Sir David Alan Chipperfield

Sir David Alan Chipperfield, CH -architect, urban planner, and activist- was awarded the 2023 Pritzker Prize, the highest honor in architecture, in recognition of his lifelong contributions to the field. His career spans over four decades and encompasses a diverse range of projects across numerous countries. Beyond designing some of the most significant contemporary public buildings, including the upcoming extension of the National Archaeological Museum of Athens -Chipperfield is also deeply involved in architectural consultancy. Through the RIA Foundation, he actively supports the development of public architectural competitions in Galicia, Spain, where he resides.

His exclusive interview with ek magazine, conducted at the invitation of the Pritzker Architecture Prize, took place on May 24 in Athens, just hours before the award ceremony at the Ancient Agora.

S.M.: What are the key characteristics of a well-crafted architectural competition brief? How can architects influence the questions posed before offering their design solutions? What is the significance of architectural competitions today, and what is the ideal context in which they should be held?

D.C.: In any project, the client must take responsibility. When moving forward with an assignment or tender, no one can shirk the responsibility of clearly formulating the question and establishing priorities. Furthermore, the client remains responsible for providing the necessary conditions for those tasked with answering the question. However, the process of delegation is often misunderstood. For instance, if a client says, “I have a plot of land and want to build a skyscraper there,” they are essentially asking architects to design a skyscraper for that site, even though this may not have been the best idea from the start. So, who is responsible? The architects, who must design a skyscraper without being certain it’s the right choice for the location, or the client, who failed to take the necessary professional steps to ensure its viability?

The reputation of architectural competitions is mixed. In Switzerland, and to some extent in Germany, when a public body decides to hold a competition, it often commissions an architectural firm to create a ‘theoretical’ project first. Through this process, architects realize that it’s not so simple to fit a large number of square meters onto a given plot or to make the traffic system envisioned by the institution actually work.

A young architect should aspire to design a housing complex or a well-crafted school building. The challenge, however, is that in many cases, such projects are not available through competitions, largely because the public system is not functioning effectively. In Galicia, through the RIA Foundation, we are working to create reliable and high-quality tenders. Without this reliability, architects are not taken seriously, and their work is overshadowed by commercial firms that exploit them. Additionally, tenders need to be tiered appropriately. For instance, if a competition is for an airport, I believe even my office should not participate alone, but in partnership with others, as such a project is too complex to tackle alone. I also think it would be more practical for some competitions to be held on a qualification basis by default, rather than being completely open and narrowing down to a shortlist of just 20 in the second phase. Most importantly, I believe competitions should not only be reserved for “flagship” projects. The world is built not just through iconic structures but also through thoughtful housing, quality schools…

As a young architect in Britain, I would have loved the opportunity to learn in the same way that some of my European colleagues in Switzerland or Austria have. There, architects in their mid-30s are able to design meaningful projects like school extensions or bus stations. With hundreds of competitions available, it’s clear to me that having a well-established system for such opportunities is crucial.

S.M.: Are you saying that established offices should refrain from this level?

D.C.: Certainly. They would have done it regardless. In many European countries, the competition system has experienced both highs and lows. In the 80s and 90s, Spain had an exceptionally strong system, which allowed many young architects to win competitions, putting them in a much more favorable position to succeed. For young architects, winning was incredibly important. Could they handle the scale of the project? Yes. Did they have the experience? Yes. Were they technically competent? Yes. Did they have the energy? Absolutely. The more established firms were less willing to invest the same effort into winning, giving younger firms a significant advantage, as long as they could pose the right questions to the right people.

S.M.: What is the role of architectural institutions in this context? Ideally, these collective bodies can serve as advisors to public institutions. At their worst, however, they are often bypassed entirely.

D.C.: Absolutely. We’ve learned this lesson. In England, for instance, RIBA is struggling. They’ve become focused on marketing. Thirty years ago, they chose to prioritize “promoting architecture,” much like the nationwide campaign at the time to encourage people to eat more fresh eggs. However, the true role of an architectural association should be to create an environment that protects the profession. When a competition is announced, the institution should review the notice and determine if the jury is qualified. In Germany, for example, public projects require juries to consist of more experts and fewer “ordinary citizens” or “personalities.” There must be a recognized head of the jury, and all of this should be made clear before the competition begins. The public sector in Germany has a stronger competition culture, and even though the country may be shifting in a different direction, it remains the responsibility of architectural institutions to reclaim this ground. Additionally, a critical responsibility of these institutions is to ensure fair compensation for award-winning projects.

The idea that RIBA should abandon proposed fee levels is utterly absurd, as it would allow young architects to be underpaid at the expense of their more experienced counterparts. When you’re a young architect, the last thing you want is to win a competition without a proper fee. If you ask yourself, “Should we take this on?” of course you give it your all. You’ve spent three years working on a great project, but you haven’t made any money and you’re completely exhausted. This is not sustainable for a new firm—you’re simply being taken advantage of. In contrast, in Switzerland, if you win a good competition, the fee is fair. You complete the project, everyone is satisfied, and you have money in the bank. You can invest that money back into your office. It’s a way to move forward professionally. An architectural project should never be seen as a lottery. Someone might say, “You were lucky to win,” but that’s only true if you haven’t been worn out in the process.

Read the full interview at the  279 | July – August 2023 ek issue.