|
 |
| |
RADAR
FEATURES
COMMENT
| |
| | | |
 |
| |
| |
|
| | LETTERS AND FIXES
| MCA |
The architecture profession, and his own
academy, should slap James Weirick’s
hands for the offensive suggestion that the
MCA competition judges decision be
overturned and instead a losing scheme be
selected to be built (AA July/August 2001).
The Australian architectural competition
system is already sufficiently rife with
controversy and rumours of nepotism.
It needs no further encouragement. The
competition organisers clearly went to
great effort to organise the event. That they
were unable to obtain a satisfactory design
says only that either the brief is wrong, or
that the designers selected were not right
for the job.
That said, the only course of action really
is to give the winners, Sauerbruch Hutton,
the opportunity to develop their scheme,
and only thereafter to put the project on
hold (as has been done) until a better
solution can be found.
With two international competitions for
the project under our belt and no
satisfactory solution having emerged, the
public can only ask whether this is the right
way to go about selecting an architect for
the site.
The other obvious alternatives have not
been publicly trialled. These include: an
open international competition for the site; a competition limited to architects
registered in Australia or New South
Wales only; a limited invited competition
for up to 15 entrants, from Australia or
possibly abroad, generating a broader
range of solutions.
If the emotional response from the
Australian public has been to select an
Australian architectural firm, there are many
architects in this country who could make a
very good contribution to this site. There are
smaller emerging practices who would
welcome some form of public patronage
from the government. This would enable
them to grow to become the Sauerbruch
Huttons of tomorrow.
The culture of the MCA competition
simply needs to be widened to embrace the
substantial contributions that can be made
by the broader emerging base of local
talent which exists.
Roger Barrett, NSW.
|
| Fixes |
- We apologise for the typographic errors
that appeared in Doug Michelmore’s letter
to the editor (AA May/June). These errors
occured in the transcription of the letter.
- Our review of UWA (AA July/August)
contained the erroneous suggestion that the
University House competition was won by
Donaldson & Warn. Donaldson & Warn were awarded the commission, but not as an
outcome of the competition. The
competition was won by Paul Odden of
Odden Rodrigues Architects (who was
consequently appointed to UWA’s panel
of architects).
- The review of the Peel Campus by JCY
and Spowers (AA July/August) should also
have credited artist Stephen Green who
was responsible for the campus artworks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright © 2010 Architecture Media Pty Ltd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
