entered them candidly. In the case of the office building in downtown Burlington, it gave our young practice a substantial project to execute, helped to establish our practice, helped to grow our staff, and certainly brought us a great, a wonderful experience. In the case of the Ideas Competition, it brought our studio together. It gave everybody, we made sure everybody participated, everybody had a hand. So, it was kind of a team building exercise amongst other things. And also, because we came second in that competition, it also certainly helped him from a promotional perspective. But primarily it was a means by which to really build kind of team spirit.

 

Ryan Schwartz: 03:29.185 - 03:50.993 

That's, that's impressive. So, a first place and a second place for your first two competitions. That's a pretty positive start in terms of the world of design competitions. So, what, in a nutshell, what is a design competition? For those that don't know, you know, how does it work? What are we, what are we talking about? And these are typically, I guess, landscape or architecture, but sort of what's, what is a design competition? Sure.

 

Joe Lobko: 03:52.602 - 06:33.834

Essentially, there's a sponsor or somebody, a client, let's say, that has an ambition to undertake a project. or to explore an issue and explore ideas. And so that sponsor puts together a terms of reference, explains what they're after, what their priorities and objectives are. They describe a process under which the competition will be managed, whether it's open to anyone, whether it's invited, whether it's one stage or two stage. Um, typically there would be a jury so that competitors feel that their work will be reviewed and adjudicated fairly and ideally a really well qualified, prominent, diverse jury. Um there will be a timeframe that's established. There will be rules for the competition established to make sure it's fair to all the competitors so that there's a level playing field. Um, there will often be and should be a professional advisor engaged. Um, and then the process unfolds and you know, there's a launch competitors are usually given a period of time in which to put their work together. They submit by a particular date and the submissions are then reviewed by the jury. Um, the jury makes a selection the client or sponsor confirms or ratifies that selection, and off it goes from there. If it's an ideas competition, it often turns into an exhibition, a public presentation. But even if it's a building competition for an actual project, often there is also an agenda beyond the specific project to raise the bar within our profession, raise the you know bring in innovation into the field. And so there's, there's a kind of a broader public agenda in most competitions. Um, there are exceptions to that for sure. Uh, private clients can have private competitions that most people never hear about. And so those are also quite common, but so there's quite a variety of them, but in a nutshell, it's because a client or sponsor wants innovation. They want fresh ideas. They want a range of thinking and they want to be able to select from that range. And and so therefore they're prepared to invest in the process.

 

Ryan Schwartz: 06:34.955 - 06:50.414

That's great. And you mentioned a couple of things with the sort of the public side of things and then versus, you know, a private organization or a business. Who typically hosts one of these? I'm assuming it's often cities or some form of government. Is that right?

 

Joe Lobko: 06:51.363 - 08:51.164

It's actually quite a broad range. So, government is very much a typical sponsor of competitions. For example, in Toronto, the best well-known competition historically was the Toronto City Hall competition organized in the late 1950s, which the city sponsored because they were not happy with the results coming from a traditional process. And that competition opened the city to the world and essentially put the city on the world's design map, if you will. So government is a very common sponsor. Another common sponsor, I would say, however, are not-for-profit groups. I recently assisted a not-for-profit group in organizing an ideas competition for the electric fueling station of the future. And it was the sponsor wanted to encourage our transition to electric cars and and, and, and how to, how to improve the traveling experience if you're in that mode. Um, and so that the agenda there was  to really  bring more profile to a topic. And it was a kind of a form of advocacy, if you will. Though, interestingly, in that case, it ended up in a real commission for the winner. And then private developers, private landowners are completely entitled to organize their own competitions. And they are also quite common. And Um, they can also do it quite publicly and have a similar process or conversely, they can  in, they can develop their own shortlist. And, you know, invite a group of people and, and manage that process in their own way.

