Draft Competitive Design Policy - Australian Institute of Architects
Draft Competitive Design Policy - Australian Institute of Architects Draft Competitive Design Policy - Australian Institute of Architects
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
- Page 1 and 2: Australian Institute ofArchitectsDr
- Page 3 and 4: Other related organisations by memb
- Page 5: CONTENTSPageFEES 1POLICY TRIGGER 1C
- Page 9: a desirable and increasingly preval
The <strong>Institute</strong> acknowledges the City’s competitive design policy as a positivecontribution to design excellence and as a means <strong>of</strong> encouraging emergingarchitectural practices in NSW.Before an extension <strong>of</strong> the policy is considered, however, the <strong>Institute</strong>recommends that the Council undertakes an audit to determine theeffectiveness <strong>of</strong> the present policy and also whether it achieves equitableoutcomes for the participants.Specifically the <strong>Institute</strong> would like the Council to provide metrics on thefollowing:• number <strong>of</strong> projects affected each year, both past and projected;• actual cost to the architecture pr<strong>of</strong>ession <strong>of</strong> the policy, both past andprojected;• actual financial incentives given to developers for participation; and• financial impacts to the pr<strong>of</strong>ession in the expansion <strong>of</strong> the policy.FeesBased on the advice <strong>of</strong> many <strong>of</strong> its members, the <strong>Institute</strong> is extremelyconcerned about the very low fees <strong>of</strong>fered 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 <strong>of</strong> the policy.In the <strong>Institute</strong>’s view the policy should require developers to direct adesignated percentage <strong>of</strong> the financial incentives they receive to thecompetition process so that competitors are properly compensated for theirparticipation. The <strong>Institute</strong>’s Guidelines for Architectural <strong>Design</strong> Competitionsincludes a scale <strong>of</strong> fees that, adjusted for CPI increases since the publicationdate <strong>of</strong> 2003, could provide the template for a more equitable scale <strong>of</strong> fees<strong>of</strong>fered through the City’s competition process.<strong>Policy</strong> triggerThe <strong>Institute</strong> notes that the design excellence clauses <strong>of</strong> the draft LEPpropose triggers for this policy to come into effect <strong>of</strong>:i. a building height <strong>of</strong> more than 25 metres (55 metres in central Sydney);orii. development cost <strong>of</strong> more than $50M.While we consider that height is a more reliable and useful trigger thandevelopment cost we note that a trigger <strong>of</strong> 25 metres outside the CBD wouldcapture most buildings above seven stories in height. We consider this is too<strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Architects</strong> (NSW)City <strong>of</strong> Sydney draft <strong>Competitive</strong> <strong>Design</strong> <strong>Policy</strong>21 April 20111
Change language