Home | City of Fremantle - JURY REPORT REVb...The jury went through a series of iterations,...

Published by City of Fremantle December 2013

KINGS SQUARE ARCHITECTURAL COMPETITION │ JURY REPORT

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Assessment Criteria ............................................................................................ 3 1.3 Jury Members ..................................................................................................... 4

2. PROGRAM ............................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Stage 1 Jury - Day One ....................................................................................... 5 2.2 Stage 1 Jury - Day Two ...................................................................................... 6 2.3 Stage 2 Jury - Day One ....................................................................................... 7 2.4 Stage 2 Jury - Day Two ...................................................................................... 8

3. JURY RESPONSE AND SELECTION OF WINNER ......................................................... 9

Jury Responses to Assessment Criteria for shortlisted entries .................................... 9 3.1 CODA Competitor 14 ............................................................................................. 9 3.2 Kerry Hill Architects (KHA) Competitor 133 ....................................................... 13 3.3 McBride Charles Ryan (MCR) Competitor 140 .................................................... 17

4. JURY OBSERVATIONS AND DECISION .................................................................... 21

5. LIST OF COMPETITORS ......................................................................................... 23


CITY OF FREMANTLE │ KINGS SQUARE ARCHITECTURAL COMPETITION │ P 1

Fremantle viewed from the south west



Central Fremantle showing the location of Kings Square in red.



1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose

The purpose of the Kings Square architectural design competition is to select a design concept approach and design team to develop core facilities for the City of Fremantle in Kings Square.

The competition Conditions and Brief identified the following intent and criteria to be used to evaluate the submitted entries:

Intent

The redevelopment of Kings Square will:

1. produce an outstanding and imaginative contemporary building that is capable of changing functions and priorities over time,

2. achieve defined sustainability outcomes, and be an exemplar for environmentally sustainable development,

3. re-establish the centre of Fremantle,

4. create a delightful place for the community to use and enjoy,

5. be a memorable and unique design,

6. interpret the City’s history, current requirements and future direction and

7. successfully re-establish the qualities of Kings Square.

1.2 Assessment Criteria

1. Achievement of design excellence incorporating all of the above in an appropriate solution.

2. Satisfying the urban design objectives for Kings Square as enunciated in the UDS and achieving the civic, cultural and environmental outcomes sought by the City.

3. Achieving a sustainable exemplar development that is cost-effective, efficient and economical to maintain.

4. Accommodating the functional requirements of the City Offices and Library and Town Hall.

5. Responding to the physical site characteristics and constraints.

6. Meeting the business plan expectations.

7. Demonstrating viability in delivery, particularly with regard to the budget.

8. Providing for substantial adaptability of spaces, enabling possible changes in functional needs well into the future.

9. Satisfying the relevant provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and planning policy LPP3.1.5.



1.3 Jury Members

Ms Shelley Penn Immediate Past National President Australian Institute of Architects Jury Chair Cr Andrew Sullivan Councillor, City of Fremantle and Architect Representing the Mayor of the City of Fremantle Ms Gina Binet Heritage Architect, City of Fremantle Representing the City of Fremantle CEO (Stage 1) Mr Alan Kelsall City of Fremantle Heritage Co-ordinator Architect Representing the City of Fremantle CEO (Stage 2) Mr Dominic Snellgrove Partner CCN Architects Member, City of Fremantle Design Advisory Committee Ms Melinda Payne Associate to the West Australian Government Architect Member, City of Fremantle Design Advisory Committee

From the left: Dominic Snellgrove, Alan Kelsall, Melinda Payne, Shelley Penn and Andrew Sullivan



2. PROGRAM The competition attracted 139 registrations, 81 from Western Australia, 24 from New South Wales, 19 from Victoria, 7 from overseas, 3 from the Australian Capital Territory, 2 from South Australia and Tasmania and 1 from Queensland. Some firms recorded more than 1 registration, as permitted under the competition conditions. Several were removed due to compliance issues. 54 of the registrants submitted entries.

2.1 Stage 1 Jury - Day One

Monday, 21 October 2013 The purpose of Stage 1 was to select a shortlist of three submissions to be invited to submit to Stage 2.

