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.
