Using Design Competitions to Improve the Quality of Housing: A Roundtable Discussion

Why It Matters

Adopting transparent design competitions can deliver higher‑quality, more equitable public housing while fostering innovation and trust in municipal procurement.

Key Takeaways

• Separate developer and design selection boosts housing quality and fairness
• Zurich competitions deliver mixed‑use, durable housing on public land
• U.S. RFPs prioritize finance over design, limiting innovation
• U.S. design contests often remain conceptual, rarely built
• Professional, funded competitions cost ~1% of project, ensure transparency

Summary

The roundtable, hosted by the Joint Center, examined how design competitions can improve the quality of housing built on publicly owned land. Speakers highlighted the Zurich model, where a two‑stage competition—first for the land lease concept and then an open architectural contest—produced mixed‑use, long‑lasting projects such as the Khal Brighter development, and demonstrated how separating developer selection from design selection yields better outcomes, fairness for emerging firms, and transparent public processes.

Suzanne Schindler argued that traditional U.S. request‑for‑proposal (RFP) processes prioritize developer financial strength over design merit, stifling innovation. She contrasted this with European practices, noting that Zurich’s competitions cost roughly 1% of total development value yet generate diverse housing typologies, accessory units, and community amenities. In the United States, recent competitions in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago have often been “idea‑only” exercises that fail to translate into built projects, as seen in Chicago’s invited competition where winning designs were never commissioned.

Concrete examples underscored the discussion: the Khal Brighter project emerged from a dual competition that aligned feasibility studies, public outreach, and an anonymous jury, while Chicago’s 40‑architect contest produced compelling designs but no developer uptake. Schindler emphasized that professional administration—feasibility analysis, clear briefs, jury documentation, and modest funding—are essential to make competitions viable and trustworthy.

The implications are clear: municipalities seeking to accelerate affordable housing on public land should consider adopting a separated‑competition framework, allocate modest budgets (about 1% of project costs), and ensure transparent jury processes. Doing so could raise design standards, open opportunities for emerging firms, and rebuild public confidence in housing procurement.

Original Description

When states and localities encourage the development of housing on publicly owned land they tend to focus on the number of units that will be created rather than design strategies that create new kinds of homes, provide important amenities, use new construction methods, or create opportunities for a new generation of design professionals. Susanne Schindler will discuss her recent working paper about how design competitions can address these shortcomings. Boston-area practitioners Kathleen Evans, Tim Love, Sam Naylor, Rebecca Tomasovic, and Joseph Zeal-Henry will join for a roundtable discussion about the opportunities and challenges of procurement processes that promote quality, transparency, and capacity building in the design and development of housing.

02-27-26