Gunyama park and green square aquatic centre jury report

Sydney2030/Green/Global/Connected

Green Square Design Competition Gunyama Park and Aquatic Centre Jury Report

Contents Jury Report

02

Introduction

04

Stage 1

11

Stage 2

14

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

Jury Report

Jury Report

The following report outlines the processes and the deliberations of the Jury for the two stages of this competition, articulating the process and considerations in arriving at the selection of the winning scheme for the Green Square Gunyama Park and Aquatic Centre Architectural Design Competition.

This report is structured in three distinct parts: •

the background and broad objectives of the competition;

•

the Stage 1 judging process; and

•

the Stage 2 judging process.

clockwise around the table (from left): Richard Johnson, Camilla Block, Carey Lyon, Gini Lee & Greg Holman

02

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

Introduction

Introduction

The City of Sydney invited architects (together with a landscape architect) to participate in a design competition on a site at Green Square, Zetland to provide a community recreation facility that would include a park (with recreation sporting field and associated landscaping) and an aquatic leisure centre. This was to be a place for active recreation for the community, both its residents and workers - a place to meet, exercise, socialise, play and recreate.

The City of Sydney has a history of providing high quality community facilities and pursues design excellence in relation to its landscaping and architecture projects. Accordingly, this competition sought the highest quality design for this site and facility - one that was both architecturally ambitious and intelligently frugal.

04

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

Introduction

A Two Stagei Competitioni

The City of Sydney chose to pursue an architectural ideas competition - a process that engaged with a wide variety of architects to apply their skills and knowledge to the same set of parameters to tease out the broadest possible range of creative and inventive ideas that would not have been apparent before the competition.

The competition was run as a fixed fee two-stage competition - having a fixed fee for engagement of the winner ensured that the selection of the winning scheme was based solely upon the creativity of the architectural design.

This architectural and landscape design competition was run in two stages as outlined below: •

Stage 1 was an open anonymous design competition All complying entries were exhibited to the public Entries were assessed by a jury Five entrants were invited to participate in the second stage

•

Stage 2 was an invited design competition Entrants were paid a fee Entrants were provided with updated requirements along with jury feedback Entrants worked with Council’s cost planner and had their concept costed at 50% and 100% Before lodging for judging, entrants were required to meet capability criteria Designs were assessed by a jury

•

Architectural Commission The entrant declared the winner by the jury will be invited to enter into a contractual agreement using City of Sydney Council contract based on AS 4122-2000 with Schedules and Scope of Services

Competition Site and Green Square Area indicative built form, viewed from south-west

06

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

Introduction

TheiJuryi

A Jury comprising a mix of leading Australian Architects, Landscape Architect, and Construction / Buildability expert was established by the City of Sydney to judge the Stage 1 and Stage 2 entries.

The Jury members were: Jury Chair - Carey Lyon, Vic Director of Lyons, an award-winning architecture and urban design practice based in Melbourne; past National President and Life Fellow of Australian Institute of Architects; Honorary Member and Presidential Medal recipient of American Institute of Architects; Honorary Fellow of New Zealand Institute of Architects; Board Member of Green Buildings Council of Australia; Adjunct Professor of Architecture at RMIT; acknowledged leader in urban design, sustainability and the design of research / learning environments.

Architect - Professor Richard Johnson MBE AO, NSW Director of Johnson Pilton Walker, an award-winning architecture and urban design practice based in Sydney; Life Fellow of the Australian Institute of Architects; RAIA Gold Medallist; founding director of the Australian Architecture Association (AAA); architectural advisor to the Sydney Opera House Trust 1998-2013; serving member of City of Sydney Design Advisory Panel and Public Art Advisory Panel; internationally acknowledged design leader for projects that include expos, embassies, museums, galleries, schools, offices and hotels.

