DOCSLIB.ORG

Attachment D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Attachment D Attachment D Design Competition Jury Report ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COMPETITION REPORT 210-220 GEORGE STREET SYDNEY 25 AUGUST 2017 PREPARED FOR POLY AUSTRALIA URBIS STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS REPORT WERE: Director Clare Brown Consultant Toni Walter Project Code SA6404 Report Number 210-220 George Street, Architectural Design Competition Report (FINAL) JURY MEMBER ENDORSEMENT Name Signature Date Peter Mould 20 August 2017 Helen Lochhead 21 August 2017 William Smart 21 August 2017 Xiaowei Xue 21 August 2017 Steve Wang 23 August 2017 Baijian Yang 21 August 2017 © Urbis Pty Ltd ABN 50 105 256 228 All Rights Reserved. No material may be reproduced without prior permission. You must read the important disclaimer appearing within the body of this report. urbis.com.au CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Site Description ..................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3. The Proponent ...................................................................................................................................... 2 1.4. The Consent Authority .......................................................................................................................... 2 1.5. Regulatory Framework ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.6. Assessment of the Scheme and Winning Design ................................................................................. 2 2. Architectural Design Competition Process ........................................................................................... 3 2.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2. Participating Architectural Firms ........................................................................................................... 3 2.3. Technical Advisors ................................................................................................................................ 4 2.4. Consent Authority Observers ................................................................................................................ 4 2.5. Jury ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.6. Key Dates of Architectural Design Competition .................................................................................... 5 3. Assessment of Final Submissions ........................................................................................................ 6 3.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2. BVN ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 3.3. DBJ ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 3.4. Hassell ................................................................................................................................................ 11 3.5. PTW / SOM San Francisco ................................................................................................................. 13 3.6. Fitzpatrick + Partners .......................................................................................................................... 15 3.7. Grimshaw ............................................................................................................................................ 17 4. Jury Recommendation ........................................................................................................................ 19 5. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 20 Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 Appendix A Architectural Design Competition Brief FIGURES: Figure 1 – Indicative Ground Level Perspective of BVN Scheme ...................................................................... 7 Figure 2 – Indicative Podium Perspective of BVN Scheme ............................................................................... 8 Figure 3 – Indicative Podium Perspective of DBJ Scheme ................................................................................ 9 Figure 4 – Indicative Ground Level Perspective of DBJ Scheme .................................................................... 10 Figure 5 – Indicative Ground Level Perspective of Hassell Scheme ............................................................... 11 Figure 6 – Indicative Podium Perspective of Hassell Scheme ......................................................................... 12 Figure 7 – Indicative Aerial Perspective of PTW / SOM Scheme .................................................................... 13 Figure 8 – Indicative Ground Level Perspective of PTW / SOM Scheme ........................................................ 14 Figure 9 – Indicative Podium Perspective of Fitzpatrick + Partners Scheme .................................................. 15 Figure 10 – Indicative Ground Level Perspective of Fitzpatrick + Partners Scheme ....................................... 16 Figure 11 – Indicative Ground Level Perspective of Grimshaw Scheme ......................................................... 17 Figure 12 – Indicative Tower Perspective of Grimshaw Scheme ..................................................................... 18 TABLES: Table 1 – Technical Advisors ............................................................................................................................. 4 URBIS SA6404_210-220 GEORGE STREET_DESIGN COMPETITION REPORT (FINAL)_REV01 Table 1 – Key Dates of Architectural Design Competition ................................................................................. 