 

Ryan Schwartz: 08:51.164 - 09:24.774

Okay. And I like the idea of using these for publicity and, and really putting a spotlight on some of these projects, these more high profile projects. And aside from that, or including that, what, what's sort of the, the reasoning for these cities or clients to, you know, to put up these competitions, what other benefits Instead of going through this more traditional process, you mentioned a few things like you're getting some fresh ideas, new ideas, maybe a range of ideas, but what other kinds of benefits are there as opposed to going through more of a traditional process?

 

Joe Lobko: 09:24.774 - 12:02.640

Sure. I think the most common motivation is that somebody or some group has a very special project in mind or they have a very special agenda in mind. And so if, if it's a government, for example, it's about a very special site. City Hall is a classic example, but there are many, many others. It could be a park. It could be a variety of things, a new kind of building they want to explore. Um or it could be that  they want to raise the bar on thinking behind what is otherwise a traditional building type. For example, a couple of years ago, I helped George Brown College organize an international design competition for a new all wood, tall wood, net positive energy, net zero carbon building in Toronto's waterfront. And the agenda of George Brown College, who train people in the trades, they wanted to demonstrate to their students where the world of building was going and where we ought to be going in, in terms of designing buildings and designing great buildings for academic settings. So they had a very specific agenda about advancing thinking in what was otherwise a traditional, um typology of class. Basically it's a classroom building. It's almost finished. It's, it's now under construction on the waterfront. Um, Moriyama Toshima and and together with some, some great people from British Columbia won that competition. Um, and so that was their motivation. Um, I think in some cases, private clients want to get a range of perspectives to a very specific, even traditional design problem, but they, they're not quite sure they, maybe they want to try out new design firms. Um, they want to, um you know, for them, it's a very special project, whatever it might be. And they, they simply want a range of opinions about what the potential of the place could be. Um, so, so it's, it's usually because you've got a client or sponsor that's ambitious and they're prepared to take the additional effort involved. in advancing whatever agenda it is they have.

 

Ryan Schwartz: 12:03.621 - 12:31.535

That makes a lot of sense. And it, you're going to get more, I mean, depending on the number of entrants, you're going to get more variety. You're just going to have more, more people entering and more variety, more range, and a little bit less risk, I would say for the people submitting, because the bar to entry is usually pretty low. So maybe talk about that for a second. Like who, who's entering these competitions and why you alluded to, you know, a way, a good way to kickstart a firm or a young practice.

 

Joe Lobko: 12:33.456 - 16:15.156

Yeah, that's a, that's a, there are a couple of aspects to that question. Um traditional competitions have been what I would call open competitions. In other words, whoever the sponsor or the client group is, they make a public declaration of wanting to sponsor it. And they may have qualifications. For example, maybe you have to be a registered architect or landscape architect. Um, or not, you know, in the case of ideas competitions, for example, there are rarely prequalifications. Um, and so anybody can enter those competitions which very much appeals, especially to, um younger practitioners and younger designers who are you know, wanting experience and wanting to make their mark in the industry. Um, over the past two couple of decades, I would say large scale institutional clients, governments, most specifically have become much more conservative about design competitions and they have almost universally shifted to what are called two-stage competitions. And what that means is they put out an open invitation. There's usually some pre-qualification, you know, you've got to be a registered architect, for example, or landscape architect, but then they establish a shortlist and that shortlist is usually established based on previous experience. It can also be influenced by ideas you bring to that initial proposal about the project at hand. And that kind of process is because those institutional clients have become increasingly risk averse. So they are less inclined to engage the younger practices who haven't had as much experience and they're wanting to balance innovation with delivery and reliability of delivery. Um, which one can understand. However, the downside of that is it, it is, it is tended to dampen innovation, I would say in our profession over the last couple of decades. And it is certainly reduced opportunity for younger firms trying to you know, find ways in which to evolve their practices and evolve their skills. Um, which is one of the reasons you mentioned my recent experience working for the OAA on a competition to improve the site at their headquarters facility. I was really, really pleased that the OAA council chose to make it a one stage open competition process. The qualification was you had to be a registered architect or a landscape architect, but I liked the fact that our organization took the risk of any team that was qualified, if you were qualified to practice, you were qualified to win. And that really opened it up. We had a lot of interests, a lot of entries and a lot of different approaches to it. And I really hope that in the Canadian scene, that serves as an example and that we can encourage more institutional clients to sponsor open competitions rather than two-stage competitions.

 

Ryan Schwartz: 16:15.666 - 16:35.983

I like that idea. And the, I guess the two stage you're, you're basically getting some fresh ideas, some new perspectives, some, some wild and crazy ideas, and then you're narrowing it down and saying, Oh, you're only a firm of two or three people. There's no way you're going to be able to build this hospital. So now you're cut. So that's, is that what you're saying? It's kind of limiting innovation that way?

 

Joe Lobko: 16:35.983 - 18:24.428

Yes, exactly. And, and what also happens is that it's increasingly large firms. that have in some cases, full-time competition teams that basically all they do is, and it's, it's a means of generating work for large firms. One thing I would say is that there's a huge investment in committing to a competition. Um, it's one thing to take on a kind of modest ideas competition, but taking on, for example, a multi-million dollar building project, you know, a 50 million or a hundred million dollar building project through a design competition. Uh, it is, is it's not just an architect's firm or a landscape architect's firm. It's a team, a full team, usually a lot of engineers involved and a huge amount of investment on everyone's part. And that investment can easily amount to somewhere between half a million and a million dollars,and a lot of time. So That's why, another reason why the two-stage process has evolved because larger firms feel they have a greater chance of success if there's a smaller pool in which they're competing against. If they're competing in an open competition environment, they're going to be less inclined potentially or more careful about their commitment and the circumstances then really matter, you know, the The prominence of the project, the budget of the project, the quality of the jury, the timing within their own practice, all of these things become important considerations.

 

Ryan Schwartz: 18:25.060 - 18:48.277

Yeah, because I assume it could take, you know, quite a few resources to get to that second stage, whereas maybe an open stage, a very conceptual competition, you know, you can do that fairly quickly, fairly lightly, but then if you want something that's a little more developed and sort of realistic and you're, you know, then you're spending a lot of time and really having to commit. So yeah, then the goal is to win, obviously.

 

Joe Lobko: 18:48.277 - 19:53.043

Yeah. I mean, just to make that point on the George Brown competition I mentioned, given that a major part of the objectives of the client was building performance. Um, we expected teams to deliver performance metrics and that means a fair amount of commitment and detail. And um, and so, you know that's significant and I can understand why if, if that's the objective of a competition, why Um, a kind of two-stage process with a limited shortlist may make sense. And often by the way, in, in those examples, those shortlisted teams are provided what I'll call a stipend, a partial fee. The fee does not cover the entire expense. It's it doesn't even cover half of the entire expense, but it's something, you know, and it's an acknowledgement by the client sponsor that they're asking a lot of these teams.

 

Ryan Schwartz: 19:53.043 - 20:13.518

So that's an interesting point then too. So that becomes at a cost then for the competition itself. So what does this process look like? It can obviously add some time, add a little bit of cost. What does this whole procedure look like when you're working with a new client on a competition? How do you even start that conversation?

 

