Draft Competitive Design Policy - Australian Institute of Architects

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