염철호(Youm, Chirl-Ho)
https://doi.org/10.5659/JAIK.2026.42.8.61
Since 2014, Korea’s proposal-based selection method for public architectural projects has expanded to a level comparable with conventional
design competitions. Although it was introduced to select architects based on experience, capabilities, and execution plans rather than design
schemes, its actual operation remains unclear. This study examines its current implementation and identifies areas for improvement. Design
competitions announced in 2025 were analyzed by building function, construction type, client type, and design fee range. Proposal tasks and
submission requirements were reviewed based on compliance criteria, and Japan’s proposal system was examined to identify institutional
differences in task definition, submission requirements, and evaluation methods. The results show that proposal competitions accounted for
42.5 percent of all design competitions and were most common in educational, research, medical, welfare, and community facilities, as well
as non-new construction projects, education office and public institution projects, and projects with design fees below 400 million KRW.
However, 49.0 percent included requirements inconsistent with the system’s intent. Requirements such as elevations, drawings, perspective
images, presentation panels, or cost breakdowns often resulted in submissions similar to those of conventional design competitions. These
findings suggest the need to clarify proposal task criteria, restrict design-oriented submission requirements, structure evaluation methods more
clearly, and strengthen pre-announcement review.