5 URBIS SA6404_210-220 GEORGE STREET_DESIGN COMPETITION REPORT (FINAL)_REV01 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. OVERVIEW The purpose of this Architectural Design Competition Report is to inform the City of Sydney Council (City of Sydney) of the process and outcomes of the Architectural Design Competition (Competitive Design Process) for the redevelopment of 210-220 George Street, Sydney, and the selection of the winning architectural design. Poly Australia (the Proponent) invited six competitors to participate in the Architectural Design Competition and prepare design proposals for the site. The six architectural firms that participated in the Competitive Design Process were: • Hassell • Fitzpatrick + Partners • BVN • Grimshaw • PTW in association with Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SOM) San Francisco (local and international partner) • DBJ (emerging architectural firm) All six competitors participated in the Competitive Design Process and produced a final submission for consideration and assessment by the Jury. The Competitive Design Process was undertaken in accordance with the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Sydney LEP 2012), the Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 (Sydney DCP 2012), and the City of Sydney Competitive Design Policy 2012. Clause 3.5 of the City of Sydney Competitive Design Policy 2012 sets out the requirements for an Architectural Design Competition Report, as follows: (1) Following its determination, the jury is required to prepare a report (to be referred to as the Architectural Design Competition Report) detailing: (a) The competition process and incorporating a copy of the competition brief; (b) The jury’s assessment of the design merits of each of the entries; (c) The rationale for the choice of preferred design which must clearly demonstrate how it best exhibits design excellence in accordance with the provisions of Clause 6.21(4) of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the approved Design Excellence Strategy; and (d) An outline of any further recommended design amendments or proposed conditions of development consent that are relevant to the achievement of design excellence. (2) The jury is expected to reach a decision on whether to request a redesign within 14 days and will submit a jury report (referred to as the Architectural Design Competition Report) to the developer and the consent authority, within 14 days of its decision. (3) Following the jury’s decision, the consent authority may require the developer to hold a public exhibition of the design competition entries. This report has been prepared in accordance with this Clause and outlines the Competitive Design Process, the Jury’s assessment of each scheme, and demonstrates the Jury’s rationale for selection of the winning scheme. Each Jury member has reviewed and endorsed the content contained within this report. The Competitive Design Process was undertaken in accordance with the approved Design Excellence
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Accelerating Net-Zero High-Rise Residential Buildings in Australia
    Accelerating Net-Zero High-Rise Residential Buildings in Australia Final Report transport | community | mining | industrial | food & beverage | carbon & energy Prepared for: City of Sydney Client representative: Chris Derksema Nik Midlam Date: 31 August 2016 In association with: Inspired thinking embracing the challenges of a changing world. Acknowledgement pitt&sherry would like to acknowledge the organisations and individuals who made this project possible. Firstly the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance (CNCA) and philanthropies which funded this work in recognition of the global imperative for net-zero buildings as an essential part of a low-carbon and prosperous future. The City of Sydney for scoping and commissioning this work, with assistance from the City of Melbourne. Also the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, The Green Building Council of Australia, the Property Council of Australia, the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, members of the City of Sydney Residential Stakeholders Working Group and staff and others who have all provided input to this report. Very considerable contribution was made to this report by Mike Rainbow and Jan Talacko of ark resources, particularly in Chapters 3 and 4. We would like to acknowledge the developers whose actual buildings in Sydney and Melbourne were modelled, Ecove Pty (Australia Towers) and Innovative Construction & Development Pty Ltd (EQ Tower). Finally, we would like to acknowledge the large number of excellent comments received on the draft report from a wide range of stakeholders, which we have done our best to reflect in this final report. Prepared by: Philip Harrington Date: 31 August 2016 Reviewed by: Mark Johnston Date: 31 August 2016 Authorised by: Philip Harrington Date: 31 August 2016 Revision History Rev Description Prepared by Reviewed by Authorised by Date No.
    [Show full text]
  • Australia's Martial Madonna: the Army Nurse's Commemoration in Stained
    Australia’s Martial Madonna: the army nurse’s commemoration in stained glass windows (1919-1951) Susan Elizabeth Mary Kellett, RN Bachelor of Nursing (Honours), Graduate Diploma of Nursing (Perioperative) A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2016 School of History and Philosophical Enquiry Abstract This thesis examines the portrayal of the army nurse in commemorative stained glass windows commissioned between 1919 and 1951. In doing so, it contests the prevailing understanding of war memorialisation in Australia by examining the agency of Australia’s churches and their members – whether clergy or parishioner – in the years following World Wars I and II. Iconography privileging the nurse was omitted from most civic war memorials following World War I when many communities used the idealised form of an infantryman to assuage their collective grief and recognise the service of returned menfolk to King and Country. Australia’s religious spaces were also deployed as commemorative spaces and the site of the nurse’s remembrance as the more democratic processes of parishes and dioceses that lost a member of the nursing services gave sanctuary to her memory, alongside a range of other service personnel, in their windows. The nurse’s depiction in stained glass was influenced by architectural relationships and socio- political dynamics occurring in the period following World War I. This thesis argues that her portrayal was also nuanced by those who created these lights. Politically, whether patron or artist, those personally involved in the prosecution of war generally facilitated equality in remembrance while citizens who had not frequently exploited memory for individual or financial gain.