In attendance:

Shelley Penn Jury Chair Ian James Competition Manager Dominic Snellgrove Juror Geoffrey London Competition Advisor Andrew Sullivan Juror Glenn Stroud Probity Advisor Melinda Payne Juror Craig Smith Competition Technical Advisor Gena Binet (for Alan Kelsall) Juror The jury convened at 10.00am on the morning of 21 October 2013. They were welcomed by Ian James, the competition manager, who introduced them to the key aims of the competition. They were then addressed by Glenn Stroud on competition probity matters. A number of declarations of interest were made, but none were deemed to be problematic.

Geoffrey London discussed the jury process and it was agreed that the shortlist of three should be augmented by two reserves. He reiterated the obligations of the jury, together with the responsibilities associated with endorsement of the competition by the Australian Institute of Architects.

Shelley Penn spoke about the process of eliminating entries in a way that enabled revisiting projects in a reiterative manner. She expressed a desire to achieve consensus about the decisions being made but acknowledged that, if necessary, the jury would abide by a majority decision.

The issue of compliance and non-compliance with the brief was discussed. It was agreed that all submitted projects be scrutinised and determinations made about disqualification if necessary.

Discussion occurred around the brief and the City’s civic and commercial expectations. This included a discussion around the City’s Business Plan and its agreement with Sirona.

Each member nominated up to 10 submissions that they wished to be considered, which created a list of 26 submissions. They were then reviewed in greater detail, including the 3D models. All 12 of the single vote submissions were deleted. Of the 7 that received two votes 5 were deleted and 2 retained.

The remainder were discussed in more detail and the jury cast votes for the shortlist of three. Numbers 14 and 133 each received support from all 5 jurors and were included in the shortlist. After further discussion, submissions 148, 140 and 40 were ranked in that order.

It was agreed that final ranking be considered on day two.



2.2 Stage 1 Jury - Day Two

Tuesday, 22 October 2013

In attendance:

Shelley Penn Jury Chair Ian James Competition Manager Dominic Snellgrove Juror Geoffrey London Competition Advisor Andrew Sullivan Juror Glenn Stroud Probity Advisor Melinda Payne Juror Gena Binet (for Alan Kelsall) Juror

All remaining submissions were reviewed again and one more submission, number 39, was added to the three still being considered for the final shortlist position. These four were then examined further and submission 148 was removed from consideration.

The chair encouraged the jurors to look not only at how well the criteria were satisfied but also at their potential to do so in Stage 2. The criteria were discussed in turn in relation to each of the submissions and judgments made about how well they were met.

Commentary on sustainability included the observation that the submission numbers 14 and 133 have very well-developed sustainability considerations, number 40 is satisfactory, and numbers 140 and 39 are unconsidered.

The following were shortlisted: Competitor 14, Competitor 133 and Competitor 140 and the reserved submissions were: Competitor 40 and Competitor 39.

Entrant 39 David Barr Architect

Philip Stejskal Architecture and Ross Brewin Architecture & Urbanism

Entrant 40 Armstrong Parkin Architects

Entrant 148

Lee Syminton Architect



2.3 Stage 2 Jury - Day One

Monday, 9 December 2013 In attendance:

Shelley Penn Jury Chair Dominic Snellgrove Juror Andrew Sullivan Juror Melinda Payne Juror Alan Kelsall Juror Ian James Competition Manager Geoffrey London Competition Advisor Glenn Stroud Probity Advisor Craig Smith Competition Technical Advisor (after presentations)

The jury convened at 9.30am on the morning of 9 December 2013.

Geoffrey London reiterated the need to assess in accordance with the competition brief, conditions and assessment criteria.

Presentations by the three shortlisted teams followed with questions posed by the jurors after each presentation, in accordance with the following timetable:

10.00 - 10.45am Presentation by entrant 14 CODA

10.45 - 11.10am Questions to entrant 14

11.30 – 12.15pm Presentation by entrant 133 Kerry Hill Architects

12.15 – 12.40pm Questions to entrant 133

1.30 – 2.15pm Presentation by entrant 140 McBride Charles Ryan

2.15 – 2.40pm Questions to entrant 140

Discussion of each took place after each of the presentations. Included in the discussions, to help inform assessment criteria was the independent set of cost estimates for each of the three proposals prepared for the City by RBB. It was noted that all submissions were estimated at being outside the project budget, with Kerry Hill Architects assessed as the least expensive in terms of both project cost and area rates.

