Draft Competitive Design Policy - Australian Institute of Architects

Australian Institute ofArchitectsDraft CompetitiveDesign PolicySubmission toCity of Sydney21 April 2011

SUBMISSION BYAustralian Institute of Architects – NSW ChapterABN 72 000 023 012Tusculum, 3 Manning StreetPOTTS POINT NSW 2011Telephone: 02 9246 4055Facsimile: 02 9246 4030email: nsw@raia.com.auPURPOSEThis submission is made by the NSW Chapter of the Australian Institute ofArchitects (the Institute) to the City of Sydney in response to the draftCompetitive Design Policy.At the time of the submission the office bearers of the NSW Chapter are:Matthew Pullinger (President), Brian Zulaikha (Immediate Past-President),Joe Agius, Kim Crestani, Adam Haddow, David Holm, Esteban Insausti,Chris Jenkins, Alex Kibble, Stuart Landigan, Gerard Reinmuth, PeterSarlos, Howard Smith, David Springett.The Office Manager of the NSW Chapter is Roslyn Irons. This paper wasprepared by Murray Brown, Policy & Professional Development Manager,for the NSW Chapter’s Built Environment Committee, chaired by StephenBuzacott.INFORMATIONWho is making this submission? The Australian Institute of Architects (the Institute) is an independentvoluntary subscription-based member organization with approximately10,153 members who are bound by a Code of Conduct and DisciplinaryProcedures.The Institute, incorporated in 1929, is one of the 96 member associationsof the International Union of Architects (UIA) and is represented on theInternational Practice Commission.The Institute’s New South Wales Chapter has 2,959 members, of which1,700 are registrable architect members – representing 56% of allregistered architects in NSW.Where does the Institute rank as a professional association? At 10,153 members, the RAIA represents the largest group of nonengineerdesign professionals in Australia.Australian Institute of Architects (NSW)City of Sydney draft Competitive Design Policy21 April 2011i

Other related organisations by membership size include: The DesignInstitute of Australia (DIA) - 1,500 members; the Building DesignersAssociation of Australia (BDAA) - 2,200 members; the Australian Instituteof Landscape Architects (AILA) 1,000 members; and the AustralianAcademy of Design (AAD) - 150 members.Australian Institute of Architects (NSW)City of Sydney draft Competitive Design Policy21 April 2011ii

Australian Instituteof ArchitectsDraft CompetitiveDesign PolicySubmission toStanding Committee on StateDevelopmentNSW Parliament

CONTENTSPageFEES 1POLICY TRIGGER 1COMPETITION ALTERNATIVES 2JURY SELECTION AND CONDUCT 2MAXIMUM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 3RECOGNITION OF PRIOR INVOLVEMENT / SITE MASTERPLANNING 3

The Institute acknowledges the City’s competitive design policy as a positivecontribution to design excellence and as a means of encouraging emergingarchitectural practices in NSW.Before an extension of the policy is considered, however, the Instituterecommends that the Council undertakes an audit to determine theeffectiveness of the present policy and also whether it achieves equitableoutcomes for the participants.Specifically the Institute would like the Council to provide metrics on thefollowing:• number of projects affected each year, both past and projected;• actual cost to the architecture profession of the policy, both past andprojected;• actual financial incentives given to developers for participation; and• financial impacts to the profession in the expansion of the policy.FeesBased on the advice of many of its members, the Institute is extremelyconcerned about the very low fees offered and paid to architects forparticipation in competitions under the policy.The Council gives very significant financial incentives to developers toencourage them to administer competitions under the policy, yet at the sametime it allows architects’ fees to be determined by ‘market forces’. This meansthat our members are, in effect, subsidizing the operation of the policy.In the Institute’s view the policy should require developers to direct adesignated percentage of the financial incentives they receive to thecompetition process so that competitors are properly compensated for theirparticipation. The Institute’s Guidelines for Architectural Design Competitionsincludes a scale of fees that, adjusted for CPI increases since the publicationdate of 2003, could provide the template for a more equitable scale of feesoffered through the City’s competition process.Policy triggerThe Institute notes that the design excellence clauses of the draft LEPpropose triggers for this policy to come into effect of:i. a building height of more than 25 metres (55 metres in central Sydney);orii. development cost of more than $50M.While we consider that height is a more reliable and useful trigger thandevelopment cost we note that a trigger of 25 metres outside the CBD wouldcapture most buildings above seven stories in height. We consider this is tooAustralian Institute of Architects (NSW)City of Sydney draft Competitive Design Policy21 April 20111

