In the second episode of a new series about the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art International Design Competition, As Built co-hosts Patience Jones and Brian Jones speak with Malcolm Reading, LVO*, RIBA**, Hon FRGS***, the Chairman of Malcolm Reading Consultants, about how the competition process works and what architects should consider when entering a design competition.
BJ: Hello and welcome to As Built, the podcast from Graphicmachine about architecture firms, buildings, and how both get built. I'm your host, Brian Jones. With me is your co-host, Patience Jones. Today's episode is the next in our series about the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art International Design Competition.
Our guest today is Malcolm Reading, chairman of Malcolm Reading Consultants, the firm responsible for organizing the competition. Malcolm, welcome back to the show.
MR: Great to be back, Brian. And thank you and Patience for inviting me. I'm so pleased to be part of the series.
BJ: Tell us about Malcolm Reading Consultants' role in the International Design Competition for the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art.
MR: We are the competition organizer, and, basically, we act as advisors as well as administrators of the process from initiation through to final approval of the winner. This involves quite a close working relationship with the board at the Nelson-Atkins Museum and their Architect Selection Committee, ASC.
We're running an international architectural competition to select a design team and a concept for the re-presentation of the public spaces and new galleries at the museum.
PJ: Your firm has consulted on many design competitions. What is unique about this particular competition?
MR: That's a lovely question. In a true sense, all our competitions are unique. They're typically for complex sites, they often include some sort of heritage. They are for public benefit, cultural placemaking, and all have ambitious objectives. So I don't really have a favorite. They're all very different, but more sincerely, I would have to highlight the experience of working with the dedicated board and executive at the Nelson-Atkins Museum, who have a clear purpose that's both visionary yet founded on practical principles, and that has really helped move the competition forward very successfully. The ambition of the original founding parties resonated with me, the generosity of the trustees of Atkins and the news baron William Rockhill in conceiving of the institution.
Also, the success of creating a museum that's both local in style and a big Kansas City welcome, but is treasured around the world. And I think that's a testimony that endures. So today you quickly sense the remarkable role the Nelson-Atkins plays in Kansas City. The community feels strongly about it and it has a sense of pride and ownership. I've been involved in museum and cultural buildings all of my career, and they're a rich source of interest for me and of course for many architects. We ran the largest-ever design competition for the Guggenheim Helsinki, which attracted 1,700 entries from around the world. Of course, this project is very different in scale and intricacy.
It's the third major investment on the site after the elegant Wight and Wight building in 1933 and Steven Holl's more recent dramatic Bloch Building, so it's inspirational to be part of this next chapter for the museum.
BJ: The Nelson-Atkins competition received 182 entries from 30 countries resulting in a short list of six teams. Could you elaborate on the criteria and process used to evaluate and select these finalists?
MR: Let's start with really a quick rundown on the types of competition. There are really basically two types of competition. One is an open call, and the other's an invited selection process. They both end up with five or six teams working through a concept, but it's the starting stage which is different in each case.
After discussions with the ASC, the architecture selection committee, we agreed on an open call, not invited. And as you say, this attracted a diverse pool of architect-led teams from around the world. We had a very enjoyable series of sessions with the ASC last November to bring this down to a group of six. To get on this list, architects had to submit a small portfolio of relevant work, their design approach, and supporting team of engineers and landscape designers. And a little piece about their motivation for the project and a challenge to them to send an initial reflection on the potential.
That helped us then, with the ASC, separate out the most interesting submissions and the ones that were generic marketing submissions. At stage one, we're testing their hunger for the project, their abilities and commitment. And we believe this gives the client a well-balanced list of firms who are as passionate about the project as the client and who are imaginative and curious.
An open process also allows the wide publication of the project, and it helps to keep stakeholders informed. You don't generally get that with an invited process because it's closed, and it's often protected by NDAs for various reasons. The large pool of architects in an invited competition is really assembled through research and recommendations.
It's usually a confidential process and, it may be of interest that certainly more than half of our competitions are invited competitions. It's quite a popular way for clients to select architects. And many of them, they're not secret, it's just that the clients want to keep some of the information private or it's a complex project or it's a start of a larger process.
PJ: In our first episode, Julián Zugazagoitia, the director and CEO of the Nelson-Atkins, discussed the challenging task of selecting six finalist firms from so many outstanding choices. How did your team provide guidance?
