Keywords

1 Introduction

The procedure of architectural and urban planning competitions represents a long and fruitful tradition in European societies. The selection of the best spatial solution through these competitions is a good but hermetic method to search for the most suitable, innovative, and overall best solution, whose authors remain anonymous until the very end of the selection.

Regarding community participation in public space issues, it has been advocated for decades and has been experiencing an increase in recent years. Citizen participation in spatial planning seems to be mostly declarative and formally takes place in the final stages of planning. On the contrary, the full benefit of inclusive planning would be given if the participation of all sectors (civil society, academic, business, and administrative structures) is continuous, which is especially important in the initial stages of planning - when the basic intentions are formulated.

As for the mode of participation, we used an adapted version of Arnstein’s participatory ladder [1] and considered those in the lower and middle part of the scale. Specifically, they are: informing; survey; interview; interactive discussion; creative discussion; and participation in realisation. As the level of participation increases, so does the involvement of the participants, both in terms of the amount of time that needs to be devoted to work, and in terms of intellectual effort as well as motivation. It is therefore not surprising that the number of participants decreases as the level of participation increases (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
figure 1

A scheme of inverse proportionality of the number of participants and their involvement, Zagreb 2023 (Scheme by authors)

Full size image

Quadruple helix is a widely accepted model for conducting inclusive innovative processes with not only civil society [2]. Using a moderator as a neutral and objective subject, it brings together representatives of four groups: decision makers from management structures, experts on specific issues from the academic community, investors from the business sector, and citizens and associations as direct beneficiaries [3]. Observing the process, such as this research, through the Quad Helix model, can ensure appropriate and continuous involvement of all relevant stakeholders.

The question is how to intertwine the procedure of architectural and urban planning competitions and community participation methods to achieve quality process, without each of them losing its valuable qualities. In particular, the task is to include participation in the tender process without impairing the proven quality of the independent selection of anonymous solution proposals. The benefits we see that could come from this are community involvement that would result in public maturity and participatory data collection. Of course, there are also threats, mainly how to ensure the anonymity of the contestants and maintain professional integrity.

The goal of the research presented in this article is the formation of a procedural model that shows when and in which form it is possible to integrate some of the participatory methods within the architectural and urban planning competition. The method derives from the analysis and comparison of examples of such practice, considering the positive effects and negative implications.

2 The Examples of Citizens’ Participation in Open Architectural and Urban Planning Competitions

Although examples involving community participation in the conduct of architectural and urban planning design competitions are occasional, some research that tackle this topic are available within the European context. Europe shares the same issues related to participation in competitions, as current research shows.

The article by Bern and Røe from Norway [4] points out that, although competitions can arouse significant community interest, the institution of architectural and urban planning competitions cannot easily incorporate participation in its implementation. Through interviews with architects both anonymity and professional integrity issues were raised. The authors argue that the best practice is to involve the interested public as soon as possible, in the preparation of the competition task and in defining the problems and requirements. That is when the opinion of the wider public has an impact on competitors and their solutions without compromising anonymity, which is one of the valuable features of the competition process.

Some of the examples implemented a parallel assignments model, where different programmes were given as a task to different architectural offices that were invited to participate. Although this model can provide interesting insights from proposed solutions and involve participation on the greater level, it is not applicable where public procurement and competition obligations are mandatory. That is why we will not include those examples in further analysis.

Kowalczyk in his article [5] points out that it is impossible to reconcile presenting works to a wider audience before the final decision of the jury and maintaining anonymity. He demonstrates the anonymity issue through several illustrative examples that served as solid case studies for this research. Cases are chosen from some EU countries with diverse attempts to involve participation in different competition stages.

2.1 Design of the Main Square in Koprivnica, Croatia

In the Croatian context, the example of the competition for city square in Koprivnica from 2019 stands out, in which the opinion of the public was analysed and included in the competition program through the project terms of reference and the attached documentation [6]. Citizens’ opinion was questioned on three levels: local stakeholder groups, internet questionnaires and field surveys. Such comprehensive involvement in the initial phase is proven to be not only possible but strongly recommended (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.
figure 2

Applied participation in the competition procedure for the design of the main square in Koprivnica, Croatia, 2023 (Scheme by authors)

Full size image

2.2 Reconstruction of the Aeja in Komorow, Poland

For the Aleja Marii Dabrowskiej reconstruction in Komorow, Poland, a different formula was adopted. Delegates from interested groups were appointed and involved in the competition process as external experts, whose opinion on the individual works the jury must consider when making its decision. In this case wide participation was not ensured, but anonymity in the judging process was preserved [5] (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.
figure 3

Applied participation in the competition procedure for the reconstruction of the Aeja in Komorow, Poland, 2023 (Scheme by authors)

Full size image

2.3 Construction of the Cultural Centre in Wolfsburg, Germany

Competition for the Cultural centre in Wolfsburg, Germany is an interesting example of a two-stage competition with an exhibition of the entries between stages with the introduction of the participation. After the 1st stage an open exhibition was organized in which local residents could participate. Citizens’ comments were adopted by the jury and transformed into recommendations for the more detailed 2nd phase of the competition. Keeping anonymity while exhibiting the entries publicly presented significant organizational difficulty and risk. Still, the process was successfully carried out, with wide participation in the middle of the competition process [5] (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4.
figure 4

Applied participation in the competition procedure for the construction of the cultural centre in Wolfsburg, Germany, 2023 (Scheme by authors)