low and in any case does not provide a mechanism for the most effective useof the competition process; on the contrary, it could encourage the excessiveuse of the process, which is likely to debase it.In the Institute’s view the real trigger for the policy should be the significanceof the site, based on an analysis of key factors such as view corridors, cornerposition, etc. While this analysis may require updating each decade as the citydevelops, it could be a more useful means of identifying sites where thecompetition process makes a positive contribution to the development of amore cohesive and stimulating urban environment.Competition alternativesThe Institute notes the three types of competition presented as alternatives inthe policy. While the distinction between ‘open’ and ‘invited’ architecturaldesign competitions is expressed clearly the distinction between the ‘invited’architectural design competition and the ‘invited’ competitive designalternatives process is not as clear.The Institute is concerned that, because its outcome will not necessarily leadto a winning design that eventually takes the form of a developmentapplication, the design alternatives process is open to abuse in two respects:1. developers may engage in a design ‘fishing expedition’ with noguarantee of the selection of a winning design; and2. architectural practices may be required to provide several iterations ofa design alternative without any variation to the fee.The Institute recommends amendments to the policy to clearly indicate thesituations in which it is appropriate to select the ‘invited’ competitive designalternatives process in preference to the ‘invited’ architectural designcompetition process.As a positive means of encouraging the involvement of emerging practices inthe competition process, the Institute also recommends that at least one of thefive or more competitors invited to participate in an ‘invited’ architecturaldesign competition should be able to be described as an ‘emerging practice’.Jury selection and conductThe Institute notes that competition juries are to consist of ‘a majority ofregistered architects with urban design expertise’ and supports thisrequirement. The policy is silent, however, on the process for selecting jurors;it also does not specify a process for selecting the architectural practices thatare to participate in a competition process. It is critical that selection anddecisions are transparent, on the public record, and that all probity issuesregarding them are addressed in the policy.Australian Institute of Architects (NSW)City of Sydney draft Competitive Design Policy21 April 20112

One solution may be to appoint a small committee, separate from thecompetition jury, which has oversight of the competition process in regard toprobity, fees, communication and other matters of a non-design nature. Itcould include representatives from the Council and the Institute and a thirdnon-affiliated member with expertise in audit processes. The committee wouldperform a role similar to that of the ‘advisor’ described in the Institute’sGuidelines for Architectural Design Competitions.It is critical that juries are properly briefed on their role - inclusive of thelimitations and bounds of their recommendations. The Institute is aware ofinstances where juries have assessed the architectural practices participatingin a competitive process rather than the actual architectural proposals theysubmit.We also note that in some jurisdictions in which the design competition modelis used there have been instances in which individual jurors make contact withcompetition participants during the period leading up to the final judgingprocess. The Institute considers it would be prudent to include in the policy orin written instructions to jury members the requirement that only the full juryshould be engaged in any discussions with participants prior to the formaljudging process.Maximum design requirementsWe are advised that in some instances architectural practices have preparedmodels, computer fly-throughs and other representations of the proposeddesign that exceed the maximum design requirements of the brief. TheInstitute will endeavour to advise its members not to engage in this practice;the policy should stipulate that juries will refuse to see any material that is notspecifically requested in the brief. Participating architects entering thecompetition should also be advised of this requirement, which accords withthe Institute’s Guidelines for Architectural Design Competitions.Recognition of prior involvement / site masterplanningDevelopers often ask architects to conduct feasibility studies for sites, testingcontrols etc as part of their due diligence prior to acquisition. The policyshould acknowledge this practice so that architects providing this assistanceare not excluded from the competition process. Any prior work of this kindshould be included in the brief, so that architects in the competition haveaccess to the same information as an architect who has previously assistedthe client.The policy also does not take into account the increasing practice ofarchitectural practices working closely with developers in exploring a range ofdesign concepts in the masterplanning for key sites well before thecommencement of the preparation of development applications.Without in any way wanting to limit potential design diversity, particularly forlarge sites, the Institute considers that the policy should recognize that this isAustralian Institute of Architects (NSW)City of Sydney draft Competitive Design Policy21 April 20113

a desirable and increasingly prevalent development model and buildacknowledgment of this work into the competition framework.One way of handling the design process for masterplanned sites is to use adesign review panel as an alternative to the competition process.Australian Institute of Architects (NSW)City of Sydney draft Competitive Design Policy21 April 20114