Category: NSW enews

Kathlyn Loseby appointed NSW Chapter President of the Australian Institute of Architects

At the conclusion of his two-year term, Andrew Nimmo, partner at lahznimmo, has handed the NSW chapter presidency of the Australian Institute of Architects (the Institute) to the unanimously supported NSW council member Kathlyn Loseby.

Ms Loseby graduated from the University of Sydney with an honours degree in architecture and has worked in the UK and Sydney for a number of leading architectural firms. With an MBA(Exec) from the AGSM and a Graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, she is now the chief operating officer of Crone Architects, a major national firm.

Mr Nimmo congratulated Ms Loseby on taking the role. ‘Kathlyn has made a tremendous contribution to the Institute as a councillor, convening the large practices forum and serving on the awards and honours committee.

‘We have worked together very successfully on the chapter council and I look forward to Kathlyn’s seasoned leadership, her insight and the energy and determination she will bring to realising her vision for our members and the profession. I also want to thank Crone Architects for supporting Kathlyn in this voluntary role.’

Ms Loseby has worked on a number of major projects, including:

  • AI Faisaliah Complex – Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  • Daewoo  Headquarters – Seoul, Korea
  • Conrad Hilton Hotel – Cairo, Egypt
  • KLCC Apartment Towers – Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • British International Junior and Senior School – Tian Jin, China
  • Sydney West Letter Facility
  • Independent Living Wahroonga
  • RPA Hospital extension exterior wall
  • Yuhu One Circular Quay

She brings this deep professional experience to her role as leader and public face of the architectural profession in NSW.

Ms Loseby outlined three key objectives that her presidency will prioritise.

‘The first is procurement.  Repeatedly we see the emphasis on procurement practices that favour reduced time and cost at the expense of quality. The outcome being increased cost for maintenance, financiers, the insurance industry and ultimately the whole community. I would like to see the skill and expertise of the architectural profession at the forefront of improving the quality outcomes in this situation.

‘Secondly, we need to focus on advocacy.  Going forward, the Institute will continue Andrew’s important work with government and commercial organisations to improve their efficient engagement of architects as advisors, designers and administrators. We will strive to raise recognition of the breadth and depth of value that architects can bring clients and the community through good design in the places they live, work and relax.

‘Our third objective is equality. As president, I will also be leading the Institute in forging pathways to a rewarding and supported return to practice for architects who have taken a break, typically to start or raise a family. We want to ensure everyone has the opportunity to thrive and grow within the profession. As a special advisor to the NSW Champions of Change for Crone in 2018, I am especially proud of how this initiative has developed positive policy resources available for all architectural practices to utilise, in particular the Flexible Work Policy.’

On behalf of all NSW members and Institute staff, Ms Loseby thanked Mr Nimmo for his dedication and leadership over the past two years.

‘During his term Andrew has spearheaded a number of important advocacy campaigns around issues including the misuse of the Opera House sails for advertising and unfair procurement practices.

‘Andrew has also made an invaluable contribution to establishing a more robust and effective governance structure within the chapter while strengthening the voice of the profession among government and industry.’

Ms Loseby takes up her term of office Tuesday 4 February.

Download full size image

Follow Kathlyn Loseby on Twitter at https://twitter.com/NSWChapterPres

For media enquiries and interviews contact:

Kate Concannon
Advocacy & Communications, NSW
d: + 61 (2) 9246 4017
e: kate.concannon@architecture.com.au

Sydney and Parramatta both need a MAAS facility

The Australian Institute of Architects (the Institute) welcomes NSW Labor’s announcement of support for retaining the Powerhouse Museum in Ultimo while maintaining a commitment to build a world-class cultural institution at Parramatta. With Western Sydney’s growing population already exceeding two million, the case for a new MAAS facility in Parramatta is overwhelming and the Institute continues to support its development. But to downgrade the Ultimo Powerhouse is to short-change Sydney.

The Institute recently endorsed the design competition developed for the new MAAS in Parramatta. In doing so, the AIA has endorsed a competition process, not a policy.

‘Regardless of who is in government after the upcoming election, we would like to see a MAAS Parramatta facility go ahead, beginning with an exemplary design excellence competition and resulting in a built outcome that delivers ongoing value and benefit for the community and for Western Sydney’s architectural culture,’ explained NSW Chapter President Mr Andrew Nimmo. ‘And we want to see Australia’s world class architects demonstrating their skills on an international stage.’