Joe Lobko: 20:14.225 - 24:31.679

Well, first of all the client, because they're even thinking about it, it means they've got ambition. And I would say that's a critical ingredient. Um, and by ambition, I mean a client that it has a really worthy objective in mind. They also then have to have resources, the resources to actually execute the project, that it's not just a fishing expedition, which has been known to happen, where they basically Um, use the resources of the profession to generate ideas and may or may not have funding. A bunch of free ideas and that they can choose from. Yeah. Um, the client then needs a very clear program. Um, and so that can take some work and effort, you know, articulating what the objectives are. They if it's a building project or a landscape project, there's typically a site in Or it could be a generic site in the case of an ideas competition, but you need some kind of context within which these things happen. Ideally, the competition sponsor is also being very clear about their priorities and selection criteria. So that all the teams are very aware of. you know, what to prioritize through the process. A very capable and diverse jury has to be identified, paid for, and selected. A team that can, is eminently qualified so that competitors feel the risk of doing all that work is justified, that their work will be thoughtfully reviewed. And the jury itself has to be a group of people that can really work well together as a team. That's important. Um, I like to encourage clients to make their process public. And by that, I mean that once the submissions are in, that there's an exhibition organized or there's um, you know, these days one can do this online. It can also happen in person. Um, there can be a public presentation of the results, which can be very exciting. And you know, they become very special moments in, in the in, in the course of a, you know, the design history of, of a year, for example. Um, there can be the need to engage technical expertise to help define parameters and help review the results. Um, in the case of George Brown college, for example, given the performance objectives beyond a number of other objectives. I hired building scientists and experts that were able to articulate what the ambition would be and to establish the metrics and how they would be evaluated, and then to actually help do that evaluation and prepare reports that inform the jury. The jury is not going to all have all of that expertise. So they need advice as well. Um, and then of course you need a whole bunch of interested design teams. So you know, the topic of that competition has to have enough broad interest in the profession. To bring people in. That it actually brings people in, you know, that, Hey, this would be a really interesting thing to explore. Or we have a lot of ideas about this. Let's use this as a vehicle to expand that thinking. Um, And then, you know, it, it needs to be really well organized is the other thing I would say about it, because there are a lot of people putting a lot of resources into it. The client sponsors putting a lot of resources into it. The teams involved are putting a lot of resources into it. So what they really need is great organization, efficiency, fairness, the tight timeframes, answers to questions. Um, prize money that's worthy, and you know, a candidly, a worthy reward at the end, whatever, however defined. Yeah.

 

Ryan Schwartz: 24:31.679 - 24:32.179

Fair enough.


Joe Lobko: 24:32.179 - 24:38.76 

So those are the, those are the kind of ingredients, the essential ingredients in my experience to a successful competition process.

 

Ryan Schwartz: 24:39.003 - 25:07.212

I think that makes a lot of sense. And it almost sounds like when you're working with a client like this, that as an advisor for a competition, you sort of are almost working, it's very similar to being an architect at the beginning stage of a project, because you have to kind of get clear on what they're looking for, if they don't know, and really define some parameters around the project. Because if it is ambiguous, and then these entries all come in that have nothing to do with what was initially proposed, it's not good for anyone.

 

Joe Lobko: 25:08.333 - 26:11.711

No, you're absolutely right. Just to take the example of the OAA competition for a case, there was a huge amount of work, at least half, if not more than half of the work in organizing. It happened before the competition itself. And for example, you don't want every team having to develop their own research around the rules of the site, the topography of the site, the zoning of the site, or having a three-dimensional model. And so you have to research the site, research the program. Um, you have to provide materials to the competitors. that allow them to jump right in to the generation of ideas and avoid repetition between teams and minimize expenses for all those competitors. And it makes it far more attractive. So there's a huge amount of work prior to actually launching the competition itself.

 

Ryan Schwartz: 26:12.753 - 26:38.887

And you mentioned the jury, and this is an interesting one. Two things, actually. So one is the idea of having an exhibition and having the public involved. I think I've seen some, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've seen some where the public basically gets a say and they get some voting power. And I don't know, maybe that can backfire. Maybe it's a good thing. Maybe it's a bad thing. But is that common where the public can weigh in on these buildings or projects?