    [Show full text]
  • The Work of the Nsw Government Architect's Branch- 1958-1973
    THE WORK OF THE NSW GOVERNMENT ARCHITECT'S BRANCH- 1958-1973 M. ARCH.DEGREE THESIS FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Russell C.Jack 1980 The material contained in this thesis has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other university or institution. IC RUSSELL C. JACK. A—..^ */ '9&o ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. The author wishes to thank:- Richard E. Apperly, his supervisor, for constructive advice, encouragement and assistance throughout the thesis. E.H. Farmer for several long interviews, the loan of personal material and for valuable assistance in reading and correcting draft material. The late Cobden Parkes for an interview in 1977. J.W. Thomson, the present Government Architect, for reading and correcting draft material and his permission to use the many facilities of the Government Architect's Branch. G.P. Webber and P.B. Hall for similar assistance in reading and correcting draft material. The following members both past and present, of the Government Architect's Branch who have helped the author with interviews or answered his questionnaire:- A. Andersons especially, for many discussions and the loan of a number of his own documentary records of the Branch's work. D. Anderson, S. Bishop, P. Bridges, A. Brunker, R. Bryant, D. Churches, E. Claire, D. Coleman, A. Correy, R. Dinham, M. Dysart, L. Glendenning, W. Kingston, R. Kirkwood, 0. Kosterin, L. Kristensen, B. MacDonald, J. McKinney, J. Nicholas, D. Orr, J. Paynter, P. Proudfoot, J. Rabong, L. Reedman, V. Selig, B. Sneyd, C. Still, K. Thirsk, D. Turner* J. Van der Steen, C. Weatherburn and K.
    [Show full text]
  • The York Street Wall
    THE YORK STREET WALL A conservation study of an early high rise streetscape in York Street Sydney. Final Submission Colin Brady B.Sc. t3.Arch. Subject ref. 39.llOG Graduate Project M:B:ENV. Nov 1987 ABSTRACT The high rise building emerged as a key element in the growth of western cities through the period 1870-1940. This report based upon surviving examples in York Street Sydney examines the emergence of the early high rise building type and its formation of a characteristically walled streetscape from which the report takes its title. With a view to establishing the cultural significance of this grouping (streetscape) this report traces the varying forces behind its development. The development of Sydney 1 s streetplan from 1788, the economic boom and recession of the late 19th Century and the continuous importation and adaption of technologies are reviewed in terms of their effects upon the growth of York Street. As essential as the physical and economic factors in terms of growth was public and professional acceptance of the high rise building. The debate as to the acceptability of this new building form and its correct aesthetic treatment in Sydney is discussed in parallel to the physical growth of York Street. A case is established for an internationally accepted image of the high rise city streetscape based upon North American precedents both real and conceptualised. The adaptation of this imagery to York Street is explained as the basis for the overall cohesiveness of the divergent architectural styles evident in the street. Examination of documentary evidence and the buildings remaining from the period points to a sharp termination of these generative forces at the outreak of World War 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Twelfth Session, Commencing at 11.30 Am
    Twelfth Session, Commencing at 11.30 am COMMEMORATIVE MEDALS 3127 House of Hawke, (1980), fi ftieth year investment ingot in fi ne silver (30g; 40mm); Launch of the Countrylink Explorer, undated (1993), in bronze (60mm), cased; 150 Years of Catholic Schooling, 1845-1995, in bronze and enamel and lacquered (65mm), with suspension ring; Historic House Trust New South Wales, 2004, Sydney Mint, in bronze (40mm); Neva The First Russian Ship in Australia 200th Anniversary, 1807-2007, in bronze (49.5mm), in case with certifi cate (300 mintage); The University of Sydney, undated, in bronze (51mm), obverse, university crest, reverse, Harbour Bridge, Opera House and yacht; City of Sydney medals, undated, in bronze (57mm) (2), obverse, crest of City, reverse, partial crest at top with provision for naming below. Uncirculated. (8) $150 part 3128* Northam's Avon Descent medal, 1980, in bronze (51mm), with suspension ring