‘But the facility should complement the Ultimo Powerhouse, not replace it,’ Mr Nimmo continued. ‘The latter contributes to a cultural ribbon that stretches from Central Station to the converted 19th century goods line, weaving by highlights including the ABC and Frank Gehry’s Dr Chau Chak Wing building. The Powerhouse building’s form, its history and its siting within this publicly valuable precinct is integral to the social, cultural, technological and economic story of Sydney.’

There is also the issue of the Ultimo Powerhouse’s high architectural value, which should be celebrated and retained. The adaptive reuse of the building in 1988 won the Australian Institute of Architects NSW chapter’s highest honour, the Sulman Medal, and it has earned listing on the Institute’s own Register of Significant Buildings. To this end the Institute recommends the government grant the Powerhouse Museum the heritage listing and protections that it deserves as a matter of priority.

‘We need to ensure the integrity of the building itself is maintained in any adaption or upgrade works.’

For media enquiries and interviews contact:

Kate Concannon

NSW Advocacy & Communications

Australian Institute of Architect

+61 (0) 406 306 447

kate.concannon@architecture.com.au

From the NSW Chapter President

NSW Chapter President, Andrew Nimmo
26 November 2018

Procurement

One of the constant complaints that we receive from members is the onerous and unfair nature of the public procurement of architectural services. From poorly written briefs, to proxy competitions, to excessive deliverables; there are a range of recurring problems and the anecdotal evidence is that they are getting worse. Consequently, we are investigating these issues and pursuing action to help establish firm, fair and reasonable commercial conditions for the profession.

Some of the typical problems we hear about are these:

  • Tenders and EOI requiring design concepts without formalizing a recognized competition process, and for no fee;
  • Proponents seeking to recover tender costs by charging a fee to access the tender documents;
  • Discrepancies between proponents’ and architects’ understanding of key terms (eg design concept), leading to discrepancies in deliverables expectations
  • Inadequate or no budget guidance
  • No protection of participants’ Intellectual Property
  • Limited information regarding assessment criteria or the weighting of criteria
  • Excessive deliverables requested for open EOI or Tenders
  • Uninsurable contract conditions
  • Poorly written and/or vague project briefs
  • Risk shifting rather than risk reduction
  • Excessive list of sub-consultants to be briefed and engaged, including those traditionally engaged by the client
  • Conditions of engagement not suitable to consultant engagement, often poorly adapted from construction contracts
  • … and there are many more.

The Chapter has been proactive in these matters, last year establishing a NSW Procurement Taskforce. This now is joined by a national taskforce. Together, these groups of members are gathering data and considering the issues raised.

At the National level, a Procurement Policy is being formulated which will provide best practice guidelines for EOI and RFTs. Once completed, we will disseminate this policy to our membership so that you understand the Institute’s position, and will be equipped to carefully assess whether a particular procurement process is fair and reasonable.

In NSW our aim is to educate local councils about what fair procurement looks like, how it will bring better outcomes and why it is in our mutual interest. In this respect we will work with the GANSW, who we believe share our desire to encourage government agencies to be better clients. We also plan to begin a process of informing members about specific tenders and competitions that do not conform to our policies via a ‘Procurement Alert’. And of course, we want to recognise and promote clients who do procurement well.

However for all this to have impact, we also need members to use their voice. Let clients know when you think their procurement practices are unfair, and explain why, with the backing of the Institute’s written policy. Sometimes to choose to not participate in unfair, unreasonable tenders will be money well saved.


New Executive Director, NSW

We have a new Chapter Executive Director: David Green.

David comes from a senior executive role in the NSW Public Service with responsibility for funding and performance of disability NGOs. His main area of focus was accommodation services and in that role acted as project and program director for a number of large facility projects. He brings significant stakeholder management experience bolstered by previous public service roles in construction contracting, contract dispute management and procurement.

Prior to his work in the public service he had extensive architectural and project management experience, having worked as an architect in both private and public sectors and in firms from medium sized to multi-national. He also has worked in marketing.

I’m sure you will get to know David over the coming months and with me welcome him to the Institute.

