A €300,000 Architecture Competition Ended Last Week. The Results Have Not Been Published.

On May 19, 2026, Fondazione Roma REgeneration held the closing ceremony of its international ideas competition, a call for a strategic urban vision for Rome with a total prize pool of €300,000. The competition was supervised by Deloitte, held under the patronage of Regione Lazio and Roma Capitale, and ran for over a year across two phases.

As of this writing, the Foundation's competition page has published no announcement of results — no winner, no list of finalists, no project images, and no press release. The ceremony took place at a public forum attended by press and civic authorities.

The only public record of the outcome is a project page published by the winning firm. OMA's website lists Roma Continua – A Vision for Rome as a 2026 competition entry for client Roma REgeneration Foundation, noting that an OMA-led team including IT'S, OKRA, NET Engineering, and LGSMA won the competition. The Foundation has made no corresponding announcement.

The five other finalists are known from the Foundation's own shortlist notice, published July 31, 2025, which named all six teams advancing to Phase 2. The Foundation has not named them since.

How the Six Finalists Were Selected

The competition tender was open to any professional team internationally — architects, urbanists, economists, mobility experts, sociologists, public health specialists, and others — with no minimum or maximum team size specified. Teams registered on the Foundation's platform, signed non-disclosure agreements, and submitted what the tender called "Busta A": a package of team credentials including CVs, a competency matrix, past project portfolios, and a 5-to-10-page synopsis of their proposed idea.

Phase 1 submissions were scored by an evaluation commission against six weighted criteria, out of a maximum of 100 points:

Multidisciplinary breadth — up to 20 points for the range of disciplines represented
Experience level — up to 16 points based on individual CVs and prior project work
Diversity and inclusion — up to 24 points, awarded based on the proportion of team members under 35, over 65, of different genders, and of different nationalities
Methodological approach — up to 16 points for a structured overview of how the team would work, plus the idea synopsis
Credentials — up to 16 points for past project documentation
Sustainability and social responsibility — up to 8 points

The number of teams advancing to Phase 2 was fixed in the tender from the outset. §5 states that "la commissione valutatrice selezionerà i migliori 6 team multidisciplinari che avranno accesso alla seconda fase" — "the evaluation commission will select the best 6 multidisciplinary teams that will have access to the second phase." §8.4 restates this without ambiguity: "accederanno alla Fase 2 'Competition' solamente i primi 6 Team che avranno conseguito il miglior punteggio per la Fase 1" — "only the first 6 Teams that achieved the best score in Phase 1 will advance to the Phase 2 Competition."

Those six teams were announced on July 31, 2025. They then had until December 2025 — later extended to March 2026 — to develop full proposals, submitted as "Busta B": a document of up to 50 pages and 20 graphic boards at A1 format, covering site analysis, a strategic vision, impact assessment, and conclusions. Each team also appeared before the evaluation commission for a competitive interview before the May forum.

The Six Finalist Teams

The Foundation's July 31, 2025 shortlist notice named the following teams:

New Times, New Roma — Led by FROM (capofila: Davide Agazzi), with AG&P Greenscape, OXA, Chorus Design, Edera, Eutropian, Fosbury Architecture, Interazioni Urbane, Izilab, Officine Italia, Redas Engineering, Tiresia, and SDA Bocconi
Roma Come Modello (winner) — Led by IT'S (capofila: Alessandro Cambi), with OMA, OKRA, NET Engineering, Artelia, Open Impact, Artribune, LGSMA, Elena Granata, and Fiamma Montezemolo — OMA project page
Roma Contemporanea — Led by 3TI Italia (capofila: Alfredo Ingletti), with Hassell Ltd, Università Milano-Bicocca, Tland Studio, Iride, RWDI Europe, Seingim Global, BonelliErede, GAE Engineering, and Go-Mobility — 3TI write-up
Roma 2050 — Led by Labics (capofila: Francesco Isidori), with Openfabric, MIC-Hub, EST, Atelier Franck Boutté, Avventura Urbana, and Zest Innovation
A Vision from Within — Led jointly by L'AUC and Arcadis Italia, with Roma Tre University, Systematica, Scenari Immobiliari, Stratosferica, Urban X, and others
Rome — A Splendid Preparation for the Future — Led by the EPFL Habitat Research Center (capofila: Paola Viganò), with teams from the University of Amsterdam, Penn State, Brussels Capital Region, and Tools for Culture — EPFL competition page

Three of the six teams have self-published materials since the forum. The Foundation has published nothing.

