Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Prekvalificering – arkitekttävling vs markanvisningstävling
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Architecture. (arc•plan)ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9715-9656
2012 (Swedish)Report (Other academic)Alternative title
Prequalification – architectural competition vs developer competition (English)
Abstract [en]

This report presents result from a research project on prequalification in restricted com-petitions. Three restricted architectural competitions are compared with three restricted de-veloper competitions in the research project. The competition task includes both senior hous-ing and ordinary apartments. All the six competitions have been organized by the public sec-tor in Sweden.

 

The overall aim was to describe and understand how organizers select design teams for restricted competitions. The methodology includes inventory of competitions, case studies, document reviews and interviews of 20 members in the organizers’ selection committees.

 

The organizer starts prequalification by inviting candidates to competitions. General con-ditions, submission requirements and criteria for the evaluation of applications are parts of an established practice. Demands in the invitation refer to requirements in the procurement law. Criteria for evaluations are based in professional practice. This is the case both for architect-tural and developer competitions.

 

One important difference between architectural competitions and developer competitions is the number of applications. The three architectural competitions generated 120 applications from architecture firms. The organizer invited 11 design teams (9%). The three developer competitions attracted 21 applications from constructing companies and real estate managers. 16 became invited (76%). The selecting committees had only one meeting for choosing can-didates in developer competitions. In architectural competitions the selection committees used three to four meetings. The procedure for selection was based on (a) identifying differences in professional quality, (b) personal preference and (c) scoring merits. Choosing candidates in the developer competitions was much more simplified, which can be explained by the less number of applicants. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm, 2012. , 62 p.
Series
Trita-ARK. Forskningspublikationer, ISSN 1402-7453 ; 2012:3
Keyword [en]
Architectural competitions, developer competitions, restricted competitions, invitation, prequalification, selection, organizer.
National Category
Humanities
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-109753OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-109753DiVA: diva2:583986
Note

QC 20130109

Available from: 2013-01-09 Created: 2013-01-08 Last updated: 2013-01-09Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

Prekvalificering(1760 kB)111 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1760 kBChecksum SHA-512
538b1a8069c93a9af22fe5211a77ce76b6f1282fd3ce79d6600b791685fd985c8a1864d603233a6814f39fad6a161c541f8154b221788824bc5a328be828c632
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Authority records BETA

Rönn, Magnus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Rönn, Magnus
By organisation
Architecture
Humanities

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 111 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 156 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf