Think Ageist
Spacing Toronto is usually pretty respectable. They’ve just announced a new urban design ideas competition. Lets not get in to the whole debate about weather competitions are appropriate or beneficial for good design. Lets look closer at the intent and the rules. They seem to want new, exciting ideas which can rejuvinate Toronto and improve it’s urban condition. Thats all good stuff. They invite Architect, Urban Planners, et cetera to participate. Then they add in big bold letters that they will only accept ideas from those under the age of thirty-five. How many urban planners do you know under forty years of age? A good idea is a good idea, regardless of who it comes from. They claim to have picked this age restriction to showcase the ideas of the next generation but it seems very counterproductive and against the proclaimed spirit of the competition to start with. Its a shame too as Spacing used to have some degree of integrity. Considering they have jurors over 35, it makes one wonder what the whole point of this exercise is. Its clearly not that they distrust anyone over 35.
7 Responses to “Think Ageist”
Leave a Reply
Hi, I'm Raj Patel. Nice to meet you. I'm a writer, photographer, film producer, avid reader, gamer, architect, programmer, artist, community manager, and general nerd.
Here at Ohmpage I try to cover the news and trends at the intersection between technology and culture. In practice this means you get a lot of high-tech, new-media, type of fun stuff (the stuff that interests me) presented to you. I surf hard so you don't have to.
If you would like to contact me, please feel free to email me or follow me on twitter. I'm always happy to talk.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
“Its a shame too as Spacing used to have some degree of integrity.”
They still do. This one poor choice doesn’t suggest that they’ve lost all credibility, does it? I’d also be a shame if you came such a drastic conclusion over one incident.
They still do, yes but I dont know, this move makes me a little skeptical too – are they aiming their magazine only at youth now? I’m not saying they sold out or anything but this makes me take pause. They used to have integrity and now they may be fiddling with it. Not that they’ve lost integrity but this could be a step down a path that could see them lose some. Its hard for me to articulate.
Right. I think my perspective for Spacing was that their integrity was closely tied with their willingness to present good, fresh ideas from anyone who had them. I can imagine a lot of architects / planners who are in the middle ranks of firms and don’t actually get to express unhindered without the firms bias applied to it, and this would be a good venue for such an expression. On the other hand, I could also see ‘the big fish’ of the professions swarm into such a competition and quickly dominate the press coverage and consequently the ideas being disseminated from the competition.
So I suspect what they wanted to say was ‘No Big Fish of the Profession’ and add a bunch of addendums defining big fish etc.
The work around to this issue would be an anonymous process. Sure names are attached in envelopes to the back of the ideas etc, and then you limit the boards that are submitted. The end goal being that the judges and press do not immediately know who the ideas are coming from.
Currently however I think they’re going to end up with an ineffectual competition where the ideas will get voiced and UofT & politicians politely smile & nod etc, and promptly stick it in a duotang and file it under Z for Zero Experience and call it a week.
Well maybe, with that in mind, they ought to call it a student competition and have it ‘students only’ … which would prevent professional (big fish) from overshadowing amateurs? … but then they invite “Architects and Urban Planners”…so which is it? I would assume the entries would be anonymous to the Jury though.
Thinking about it more, I guess the bigger beef is suggesting that thesis projects by those who predate 1973 are not relevant.
The ‘student competition’ would work. I can think of a few students who just graduated with me that actually disqualify from this competition due to their age.
Its matt from Spacing who created the contest.
“I can imagine a lot of architects / planners who are in the middle ranks of firms and don’t actually get to express unhindered without the firms bias applied to it, and this would be a good venue for such an expression….
On the other hand, I could also see ‘the big fish’ of the professions swarm into such a competition and quickly dominate the press coverage and consequently the ideas being disseminated from the competition. So I suspect what they wanted to say was ‘No Big Fish of the Profession’ and add a bunch of addendums defining big fish etc. ”
This is exactly why. We want to present opportunity for the voices that are regularly ignored by competition.
And our fifth anniversary issue is a “looking forward” issue. So we’ve chosen to highlight up-and-coming talent. There will be a regualrly repeated feature started in that issue called One Big Idea that showcases anyone’s ideas on how to improve the city.
For the same reason 25 year olds can’t play in a hockey league with 15 year olds, we’ve tired to level the playing field. Certainly folks older than 35 are disappointed, but the those under have been very excited by this and feel fortunate to get the opportunity to have their skills highlighted.
Aaah that clears it up then. thanks Matt.
It seemed like the competition was to just assemble good ideas for good idea’s sake, not specifically to showcase ‘up-and-coming-talent’ so its good to know that after this you’ll be open to showcasing good ideas regardless of their origin. Wish that was made clear earlier on. As oliver notes, there are some up-and-comers just graduating this summer from Architecture degrees with great ideas who unfortunately disqualify. Hopefully their ideas can find a showcase outside of this competition though.
Off the top of my head I can think of a few great schemes drawn up in the 60s and 70s specific to Toronto which would be strong contenders.