Landscape Architect – Professor Gini Lee, Vic Dr Gini Lee is a registered landscape architect and interior designer, and currently Elisabeth Murdoch Chair of Landscape Architecture at the University of Melbourne; past executive editor of the IDEA Journal, past member of the Queensland Heritage Council and past Chair of art + place for Arts Queensland; past appointee to the New Zealand PBRF as international expert for design; current member of the City of Melbourne’s Parks and Gardens Advisory Committee and chair of the University of Melbourne Landscape and Open Space Committee.

from left: Stephen Varady, Richard Johnson, Greg Holman, Gini Lee, Camilla Block & Carey Lyon

08

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

Introduction

Architect - Camilla Block, NSW Director of Durbach Block Jaggers, an award-winning architecture and urban design practice based in Sydney; acknowledged design leader for residential, commercial and civic projects that have received the Wilkinson, Robin Boyd, Harry Seidler, Sir Arthur G Stephenson, Sir Osborn McCutcheon and Lloyd Rees Awards by the RAIA – the highest awards in each building type category; active RAIA member and Sydney University lecturer and tutor.

Architect / Aquatic Buildability & Construction - Greg Holman, NSW Principal Architect at Harry Seidler & Associates, an award-winning architecture and urban design practice based in Sydney; since 1980 has worked on a broad range of Seidler projects; in charge of the Wohnpark Neue Donau project in Vienna; team leader for the Cove Apartments in Sydney; design and project architect for Grosvenor Place Ground Plane, Minsheng Bank Headquarters and the Olympic 2000 Housing project; in charge of the winning design and then overseeing the construction of the Ian Thorpe Aquatic Centre in Sydney.

The Jury were supported by a team of Council and consultant technical advisers during their deliberations.

The City of Sydney engaged a professional architectural competition Advisor and Registrar to assist the City in the preparation and organisation of the Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Competition.

TheiRegistrari

Architect / Competition Adviser, Organiser & Registrar - Stephen Varady Multiple award-winning Australian architect and director of Stephen Varady Associates; Creative Director of 2006 RAIA National Conference; architecture and design lecturer and tutor for over 25 years; architecture writer and critic for over 20 years; previously competition advisor, organiser and registrar for the successful City of Sydney Green Square Library & Plaza Competition and the Wagga Wagga Civic Centre Competition.

from left: Greg Holman, Camilla Block & Gini Lee

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

09

Stage 1

Stage 1

The Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Competition was launched on 3 March 2014 with around 800 downloads of the briefing documents by architects from around the world before the Stage 1 entry deadline of 30 April 2014. Following probity and eligibility checks Council received 144 eligible entries.

A series of A3 exhibition books of the 144 entries were prepared by City staff and placed on public exhibition for 2 weeks in the Tote Building in Zetland. All entries were also placed on the City of Sydney Competition website for public comment. The public exhibition closed on 23 May and a Community Consultation Report was prepared by City staff for presentation to the Competition Jury.

Judgingi

All 144 complying entries (4 x A3 sheets per entry) were pinned up on display in a specially prepared jury room in Town Hall House, Sydney with the Jury assembling from 26-28 May 2014 to review the entries and select 5 finalists to proceed to Stage 2 of the competition.

The Jury was impressed by the overall standard of the entries that illustrated a broad range of architectural propositions and studied all entries professionally and methodically.

The Jury was open and generous in its first viewing of schemes and after the first round of deliberations the Jury selected 77 entries to proceed forward for further consideration. Those entries were: 101, 102, 103, 104, 109, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 120, 123, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 135, 137, 138, 141, 142, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 160, 161, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 180, 181, 182, 186, 188, 190, 194, 198, 200, 201, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 210, 213, 216, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 228, 230, 231, 234, 236, 239, 241, 243, 247, and 248.

These 77 entries were reviewed in open discussion by all Jury members leading to 32 schemes proceeding to Round 2: 101, 109, 114, 117, 120, 126, 135, 142, 146, 148, 149, 151, 154, 168, 170, 180, 182, 188, 198, 200, 201, 207, 208, 210, 213, 216, 221, 222, 230, 234, 239, and 247.

from left: Greg Holman, Carey Lyon, Richard Johnson, Camilla Block & Gini Lee

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

11

Stage 1

The Jury also checked all eliminated schemes to be sure that no worthy scheme had been missed. After this third round of deliberations the Jury selected 19 entries to proceed to the next round: 101, 109, 114, 126, 135, 149, 170, 180, 182, 198, 200, 207, 210, 213, 216, 222, 230, 234, and 247.

This was further reduced to 12: 109, 126, 135, 149, 180, 198, 200, 213, 216, 230, 234, and 247.

The remaining 12 entries were studied individually by the Jury members before another round of extensive open discussion.