 

Joe Lobko: 26:39.740 - 30:51.466

Yes. And again, I would say this varies depending on the topic. Um, so very specifically where this is relevant is with public projects being built with public money and where typically there is a public engagement process that's part of the design process. And so I would always welcome, um First of all, the education of the public in whatever the particular project is. If it's an important civic building or civic space, of course the public should have input into it. And often the public will have had input into the development of the program that even launches the competition, the selection of the site, that sort of thing. And then afterwards, it's not a popularity contest. It's not an opinion poll. Um, but it is, I think, very important to allow the public to kind of have a voice. And typically in public projects, we would collect those opinions, collect the range of input received. That, for example, happened at the OAA competition. Um, we launched the exhibition during Doors Open. Um, there were over, I believe over a thousand, 800 to a thousand people came to the OAA headquarters that weekend. Um, a lot of those people were kind enough. We had we were prepared to have a forms that people could fill out and, and provide advice and opinion. Um, and that opinion and advice was put together in a, in a concise report and delivered to the jury. Um, and I've, I've done that on a number of other competitions as well. Um, The jury reviews that advice and it becomes another factor in their thinking, but it's not, it's not as if public opinion is influencing the outcome. Now, why this is really important and not to belabor this, but recently the federal government organized a design competition for memorial to the Afghan war, the Canadian contribution to the experience in Afghanistan. And they had an eminently qualified jury. They went through what looked to be a reasonable process. And at the end of the process, the jury made its recommendation. And unfortunately, after much silence, the government decided via an unscientific opinion poll of a very select group of people, or at least that was the excuse, to circumvent the jury's decision, put it aside and pick another team and another submission as the winner. That situation has basically brought the project to a standstill. It's caused a huge amount of controversy. It's going to cost the government a huge amount of money, no matter what the outcome is. It's exactly what you shouldn't be doing. Not respecting the jury process, right? And especially for reasons that are candidly not supportable, you know? Um, yeah. Um, so and, and that undermines the future of competitions because if competitors sense that major sponsors like the federal government are prepared to undermine the decision of a jury, why would they enter? Why put yourself through all that effort? If, if the government's just, you know, a government minister just says, I like this one instead, please let's do that. And so um, Here's hoping that that never happens again and that the liberal government that made this decision decides to reverse the situation and carry through as they should have from the beginning.

 

Ryan Schwartz: 30:52.496 - 31:29.214

But it's a really important question. Well, then it kind of defeats the whole point then if you have this loud minority, you know, after all these steps and all this procedure and time, and then to just say, actually, we like this one instead. So yeah, it kind of undermines the whole point. But so that's interesting that the public is, it's almost, it's kind of weighted as a jury member in itself amongst many in terms of opinion. And how do you, how do you go about selecting the jury members themselves? And how many people would it typically be or, you know, are they excited to be members or?

 

Joe Lobko: 31:29.214 - 36:29.927

Yeah, no. Yeah. Great, great question. I think it's one of the most important parts of a competition process. And I think there's a real art to selecting a jury. So you want people that are very qualified. and experienced and that who have a great deal of respect within, you know, whatever the field is you're dealing with. Um, and, and that doesn't mean designers exclusively. Um, I think a jury should especially a design competition, it should definitely be dominated by designers who understand what's at play, how what's at stake, but I equally feel that it's important there are non-designers on a jury, and that there's a diverse range of perspective. So when advising a client about the selection of a jury, one is often looking for a range of experience. And the obvious practicality of that is that you're bringing a diverse range of perspectives to the jury deliberation. If you have a jury that all think the same way, you're not going to have the same depth of discussion consideration that you would have when you have people that bring a different experience base, a different perspective to whatever the the challenges, especially I would say if it's a public project. So for example, it is often the case on public competitions beyond some designers that would be part of a jury that there would be people representing community interests that, let's say there's a local park or it's a local building that's the subject of that competition, that there is some local knowledge that comes into the deliberation process. I would also say that introducing I would call just kind of general knowledge about maybe the organization, the organization's priorities that have somebody that has a breadth of experience in a number of areas, that kind of person can bring a huge amount of value to the jury. And then one final thing I'd say about the jury or two final things. One is you need a really good jury chair. And it's basically as you can imagine in the, in when you're bringing a group of people together, some of whom have never met each other before. And you're charging them with a really important decision and responsibility. Um, you need a great discussion, great dialogue, and you need somebody that's really skillful at facilitating that discussion. And then the final thing I would say is the ambition is that you achieve a decision through consensus. And, and that through a lot of discussion and debate and discussion, you, you know, you come to Um, a, a decision you all feel good about. Um, that is not always possible. Um, there can be a genuine difference of opinion and hence I would say there ought to be an odd number of jerks. Um, just in case in the, in the event you have to make a vote. Um, and so I like the number of either five or seven. Um, I am aware of some juries that amount to like 10 or 20 or 30 people. I don't know how you've managed that for a serious building project. So I think you, I think three is a bit tight. I think five is adequate and good. I have nothing wrong with seven and, and something like that. You get a, a range of perspective in the profession, younger people, older people with different, diverse cultural backgrounds diverse experiences And candidly, that part of it is one of the most exciting and interesting parts of it. It's an intense, before the jury review days or days, there's a lot of homework. All the submissions are reviewed by the jury. So they know all of that. They know what's been submitted coming into that discussion. The technical review team gives them their advice. Um, you know, here's how these projects perform, for example, or here's how they come in or not on budget, whatever those things are. And then it's usually a really great conversation to be part of. So I think it's a great privilege, honor, and a lot of fun to be selected to be on a jury.