Full size image

2.4 Spatial Concept of the Central Square in Warsaw, Poland

Another interesting and somehow controversial example is competition for the spatial concept of Warsaw Central Square. Operated on the principle of maintaining anonymity and awarding five equal prizes from which the public was to choose the best solution through open consultation. This solution has been criticized by many architects that actually anonymity was not guaranteed in this way [5] (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5.
figure 5

Applied participation in the competition procedure for the spatial concept of the central square in Warsaw, Poland, 2023 (Scheme by authors)

Full size image

3 Design of the Main Square in Petrinja, Croatia

Ongoing task, which is a part of this research, is the development of a project program for an architectural and urban planning competition for the project of the main square in the Croatian city of Petrinja. The City suffered significant damage in the earthquakes of 2020, especially the central zone, and establishing a new main square as a hearth of public life in the city was deemed fundamental for restoring faith in the normalization of life in Petrinja. Therefore, participation was an essential element of the process, as well as gaining the best solution through a competition (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6.
figure 6

Public spaces in Petrinja after earthquake and participation study results, 2023 (Scheme by authors, photographs by Gabriel Nikolić, Franka Omazić, Petra Omazić)

Full size image

The creation of the competition program was preceded by a participatory study that included: informing the community, citizens’ survey, interviewing experts who are familiar with Petrinja and/or the area of the square, and interactive discussions with the city’s management structures [7].

Informing the community represents the first rung of the participatory ladder, the beginning of raising awareness of the possibility and need of involving interested citizens in the planning of the built environment. In the case of Petrinja, the public was already very interested in redesigning the main town square through several activities of non-governmental organisations as well as multiple inquiries from citizens to the town administration about the normalization of life in the town after the devastating earthquake.

During the spring of 2022, at the invitation of the City of Petrinja, the team from the Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb launched a complete process for programming the redesign of the city’s central public space at the location of Croatian Veterans Square in Petrinja. The basis for the creation of a competition program for the Square and its surrounding area is a participatory study that included representatives of three relevant sectors: administrative, civil, and professional; through three rungs of the participatory ladder: survey, interviews, and interactive discussions.

An online questionnaire was distributed among the residents of Petrinja, which at the same time informed them about the intention of redesigning the main square and asked important questions for viewing the space from the perspective of citizens. By surveying through a questionnaire, participation moved to the second rung of the participatory ladder. In the period from March 25 to 30, 2022, in just six days, 300 people answered the questionnaire, which represents a significant random sample. The questionnaire collected general information about the respondents, their opinion about life in Petrinja in general, as well as their opinion about the centre of the City of Petrinja and the main town square.

The third rung of the participatory ladder was reached in spring 2023 through interviews with important experts who actively participated or are still involved in planning and designing public urban spaces in the City of Petrinja. The expert insights of urban planners, landscape architects and architects are thus included in the research.

Interactive discussions, as the fourth rung of the participatory ladder, were held with members of the city administration of the City of Petrinja on several occasions in the period from April 2022 to May 2023 in the premises of the Petrinje city administration. Through in-depth discussions, an attempt was made to cover all topics of importance for the area of the main city square.

All data were processed, structured and interpreted in a participatory study that was submitted to the City of Petrinja in May 2023, and in which all significant elements of the intention for the urban development of the square were presented, coordinated with representatives of three relevant sectors.

The essential insights gained from the study are incorporated into the project program and represent a significant level of citizen participation in the creation of the task set before the contestants. Comprehensive participation model will be applied and will include public presentations and discussions both for the programme as well as competition results. Also, a representative for involvement will be included as a member of the jury, to ensure continuous participation as much as possible (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7.
figure 7

Expected course of applied participation in the competition procedure for the main square in Petrinja, Croatia, 2023 (Scheme by authors)

Full size image

4 Conclusion

Introducing comprehensive participation into procedures of architectural and urban planning competitions is not a straightforward process. As seen from the examples, conflicts in terms of continuously involving citizens and at the same time keeping anonymity emerge in the central phases of the competition, until the jury reaches its decision and announces results. Also, in the part when architects design their projects, keeping integrity of the profession (allowing architects to do their work) was advocated. The goal of this research was to find all possibilities of participation, without compromising anonymity and professional integrity mentioned above, considering that participation has several options and levels on the participatory ladder and bearing in mind that different design tasks have different needs for participation.

Roughly, we can indicate three types of participation within the procedure of architectural and urban planning competitions: before (in the preparation of the competition program); centrally positioned (in making decisions on the ranking of the submitted works); and after (in communicating the decision).

Involving by all methods in the first phases before articulating an architectural program is not only possible but strongly recommended. Input from these participatory studies becomes the backbone of the competition brief / programme, and ensures that strong involvement from the very beginning is achieved.

In the central phase of the competition, while judging entries, wide participation compromises anonymity, but introducing a valid public representative as a member of jury or advisor to the jury, remains a reasonable option. Still, examples show that wide participation for certain cases in this phase can be practiced and successful, but with great care for the process and critical anonymity issue.

After the results are announced, public presentations or exhibitions are necessary to communicate the winning solution and bring it closer to the interested and previously involved stakeholders.

In some planning cases where architectural and urban planning competition and anonymity are not mandatory, stronger involvement in the direction of co-creating can be implemented. Models like parallel assignments given to different teams, co-creative workshops and similar are available, still this is not in the framework of this article, and these alternative models present potential for future research.

In conclusion, every design task and competition is different and requires its individual participation approach. This depends on several factors, for example how interested the stakeholders are or how high is their capacity for involvement. In terms of different tasks, some are easy to be involved in since they are familiar to the wider public, some are maybe too complex and are better to be solved in professional discourse. Sometimes, participation is requested to strengthen the community, improve relations between stakeholders or increase social cohesion.