Main Article Content
This case study examines a developer competition held in Stockholm in 2013-2014 organized by the municipal government. The objective was to develop good and affordable housing for young citizens. Fifteen design teams took part in the competition. The jury compared two different proposals in the final evaluation: one with separate rooms linked to a collective space and one that consisted of small housing units. This sorting of design proposals in two main categories had a major impact on the judging in the competition. The jury declared the solution with small housing units as the winner, which reinforced the overall category as the appropriate direction for the design solution.
There are three typical key players in the competition: the organizer, the jury, and the design teams. The organizer was responsible for the objective and terms presented in the brief. The jury was responsible to assign a winner. Architects, builders, and developers responded to the task by organizing design-teams and producing architectural design solutions. They had to understand affordability as both cost (rent level) and architectural design (area-effective apartments).
The competition in Stockholm was investigated in a case study. Research data was collected from archives and through questionnaires answered by jury members and design teams. Methods used for analyzing documents and design solutions were close reading and architectural criticism.
Twenty-two architectural students studied the competition in a course. In this case study, I compare how the professional jury evaluated the proposals to jury reports from the students focusing on innovative solutions. The professional jury and the student juries used the same criteria for judging but appointed different winners. The students preferred the solution with collective living. One explanation for this difference can be found in the structure of the evaluation process.
The results of the study can be summarized in ten conclusions that deal with sorting and ranking of design proposals, criteria for judging, marketing of the competition, uncertainty and knowledge, motives for competing, innovation, and the competition as a tool for the political ambition of the public organizers. The result produced new knowledge. There are few studies focusing on developer competition as the production of design proposals and architectural quality.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal which is under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Flyvberg, B., 2006. Five misunderstandings about Cases Study Research. Qualitative Inquire, No 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
Forlati., S., 2016. About and beyond winning competition – Strategic considerations for architectural practices in. (Eds) J. E. Andersson, G. Bloxham Zettersten and M. Rönn, Architectural Competitions as Institution and Process, Copenhagen: Royal Institution of Technology and Kulturlandskapet.
Groat, L. and Wang, D., 2002. Architectural research methods, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Inbjudan med tävlingsprogram (Competition brief). 2014-06-11. Markanvisningstävling för billiga och yteffektiva bostäder för unga i Midsommarkransen. Exploateringskontoret, Stockholms stad.
Johansson, R., 2007. On Case Study Methodology. Open House International, No 3.
Juryutlåtande, (Jury report), 2014. Markanvisningstävling för billiga och yteffektiva bostäder för unga i Midsommarkransen. Exploateringskontoret, Stockholms stad.
Kreiner, K., 2007. Strategic Choices in Unknowable Worlds. Copenhagen: Center for Management Studies of the Building Process.
Kreiner, K., 2013. Constructing the client in Architectural Competitions. An Ethnographical Study of Architects’ Practice and Strategies They Reveal, in Andersson, Bloxham Zettersten and Rönn (Eds), Architectural Competitions – Histories and Practice. Hamburgsund: Royal Institute of Technology and Rio Kulturkooperativ.
Kreiner, K., 2016. The Inaccessibility of Building Accessibility: Given Visual and Material Form to Innovation, in Andersson, Bloxham Zettersten & Rönn (Eds) Architectural Competitions as Institution and Process. Scandinavien Book: Royal Institute of Technology and Kulturlandskapet.
Lahdenperä, P., 2009. Conceptualizing a two-stage target-cost arrangement for competitive cooperation, Construction Management and Economics, No 13.
Lehtonen. H., 1991. Om utgångspunkterna vid visualisering av arkitekturprojekt. Tidskrift för Arkitekturforskning, Nr 1.
Lehtonen. H., 1999. Tid, arkitektur och avbildning. Nordisk Tidskrift för arkitektutforskning, Nr 2.
Liske, H. 2008. Der “Bauträgerwettbewerb“ als Instrument des geförderten sozialen Wohnbaus in Wien – verfahrenstechnische und inhaltliche Evaluierung. Wien: Magistrat der Stadt Wien.
Markanvisningspolicy 2015 (Developer policy 2015). Stockholm Stad.
Oslo Manual, 2005. European Commission and Eurostat.
Östman, L., 2014. An explorative study on municipal developer competitions in Helsinki. FORMakademisk, No 1. https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.823
Persson, E. 2013. En studie av förekomst och innehåll i markanvisningspolicyer. Stockholm: Institu-tionen för Fastigheter och byggande, KTH.
Robinson, M., Scobie, G. M., & Hallinan, B. 2006. Affordability of housing: Concepts, Measurement and Evidens. Wellington: New Zealand Treasury.
Rönn, M., 2017. Markanvisningstävling i Stockholm - En fallstudie om innovation i arkitektur och bostadsbyggande. Stockholm: Kulturlandskapet och TRITA-ARK-Forskningspublikationer 2017:2.
Rönn, M. 2016. Design versus Economy: on prequalification in developer competitions, in (Eds) Rönn and Toft AESTHETICS – THE UNEASY DIMENSION IN ARCHITECTURE, Trondheim: Nordic Academic Press of Architectural Research.
Rönn, M., 2014. Restricted developer competitions - three cases in Sweden, Forskningspublikationer 2014:1, KTH.
Schön, D., 1983. The reflective Practitioner, USA: Basic Books.
Scruon, R., 2007. “Most Architecture Should Be Modest: On Architecture and Aesthetic Judgment”, in (ed) Sanders, Judging Architecture Value. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Wallén. G., 1989. Utvärdering av arkitekturforskning. Tidskrift för arkitekturforskning, Nr 3.
E-post, communication with Development Administration, Stockholm city, 2017-03-05
Information in Stockholm on the developer competition 2017-10-25:
Rent level in Stockholm 2015, at SCB 2017-03-06:
Origo arkitekter. Winning design proposal. Available 2018-02-18:
Utopia Arkitekter. Design proposal, KomBo. Available 2018-02-18:
Competition brief (tävlingsprogram 2014-06-18). Development administration (Exploateringskontoret), Stockholm city.
Jury report (Juryutlåtande), December 2014. Development administration (Exploateringskontoret), Stockholm city.
Land allocation agreement (Markanvisningsavtal) 2015 between Stockholm city through Development administration and Familjebostäder.