At the conclusion of the three presentations each of the submissions was discussed at length in terms of the established competition assessment criteria and the competition intent.



2.4 Stage 2 Jury - Day Two

10 December 2013

In attendance:

Shelley Penn Jury Chair Dominic Snellgrove Juror Andrew Sullivan Juror Melinda Payne Juror Alan Kelsall Juror Ian James Competition Manager Geoffrey London Competition Advisor Glenn Stroud Probity Advisor

The jury went through a series of iterations, collectively and individually, of their responses to the presentations to assist in making a final selection.

The jury was reminded that the presenters had only four weeks to prepare their designs beyond Stage 1 and that, inevitably, in all of them, there would be unresolved design issues. The winner will need strong guidance from the City in terms of client needs and then further assistance from the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) in finalising their design.

Three blind votes were held to assist in reducing the competitors to two, to test the closeness to a clear decision, and then to make a decision. The intervening debates were detailed and highly considered.



3. JURY RESPONSE AND SELECTION OF WINNER Jury Responses to Assessment Criteria for shortlisted entries

3.1 CODA Competitor 14

The CODA presentation argued that their project allowed ‘multiple readings, multiple uses, multiple cities to co-exist and collide.’ They spoke of a number of key informing ideas for their design arising from a close analysis of the geometry and form of Fremantle, including the ‘inner world’ of the city blocks, ‘bricolage’ and the concept of buildings as fragments, the use of ‘thick walls’ and hard edges, the triangle as a recurring Fremantle geometric figure, remaking, recasting and celebrating the presence of traces of the past. The Urban Room is proposed as a confluence of all elements of the building, with the building compressed to the edges of the site and made as active as possible. The Bazaar space, connecting the Urban Room to Newman Court, is to be an amalgam of different forms and uses.

There was extended discussion about the incorporation of local artists’ work into the public art of the project.

They advised that, should they be successful, they will be working with BVN Donovan Hill, with Abbie Galvin as a design director joining the two CODA directors.



Response to assessment criteria:

1. Achievement of design excellence incorporating all of the above in an appropriate solution

The jury recognized a degree of delight in the playfulness and urban responsiveness and configuration of the project. It offered a quirky, particular and potentially engaging kind of local urban experience. The forming of the architecture requires development, strengthening and additional resolution to ensure the design excellence and success of the proposed ‘bricolage.’

2. Satisfying the urban design objectives for Kings Square as enunciated in the UDS and achieve the civic, cultural and environmental outcomes sought by the City

The urban design was seen to be nuanced and highly considered, permeable and legible, with many opportunities for programmable external spaces and a successful ‘urban room.’


The sustainable design proposition is comprehensive, layered and extensive.


This aspect was seen to work well at both a macro and micro level.


A clear and considered response that promotes a strong idea of local ‘grain.’


The expectations were considered to be met.


The proposal is considered to be robust, exceeding area requirements but with an advised acceptable square metre construction cost. There was confidence gained in terms of capacity to deliver with the proposal to join with BVN Donovan Hill.



9. Satisfying the relevant provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and planning policy LPP3.1.5




CODA – Site Plan



CODA – Top: Urban Room, Bottom: High Street



3.2 Kerry Hill Architects (KHA) Competitor 133

The KHA submission builds out to the site boundaries to complete the triangle of Kings Square but pulled back from High Street by about 5m to allow more ‘breathing space’ opposite the church. Three key civic spaces are proposed – the inclined plane of the City Lawn, the Veranda, and the Civic Drum. The intention is to establish a civic presence and a degree of formality, but to generate sufficient informal spaces to invite relaxed public participation.

The Civic Drum, expressed in the form of a sandstone cylinder, contains a number of public functions: council chamber on top, staff lounges, community room, exhibition, and multi-purpose room to the library in the basement. The library, organised on a single floor plane, is located under the City Lawn with its side glass walls allowing the library to be visible from the ground plane. It has a separate entrance which also provides a foyer to the town hall and a gallery space.

The Council offices are entered from a space off Newman Court which connects through to Kings Square. The materials palette is restrained and limited to stone, glass and white masonry panels.



