More often than not, architectural competitions are set up in search of the most disappointing proposals the profession has to offer. Although the carefully crafted, big-worded project briefs always call for the most cutting edge, avant-garde architectural manifestations, the chosen scheme is almost always the most close-minded, hermetic, predictable and dysfunctional solution. The winner seems to be discussing another project that somehow is the back door to the juror’s hearts. There seems to be another meaning between the lines of the description that says: “please submit a scheme that does not disturb the current political waters”.

When a self-appointed jury of friends falls onto funding for public works, it takes this chance to prove to the community its professional competence by inventing ways in which to spend the money. The common route is an international competition, whereby hopefully young multi-cultural talent will be “involved”. The description of the competition is always concerned with eradicating socio-economic inequalities and globally linking communities through spatial experience. Surprisingly, the winning formula is to not change the inequalities architecturally but to say so in the project statement verbally.

The 2006 St. Louis Follies competition is a perfect example of small-time architects playing with big ideas. The competition description states: “The follies […] will ultimately be a series of places and spaces where innovation and new forms of expression are recognized […]. They can also be considered as a laboratory of cultural democratization where art, society and local communities communicate and interact through changing exhibitions. The follies will also promote St. Louis as a cutting-edge place, inviting the creative multimedia industries to the area and region.” The results were announced a few months later and the winning project is a cluster of poles. The poles are not as dumb as they sound when in the statement: “Interface proposes a series of high-tech poles that would be set in an irregular, zig-zagging grid pattern across the length of the mall.” As long as they are “high-tech” and planted “irregularly” the poles provide the “laboratory of cultural democratization”. Also, as additional design features, the winning team explains that these poles will provide internet access and a space for artists’ installations.

The question still remains: how will this encourage community interaction, place St. Louis on the global map, and above all, how will the poles ever fight the crime rate that places the city first in the nation every year? Will the established professionals ever practice what they preach?

http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/8640.html