Architectural design competitions: the effects of competition format on design processes and outcomes

Much of the extensive literature on design competitions is based on individual case studies and grounded in long-standing beliefs and assertions about the merits of what we term here ‘pure’ competition formats: competitions that are open to all, where entries are anonymous and judging is undertaken by independent design experts. Drawing from a mixed-methods, empirical study of 46 design competitions held in Sydney between 2000 and 2017, this paper focuses, in contrast, on the benefits and drawbacks of ‘impure’ design competitions. It examines the influence on design processes and outcomes of four key competition variables: the number of entrants, designer anonymity, the flexibility of briefs, and the independence of judges. Opportunities are considered for impure competition formats to address the main drawbacks of pure competitions while maintaining their benefits. We conclude that the benefits of competitive design are not contingent on an open field nor flexible briefs, but that a move towards an impure competition format can be problematic where jury independence is diminished and designer anonymity is lost.