and loop, inscribed to, 'R.Silberstein'; Harness Racing Board Drivers Achievement Award, undated, in bronze (57mm), obverse, T.E. Demmler World Driving Champion 1987, unnamed; Australian Maccabi Council Interstate Sports Carnival, Sydney 1973-74, in bronze (51mm), for Lawn Bowls, unnamed; S.A. Amateur Swimming Association Profi ciency medal, in silvered (32mm), with suspension ring, unnamed; Rotary Club of Frankston Central, Annual Business Luncheon Grand Prix Special Mornington Racecourse, April 28th 1995, in bronze (47mm) (2, one with case), both unnamed. Extremely fi ne - uncirculated. (6) $100 The Avon Descent is an annual 2-day white water event held in August for paddle craft and small motor boats starting at the town of Northam and running along the Avon and Swan rivers to Perth.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment A1
    ATTACHMENT A1 DRAFT SCHEDULE 5 Part 1 Heritage items Property Signifi Item Suburb Item Name Address Description cance No - various - Busby’s Bore 1 Lot 1528, DP State I1 752011, Lots 1–2 Sec 3, DP 4599 (SP 623), Lots D–E, DP 33410, Lot J, DP 33411, Lot 1, DP 51145, Lot 5, DP 59752, Lot 1, DP 59808, Lot 1, DP 70537, Lot 1, DP 75105, Lots 1–2, DP 130269, Lot 1, DP 137013, Lot 1, DP 199965, Lot 1, DP 205794, Lot A, DP 377984, Lots A–C, DP 434226, Lots A–C, DP 440596, Lot 1, DP 446553, Lot 1, DP 564681, Lot 1, DP 603938, Lot 1, DP 604127, Lot 1, DP 708719 (SP 22113), Page 1 C:\Docs\ep\e2009-162\d03\FreeForm-1.fm 21/6/10, 02:34 pm Property Signifi Item Suburb Item Name Address Description cance No Lot 1, DP 742261, Lot 5, DP 745804, Lot 1627, DP 752011, Lot 1, DP 789476, Lot 1, DP 797239, Lot 1763, DP 821362, Lot 1, DP 826022, Lot 38, DP 832640 (SP 45205), Lot 2, DP 861843, Lots 101–102, DP 883120, Lots B–D and F–H, DP 928904, Lots 5 1–52, DP 1041134, Lot 2, DP 1068011, Lots 143 and 146, DP 1071423, Lot 1, DP 1082647, Lot 1, DP 1111581 Alexandria Terrace house 55 Alexander Lot 10 Sec L, DP Local I2 Street 975369 Alexandria Alexandra Canal Alexandra Canal Lot 13, DP State I3 1050464 Alexandria Cricketers Arms 56–58 Botany Lot 45, DP Local I4 Hotel Road 865060 (SP 53973) Alexandria Former CBC 60 Botany Road Lot 1, DP 186677 Local I5 Bank Alexandria Glenroy Hotel 246–250 Botany Lot 1, DP 84748 Local I6 Road Page 2 C:\Docs\ep\e2009-162\d03\FreeForm-1.fm 21/6/10, 02:34 pm Property Signifi Item Suburb Item Name Address Description cance No Alexandria
    [Show full text]
  • Built to Perform
    BUILDING CODE ENERGY PERFORMANCE TRAJECTORY PROJECT FINAL REPORT July 2018 Built to Perform An industry led pathway to a zero carbon ready building code ClimateWorks AUSTRALIA BUILDING CODE ENERGY PERFORMANCE TRAJECTORY PROJECT / FINAL REPORT A B BUILDING CODE ENERGY PERFORMANCE FINAL PROJECT / INTERIM REPORT About Us Project partners Technical partner and sponsor The project is a partnership between ASBEC The Cooperative Research Centre for Low and ClimateWorks Australia. Carbon Living (CRCLCL) is a national research and innovation hub for the built The Australian Sustainable Built environment, funded by the Australian Environment Council (ASBEC) is the peak Government’s Cooperative Research Centres body of key organisations committed to a Programme. The CRCLCL is leading and sustainable built environment in Australia. providing funding for technical analysis for ASBEC members consist of industry and the Building Code Energy Performance professional associations, non-government Trajectory Project. organisations and government and academic observers who are involved in the planning, The CRCLCL brings together industry design, delivery and operation of Australia’s and government organisations with leading built environment. Australian researchers to develop new social, technological and policy tools for ASBEC provides a collaborative forum for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in organisations who champion a vision of the built environment. It seeks to grow sustainable, productive and resilient buildings, industry confidence to invest in low carbon communities and cities in Australia. innovations, providing evidence to inform ClimateWorks Australia is an expert, best practice Australian building codes and independent adviser, acting as a bridge standards. between research and action to enable new approaches and solutions to accelerate the Delivery partners transition to net zero emissions by 2050 for The Building Code Trajectory Project is being Australia and our region.
    [Show full text]