Analyzing Message in Why open architecture competitions are good for Architects, a counter argument

In the following blog post I will analyze the message in Why open architecture competitions are good for Architects, a counter argument.

Church, Rob. "Featured-Article-drive". 11 Sept. 2005. Public Domain. 

Out of all the blog posts listed for "Message and Purpose" on page 181, the three that seem most relevant to the goals of my text's author are

• express an idea or opinion
• respond to a particular occasion or text
• move the readers to feel a certain way

These are relevant because the author is trying to convince the readers (who are members of the architecture community) that competitions are good for the workforce. The text I chose is also a direct counter argument to a blog post written. 

The bullet point that does NOT seem relevant to the goals of my text/author is

• advocate for change

The author was advocating to keep the same routine that has been going on for the past couple years where architects apply for projects through a competition based system. The text is advocating against change. 

The author is not just trying to advocate for competition, she is advocating for the strengthening and diversification of design ideas across the entire community. By allowing competition she is claiming that better ideas will come from architects who can work more freely than through regular projects funneled through architecture firms.