Architectural contests: questions and difficulties in the mid-1940s
If there is a territory of the controversial architectural work, longed for and at the same time seriously questioned, this is undoubtedly that of the contests. In the words of the Argentine architect Roberto Fernández "Architectural competitions represent the combination of the art of choosing and the trade of being chosen" while the Canadian designer Bruce Mau warns that you should not participate in them, "Don't do it… it's not good for you..!" However, in many cases they are the engine of great works, and the axis on which the work of several architectural workshops that they see in these revolves, the more open and democratic possibility of publicizing their work, and of dreaming of building it, revolves around. Let us enter this terrain full of uncertainty, with the spirit of simply participating and learning from an episode of the history of architecture in our country.
In recent years, architectural competitions have been in the crosshairs of virtually everyone. Both specialists and those who are not, thanks to the media, social networks and other electronic tools that keep us connected, have been able to have an opinion, question and notice of the positive and negative elements that come with the positive and negative elements that come with this activity. To say of the experts, this practice is as old as the profession, but it was in the Renaissance that they adopted the format and gained the legitimacy that is recognized today.
In Mexico, the year 1945 was especially prolific in organizing architectural competitions. We can mention only as an example, the contest to build the monument to the mothers, or those called to project the National Shrine of the Sacred Heart and the Temple of the Christ the King in Torreón Coahuila. Within the events of that year, two particularly caught our attention: one to build an industrial city and one to design the Mexican Insurer's building. Both share the fact that they have been declared deserts despite having important projects of recognized architects of the moment.
They also share the quality of having been convened by private initiative companies, but in the case of the Mexican Insurer, although it was founded in 1937 to serve some official or mixed economy companies, their status changed in 1942, when formally acquired the nature of a "national institution" as a result of an agreement issued by the federal executive in March of that year.
In the case of the Insurer, participation was through invitation, and to her they responded with enthusiasm the duo of the architects Martínez Negrete, Enrique del Moral, Mario Pani, Enrique de la Mora, Carlos Obregón Santacilia, the team of Juan Sordo Madaleno and Augusto H. Alvarez, L. González Aparicio, engineer Teodoro Kunhardt and Jorge Navarro. Of the two contests this was the one that caused the most discontent to the knowledge of the jury's decision to declare the prize desert, it was also alleged misinformation and bewilderment on the part of the interested parties, it was argued that the prizes were too low for the work that the participants had done and furthermore that it was not fair for any architect or engineer to take advantage of the work gathered by this call. In fact, the verdict concluded that none of the projects had presented a solution to the problem that was required and that some had not even met the requirements expressed in the call.
The prize was divided among the projects belonging to the Martínez Negrete, Enrique del Moral and Mario Pani respectively. Although it was never built as a building of the Mexican Insurer, it was the project of Mario Pani that was finally developed but as a headquarters for the Secretariat of Hydraulic Resources on the same land assigned for the original project. The work dates back to 1952 and is now attributed to Pani along with the architect Enrique del Moral even though in the original competition they appear participating individually and with two different projects. After several renovations, this building is now home to the Le Meridien hotel.
The case of the competition of the industrial city was somewhat different, especially because of the challenge that it involved the participants developing a project of such magnitude. On this occasion the architects José Luis Cuevas, the team of Mario Pani and Alonso Mariscal, Enrique Yáñez, Mauricio M. Campos and Enrique del Moral participated. As in the other case, as the prize was declared desert, the winner amount was distributed between the two projects that were considered best, which were of the architects José Luis Cuevas and the duo of Mario Pani and Alonso Mariscal.
On this occasion, as in the insurance company, the verdict concluded that none of the projects had fully complied with the requirements of the call and that they had also not taken into account the specifications that the company had requested, such as the projection of a working-class room colony, which was completely omitted from the project of the architect Cuevas, and in Enrique Yáñez's project was located on land that was not part of the property. All other projects lacked the requested studies and even one was of such low quality, that it was not even taken into account for a contest.
The magazine Arquitectura México, which at the time was directed by Pani, documented the projects and analyzed them to provide an overview of what had happened with the contest and to contrast their opinions with those of the juries that disqualified the Proposals. And although the Cuevas project was praised, the one that got the best was Pani and Mariscal's. For publishers, it was the clearest and most comprehensive proposal despite having committed omissions that disqualified it.
But was that really the best proposition? Was it worth participating in competitions indiscriminately even if this diminished the quality of the projects? Was it valid for companies to keep the work of the architects for a small amount that was ultimately divided by only two or three?was it worth appealing to the "democratic" in these contests when it was easier to award the work directly? Were the best projects, or those of the best-known architects, involved? Have all these concerns changed today? More than 70 years from these contests, the questions seem to be still in the air.
by Paulina Martínez Figueroa