An attempt in theorizing the urban design competition through the means of rhetoric

This thesis explores urban design competitions, the rhetoric of it and the underlying processes that control the direction, development and result of the same. The intention is to investigate those motivations and motifs that lies behind the architectural competition process, how the competition process may take place, what actors are involved and if there more to the outcome of a competition than merely the design aspects. The main question becomes; may future trends in urban design and landscape architecture be discovered by investigating the field of urban design competitions? Rhetoric is an art which attempts to investigate the possibilities to persuade at every cause, and in turn, architects and designers must also do so to be able to get their point across. Both disciplines in some way address the communicative process. Based on this premise, the analysis for the project draws upon a philosophical approach, mainly based on the notion that architecture/design and rhetoric in many ways coincide. So, with urban design competitions as a means and concepts within the field of rhetoric as an interpretation methodology, are there connections to be found between the competition process within the field of urban design and the development of strategies for future city planning? This essay may be regarded as an attempt to explore the knowledge based actions taken by professionals in the context of urban design competitions and how it is being translated into physical solutions. The study shows that the approach to using rhetoric as an interpretation methodology in order to theorize the urban design competition definitely served its purpose. By viewing text, design and visual representations through specific rhetorical filters, it has become possible to reach those common places, which arguments presented presumably rests upon. The purpose of the essay is not to present the audience with any absolute truths or ideas of what is wrong or right. The purpose of the discussion has rather been to problematize reasonings and evoke and stimulate thought in both myself and the reader