Canadians should welcome the possibility of a project by Japanese architect Kengo Kuma taking shape in Banff National Park. But not if the architectural competition process circumvents principles of jury independence and public accountability.
In a recent announcement, Parks Canada and the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada jointly revealed that a proposal by Paul Raff Studio and Kengo Kuma & Associates had been selected during the conceptual phase of the international competition to redevelop the national park visitor centre.
The project is compelling. The process that led to its selection, however, raises several important questions.
Parks Canada and the RAIC presented the redevelopment of the 200 block of Banff Avenue as an exemplary competition process, incorporating public consultation, Indigenous feedback and technical evaluation. Yet, one statement in the official announcement deserves closer attention. According to RAIC chief executive Mike Brennan, “the jury’s decision was unanimous and made with confidence.”
That wording suggests the jury selected the winning proposal. However, documents obtained through access-to-information requests indicate that the 10 jurors strictly served an advisory role. More significantly, in a presentation prepared for Parks Canada in 2024, Brennan described the process quite differently: “Ultimately, the jury makes a recommendation to the Parks Canada agency, who retains final authority.”
Additional documents also suggest that the RAIC presented this governance structure to federal officials as representing “best practices” for architectural competitions.
That claim is difficult to reconcile with long-established standards in Canada.
The integrity of architectural competitions for awarding public contracts depends on the independence of juries. Jurors are assembled precisely to evaluate proposals free from political or bureaucratic pressure. Their authority is not a technical detail; it is the very foundation of a design competition’s credibility.
If decision-making authority ultimately lies elsewhere, then transparency becomes essential. Participating architects, jury members and the public have a right to know how final decisions are made — and above all, by whom.
One question remains unanswered — who within Parks Canada ultimately selected the winning proposal for Banff’s new visitor centre?
The Banff competition raises broad questions about the RAIC’s evolving role.
Long regarded as the principal advocate for architecture and architects in Canada, the RAIC now occupies a dual role — professional representative and provider of architectural services to the federal government. These roles are not inherently incompatible. Collaboration between professional organizations and governments can be useful, and at times even necessary.
