PDA

View Full Version : East Darling Harbour Controversy?


dkidston
23-08-2005, 16:06
This letter was found on www.gravestmor.com (http://www.gravestmor.com/wp/index.php)



"I am writing with regards to the recent shortlist for the East Darling Harbour competition in particular the application of Section 5 Competition Conditions. I bring to your attention item 5.10 of these conditions.

5.10 Anonymity and Confidentiality

Strict anonymity is to be maintained by Entrants through Stage One of the Competition. The only means of identifying will be the use of the Entrants unique Identification Number on each panel as stipulated in Section 7 Submission Requirements. In order to preserve anonymity, all Stage One Submissions shall be made without any name, business name, logo or identification mark on the drawings.

Identifying marks such as names or logos evident on any Stage One submission will cause immediate disqualification.

A public announcement of those selected to participate in Stage Two will be made. Anonymity will not carry into Stage Two. However, all participants are required to maintain confidentiality through the Competition process.

No Entrant shall disclose, exhibit or publish the submitted proposals in any form until the completion of the Competition.

In respect to this clause there has been serious concern raised in regard to the compliance of Entrant # 70184 - Lippman Associates, Richard Rogers Partnership, Martha Schwartz Partners and Lend Lease Development. In the submitted documentation this entrant included well known and highly published work by Richard Rogers Partnership; in particular 88 Wood St, London.

We are confident that the architectural members of the jury would be very familiar with the work of Richard Rogers and due to the arrangement of the project references on the presentation panels there would be have been very little doubt as to the authorship of the submssion. As this is a jury that has members at the most senior levels of their profession it is expected that the Competition Conditions and Procedures would have been referred to in this situation. In reference to Section 6 Competition Procedures, the following item is noted:

6.4 Disqualification

Entrants that fail to meet a significant number of the Competition Conditions may be disqualified, in particular where:

- The submission is recieved after the lodgement time and date
- The jury deems the submssion to be contrary the objectives of the brief
- The submission is not submitted in accordance with the submssion requirements, as stated in the document
- The identity of an entrant is disclosed to the jury or any other deliberate offence against the principles of anonymity;
- An entrant attempts to influence any member of the jury; or
- Improperly influence the decision of the jury

On behalf of the competition entrants, clarification is sought by the Competition Registrar in regard to the compliance of Entrant #70184 and on what basis the submission was not considered for disqualification.

Regards,"
www.gravestmor.com :eek:

Tomorrow night I am going along to a public Critique where the finalist schemes are presented and a proffessional Jury will put forth give their thoughts and questions. Should be quite an interesting event.

cheers
dk

SWANK-E
24-08-2005, 04:02
Tomorrow night I am going along to a public Critique where the finalist schemes are presented and a professional Jury will put forth give their thoughts and questions. Should be quite an interesting event.

Where is that going to be and what time?

Gummy_Void
24-08-2005, 04:18
dk,
Have let my finger slip off the pulse a little with regard to this comp. Any details on the venue, time etc?

SWANK-E
24-08-2005, 04:22
6.4 Disqualification

Entrants that fail to meet a significant number of the Competition Conditions may be disqualified, in particular where:




That wording is very general so it's basically up to the judges' disgression in who they want to disqualify, even if they know who the entrants are.

Sad that there is a history of Australian competitions going for only famous big name entries. I guess Rogers just know the game. I would imagine internationally, that wouldn't be accepted.

dkidston
24-08-2005, 05:06
Where is that going to be and what time?