 

Ryan Schwartz: 36:30.585 - 36:58.942

I can imagine those being a fly on the wall for those conversations as a bunch of experts are talking and reviewing these handful of projects would be, it would be pretty interesting to watch and be fun to be a part of. And I guess they have to be pretty clear on what the objectives are too, right? Because they are sort of acting on behalf of the owner or the client to make the right decision. So that kind of goes back to what you're saying about having a lot of clarity because they need to be on the same page in terms of what the objectives are of this project.

 

Joe Lobko: 36:59.602 - 37:51.267

Not only the objectives, but the selection criteria. They have to be clearly articulated. That's not very distinct from, say, a public RFP process. Usually there's clear selection criteria. Often in a public RFP, as many would know, there's often a scorecard process. To me, the distinction between a traditional RFP and a design competition is that this isn't simply a math exercise. where you're taking criteria and assigning a mark and you know, who's got the highest mark. There's a subjective aspect to this that goes beyond the things that can be numerically described or evaluated. And, and that's where the experience and skillset of the jury really becomes important.

 

Ryan Schwartz: 37:52.935 - 38:18.395

And so after you've gone through this whole process and you finally selected a winner and there's some kind of consensus, how do you ensure, and I don't know if this is a common problem or not, but how do you ensure that if this is a project that's going to be built, how do you ensure that that initial kernel of an idea that won is carried through to the end over the next few years of construction as things get bogged down in costs and that kind of stuff?

 

Joe Lobko: 38:19.617 - 43:03.675

Again, a really great question and a very important topic. The first thing I would say is the end of a competition process is still the very early stage of a design process. So the design isn't frozen. It's not complete. If you're simply hired by a client to do a project, we're usually dealing with concept level design proposals at a competition stage. And in any project, there's still a lot of design development that has to happen afterwards. Designers that somehow think that their competition entry is now cast in stone, it's sacred, it can't be touched, the client can't modify it, it can't be improved, they shouldn't be competing in competitions. Yeah, good luck. Howard Rourke is not who we need here. But it, and so in my experience, it's inevitable that both the design team and the client basically need to, however, commit to, to your, use your, your, your, your term a moment ago, the kind of kernel of, of the idea that attracted the jury's attention. What was the essential idea? Why did one particular scheme get selected? The value of that idea or set of ideas, if you've got an ambitious client who's doing this for a reason, and clearly the design team will be very aware of that kernel of ideas that make up their project. It's like in any other design development process, how do you carry that through a successful implementation? And to your point budgets matter. And so if you're dealing with a project that's intended to be implemented, you have to, the client has to establish a budget. And there typically is scrutiny of the budgets of each submission and those budgets are then scrutinized by a technical advisor. That doesn't guarantee anything except to, it can influence outcomes in my experience at work. I have been part of processes where um, it's come down to two or three projects that the jury's reviewing. But one of them, let's say is substantially above what is probably already a very generous budget. And that can impact the jury's decision-making because to your point, it has to be delivered at the end of the day. Feasible. With a budget that, yeah, it has to be feasible. And so, yeah, but I would just encourage architects and designers who want to get involved in competitions to really focus on um, the kind of essence of an idea that's going to really meet the client's objectives and get the attention of the jury. And it, it the other thing that raises is that often a competition winner, is not perfect. It could have lots of flaws, but there's something really, really special about it at its core that has attracted the attention and somehow captured the spirit of that moment and of that project. And all of those things, all of the flaws or, or, or things that are sort of undercooked in the project, they can be worked out, you know, you, you can improve them through the design development process. But um, if you're, if you're engaged as a competitor, it's worth bearing that in mind, you know that, and, and That, anyway, that's been my experience that it's often not the project that's like perfect in all respects. It's the project that captured the essence of what the client had in mind and, and the jury sort of recognized it and, and, and then it sort of continues to grow. And the other final thing I'd say about this is when I have witnessed projects win the competition and then actually built, and I've seen a number of those, They're, they're not the same project. They've evolved. Right. You can still recognize that core idea in my experience in successful ones, but they've definitely evolved.