Of these the Jury unanimously selected the following 5 schemes as Stage 1 Finalists: 109, 126, 213, 230, and 234.

These finalists were invited by the City of Sydney to enter Stage 2 of the competition

from left: Richard Johnson, Gini Lee, Camilla Block & Carey Lyon

12

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

Stage 2

Stage 2 Finalistsi

Following the Stage 1 Judging, the finalists were identified as: Entry #109 - Andrew Burns Architect, Sydney Entry #126 - Cullinan Ivanov Partnership, Sydney Entry #213 - CHROFI & McGregor Coxall, Sydney Entry #230 - Andrew Burges Architects, Sydney Entry #234 - TYP-TOP Studio, Sydney Briefing Session The finalists were invited to Sydney where each finalist team had a one hour feedback meeting with the Jury on 16 June, followed by a site visit and briefing session with City of Sydney staff on 17 June 2014.

Without prompting all finalists complimented the City on organising such a positive and well run competition.

Brief Addendum Finalists were provided with a Stage 2 Brief addendum containing important general recommendations for all finalists along with specific feedback for each scheme from the Jury.

The addendum also included more detailed information about the Stage 2 Entry Requirements.

50% Cost Assessment Finalists were asked to lodge their 50% designs on 25 July 2014. These were assessed by quantity surveyor Altus Page Kirkland who prepared a 50% Cost Assessment of each scheme.

This assessment (along with a 45 minute teleconference feedback session with the QS and Registrar) was sent to each finalist to assist them in completing their design within budget.

Capability Assessment Finalists were also required to lodge full details of their practice and their team of consultants on 25 July 2014. As a result of this process three of the finalists chose to team with more established practices and landscape architects were they to be selected as winner.

230

234 234

Sabrina Phillips Camilla Block City of Sydney Jury

14

230

230

230

109 213

109

213 213

Clover Moore Lord Mayor Gini Lee Richard Johnson Carey Lyon Jury Jury Jury Chair

126

213

126

126

Greg Holman Jury

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

Stephen Varady Registrar

Stage 2

Judgingi

The five finalists lodged their Stage 2 schemes on 26 August 2014. All entries were presented on ten A0 mounted boards and were supported by a 1:500 model and A3 competition report.

These schemes were again checked by quantity surveyor Altus Page Kirkland who prepared a 100% Cost Assessment of each scheme to assist the Jury in their deliberations.

The schemes were also checked by City of Sydney staff who prepared a Technical Review to also assist the Jury in their deliberations.

During the period of 8-9 September 2014 the Jury for the Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Competition met inside a specially prepared jury room in Town Hall House, Sydney to review the finalists’ schemes. The Jury were interested in how each finalist had further developed their initial schematic ideas and how successfully they had addressed all of the feedback they had received.

On the first day each of the finalist teams gave their presentation to the Jury. On the second day the Jury deliberated, discussing and debating each scheme in great detail, before selecting a winner, a second place and a highly commended scheme as explained on the following pages.

Juryi Assessmentsi

At the conclusion of Stage 2 deliberations the Jury made the following assessments of each scheme: The Jury was impressed with the ideas contained in the Stage 1 schemes by all the finalists and were further impressed with how each of the finalist teams developed those designs for Stage 2.

The Jury commends all of the teams for their verbal and visual presentations and thanks them for their efforts. All five finalists had the potential to be the winner of this competition, and the following comments should therefore be read as both explanation and constructive feedback for the City and each of the finalist teams.

Finalists’ briefing in Sydney Town Hall at the beginning of Stage 2

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

15

Stage 2

CHROFI & McGregor Coxall The jury saw great potential in the extraordinary ‘Arcadian Vision’ and the idea for a landscapefocused approach to the park and centre suggested by the evocative renderings of the Stage 1 CHROFI & McGregor Coxall scheme. They were quite intrigued by the ideas for the landscaped edges, the lines of tree plantings and the pedestrian pathways, however they felt that the Stage 2 scheme did not progress sufficiently beyond the initial Stage 1 concepts. While the Jury were impressed by the landscaping desires of this scheme, they were also somewhat disappointed that their feedback comments regarding the ease and equity of community access and the potential construction costs did not seem to be addressed.