A Meeting for Community Consultation
Alternate Concepts for East Darling Harbour
Maintaining the Working Harbour
Wednesday 24 August 2005
5:45pm
Sydney Town Hall
George St
Sydney NSW 2000
All are welcome. The meeting will be in the Centennial Hall to ensure adequate seating. No registration is required. Confirmed speakers include The Leader of the NSW Opposition, The Lord Mayor of Sydney and a panel of eminent planners, architects, transport and maritime experts. Justice Barry O'Keefe will chair the meeting. An invitation has also been forwarded to the new NSW Premier.


hope this helps, i was even vague on details till a moment ago.
cheers
dk

SWANK-E
24-08-2005, 07:18
Dear www.gravestmor.com

East Darling Harbour Urban Design Competition

I refer to your e-mail of 22 August addressed to Chris Johnson as Jury Chair of the East Darling Harbour Urban Design Competition. I wish to advise the following in relation to your concerns regarding Entry No 70184.

Entry 70184 was not in breach of clause 5.10 as it did not provide any “name, business name or logo or identification mark on the drawings”. Inclusion of imagery of built structures is not a breach of this clause and is a common technique in design competitions to illustrate the proposed design language of a proposal. It is inevitable that in a field of 137 entrants there will be visual details - such as images, drawing styles, architectural signatures or graphic languages - that may or may not be clues to an entrant’s identity. If a Registrar were to exclude entrants on this basis then no architect with a clearly identifiable style could enter.

In this case however I can advise that during the entire Jury deliberation no Jury member raised the potential identity of this scheme or any other scheme.

I have also raised the matter with Jury Chair Chris Johnson, who advises, “In judging architectural competitions it is sometimes tempting for jurors with knowledge of the industry to speculate on the identity of entrants based on visible elements. In the case of the East Darling Harbour Competition this was less likely as the Jury was unusual in having architects in the minority - a deliberate strategy by the Government to ensure a wide range of views and professions represented in the Jury. Further, it has been my experience from numerous competitions that such speculation is more often than not incorrect, a point which I made to the Jury during the process. The Jury debate and discussion focussed on the merits of schemes and at no time referred to potential entrant identities.”

I trust this provides you with the information and assurance you require. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can assist further.

Yours sincerely

Russell Rodrigo
Registrar
East Darling Harbour Urban Design Competition

dkidston
30-08-2005, 06:12
Well, this event was not quite what I thought it was. It was actually a public meeting held be some lobby group to maintain a "working harbour". I must say I am sympathetic to their cause. The NSW government has announced in 2003 (I think) that all the freight being shipped into Sydney Harbour is going to be dramatically scaled back. Effectively only leaving the Harbour only for ferries and pleasure craft, and I do believe this will remove allot of the life of the Harbour, which Sydney is so famous for. What its does do is open up large water front sites for the greedy inconsiderate developers and the government stands to profit big time.

However that aside, there was a review of the current schemes that have been proposed for the site... well in passing anyway. There where 2 architects 1 planner on the panel. The planner took a very conventional approach to the review and looked at each scheme in relation to the current city plans in places... not particularly interesting; he gave particular credit to the Hill Thalis proposal.

The next two architects, Lawrence Nield and Richard Leplastrier both attacked the brief put forth by the government and the way the competition was run. Of cause they both put forth also ideas of how this could have been improved.

Richard's approach was aimed at understanding the harbour and the culture of the wharves to put together a more appropriate brief... he dub the location "West Rock's Docks" as apposed to the idea of east darling harbour, a continuation of the existing area. He also gave particular mention to the Hill Thalis scheme given the brief put forth.

Finally Lawrence launched his attack on the brief and the competition process and put forth various other models that could have been used.

All in all I learnt much form this event, but sadly I thing Sydney has squandered a wonderful opportunity.
:cheers:
dk

mikem oz
30-08-2005, 06:57
Governments tend to look only at the gains to their coffers, forgetting that they are selling off something which belongs to the general population. The access and views will be gone forever for the general public, and in real terms at a paltry cost.

The developers don't want it pointed out that the profits they make are primarily from selling location and views which actually belong to the people, and very little else.

Just occassionally it would be nice to see a government take a bigger picture and give something back to the broader community. Where is the vision that created the parks and public places that we all enjoy in our cities.

Can one really imagine a government of today creating something like New York's Central Park or London's Hyde Park. It just wouldn't happen!