Developer competition in Stockholm - A case study on innovation in architecture and housing construction

This case study examines one developer competition organized in Stockholm in 2013. The general objective of the competition was to develop good and cheap housing. 15 design teams involving architects, constructors and real estate managers took part in the competition. The jury compared two different design proposals in the final judgment, one with separate rooms linked to common space and one consisting of small housing units. The jury decided that the proposal with small housing units should be a winner in the competition. There are three typical key players in the Stockholm competition: the organizer, the jury and the design teams. This competition was run by the city. The organizer was responsible for the competition policy and the terms in the brief. The task for the jury was to single out a winner. The consultants and building sector responded to the task by organizing design teams and developing design proposals. This abstract is a short summary. But what can we learn from the key players in the competition? The developer competition in Stockholm has been investigated in a case study. The purpose was to contribute knowledge about the competition as a tool for the development of design solutions. The objective in the competition was to create good housing design and affordable apartments by effective use of space. Research data have been collected in this case study through archive studies, close reading of competition documents, questionnares to jury members and the design teams (builders, developers and architects). 22 architectural students at The Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm have studied the competition in a course. Their task was to point out the five best design proposals based on the brief and among these pick a winner. I have compared how the professional jury evaluated the proposals with jury reports from the students. The students had the proposal with common space for collective living as winner. The professional jury chose to place this design proposal as number two in their evaluation. The competition has been studied from the design teams’ perspective and the organizers’ point of view. The results have been summarized in ten conclusions of general interest for the key players. They are dealing with issues such as the nature of judging criteria, sorting and ranking design proposals, marketing of the competition, uncertainty, motives for competing, innovation and the competition as a tool for political ambition from the public organizers.QC 20170607