The balance of objectivity/subjectivity in the assessment process of architectural project competitions in Turkey

Architectural project competitions are one of the design events that have been carried on through the ages. They are unique organizations in which many architects produce and present their design ideas on a chosen space with a specific intention. Particular evaluators make assessment and decide which ones would reach to the main goal and become awarded. There are plenty of buildings and designs both nationally and internationally, gained and constructed through competition processes such as Ankara Sergi Evi, Middle East Technical University Campus, Union of Turkish Public Notaries Headquarters, Sydney Opera House, Centre Pompidou and Eiffel Tower. Architectural project competitions can be an alternative way to the general norms business approaches of construction market in Turkey. They can produce different solutions to the problem of a single building or an urban planning subject. While competitions have a privilege upon choosing qualified design for future construction intentions, they are also a key factor for the development and improvement of architectural context. Competitions are pluralist and participative organizations in terms of putting architecture into touch with community. Despite all these positive effects and advantages, especially assessment process of competitions has become a unique matter of debate and criticism since the middle of 20th Century. Still today, plenty of arguments and speculations about assessment quality, method, criteria, duration and objectivity/subjectivity balance occur after every architectural competitions in Turkey. Judgment is a notion of decision by evaluating an object or case in regards to its essence, quality and quantity. Criteria of judgment are called values. Value can be described as the size of being good. The concept of value has been questioned and argued through the human history but especially in philosophy. There have been diverse ideas and thoughts about the issue by philosophers like Platon, Kant, Scheler and Hartmann. In the relationship of subject and object; while value points out the object, evaluation points out the subject. There are two different theory about values as value idealism and value realism. Value idealism claims that values are beyond the wishes, desires and tastes. They are high concepts which have absolute levels of perception. Therefore they are not dependable or changeable in different cases and manners. On the other hand, value realism justifies that values are the production of human being or unique to objects themselves. For this reason every case has its own parameters and therefore values. They are changeable and matter of debate without certainty. Values are relative concepts so that it is not logical to compare different objects or events with their possible values. Assessment is a kind of evaluation by a subject of an object with particular values. Since the values are the base of the judgment, identifying of them is crucial. This bring out the method of evaluation as a key factor of a conscious assessment. As it is possible that there are both subjective and objective values, similarly evaluation can be both subjective and objective. However, the method of evaluation might be preferred as an objective form in terms of justice, clarity and being explainable. The study questions the reflections of value and evaluation concepts in architecture. It aims to research methods of evaluation, value criteria and objectivity-subjectivity balance with the help of analysis about the specific competitions which occurred in Turkey between 2010-2017 years and organized as a single stepped, open, culture and social center building oriented. The researches and enquiries of this work rely on theoretical information, cognitive arguments, official documents and personal interviews. According to the differentiation and linkage between main subjects and issues focused on, the study consists of 6 main chapters: First chapter is the introduction part of the thesis. After a brief description of the field of study and subjects, main motivation and goals of thesis are pointed out. Context of the study and methods of research are explained in this section. In the second chapter, for the sake of a better understanding the subject and its boundaries, a theoretical background is tried to be formed. Value and evaluation terms are tried to be explained by various aspects and theories from different disciplines. Concepts of architectural value and architectural assessment are clarified on a detailed ground with the help of those other disciplines and approaches. Subjective and objective assessment methods are argued and discussed in the field of architecture. Third chapter focuses on architectural competitions in general sense. After mentioning nationally and internationally important competitions process and their winning designs story of construction and later period, the importance and contributions of competitions are referred. Types of competitions in relation with regulations are explained and inner organization and steps of different competition types are examined. In the fourth chapter, the assessment in architectural competitions is screened. The importance of evaluation and then the general process of assessment period of competitions mentioned. Cause and effects of assessment, possible methods of assessment, value criteria and logic of objectivity/subjectivity balance are tried to be argued and underlined. Fifth chapter of the study includes case studies and personal interviews. Firstly, selection method and eligibility of particular competition cases are explained. After determining the single stepped and open competitions organized in Turkey between 2010-2017 which are subjected as culture and social center, assessment processes of them are analyzed according to jury reports as a formal source. Comments on awarded designs are decoded, therefore architectural values as criteria, assessment method, difference on judgment and balance of objectivity/subjectivity issues are tried to be obtained. Additively, personal interviews are organized with particular architects who were jury members in chosen competitions. Information and observations coming from both case study analysis and interviews are combined and synthesized. Therefore, comprehensive inferences are presented about methods of assessment, value criteria timespan of evaluations and balance of objectivity/subjectivity. In the final chapter, context and findings of the study are questioned and come to a conclusion. It has been found that there are differences between the assessment process of competitions which occurred in Turkey between 2010-2017 years and organized as a single stepped, open, culture and social center building oriented. Revealed in evaluations, there are repeating values in different competitions and there are unique single values in specific competitions. Therefore it is reasonable to declare that there are both subjective and objective architectural values in general sense. As for the methods, there is a general realization that the way of evaluation is subjective. However, with a deeper search and information, it could be seen that the assessment processed as a criticism and tried to be justified as objective norms. It is possible to claim that subjective way of act is preferred mostly on timespan and record of the evaluation process. Most of the jury members insists on a more objective record sessions. However, the balance of subjectivity/objectivity on method and record is crucial from the point of being a conscious judgment process, not a impulsive tastes and discriminations rely on personal approaches.