David takes the place of Joshua Morrin, who after nearly four years with the Institute is returning to architectural practice with ARM Architecture in their new Sydney office. Joshua has been in the role since the end of 2016 and his time as the ED has mirrored my own as NSW President. During this time Joshua and I have had an extremely close and productive working relationship and I have appreciated his professionalism and commitment to the role. In addition to his time in NSW, Joshua has also managed both the Northern Territory and International Chapters, been acting Project Manager for the Institute’s pavilion at the 2016 Venice Biennale, and Tour Leader of this year’s Dulux Study Tour. We take this opportunity to wish him well and look forward to seeing more of him on this side of the profession.

 

Architects release first gender equity progress report

24 November 2017

The founding Architects Male Champions of Change group has today released its first progress report detailing the learnings and actions completed since its establishment and mapping out commitments for 2018 to improve gender equity in the profession.
 
Established in March 2015 by the NSW Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects, it is one of the industry-specific groups under the broader national Male Champions of Change program and comprises CEOs and Directors of some of the largest state, national and international Australian firms including Bates Smart, BVN, Cox, Crone, Carter Williamson, HASSELL, PTW, SJB and Woods Bagot.  Collectively, they cover over 2000 staff within the architectural profession.
 
The report includes a measure of participation rates, new starters, promotions and pathways, departures, parental leave and submissions ratio over 2015/16 and 2016/17.
 
As well as committing to the broader Male Champions of Change initiatives to address the gender pay gap, everyday sexism and taking the panel pledge, the group: 

  • conducted a Flexibility Survey in 2016 and subsequently implemented All Roles Flex policies across participating practices in July 2017;
  • conducted 31 listening and learning focus groups in 2016;
  • co-hosted an Australian Institute of Architects (NSW Chapter) Domestic and Family Violence event to raise awareness as to why this is a workplace responsibility in 2017; and
  • committed to a Submissions Ratio to include women in all tender and bid submissions with the intent to measure and improve on female participation over time in this critical, client-facing aspect of architects’ work.
     
    Among a range of actions committed to for next year, each practice in the group will also review the Best Practice Parental Leave Entitlement Guide it has established with the aim to incorporate fully in 2018.
     
    NSW Chapter Immediate Past President and founder of the group Shaun Carter said: ‘Gender equality in architecture will mean a more successful, balanced, insightful, caring, family orientated and profitable workplace. Our challenge is to make this happen.
     
    ‘What we need is cultural change. We don’t need any more talking; we need action.
     
    ‘Through the Listening & Learning sessions, we are gaining real insights into the measures needed to make a practical and enduring difference in architectural workplaces across the country.
     
    ‘For example, our work has uncovered a 24/7 working culture which led to a preference for “ideal workers” who were prepared to invest long, unpaid hours in the office. This was supported by a business structure that recorded visible time spent on projects in lieu of documenting project deliverables or recognising project relationship building.
     
    ‘In response, we are reviewing how we measure performance to move away from timesheets towards deliverables.
     
    ‘Similarly, those that returned from parental leave in a part-time role, commented on challenges in receiving meaningful and rewarding work on reduced hours. Our submission ratios is another practical measure we are taking to effect change on this issue that will really be felt on an individual and a practice level.’
     
    NSW Chapter President Andrew Nimmo said the Institute would continue to support and facilitate the group’s work to keep up the momentum for lasting change.
     
    ‘As the report notes, we are just at the beginning and recognise the extent of the work still to be done to achieve a truly equitable architectural profession,’ Mr Nimmo said.
     
    ‘However, we are seeing change and we will continue our efforts to drive this forward and embed it in the day to day operations and attitudes of all practices and practitioners.’
     
    View the full report here.

Architects question plans to demolish stadiums

The Australian Institute of Architects has questioned the recent announcement by the NSW Government to demolish the Sydney Football Stadium at Moore Park and the Olympic Stadium at Sydney Olympic Park to make way for new stadiums with similar spectator capacities.

‘The Sydney Football Stadium is barely 30 years old, while the Olympic Stadium is less than 20 years old,’ NSW Chapter President Andrew Nimmo said today.

‘When our major public buildings don’t last thirty years, we have a real problem. These are places where some of the greatest memories of modern Sydney were made, places where Sydney was elevated to the world stage.