MR: Julián may not have mentioned this, but it's worth highlighting if he didn't: the board and executive spent several years preparing for the project with expert input from external consultants, so they knew what they were looking for in a team, and they were realistic about the budget and scope from the outset.
That really helped us hugely. As I said earlier, it's a powerful message for other clients. They need to know the overall outputs and therefore the skill sets needed to address the unique requirements of the project. It's a great credit to the Nelson-Atkins board that they did this research before starting the architect search.
I heard the greatest value we brought was a well-defined procedure and a common set of standards for anybody interested in entry. And then our role also extended to assembling the documentation, giving the competition an identity, and creating an appealing narrative to capture the overall aims of the project. Once we received the 182 submissions at stage one, we did some homework for the ASC. By checking the responses, we were able to identify strengths and weaknesses of each and input our experience of working with many of the architects. So that gave the ASC a starting point for their discussions.
But as I said, it was a lively set over two or three days, which we facilitated, leading to a final review and decision for the six. It was very difficult to get to that last six from about 12.
PJ: The competition emphasizes the importance of integrated multidisciplinary design teams. What specific disciplines and expertise are considered essential for teams to be competitive in this context?
MR: This is a really interesting question at the nexus of construction professional services, I think because in the past, and I'm really talking about only 10 to 15 years ago, a typical competition was for an architect only. And the architect had a level of influence in leadership over the design process - some might say “domination” - and assemble the design team under their control. But buildings are now incredibly complex and legislation has changed. For any major commission, the right design solution is a combination of architecture, engineering systems and construction choices. The architects are now more like the conductor of an orchestra directing a diverse and talented set of skilled and essential collaborators each with a specific contribution, but able to put things together as an overall result. And that's why we focus on architect-led teams in our competitions. It's more representative of the way the industry works, yet it recognizes the primacy of the lead designer still.
Just to pick up the last part of your question, the most valuable and creative teams we are seeing now for cultural projects are a mix of architect, structural and services, sustainability, landscape and placemaking. So quite a big team and in our experience, clients are now looking for that level of expertise to be reflected in the team at the initial selection stage.
BJ: Speaking of sustainability, it's a key focus in modern design. How does this competition framework encourage or assess sustainable design practices among participants?
MR: Well, it's a perfect match, Brian. The amazing thing about competitions is their ability to draw out innovation. It's a very intense process, demanding high levels of collaboration. Every team wants to win, of course, but the process represents a real-life situation. A lot of learning is done by the teams and the client in a very short time.
Sustainability is a key part of our lives now. Many public institutions are leading the way in sustainable commitment. That's totally true of the Nelson-Atkins Museum, who already have a mature and well-developed strategy to position the organization in great shape for the future.
It's one of the key objectives of the competition set out in the original statement, but to aim for near-zero emissions eventually. A section of the materials that each team will present and will be available in the exhibition are devoted to achieving this outcome in the design concept. It's fundamentally part of the emerging concept and will be part of the team objectives moving forward.
PJ: Community engagement is often vital in cultural projects. How does the competition integrate public input or address community needs in the design proposal?
MR: Even before we got to the competition the museum had been preparing on multiple fronts, as I explained, for many years. And community engagement is the heart of really the way that the institution operates. I think this is a legacy of the original founders that continues. It is one of the reasons they decided to hold an open competition.
Because unlike a private search, which I know is very popular in the US for cultural institutions, the museum wanted as much information as possible to be shared with their communities. It’s available on the website and really the only material that's kept confidential are certain things about the workings of the building and security and these sorts of things.
In the exhibition the museum is expressly inviting comments from visitors, and these will be passed to the selection committee as part of the process of the final assessment. We're offering the same opportunity on the competition website, so people can either visit the exhibition or its very similar material on the website.
And the museum's really keen to have feedback and input from the community. So there'll be a place on the website as well as the exhibition.
BJ: How crucial is crafting a compelling project narrative in the competition process? And what elements make a narrative stand out?
MR: That's a great question too, because that's where we start, with the narrative, and for us, creating that narrative is a fundamental part of preparing the competition. The narrative is the client vision adapted and translated by us into a statement of intent that appeals directly and resonates with architects we are hoping will enter.
