التصاميم الخارجية DR

A Serious Concern About Award Transparency – Mount Whitsunday
Hello everyone,
First of all, I apologize for posting something that is not directly related to this competition. However, I believe this is an issue that concerns many designers who participate in Arcbazar competitions, and I would like to raise it openly and respectfully.
I am writing regarding the recently completed “Mount Whitsunday” competition and, specifically, the first- and second-place awards.
To be completely clear: I am not the designer who placed third, and I am not writing this simply because I disagree with the result. My concern would be the same regardless of my own ranking.
I fully understand that architectural quality and design preference are subjective, and that the client has the right to choose the design they prefer.
My concern is different: whether the awarded submissions actually fulfilled the clearly stated project requirements and accurately responded to the existing building conditions.
1. First-place submission – Shahab Mes
There are several aspects of the first-place submission that I believe require serious clarification.
Existing conditions and project requirements:
• The Upstairs Bar renderings also do not appear to reflect the actual existing conditions shown in the project documentation.
• In the dressing room, an area with existing full-height glazing appears to be represented as though it were a solid/closed wall. Again, this does not appear to reflect the actual building condition.
• In the master bedroom, the existing long wall with full-height glazing appears to have been disregarded and represented as a solid wall. This does not accurately reflect the existing building condition identified in the project documentation.
• The entrance curved wall and powder room are not shown or addressed at all in the submitted design.
• In the Alfresco, the submission appears to replace an existing glazed condition with a bar element, despite the client clearly identifying the existing glazing as a fixed condition.
• The client also specifically requested the names and suppliers of the furniture and material selections. This information does not appear to have been provided in the submission.
Presentation and completeness:
Many of the spaces are presented through single-angle AI-generated renderings, with no alternative views showing the spaces from other angles.
The issue here is not simply the use of AI. The problem is that when a space is shown only from a single generated viewpoint, without additional views, it becomes difficult to verify whether the space has actually been designed and resolved beyond what is visible in that one image.
Considering the number of spaces presented this way, I believe this raises a serious question regarding the completeness and verifiability of the submission, particularly for a first-place award.
2. Second-place submission – Maximo Jesus Arevalo Asto
The second-place submission raises an even more straightforward concern.
Several areas that were clearly part of the requested scope appear not to have been designed, including:
• Entrance curved wall
• Powder room
• Dressing room
• Bathroom
• Laundry
• Garage door design
In addition, the client specifically requested the names and suppliers of the furniture and material selections, yet this information does not appear to have been provided in the submission.
More importantly, some of the above omissions appear to be acknowledged by the designer in the project's own description.
This leads to a very simple question:
If these areas and deliverables were part of the client's requested scope, how was a submission that explicitly omitted significant portions of that scope considered eligible for second place?
Again, I am not arguing that a particular design should have won simply because someone considers it aesthetically better.
I am asking whether there is a minimum standard of scope compliance and submission completeness that a design must meet before it can receive an award.
What I am asking from Arcbazar
I have already contacted the Arcbazar team directly and requested clarification.
I would like to ask the same questions publicly because I believe they are relevant to the wider designer community:
1. If a submission explicitly acknowledges that certain requested areas were not designed, what criteria allow that submission to receive an award?
2. How were the first- and second-place submissions in the Mount Whitsunday competition evaluated against the client's stated requirements?
I have attached/shared screenshots documenting the relevant client requirements, existing conditions, and the corresponding elements shown in the awarded submissions. I am doing this intentionally so that the discussion can be based on specific and verifiable information rather than simply on personal opinions about the designs.
A broader concern
I am not presenting this as proof of wrongdoing or favoritism, because I do not have evidence to make such a claim.
However, when situations like this occur, it naturally raises questions about whether submission completeness and compliance with the brief are being evaluated consistently.
Many designers invest substantial amounts of professional time, expertise and sometimes weeks of work into these competitions.
I completely respect the client's right to choose according to their own aesthetic preferences.
What I am asking for is transparency regarding the minimum requirements that an awarded submission is expected to satisfy.
To other designers
If you have experienced similar situations on Arcbazar, I would genuinely like to hear about them.
Rather than simply saying that a result was “unfair,” I think we should focus on documentable examples: the client brief, the stated requirements, the submitted design, and the specific discrepancy.
If multiple designers have experienced similar issues, perhaps this can lead to a constructive discussion about improving the competition system.
I am not interested in attacking individual designers or making accusations without evidence.
I am asking for transparency, consistency and a clear standard for what constitutes an eligible competition submission.
I hope Arcbazar will address these questions openly.
Because ultimately, this is not only about the Mount Whitsunday competition or about one prize.
It is about the trust that designers place in a platform when they invest their time, professional expertise and creativity into its competitions.

Dear Client,

I would like to kindly bring one point to your attention regarding this competition. Some participants took the time to develop detailed 3D models based on the provided plans and invested considerable effort in the initial modeling process before producing their final high-quality renderings. This required significantly more time, effort, and design work compared to submissions that were generated primarily through AI, without investing substantial time in modeling or developing the project itself.

I sincerely hope you will take this distinction into consideration when evaluating the submissions. There is an important difference between a designer who invests considerable time and effort to develop the project, create the 3D model, and achieve the best possible result, and an image that can be generated through AI with only a few simple clicks.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could consider the amount of design development, modeling effort, and time invested by each participant when selecting the top submissions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Dear client , please stay on timeline for deadline , we finalizing our proposal till tomorrow . thank you .