‘To demolish, rather than refurbish, seems like an extraordinary waste.

‘These stadiums are buildings that should live for at least 50 to 100 years. We are doing something wrong as a society if we apply a throwaway mentality to assets that are still so relatively young.
‘It is not unreasonable to expect that it is time that both stadiums undergo significant upgrades to keep them commercially viable in the competitive world of major sporting events.

‘However, best practice, environmentally sustainable development will acknowledge the embodied energy contained in each of these structures – not only the metal, the concrete, the human hours of toil, but also the embodied memory that is locked up in each of these stadiums. All of this needs to
be taken into account when considering the business case.

‘Great cities are made up of many layers of built fabric. We cannot wipe the slate of history clean every 20 years. The loss of these buildings would be like losing a major landmark from the horizon.’

ACT & NSW SuperStudio 2017

 

This weekend 11 teams of architecture students came together at the University of Sydney to develop design concepts for SuperStudio 2017. The annual design competition brings together architecture students from NSW and ACT universities to form teams and develop design concepts in response to a brief, which is kept secret until the competition is launched! Final design concepts are presented to a jury of architects, industry professionals and university academics to compete for 2017 SuperStudio prizes!

While the brief is still under wraps for future SuperStudio events this month, we are pleased to announce the winners of this year’s Studio! Three teams were selected by the jury for first, second and third place prizes:

FIRST PRIZE: Awarded to Justin Pak, Justin Wohl and Yim Hoi Fung Ivan (UNSW)
–  winning a weeks’ worth of mentoring with Bates Smart or Crone

SECOND PRIZE: Awarded to Claire Jo, Jinlong Li, Geremy Yip (UNSW)
– winning tickets to the Australasian Student Architecture Congress Agency 2017

THIRD PRIZE: Awarded to Akshay Salunkhe (University of Sydney), Estefano Bonfante (University of Sydney) and Winten Xu (UTS)
– winning a tour with Bates Smart of 155 Clarence Street – an award-winning adaptive reuse refurbishment to an 8 storey heritage commercial building

 

Congratulations to all this year’s winning teams, and all others that participated over the weekend. We look forward to sharing details and images of the winning proposals soon!

A special thanks to those that gave up their time as jurors and team mentors, including representatives from Crone, Bates Smart, EJE Architecture and Jacobs. Both groups provided invaluable support and feedback to the teams over the weekend.

2017 SuperStudio Jurors

  • Ariana Rodriguez, Crone
  • Dr Dagmar Reinhardt, University of Sydney
  • Fraser McKay, Bates Smart
  • Shane Smede, EJE Architecture
  • Vaughn Lane, Jacobs

2017 SuperStudio Team Mentors:

  • Chloe Rayfield, TKD Architects
  • Georgia Jamieson, UTS Program Management Office
  • Gemma Savio, savio parsons architects
  • Dmitry Troyanovsky, Tonkin Zulaikha Greer Architects
  • Yuliya Chistyakova, Mirvac Design
  • Ksenia Totoeva, TZG Architects
  • Ben Coulston, Terroir / University of Queensland
  • Hannah Slater, Neeson Murcutt Architects
  • Matilda Leake, Bates Smart
  • Jamileh Jahangiri, TKD Architects

 

From the NSW Chapter President

NSW Chapter President, Andrew Nimmo
25 September 2017

Last week I chaired a Tuesdays at Tusculum session – The Green Bans – 40 years on: where does the profession stand today?

The speakers were:

  • Jim Colman (architect, planner and author of The House That Jack Built – Jack Mundey: Green Bans Hero);
  • Sharon Veale (Partner and Chief Executive, GML Heritage);
  • James Weirick (Professor of Landscape Architecture & Director, Urban Development & Design Program, University of New South Wales;
  • Jocelyn Jackson (Practice Director, TKD Architects and recipient of the 2017 Marion Mahony Griffin Award); and
  • Kurt Iveson (Associate Professor of Urban Geography, University of Sydney).

The answer to the question posed by the session depends on where you stand on the heritage – development spectrum.

There has been substantial progress on the regulatory front. Over 1,650 items are listed on the State Heritage Register and 20,000 at the local government level. The Heritage Act provides a process for managing changes to State items through the referral of development applications to the Heritage Council or its delegates; a similar process applies to local items through the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act.

