Feisty as ever, Annette responded to an announcement that a Landscape Starchitect would be speaking soon on a “topic of his choosing”. She said that she chooses “content of presentation over fame of speaker” in deciding what events to attend . That’s really where the priority should lie, isn’t it?
The lecture blurb notes that the Starchitect is a finalist in a local design competition. This guy is very good at winning big competitions. It’s what he does.
I imagine that this was yet another of those by-invitation design competitions that wants bold, new ideas yet limits participation to the usual gang of suspects who have demonstrated the ability to win such competitions. Small, unknown firms please stand away from the red carpet, behind the crowd barrier. Thank you for your understanding.
Is there a reason why design competitions aren’t openly advertised to all design firms, especially local ones? How come there’s a local food movement, but no local design movement? Does the end user truly get a better product from someone flown in from hundreds or thousands of miles away, someone who is not part of the local community?
Someone once told me that winning design competitions is having a bold idea that looks great in plan view. Something immediately graspable that stands out from the competition when the projects are pinned to the wall for evaluation.
Bold ideas are great, I suppose, but for day-to-day enjoyment of a space, I prefer subtlety, mystery, discovery. None of these things typically create maximum graphic impact.
Variety, seasonal change, complexity, beauty at varying scales, ecological and social relevance aren’t bold, although they can be fit into a grand scheme, depending on the site’s size and context. Yet they are essential for creating livable, long term environments.
Does a designer who places linked, system-based ideas ahead of bold axes and monumentality remain doomed to perpetual failure in design competitions? Could this be why there are so many harsh, unlivable yet bold outdoor spaces?