As part of our methodological process, we engaged a cohort of architects who had previously contributed to design competitions—both as participants and/or as jurors—for their perspectives on the contemporary competition paradigm. The questions, while not going into specifics, sought to understand the multifaceted dimensions of the design competitions. Read the article ‘Who really wins? — A Critical Look into Design Competitions in India’, authored by Anusha Sridhar, here.
We ask R. Ramalakshmi and Surabhi Shingarey, Founders and Principal Architects at Samvad Design Studio.
How have competitions shaped your practice so far or opened new directions in your work?
Rather than ‘ideas’ competitions, we enjoy working on ‘design-build’ competitions, which have real sites, programs, budget and other constraints. Often our conceptual ideas and resolutions, tested in competition projects, find a mooring in our ongoing projects, and vice versa. There is an osmosis between the two.
What systemic flaws do you think are limiting the progress of competitions in India?
We need more competitions for projects in the public domain, especially with government patronage. It allows for meaningful public architecture in the city, making good design accessible for all, rather than being confined to only private clientele.
Do you think competitions really empower and impact emerging practices in India?
Yes, we belive that competitons can definitely empower the younger practices.
If you could change one thing about how competitions are run in India, what would it be?
It would help if architecture competitions are an open call and participants are not limited to a closed group of well-established architecture firms.