But are we really that much better off keeping and protecting the things that really matter to us as a community? Do the professions help or hinder the process? James Weirick gave a passionate critique of professionally prepared heritage impact statements that smooth the path to the inevitable loss of our collective heritage instead of making bold statements to defend and protect heritage significance. Usually the interests of the development project win in the end, particularly if it is being promoted by the NSW Government.

In this column, I have previously berated the State Government for its signal to ‘the rest of the community, particularly the private sector, that heritage protection is of no value if it prevents the owner from reaping a financial windfall from the sale of the site’. This was my response to the then Heritage Minister’s refusal to consider the listing of the Sirius building on the State Heritage Register.

This criticism applies equally to the heavy-handed approvals process for State significant development and infrastructure. How did we lose a substantial proportion of the unique Federation estate of Haberfield to the WestConnex, an out of date 60s expressway that is being made up as the project ‘moves forward’? What does this say about our values as a society?

Jim Colman reminded us that the notion of the public interest is now so discredited that opposing parties in a dispute will claim it as their guiding principle while cheerfully converting the public domain into private space. But the public interest should be of supreme importance to us as we adjust to the pressures of an increasing population and higher density in the built environment.

Where should the Institute stand in this debate? Public advocacy is fundamental to our role as a professional organisation. The objective in our submissions is to address the process through which the proposal has been put forward, to advocate for good design and to strongly defend the public interest and the public domain. And whilst we must never unfairly criticise the work of our fellow members, it is reasonable at times to question the drivers and outcomes of specific projects. This requires sensitivity and respect for our fellow professionals, along with honest and transparent communication.

This was how we have approached major heritage and development issues during my term as President – Sirius, North Parramatta Urban Transformation, the proposed move of the Powerhouse Museum to Parramatta and the Metro Martin Place unsolicited proposal.

But what about more overt advocacy? Kurt Iveson assured us that, while the weakening of union power means that a Green Bans protest strategy is unlikely to return, it is still possible to create coalitions of interest groups around a particular issue. Social media also has an unrivalled capacity for quick responses from a diverse range of people sharing similar values. The brilliant crowdfunding campaign for the Sirius court case shows how that can work.

Sirius itself is a beacon, demonstrating through its continuing imperilled existence both the similarities and the differences between the 1970s and now. From its design and construction as custom-built housing for local residents who would otherwise have been thrown on to the streets, the building has become a celebration in physical form of the Green Bans campaigns and their beneficial impact on the physical fabric of the city.

Then this year the Sirius non-decision was the reason why the Land & Environment Court made its judgment that the Heritage Act had been misused by the government that administers it.

Forty years after the period of public activism that led to the Heritage Act and the construction of Sirius, they were intertwined in a symbolic confirmation of the Act and the public interest it defends. 

But symbols take us only so far. When State Treasurers become architectural and cultural critics, as Dominic Perrottet did in the Daily Telegraph following the court decision, you know that the struggle to save Sirius and our 20th century architectural legacy is far from over. The culture wars are alive and well in 2017.

For those of you who are too young to understand the significance of the Green Bans, I encourage you to read Jim Colman’s book, The House That Jack Built – Jack Mundey: Green Bans Hero.  It is an excellent primer on urban activism that actually made a difference.

The September 2016 march in support of Sirius.                                                                                       
Photo: Craig Hayman

 

Finally, I would like to confirm that the NSW Chapter Council have overwhemingly agreed to express their support for marriage equality. I leave you with the words of our very own GET:

“Equal opportunity is a core value of the Gender Equity Taskforce. Diversity enriches our lives, the profession and society at large. In solidarity with the LGBTQ community, vote yes and join us in building a more inclusive future.

GET:behind marriage equality”

… and get voting!

From the NSW Chapter President

NSW Chapter President, Andrew Nimmo
25 September 2017

Last week I chaired a Tuesdays at Tusculum session – The Green Bans – 40 years on: where does the profession stand today?

The speakers were:

  • Jim Colman (architect, planner and author of The House That Jack Built – Jack Mundey: Green Bans Hero);
  • Sharon Veale (Partner and Chief Executive, GML Heritage);
  • James Weirick (Professor of Landscape Architecture & Director, Urban Development & Design Program, University of New South Wales;
  • Jocelyn Jackson (Practice Director, TKD Architects and recipient of the 2017 Marion Mahony Griffin Award); and
  • Kurt Iveson (Associate Professor of Urban Geography, University of Sydney).