 

Ryan Schwartz: 43:04.795 - 43:26.980

That's, that's good to hear. And I can imagine it'd be a challenge. Yeah. You have this compelling idea and it's this, like this little kernel and you're trying to bring it through to the end. And, and, and speaking of, of compelling winners we should talk about this OAA competition that recently happened. So yeah, it was a talk about that for a little bit. It was a landscape design competition at the headquarters in Toronto.

 

Joe Lobko: 43:26.980 - 50:34.161

Yes. And so briefly the OAA has spent a lot of time and um, resource over the past maybe five to eight years or more, maybe the past decade renovating and revitalizing the OAA headquarters building and turning it into a model of sustainability. Um, you know, so a lot of people are aware of the photovoltaic array that's now on the roof. Um, the replacement of all the glazing, um retrofit of the mechanicals, electrical systems. So given what the OAA does, what we do as architects, it's important that our organization reflects the values of our profession and where we want design to go as a group. And so the building really did that. But for those that have visited the OAA in the past while the site remains let's say less special less impressive. It's basically um, a manicured lawn right beside the Don Valley. And so, you know, you've got this kind of naturalized ravine system right there next door. Um, and, and. There's no reflection of that on the OAA site. You also have a parking lot of impervious surfaces where all the stormwater goes immediately into a pipe and immediately into the adjacent city sewer without any quantity control, without any quality control. Not a good, you know, and when the building was built, there wasn't a requirement for quantity and quality controls, but today, given extreme weather events, given climate change, given the priorities of society at large, the OAA in its wisdom realized that the revitalization of the site needed to match the revitalization of the building. And so, as I said earlier, I was so proud that the OAA Council decided to launch an open one-stage competition open to both our registered architects and landscape architects who are part of the OELA. in Ontario. We went through the process I've described to you. There's a building committee at the OAA. Many council members were involved. Staff played a key role in putting together a great program. We engaged a technical advisory team to assist us with that, in particular on the stormwater landscape and cost side. And then we launched it online and we had an open invitation I think we got something like just under 30 interested parties. And I believe we had something like 18 or 19 submissions. In the end, we made sure it was anonymous. So we gave each team a tree designation. There were only a very few, a small number of us who actually knew which tree represented which firm. So it's just so that, you know, the jury was not being influenced by someone they might've known or reputations. It was really about the idea of the project. And we had I would say really incredible submissions. The overall quality of the work was very impressive. The seriousness with which the teams took it on, it was an eight-week process. They put a lot of work into it. They presented their ideas beautifully. They took the range of program ambition very seriously. Um, and we were able to exhibit all of the work, you know, in panels that were submitted, as I said earlier, at Doors Open weekend. And a lot of people wanted to come and see the building and they were good enough to also take in the exhibition and leave us a bunch of feedback. And it was also an exhibition available online. And then, you know, the jury had a pretty intense day of deliberation after a lot of review and a lot of reports and advice. And the competition was won by, I would say, a younger firm called JAW Architects, J-A. a couple, Iranian-Canadian couple that do a lot of teaching both here in Canada and the United States and have an integrated practice focused both on landscape and architecture. And I think a very compelling idea that developed from the idea of the building, this very modern building that's kind of elevated off its base with the promise or the opportunity of kind of landscape going through, even though at the moment, the landscape that's going through is not very distinctive. And tackling the topic of stormwater in a, in a really interesting way. And so the project eventually, essentially consists of the idea of replacing the existing asphalt driveway with a bridge and taking the low part of the site along Moatshield Drive and turning that literally into a kind of moat, a new form of stormwater garden. And the idea of a kind of transparent bridge with grating that allows water to come through, allows a new meadow to emerge. And the approach to landscape, rather than being what I would call a traditional decorative one, is one that borrows from nature and lets nature have a very strong voice in the character of what may emerge here. So it was one of the uh, few projects that had a really fresh approach to landscape design and really in the, in the minds of the jury really addressed the critical topic of our time. You know one key objective of the competition is what constitutes an appropriate approach to landscape design in a time of climate change and reconciliation for a site that's beside the Don River. a very traditional place of settlement for indigenous people. And I think the team that won really rose to the occasion. And my understanding is they now have a contract and they're about to roll up their sleeves, or they already have been doing that. off to executing it and bringing it to life.

