Criticism of crowdsourcing architecture attacks the model on the basis that it results in poorer work than would be delivered otherwise, and that it exploits the designers that deliver that work.
Worse Outcomes Traditionally, architectural work is done in a process where designers receive feedback and communicate directly with the client as the design progresses. Integrating the client into the design process allows for iterative refinement and allows the designer to perform and integrate background research on the project. In the crowdsourcing architecture model, iteration is not possible, as architects must include a mostly finished design in their submission to the competition. Only after a submission wins, can the client discuss with the selected architect to make amendments, which could cost the client more than if they had been included in the initial, iterative design process. Finally, due to the highly open and international nature of crowdsourced architecture, architects may not be familiar with local materials, regulations, and construction practices which may make some designs impractical.
Exploitation Architects participating in crowdsourcing architecture must take on risks associated with
speculative work. They may not be compensated for their labor, and they may not have ownership of their work after it is submitted to a competition. Architects which do participate in crowdsourcing architecture tend to come from
developing countries where the cost of labor is lower and thus stand to gain more from the winning prize for a project. ==References==