The answer to the question posed by the session depends on where you stand on the heritage – development spectrum.

There has been substantial progress on the regulatory front. Over 1,650 items are listed on the State Heritage Register and 20,000 at the local government level. The Heritage Act provides a process for managing changes to State items through the referral of development applications to the Heritage Council or its delegates; a similar process applies to local items through the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act.

But are we really that much better off keeping and protecting the things that really matter to us as a community? Do the professions help or hinder the process? James Weirick gave a passionate critique of professionally prepared heritage impact statements that smooth the path to the inevitable loss of our collective heritage instead of making bold statements to defend and protect heritage significance. Usually the interests of the development project win in the end, particularly if it is being promoted by the NSW Government.

In this column, I have previously berated the State Government for its signal to ‘the rest of the community, particularly the private sector, that heritage protection is of no value if it prevents the owner from reaping a financial windfall from the sale of the site’. This was my response to the then Heritage Minister’s refusal to consider the listing of the Sirius building on the State Heritage Register.

This criticism applies equally to the heavy-handed approvals process for State significant development and infrastructure. How did we lose a substantial proportion of the unique Federation estate of Haberfield to the WestConnex, an out of date 60s expressway that is being made up as the project ‘moves forward’? What does this say about our values as a society?

Jim Colman reminded us that the notion of the public interest is now so discredited that opposing parties in a dispute will claim it as their guiding principle while cheerfully converting the public domain into private space. But the public interest should be of supreme importance to us as we adjust to the pressures of an increasing population and higher density in the built environment.

Where should the Institute stand in this debate? Public advocacy is fundamental to our role as a professional organisation. The objective in our submissions is to address the process through which the proposal has been put forward, to advocate for good design and to strongly defend the public interest and the public domain. And we must never publicly criticise the work of our members, though at times we must question the drivers and outcomes for specific projects. This requires sensitivity and respect for our fellow professionals, along with honest and transparent communication.

This was how we have approached major heritage and development issues during my term as President – Sirius, North Parramatta Urban Transformation, the proposed move of the Powerhouse Museum to Parramatta and the Metro Martin Place unsolicited proposal.

But what about more overt advocacy? Kurt Iveson assured us that, while the weakening of union power means that a Green Bans protest strategy is unlikely to return, it is still possible to create coalitions of interest groups around a particular issue. Social media also has an unrivalled capacity for quick responses from a diverse range of people sharing similar values. The brilliant crowdfunding campaign for the Sirius court case shows how that can work.

Sirius itself is a beacon, demonstrating through its continuing imperilled existence both the similarities and the differences between the 1970s and now. From its design and construction as custom-built housing for local residents who would otherwise have been thrown on to the streets, the building has become a celebration in physical form of the Green Bans campaigns and their beneficial impact on the physical fabric of the city.

Then this year the Sirius non-decision was the reason why the Land & Environment Court made its judgment that the Heritage Act had been misused by the government that administers it.

Forty years after the period of public activism that led to the Heritage Act and the construction of Sirius, they were intertwined in a symbolic confirmation of the Act and the public interest it defends. 

But symbols take us only so far. When State Treasurers become architectural and cultural critics, as Dominic Perrottet did in the Daily Telegraph following the court decision, you know that the struggle to save Sirius and our 20th century architectural legacy is far from over. The culture wars are alive and well in 2017.

For those of you who are too young to understand the significance of the Green Bans, I encourage you to read Jim Colman’s book, The House That Jack Built – Jack Mundey: Green Bans Hero.  It is an excellent primer on urban activism that actually made a difference.

The September 2016 march in support of Sirius.                                                               Photo: Craig Hayman

From the NSW Chapter President

NSW Chapter President, Andrew Nimmo

28 August 2017

Ten days ago I attended the launch of the NSW design policy Better Placed by NSW Planning Minister Anthony Roberts.

This is the first overarching integrated policy for the built environment in Australia.

It’s a significant achievement by the Government Architect NSW following the office’s move to the planning portfolio and its strategic focus on design as the key to transforming and improving the NSW built environment.