What the Competition Tender Committed To

On the question of post-competition publication, §10.1 of the tender was unambiguous:

"I risultati del Concorso saranno presentati ufficialmente in pubblico durante il 2° Roma REgeneration Forum in presenza delle Autorità e della stampa e successivamente verranno effettuate le pubblicazioni dei progetti finalisti."

"The results of the Competition will be officially presented to the public during the 2nd Roma REgeneration Forum in the presence of the Authorities and the press, and subsequently the finalist projects will be published."

The tender also required each finalist team to produce a short presentation video for the forum. Those presentations appear to have taken place. The subsequent publications have not.

The Intellectual Property Terms

The absence of published results is notable in part because of the IP terms that governed the competition. Under §11.1, winning participants were required to assign full intellectual property rights to the Foundation as a condition of receiving their prize:

"Pertanto, tutti i partecipanti, con l'iscrizione al Concorso e l'accettazione dei termini contenuti nel presente Bando, si impegnano a cedere alla Fondazione Roma REgeneration ETS ogni diritto di proprietà intellettuale e di sfruttamento e utilizzo della Proposta presentata in risposta al presente Bando per il caso in cui la stessa risulti premiata."

"Therefore, all participants, by registering for the Competition and accepting the terms of this tender, undertake to assign to Fondazione Roma REgeneration ETS every intellectual property right and every right to exploit and use the winning proposal."

The same clause made clear that this assignment extended to any future transfer of those rights:

"La concessione dei premi è subordinata alla sottoscrizione di apposito atto di cessione in favore della Fondazione Roma REgeneration ETS dei diritti d'autore relativi alle opere dell'ingegno presentate nel Concorso Internazionale di Idee, autorizzando ogni successiva ed eventuale cessione, anche a titolo gratuito."

"The award of prizes is conditional on signing a formal deed of assignment in favour of Fondazione Roma REgeneration ETS of the copyright in the works of intellect presented in the International Ideas Competition, authorising any subsequent and eventual further assignment, including at no cost."

This is a full assignment of rights — not a display license, and not a limited-use agreement — with the Foundation free to transfer those rights to any third party. The prize is contingent on its signing.

The Position of Non-Winning Finalists

The situation is more complicated for the five teams who did not place first. Under §11.4, all competitors were prohibited from publishing their proposals before results were announced:

"È fatto divieto assoluto a tutti i concorrenti di divulgare, pubblicare o far pubblicare le Proposte (o loro parti) prima che vengano resi noti i risultati del Concorso. La violazione comporterà l'esclusione della Proposta."

"It is absolutely forbidden for all competitors to disclose, publish, or cause to be published the Proposals (or any part thereof) before the results of the Competition are made known. Violation will result in exclusion of the Proposal."

The results were announced at the May 19 forum. Whether that announcement satisfies the tender's threshold for "resi noti" — made known — in a way that permits the non-winning finalists to now publish their work is not addressed anywhere in the competition documentation. The Foundation has issued no guidance on this point.

The Structural Problem

The gap between what the competition promised and what has been published reflects a broader pattern in how architecture competitions handle documentation. Organisers typically invest in the open call — the brief, the platform, the press release — and treat post-competition publication as secondary. There is no standard mechanism that makes publication a binding obligation, and few organisers face meaningful consequences for failing to follow through.

