Competition Transparency
Architectural Competition Transparency
Independent Editorial Oversight by ArchUp
A Commitment to Accountability
Architectural competitions are vital to innovation, recognition, and discourse within the profession. Yet, too often, these competitions suffer from a lack of transparency—be it delayed results, vague judging processes, or broken promises to participants.
At ArchUp, we believe in supporting architects, not sponsors. As an independent and bilingual platform, we are committed to ensuring fairness and clarity in the architecture community. This page serves as a documented repository of real participant experiences and editorial evaluations of architectural competitions worldwide.
Why Transparency Matters in Architecture Competitions
While many competitions market themselves as global or prestigious, there’s often a disconnect between promotional language and on-the-ground experiences. Participants may encounter issues such as:
- Inconsistent communication
- Unclear or shifting deadlines
- Lack of jury transparency
- Unfulfilled rewards or publication commitments
By offering space for independent feedback and analysis, we aim to hold organizers to higher standards—while also spotlighting those who run exemplary, fair competitions.
Submission Guidelines
- Reports must relate to a real competition and include factual context (name, organizer, dates, and nature of the experience).
- Submissions can be positive or critical—but must remain respectful and constructive.
- Personal attacks, unverifiable claims, or defamatory content will not be accepted.
- ArchUp reserves the right to append editorial commentary for clarity and context.
- Reviews are subject to verification and may be edited for grammar and readability without altering substance.
You can submit your review through our Contact Page. Anonymous entries are accepted, but verified contributions carry more weight.
Our Role as Independent Observers
We do not sponsor competitions, nor do we accept paid placements to review them positively. Instead, our editorial team documents and publishes analysis based on repeated patterns, community input, and public discourse. This makes ArchUp the first architecture media platform in the Arab world to serve as an impartial watchdog for architectural competitions.
✦ ArchUp Editorial Insight
Based on accumulated reports and firsthand reviews, we observe a growing need for ethical reform in competition governance. While many organizers strive for professionalism, others continue to fall short in:
- Transparency of fees and judging criteria
- Clear communication with participants
- Delivering on promised outcomes (certificates, exhibitions, features)
We encourage organizers to consider open review platforms like this one not as a threat—but as a tool for credibility and continuous improvement. Our community deserves it.
Final Note:
This page serves as an independent editorial and participatory platform, aiming to support transparency in global architecture competitions. It is maintained by ArchUp’s editorial team and includes content submitted by real architects, filtered and moderated for professional relevance and accuracy.
2 responses to “Competition Transparency”
-
✦ ArchUp Editorial Insight
The recurring presence of a design firm both as a prizewinner and later as a juror within competitions by the same organizer is not inherently unethical—but it demands full transparency. While such dual roles may reflect professional merit, they can also raise perceived conflicts of interest if not openly declared. For architectural competitions to retain credibility, especially in regions building reputational frameworks, clear disclosure protocols and time-bound separation between judging and participating roles are essential. Otherwise, even fair results risk losing public trust -
⚠️ A Note on Transparency and IPR:
Buildner’s announcement to ‘clarify’ intellectual property (IPR) terms does not absolve them of accountability; it confirms that the initial lack of transparency was the fundamental issue. True fairness demands that designers’ rights be clearly and definitively stated before the competition begins, not after participant complaints accumulate. Organizers must prioritize the ownership rights of designers from day one.
Leave a Reply