What do small and medium-sized cities like Salermo, Bergamo, Caglieri, and Padova have in common with the big stars of architecture like Koolhaas, Hadid, Herzog & de Meuron, Byrne, Isozaki, van Berkel?

What they have in common are the competitions set by their respective public administrations for the construction of cool buildings, that require investment – and make claims - abnormal with respect to the budgets and proportional size of the cities.

Once upon a time, sighting or been photographed in the company of a cycling champion or diva from Cinecittà was an accrediting experience, a trophy to exhibit and boast about to friends and relatives or, in the case of public representatives, to voters.

Today times have changed and architects have so much media appeal that they have leveled with and even overtaken film and sporting celebrities; today politics, short of ideas, builds its successes on an ability to market, and so the signature of an archistar on a museum, a provincial town hall, or a piazza in the suburbs is translated into a potent spillover effect of popular consensus.

So then it happens that competitions with budgets inflated in the name of art to capture the interest of big international studios, are stalled for lack of financial resources - not in the case of the cities mentioned, at least for now - ending up inevitably resolving themselves in an advertising stunt with which the local administrations credit themselves when confronting the electoral platform.

The question is: is it about architecture, or are these kind of competitions less about the common good and good living standards and much more to do with electoral campaigns financed with everyone’s money?

To be continued…