The documents, the press releases, the website, the associated materials all carry this narrative and it creates a powerful mission statement that matches the institution's wider messages. And helps to focus in on the project and why it's so important to the museum. When you ask what elements should stand out, I would say firstly, we're aiming to tell a story from the visitor's viewpoint, because after all, that's the whole reason for the investment.
Secondly, to use the language and images that underpin the values of the institution and invite curiosity in the creative and professional community - these are the two audiences we're really seeking to connect with through the competition. Catherine [Reading], my wife and co-founder, and the team of talented writers at MRC are the storytellers. They're fundamental to the job of bringing to life these projects and finding a connection to the architectural reader.
PJ: How have the teams communicated with your firm during the development of the presentations?
MR: Well, we use several innovations to encourage interaction. And let me start with perhaps a prosaic thing, but it's very important. We have a question and answers system for the team so they're able to ask questions and we're able to discuss with the client how we can respond to that. So we work closely with the client team to make sure the teams have the information and the background that they need.
We find that builds trust from the outset with the teams. All our senior team have an architectural background and they work with our competition managers to ensure continuity and to try to see things from the competitor's perspective as well. Then, specifically at the museum, we held a public event in December in Kansas City where each team spoke about their work and motivation for the project. It's a great start, very successful indeed. Then we hold a midterm design workshop, which involves each team meeting separately with the selection committee to review their emerging designs, the ideas, and we're able to offer feedback and direction to them at that point.
And then, as we speak, several members of the board and the selection committee are visiting every architect on the list. That's LA to Tokyo, stopping off in New York, Genoa and Paris. It's grueling but hugely valuable because they get to see the working offices and the collaborations. That really helps and it begins to build relationships, which will for the winner be very much part of what is probably going to last over the next five or six years.
So all around we're aiming to maximize contact and give the teams access to decision makers, but fairly to every team so everybody has the same opportunity.
BJ: What final piece of advice would you offer to architects aspiring to participate in international design competitions, particularly in the cultural sector?
MR: Thank you for the question. I've got a few thoughts here. But firstly, I'd like to say competitions are not for everyone. Many fine and creative firms have direct access to clients and make great buildings without a competition. Phyllis Lambert in her book on the Seagram Building as has a delightful story of being driven around by a chauffeur and stopping in on architects unannounced to find the right one.
So there are alternative ways. For firms without the brand identity of Mies van der Rohe yet - yet - a competition can have a great marketing value of getting you known. We have several examples where a shortlisted competitor in one competition has gone on to win another. And it's a great practice for the studio because it energizes the creative focus and tests the resilience of the firm. If you're an established firm, design co-collaborations can also be very powerful. Joining up with a talented younger firm to enter a competition can bring spritz to design and shows the client you can think outside the box. That's been very successful on several competitions that we have run. So the odds are against winning, but you can shorten those odds by making the short list.
I always say that's the key, get on the short list because otherwise you're not there. So put lots of effort into this. Make sure the case studies are relevant. Address the criteria you are asked for. Present your best team. Don't just rely on the list, the corporate list of employees, and show you've read the initial call-out document.
All of this builds up for the client. It communicates “impressed,” motivation and and a connection with the project. It's also worth remembering that selection is subjective. Just because you don't get chosen, it doesn't mean we don't like your work. Sometimes things get lost in discussion at selection boards. And even though a firm stands out, it may not match the unique requirements of a project and the client's vision. I told you about our competition for Guggenheim in Helsinki, and the 1,700 entries. Many firms entered the competition, and we found out since it was because they wanted to be part of an architectural dialogue. There's a great tradition in Finnish competitions too, for architects to enter competitions as part of their working methodology.
Many of the firms that we've met, they're just proud to enter. We have some lovely comments afterwards. And we still see firms using their entry in their portfolio. So it's a kind of lasting, it had an effect which was important. They have great resonance, competitions. They're part of the architectural ecosystem.
They're not right for every project, but they have a great value in testing, design, innovation, and excellence. We're really looking forward to seeing what happens at the Nelson-Atkins Museum.
*Lieutenant of the Royal Victorian Order
**Royal Institute of British Architects
***Honorary Fellow of the Royal Geographic Society
Transcript has been edited for clarity.
Photograph of Malcolm Reading courtesy of Malcolm Reading Consultants