The Roma REgeneration competition is an example at the higher end of the market: well-funded, institutionally backed, professionally supervised. The documentation gap is not a function of limited resources. §11.4 of the tender captures the asymmetry precisely:

"Il presente Bando non costituisce proposta contrattuale e non vincola in alcun modo la Fondazione la quale, a suo insindacabile giudizio, si riserva di interrompere, sospendere o revocare la procedura in qualsiasi momento senza che i soggetti partecipanti possano vantare alcun diritto o pretesa."

"This tender does not constitute a contractual offer and in no way binds the Foundation, which, at its sole and unchallengeable discretion, reserves the right to interrupt, suspend or revoke the procedure at any time, without participants being able to claim any right or entitlement."

Participants assigned their rights and accepted no enforceable right to publication in return. Whether the Foundation intends to publish the finalist work at a later date is not known. The Foundation did not respond to a request for comment.

A Vision for Rome, Owned by a Foundation

The most basic question about this competition is also the least asked: what is the winning proposal actually for?

Fondazione Roma REgeneration is a private foundation — an Ente del Terzo Settore, a third-sector non-profit entity under Italian law. It is not a government body. It has no authority over urban planning, zoning, infrastructure, transport, or any of the other domains the competition brief asked entrants to address. The patronage of Regione Lazio and Roma Capitale — both named on the competition's promotional materials — is ceremonial. Neither institution commissioned this work, neither funded it, and neither is under any legal obligation to read it, adopt it, or act on it.

Implementing even a fragment of a city-wide strategic vision for Rome would require the active cooperation of institutions the Foundation has no formal relationship with: Roma Capitale and its planning department, the Metropolitan City of Rome, Regione Lazio, the national Ministry of Infrastructure, FS Sistemi Urbani (the railway authority that controls the Anello Ferroviario at the geographic center of the brief), Acea (the utility that manages the Tiber infrastructure that one of the special mention prizes was named after), private developers, landowners, and multiple rounds of EU structural fund applications. None of these parties were bound by the competition. None have publicly committed to anything.

This is not an unusual situation for competitions of this type. A concorso di idee — an ideas competition — is a specific legal instrument under Italian public procurement law. It produces intellectual output, not a commission. The winning team does not receive a contract to design or implement anything. They receive a prize. In this case, €130,000 and a deed of IP transfer.

What the Foundation received is a legally owned vision for the future of Rome. The tender (§9.3) notes that the Foundation plans further competitions building on this one — suggesting the intent is to accumulate a body of work, not to hand off a single proposal for immediate adoption. The most charitable reading is that the Foundation intends to operate as an urban policy advocacy body: using the competition outputs to lobby city government, attract institutional partners, and build a credible public case for Rome's regeneration. The two special mention sponsors — FS Sistemi Urbani and Acea — are precisely the kinds of semi-public infrastructure operators who might actually act on strategic planning ideas, and their involvement may be the more meaningful channel than any government patronage.

It is worth noting who founded the Foundation. Fondazione Roma REgeneration was created in 2023 by three regulated real estate fund managers: DeA Capital Real Estate SGR (part of Gruppo De Agostini), Investire SGR (part of Banca Finnat), and Fabrica Immobiliare SGR (part of Gruppo Caltagirone, which also owns Il Messaggero, Rome's main daily newspaper). Those three firms had previously bid together, as a consortium, for the redevelopment of the ex-Guido Reni barracks in Rome's Flaminio district — one of the city's most significant urban regeneration sites. The Foundation's General Secretary holds a simultaneous senior corporate finance role at one of its three founding fund managers. FS Sistemi Urbani — named above as a potential implementation channel — is itself a Foundation member, and the named sponsor of a special mention prize centred on the railway infrastructure it owns.

That reading requires publication to work. Advocacy depends on the ideas being visible. A vision for Rome that exists in a private archive, unknown to the public, cannot build political will or attract investment. Six months from now, the competition will be remembered — if at all — as the one where OMA won. The five other finalist proposals, and whatever Phase 1 teams submitted, will have no public existence.

The combination of maximum IP extraction, minimal publication, and a foundation with no implementation mandate produces a precise outcome: the money was spent acquiring a vision for Rome. Whether anyone with the power to act on it will ever see it remains an open question.