Draft Competitive Design Policy

Transcription

1 Australian Institute of Architects Draft Competitive Design Policy Submission to City of Sydney

2 SUBMISSION BY Australian Institute of Architects NSW Chapter ABN Tusculum, 3 Manning Street POTTS POINT NSW 2011 Telephone: Facsimile: nsw@raia.com.au PURPOSE This submission is made by the NSW Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects (the Institute) to the City of Sydney in response to the draft Competitive 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, Peter Sarlos, Howard Smith, David Springett. The Office Manager of the NSW Chapter is Roslyn Irons. This paper was prepared by Murray Brown, Policy & Professional Development Manager, for the NSW Chapter s Built Environment Committee, chaired by Stephen Buzacott. INFORMATION Who is making this submission? The Australian Institute of Architects (the Institute) is an independent voluntary subscription-based member organization with approximately 10,153 members who are bound by a Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures. The Institute, incorporated in 1929, is one of the 96 member associations of the International Union of Architects (UIA) and is represented on the International Practice Commission. The Institute s New South Wales Chapter has 2,959 members, of which 1,700 are registrable architect members representing 56% of all registered architects in NSW. Where does the Institute rank as a professional association? At 10,153 members, the RAIA represents the largest group of nonengineer design professionals in Australia. i

3 Other related organisations by membership size include: The Design Institute of Australia (DIA) - 1,500 members; the Building Designers Association of Australia (BDAA) - 2,200 members; the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA) 1,000 members; and the Australian Academy of Design (AAD) members. ii

4 Australian Institute of Architects Draft Competitive Design Policy Submission to Standing Committee on State Development NSW Parliament

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

6 The Institute acknowledges the City s competitive design policy as a positive contribution to design excellence and as a means of encouraging emerging architectural practices in NSW. Before an extension of the policy is considered, however, the Institute recommends that the Council undertakes an audit to determine the effectiveness of the present policy and also whether it achieves equitable outcomes for the participants. Specifically the Institute would like the Council to provide metrics on the following: number of projects affected each year, both past and projected; actual cost to the architecture profession of the policy, both past and projected; actual financial incentives given to developers for participation; and financial impacts to the profession in the expansion of the policy. Fees Based on the advice of many of its members, the Institute is extremely concerned about the very low fees offered and paid to architects for participation in competitions under the policy. The Council gives very significant financial incentives to developers to encourage them to administer competitions under the policy, yet at the same time it allows architects fees to be determined by market forces. This means that our members are, in effect, subsidizing the operation of the policy. In the Institute s view the policy should require developers to direct a designated percentage of the financial incentives they receive to the competition process so that competitors are properly compensated for their participation. The Institute s Guidelines for Architectural Design Competitions includes a scale of fees that, adjusted for CPI increases since the publication date of 2003, could provide the template for a more equitable scale of fees offered through the City s competition process. Policy trigger The Institute notes that the design excellence clauses of the draft LEP propose triggers for this policy to come into effect of: i. a building height of more than 25 metres (55 metres in central Sydney); or ii. development cost of more than $50M. While we consider that height is a more reliable and useful trigger than development cost we note that a trigger of 25 metres outside the CBD would capture most buildings above seven stories in height. We consider this is too 1

7 low and in any case does not provide a mechanism for the most effective use of the competition process; on the contrary, it could encourage the excessive use of the process, which is likely to debase it. In the Institute s view the real trigger for the policy should be the significance of the site, based on an analysis of key factors such as view corridors, corner position, etc. While this analysis may require updating each decade as the city develops, it could be a more useful means of identifying sites where the competition process makes a positive contribution to the development of a more cohesive and stimulating urban environment. Competition alternatives The Institute notes the three types of competition presented as alternatives in the policy. While the distinction between open and invited architectural design competitions is expressed clearly the distinction between the invited architectural design competition and the invited competitive design alternatives process is not as clear. The Institute is concerned that, because its outcome will not necessarily lead to a winning design that eventually takes the form of a development application, the design alternatives process is open to abuse in two respects: 1. developers may engage in a design fishing expedition with no guarantee of the selection of a winning design; and 2. architectural practices may be required to provide several iterations of a design alternative without any variation to the fee. The Institute recommends amendments to the policy to clearly indicate the situations in which it is appropriate to select the invited competitive design alternatives process in preference to the invited architectural design competition process. As a positive means of encouraging the involvement of emerging practices in the competition process, the Institute also recommends that at least one of the five or more competitors invited to participate in an invited architectural design competition should be able to be described as an emerging practice. Jury selection and conduct The Institute notes that competition juries are to consist of a majority of registered architects with urban design expertise and supports this requirement. The policy is silent, however, on the process for selecting jurors; it also does not specify a process for selecting the architectural practices that are to participate in a competition process. It is critical that selection and decisions are transparent, on the public record, and that all probity issues regarding them are addressed in the policy. 2

8 One solution may be to appoint a small committee, separate from the competition jury, which has oversight of the competition process in regard to probity, fees, communication and other matters of a non-design nature. It could include representatives from the Council and the Institute and a third non-affiliated member with expertise in audit processes. The committee would perform a role similar to that of the advisor described in the Institute s Guidelines for Architectural Design Competitions. It is critical that juries are properly briefed on their role - inclusive of the limitations and bounds of their recommendations. The Institute is aware of instances where juries have assessed the architectural practices participating in a competitive process rather than the actual architectural proposals they submit. We also note that in some jurisdictions in which the design competition model is used there have been instances in which individual jurors make contact with competition participants during the period leading up to the final judging process. The Institute considers it would be prudent to include in the policy or in written instructions to jury members the requirement that only the full jury should be engaged in any discussions with participants prior to the formal judging process. Maximum design requirements We are advised that in some instances architectural practices have prepared models, computer fly-throughs and other representations of the proposed design that exceed the maximum design requirements of the brief. The Institute 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 not specifically requested in the brief. Participating architects entering the competition should also be advised of this requirement, which accords with the Institute s Guidelines for Architectural Design Competitions. Recognition of prior involvement / site masterplanning Developers often ask architects to conduct feasibility studies for sites, testing controls etc as part of their due diligence prior to acquisition. The policy should acknowledge this practice so that architects providing this assistance are not excluded from the competition process. Any prior work of this kind should be included in the brief, so that architects in the competition have access to the same information as an architect who has previously assisted the client. The policy also does not take into account the increasing practice of architectural practices working closely with developers in exploring a range of design concepts in the masterplanning for key sites well before the commencement of the preparation of development applications. Without in any way wanting to limit potential design diversity, particularly for large sites, the Institute considers that the policy should recognize that this is 3

9 a desirable and increasingly prevalent development model and build acknowledgment of this work into the competition framework. One way of handling the design process for masterplanned sites is to use a design review panel as an alternative to the competition process. 4