Response to assessment criteria:

1. Achievement of design excellence incorporating all of the above in an appropriate solution

There is delight in the spatial development, a simplicity and strength in the forms and the use of a distinctive inclined grass plane as the urban room. Further development of building detail is required to provide a convincing resolution of concerns about the severity, formality and perceived scale of the building.


The powerful urban gesture of the grass plane and the design proposal for the full Kings Square provides a strong civic outcome. Further details are required about activation, passive surveillance and permeability.


The expectations were considered to be met but could be further developed.


The expectations were considered to be met, with the library on a single level a particularly positive outcome but with questions around legibility and access.


The expectations were considered to be met but with the need, in development, to avoid the potential of a generic modernist outcome.


The expectations were considered to be met but with the expectation of further activation on the ground plane.


The proposal is considered to be large in area but an acceptable square metre construction cost has been advised.


The library is a flexible and adaptable space, the northern pod offers flexible opportunities but the office spaces may be constrained by the proposed formal architectural strategies.





KHA – Site Plan



KHA –Top: Urban Room, Bottom: High Street



3.3 McBride Charles Ryan (MCR) Competitor 140

MCR saw the central challenge as creating a new civic heart for the city, capitalising on the city’s assets, and providing ‘a place like no other.’ Their intent was also to build out the triangle of the site while maintaining a high degree of permeability, both functional and visual. Voids are placed in the triangle with the intent of connecting and involving building inhabitants and also as an instrument for ESD purposes. The council chamber, civic and reception spaces are designed to react with the public realm, to offer a ‘visibility of governance’ and ‘encourage people to become involved in the running of the city.’

MCR proposed using the dodecagon and triangle as the over-riding geometry to ‘hold together’ the project. They are keen to produce a building that is both playful and exuberant, that plays with symmetry and deals with ‘parts.’ They proposed using polished and unpolished precast concrete to the façades, responding to the robust masonry nature of the city, but using timber in the urban room, referring to sitting under a tree canopy. Each façade is articulated differently to respond to orientation via opening size, sunshades, and materials.

The sustainability approach is integrated, with the intent of using the Fremantle Doctor, reducing the need for non-renewable resources and with the potential to offer substantial whole-of-life savings.



Response to assessment criteria: 1. Achievement of design excellence incorporating all of the above in an appropriate

solution

The proposal was judged to be dynamic, distinctive and memorable, with an optimistic new set of architectural forms presented to the Square that respond to both civic scale and urban grain. The success of the project will be dependent on delivery of the level of crafted detail proposed and avoiding of any reading of a commercial approach.


The proposal emerged from a thoughtful analysis of connections, responses to climate, safety concerns and level of activation. The quality of the colonnade experience and urban room need further consideration.


The expectations were considered to be met but could be further developed.


The expectations were considered to be met, although there were concerns about the adequacy and appropriateness of the response to the Town Hall interface.


A good analysis that has resulted in an abstracted response that nevertheless functions well.




A high square metre construction rate was advised and questions were raised about how well the design may survive a value management process. While the MCR team has good experience with the materials proposed to be used, the proposal would provide a challenge to local builders.


The design was considered to have sufficient flexibility at a macro level.





MCR: Site Plan



MCR - Top: Urban Room, Bottom: High Street



4. JURY OBSERVATIONS AND DECISION As with Stage 1, the jury was delighted with the quality of the Stage 2 submissions.

The three shortlisted proposals from Stage 1 were very different in architectural approach, diverging even further in Stage 2 and making the jury’s task of selecting the winning design particularly difficult.

It was noted that the winning design will be setting benchmarks, demonstrating what the City and the City’s DAC are keen to support and what they regard as design excellence.

All three designs propose strong architectural ideas but, after a short four week Stage 2 design process, all require further work to develop them and resolve a number of identified problems. This will need to occur with the selected design team working in association with the City as client and with the DAC as design reviewers.

It was further noted that the jury needed to feel confident that the necessary design ideas and ‘bones’ are there for those next steps and that the selected team has the capacity to deliver what their design promises.

The jury determined that the submission by Kerry Hill Architects was of exemplary quality and had the necessary design ideas and bones to make it capable of being developed into a project that would engender a high level of community pride. Its key strategies, the inclined plane of the City Lawn, the Veranda, and the Civic Drum were applauded and judged to offer Fremantle a distinctive new public facility. The design team also proposed a comprehensive urban redesign of Kings Square which, together with the strong relationship between Square and building, formed a particularly civic outcome.

