I've competed against Zaha Hadid Architects and against Foster + Partners. In both competitions, someone else won. Against Foster, our team came third. What I learnt is that starchitects aren't better or worse conceptually, as such. What they have is much better resources, a much better design process, and clearer outcomes.
Zaha Hadid Architects lost too
It's easy to assume the famous name wins. It didn't. Someone else won that competition, and Zaha Hadid Architects went home like the rest of us.
An army of models
Against Foster + Partners, I saw what they brought: an army of models. We came third, and someone else won. Seeing that much work on the table tells you something about how a practice like that operates. They don't only have ideas. They have the people, time and process to test them, again and again, and show them clearly.
What actually separates them
Conceptually, starchitects aren't necessarily better or worse. Where they're far ahead is:
- Resources: more people, more time, more models and drawings.
- Design process: a clearer, more developed way of getting from idea to outcome.
- Clarity: outcomes that read clearly to a jury.
Every project is a bet
Even with all of that, every competition is a bet, and often theirs is no better than the competitor's. No one has all the answers, not even the biggest names in architecture.
What this means for you
You can't match a starchitect's resources as a student or a young architect. You can work on the other two: a strong design process and clear outcomes. Those are skills, not budgets, and they're what we teach.
Next step: See Student Coaching and Mini Studio, or book a free introduction.