The seven objectives in the policy establish the framework for both designing new projects and assessing them as part of the design review process.

As I said in a media release on the day:

‘The new policy will help to deliver a higher quality of new development and great places as we meet the challenges of an increasing population’.

‘Architects are highly skilled at applying the process of research, analysis, collaboration and concept testing described in the policy’.

‘The Institute’s annual NSW Architecture Awards are an example of this and recognise and celebrate architectural design excellence in all its forms’.

The policy is not only important for NSW, it also establishes a precedent for the other Australian states and territories.

As the Chief Executive Officer of the Institute, Jennifer Cunich, said:

‘The Institute would like to see similar quality-based policy throughout the country, as we believe that good design yields a dividend for all stakeholders, that is returned not just in the immediate term, but over the lifetime of a well-designed and delivered built environment’.

The policy has been created to provide a quality benchmark for everyone involved in built environment projects and the development assessment process. Its adoption by all the players in the built environment will help architects to create better buildings, places, precincts, towns and cities.

The Government Architect NSW has already had some success in embedding the policy in government and industry processes, such as:

  • consideration by the NSW Planning Assessment Commission in the assessment of applications;
  • used by industry as an internal checklist before presenting concepts to clients and councils; and
  • referenced in Sydney’s draft District Plans and regional plans.

The policy creates the vision and framework for a series of case studies and guidelines that are being developed by the Government Architect NSW to provide more detailed advice on the practical use of its seven objectives.

The policy also provides the rationale for the ‘good design’ object to be introduced into the planning legislation later this year. This object will direct the planning system to deliver good design as one of its key criteria.

But the objects of the Act are high-level aspirations. If ‘good design’ is to be realised through the planning system and have some practical effect, it is essential that it be included as a matter for consideration in the determination of development applications under section 79C of the Act.

I have written to Minister Roberts and Secretary of the Department of Planning & Environment, Carolyn McNally, urging them to take this next step, as it is consistent with the wide-ranging intentions of the policy.

Andrew Nimmo
NSW Chapter President

The venue for the policy launch was the Bankstown Library and Knowledge Centre, designed by fjmt. The building won the John Verge Award for Interior Architecture, an Architecture Award for Sustainable Architecture and a Commendation for Public Architecture in the 2015 NSW Architecture Awards and the Emil Sodersten Award for Interior Architecture in the 2015 Australian Institute of Architects National Awards.

Photo: Christian Mushenko

Architects welcome NSW Government design policy

The Australian Institute of Architects has welcomed the launch of the design policy Better Placed by NSW Planning Minister Anthony Roberts this morning.

‘New South Wales needs to continue to become a better place to live in’, the Institute’s NSW Chapter President Andrew Nimmo said today.

‘The new policy will help to deliver a higher quality of new development and great places as we meet the challenges of an increasing population.

‘Investing in the design process at the early stage of projects saves time and cost and leads to more responsive, resilient, healthy, integrated and equitable precincts, towns and cities.

‘Architects are highly skilled at applying the process of research, analysis, collaboration and concept testing described in the policy’, Mr Nimmo said. ‘The Institute’s annual NSW Architecture Awards are an example of this and recognise and celebrate architectural design excellence in all its forms.

‘The seven objectives in the policy establish the framework for assessing new projects as part of the design review process, he said.

‘The policy also provides the rationale for the ‘good design’ object we anticipate will be introduced into the planning legislation later this year.

‘The policy is a significant achievement by the Government Architect NSW following the office’s move to the planning portfolio and its strategic focus on design as the key to transforming and improving the NSW built environment.

‘We applaud the Minister for supporting this holistic and innovative design policy, and through our members are ready to work with the Government to help ensure that the ambitions of this policy are fully and properly realised’.

Chief Executive Officer of the Institute, Jennifer Cunich added, ‘The Institute would like to see similar quality-based policy throughout the country, as we believe that good design yields a dividend for all stakeholders, that is returned not just in the immediate term, but over the lifetime of a well-designed and delivered built environment’.

For media enquiries contact:
Fiona Benson – FJ Partners Strategic Communications
On behalf of the Australian Institute of Architects
M. +61 (0) 407 294 620 E. fiona@fjpartners.com.au