As the proposal selected to proceed, it will enter a process of design development guided by a set of issues to be prepared by the jury.

The jury determined that the submission by McBride Charles Ryan be placed second and that it should become the selected design if the City is unable to enter into agreement with Kerry Hill Architects to proceed.

The jury again endorsed the City’s decision to commission this important project through a design-led process and congratulated all three shortlisted teams for producing such a strong set of proposals.

The chair thanked the jury and acknowledged their commitment to a thoroughly considered and fair process.

The Jury determined that competitor 133, Kerry Hill Architects, be selected as the winner and they be commissioned by the City of Fremantle to undertake the design and delivery of the project.

The original copy of this report was signed as an accurate record by the jury members and witnessed by the probity advisor.

Shelley Penn Jury Chair December 2013



KHA – Winning Scheme Elevations Top: High St, Middle Newman Court, Bottom: William Street



5. LIST OF COMPETITORS Included below are all the submissions accepted for the competition.

No. Entrant City or Town State

14 CODA Fremantle WA

17 Kerry Hill Architects Fremantle WA

20 Braham Architects Fremantle WA

23 Ferguson Architects West Perth WA

24 Post‐Architecture Perth WA

26 Gresley Abas Architects Perth WA

30 Mark Aronson Architecture Nedlands WA

31 Sandover Pinder Pty Ltd Perth WA

34 Brooking Design Architects Fremantle WA

36 Formworks Architecture North Fremantle WA

39 David Barr Architect, Philip Stejskal Architecture, Ross Brewin Architecture + Urbanism

South Fremantle WA

40 Armstrong Parkin Architects Fremantle WA

42 Pendal and Neille Architects West Leederville WA

49 CHRISTOU Design Group Pty Ltd Claremont WA

53 Peter Hunt Daryl Jackson Architects West Perth WA

60 Trinty Plus One Glen Waverley VIC

61 Bernard Seeber Pty Ltd Fremantle WA

62 T&Z Architects + felix West Perth WA

66 Officer Woods Architects Fremantle WA

68 Geoffrey Falk Abbotsford VIC

69 HBO+EMTB Perth WA

77 Fratelle Group Pty Ltd Perth WA

80 Mike Edwards Design Mount Pleasant WA

85 Lippmann Partnership Surry Hills NSW

87 DesignInc Adelaide SA

94 Workshop Architecture West Melbourne VIC

96 Ancher Mortlock Woolley Ultimo NSW

101 SPH architecture + interiors in association with Griffiths Architects

West Leederville WA



No. Entrant City or Town State

102 CANDALEPAS ASSOCIATES Sydney NSW

104 SL Architecture Melbourne VIC

105 EHDO + BLOXAS + Andy Yu Architects White Gum Valley WA

109 SIA PTY LTD, AURA PTY LTD East Fremantle WA

114 Russell & George Windsor VIC

115 David Ma, Joanne Yong, Mark Law Cannington WA

118 Rijavec Architects Melbourne VIC

124 BOLLES+WILSON and Iredale Pedersen Hook Architects

Perth WA

129 Hobbs+DLA Australia+WM Perth WA


136 MRJPA North Adelaide SA

139 Luigi Rosselli Architects Surry Hills NSW

140 McBride Charles Ryan Melbourne VIC

142 JAMPJC Victoria Park WA

143 antarctica Melbourne VIC

144 Andrew Burns Architects Chippendale NSW

145 Cox Howlett + Bailey Woodland Architects in association with TCL

Perth WA


148 Lee Syminton Architect Woodbridge WA

149 Hames Sharley + Evanslane Subiaco WA

152 FtAsMt Group New York NY USA

157 Donaldson and Warn Architects Perth WA

158 Oculus Newtown NSW

160 The Buchan Group Partnership Perth WA

161 STUDIO HAPTIC and A Vela Unvelum Darlinghurst NSW

164 CSG2 Innaloo WA

Home | City of Fremantle - JURY REPORT REVb...The jury went through a series of iterations,...

Documents

Transcript of Home | City of Fremantle - JURY REPORT REVb...The jury went through a series of iterations,...