Valparaíso announces the renovation of Plaza Sotomayor, undoubtedly good news. But there is an uncomfortable detail: in 2007, an international architecture competition was held to imagine the future of that very place. It was won by Cristián Undurraga's firm, with a proposal that integrated Plaza Sotomayor and Plaza Justicia with Muelle Prat and the relationship between city and port. Almost twenty years later, a different intervention will be carried out. What happened to the winning project?
The question goes beyond the fate of a plaza. A well-organized competition allows something extraordinary: for ideas to compete before names, influence, or convenience. It attracts talent, opens possibilities, subjects proposals to the judgment of specialists, and makes it possible to compare solutions to complex problems. It does not guarantee perfect results, but it offers one key thing: a transparent, merit-based procedure. In 1957, the young Dane Jørn Utzon won the competition for the Sydney Opera House. His proposal ended up becoming a symbol of Australia. The Pompidou Center in Paris also emerged from an international competition, won by Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers. Without those competitions, they would not be what they are.
But a competition is not a simple invitation to imagine. It is a commitment. UNESCO and the International Union of Architects promote rules that recognize the authority of juries and the responsibility of those who convene them. In Australia, it is recommended that continuity be guaranteed to winning teams even when the authorities change. The State hired Undurraga's firm to develop its design, which was completed, delivered, and approved by the Council of National Monuments. Then, according to the authorities of the time, the municipality changed its criteria and the project did not move forward, without much explanation. Why?
Today, moreover, that same municipality claims that the winning project, which included palm trees and furnishings, was discarded because "it is a monumental space" and must "preserve its hard character" (a mistake in light of climate change!).
Of course, winning a competition does not mean acquiring a perpetual right to build. Cities change, new needs arise, and budgets force decisions to be reconsidered. But one thing is to responsibly update a project, and quite another is to disregard the procedure that gave rise to it. If there are reasons to replace it, shouldn't a new competition be held?
Each call for proposals demands resources, work, and trust. If its results can be ignored, what incentive will the best architects have to participate in the next one? What is the point of convening juries if their decisions will be irrelevant? Cities are built over decades; authorities last only a few years. We need procedures that give continuity to good decisions. Holding competitions and then disregarding their results is not only a lack of respect for their authors. It is a very effective way of wasting collective intelligence.
By Ricardo Abuauad, dean of UNAB Creativo Campus and UC professor
NEWSLETTER
Opinion
Saturday, AM
Ideas in tension, opposing views, and clear analysis: elements to reveal the issues that divide opinions and will shape the agenda. By subscribing, you are accepting the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policies of La Tercera.