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