Winter - Australian Institute of Architects

Presentation to Juries DayReview by Patrick FordThe last few months in the Australianarchitecture press has seen livelydebate about the role of criticismwithin the profession. A cogent viewis made that a profession whichencourages robust criticism is one thatwill make better buildings. There is nopretence at causality here, but ratheracknowledgement that pre-conditionsfor high-quality work and robust criticismare mutual: a profession that is selfconfident,engaged and articulate. Inthis context the WA Architecture Awards‘Presentation to Juries’ should be seen asan important and positive step.This is the first time formalpresentations of built work bynominating Architects have beenincluded as part of the awards processin Western Australia. Entrants wereallocated 7 minutes to give a digitalpresentation, followed by 3 minutes toanswer questions from the jury and 5minutes for changeover. In the courseof the day a total of 123 projects werepresented across 10 categories. Severalprojects were entered in more than onecategory and many practices providedmultiple presentations across the day.The management of the tight schedulewas in itself an achievement. The formatfollowed very closely that of the VictorianArchitecture Awards jury presentationswhich have proven very successful over anumber of years.Contrary to instructions, jurorsoften gave the gathered audiencean opportunity to ask questions ofpresenters where time permitted.Audience participation was generallyvery good and their questions oftenrevealed more about schemes thanenquiries from jurors.It was appropriate that juries didn’tsee their role as needling schemesor attempting to skewer presenters.Weaknesses in projects were oftenconspicuous by an absence of discussionbetween jurors and presenters – akind of convenient entente. Therewere moments however when morecritical lines of inquiry would have beenappropriate. Poor sites - a frequent claimof presenters - could have encourageda greater exploration of site planningissues. Whether projects ‘came in’ onbudget was an unnecessarily persistentline of questioning in the Public Category– inevitably all projects met the budget– whereas the inquisitorial formatwould seem to offer an opportunity tointerrogate the more substantial issuesof long-term value so often overlooked(or denied) by clients and the public.A notional concern leading into theevent might have been that the formatwould expose the awards process to‘talk-itecture’ – that style might prevailover substance. However presentationswere on the whole pragmatic, reflectingarchitectural responses that were verymuch of the brief, programme and site.There was no margin for exogenesis.No manifestos. No poetry readingsto Rachmaninov’s 5th while charcoalsketches scrolled by. A pity perhaps, butnonetheless the best presentations werethose that clearly illustrated a processfor making good architectural decisions.Bernard Seeber’s presentation for theHilton Community Centre project in theUrban Design category was exemplaryin this regard. Layered and analytical, itmoved efficiently from an examinationof macro settings to an unassumingyet elegant response. By revealing aprecision and depth of thinking, notimmediately evident within what wasa modest brief, it showed precisely thevalue of the presentation format.Other presentations were less refined.It was curious for example to see onepresenter insist on a scheme’s urban7THE ARCHITECT 2012 ISSUE 002