 

Ryan Schwartz: 50:34.161 - 51:21.364

That's great. What an opportunity and kudos to the OAA for sort of walking the walk and not just talking the talk and really pushing these forward. I definitely, I would encourage students and young professionals to enter these kinds of competitions, as you mentioned, as a way to practice and to build a portfolio. And there are some, some good, some easy ones too. There's one that comes to mind is for students and people that maybe aren't registered architects, there's one, Winter Stations, and it's very small. They do it every year at Woodbine Beach, and they take these little lifeguard towers and change them into little public displays. And it's fun to see those every year and watch the public interact with those. That's a good example. I appreciate your time. Is there anything else that we didn't cover that you'd like to add?

 

Joe Lobko: 51:22.665 - 52:58.651

Uh, no, I, I think it's a, it was a great conversation. I think maybe the final thing I would say is design competitions, I think are very important to design culture. Um, they bring innovation, they bring opportunity, they bring fresh thinking. They represent the best of what we do. Um, I think that we need to stay on top of. how we manage competitions. I think there's a lot of work to be done there just now, candidly, in updating guidelines and procedures. We're well behind in that regard. I think there's a lot of work to do to educate institutional clients and sponsors of potential competitions about the value of competitions. And I would like to see an evolution towards more open competitions, more opportunity for younger practices. I think that's really essential going forward. And candidly, more ideas competitions um, that are, that are more open and, and deal with the increasing complexity of growths in our, in our, in our region, in our province. I think the design competitions. can be a very helpful tool in exploring possibilities. Uh, it's been wonderful to be, have been part of, to have been invited to have been part of a number of them, including certainly the most recent one sponsored by the OAA. Really enjoyed our chat today, Ryan.

 

Ryan Schwartz: 52:58.651 - 53:44.894

Thank you. Yeah. Likewise. Yeah. And if, if people want to get in touch with you, I guess they can probably just search for Joe Lobko Architect Inc to reach out. They absolutely can. Yes. Perfect. And if, if people want to learn more about the OAA's landscape design competition, they can check out the website. And that will wrap up this episode. So if you've enjoyed it, please leave us a review, tell your friends. That'll help us to provide some more valuable episodes in the future. Architecturally Speaking is available wherever you get your podcasts and also on the OAA's YouTube channel. So I encourage you to check that out for the video of today's conversation. And if you want to learn more about anything that we talked about today, of course, check out the OAA website. That's oaa.on.ca. And until next time, I'm Ryan Schwartz, and this has been Architecturally Speaking. Bye for now.