The vision for the Aquatic Centre was compromised by the ‘vision’ for the landscape, with a greater emphasis on its role as a landscape as opposed to a community park with high utility – even relying on its inaccessibility for its beauty. While the scheme would appear to be a landscape for the community, closer inspection revealed much of the landscape may exclude many diverse activities rather than be inclusive and open to use, including how the playing field could be used to its maximum potential in such a setting. (The playing field also appeared to be less than the required size.) The jury also questioned whether the easement and issues of overland flow had been fully resolved.

The jury was not fully convinced by the access and social strategies proposed for the Aquatic Centre including the entry off Joynton Avenue and the lack of larger spaces for groups to gather upon arriving at the pool. While the interiors suggest an elegant and pared back spatial program, the jury considered that the atmospheric and acoustic quality of some of the interior environments lacked a robust and playful spirit, particularly the spaces for the gym and crèche.

There were also some concerns that the likely safety issues around the pool voids and skylights were not adequately addressed.

While there was still beauty in the landscaping idea, the jury agreed that the final resolution of this scheme did not meet design or community expectations to contribute sufficiently to the spirit of this stage of the Green Square development, particularly as a robust community park.

16

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

Stage 2

Cullinan Ivanov (with JILA) The jury found that this scheme’s approach to the brief, and overall design strategy was sound, however they found that this scheme had not been developed strongly enough from Stage 1 to Stage 2, particularly with regard to the entry ramp as a grander and more generous entry, and potentially linked more fully to the park. While the Stage 2 scheme reinforced some of the positive ideas from Stage 1 such as the north orientation of the 50m pool, the connection between the pools and the address to the street, the jury felt that the resolution of those ideas required greater attention to connectivity and access across the Aquatic centre pool areas and towards the park.

The brief required the design to be both an innovative park and a compelling and pragmatic building program. The jury felt this scheme failed to sufficiently progress the landscape conception for the park, even though new attention to details and materials provided more information as to intent, the final resolution of the overall landscape planning proposal for the eastern park and the associated playing field lacked connectivity. While the jury acknowledged that the link to the park idea had been addressed, it was not a bold or significant enough solution and there was still no real integration between the building and the park. The jury was also concerned with how the overland flow would be prevented from entering the sunken playing field, and questioned whether the broader issues of the easement and the site hydrology had been fully resolved.

The jury appreciated the internal treatment of the indoor pool hall but had concerns about the external expression of the architecture. There were some concerns raised that the expression of the Pool Hall did not necessarily reinforce the idea of an open and visible community building. While the Jury commended the connection between the pools as a complex, flexible and innovative solution, it felt that the additional low level roofs that joined the main program elements together were not architecturally realised in a successful manner.

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

17

Stage 2

TYP-TOP (with Tonkin Zulaikha Greer & JMD Design) The jury was impressed with the thoughtful and professional improvement of this scheme from Stage 1. These young architects, with their team of collaborators, successfully demonstrated their different thinking about the project, and the jury was impressed with the strategies they employed to develop their scheme from the diagrammatic approach in Stage 1 to a fully realised and integrated program for Stage 2. The jury compliments all members of the team for their verbal presentations and the design and content of the accompanying report.

The development of a vision for the park landscape, which was absent in Stage 1, was eloquently presented in Stage 2 through spatially accessible programs for play and relaxation in keeping with the conceptual underpinnings of the architectural program and site design.

Some concerns were noted as to the landscape program being too prescriptive and not open to ‘unprogrammed’ use or events. While there was a consistency and a strength in the design of the landscape program, the jury felt that the resolution of the building elements, in relation to design articulation, was not as successful. There was a clear concept about an urban park and an urban building in this scheme but the jury was not completely convinced that the concept or the complex urban environment was fully embedded in the final design. There was also concern about whether the overland flow issues had been fully resolved in relation to levels.

The jury were able to appreciate the urban logic of the planning diagrams but found that the architecture in 3D form did not support that boldness. The successes of the scheme include the clever idea to twist the gym at the corner creating an interesting engagement with the surroundings, and the innovative ideas for additional program, however the inflexibility of the small floor plates of the gym were considered an operational issue. The pool hall building also seemed to be somewhat secondary to the gym building, as opposed to it reading as the primary program, with some of the interiors and the external treatments of the buildings needing more resolution. While the running track was clearly a very strong uniting element in the park, it also tended to divide the playing field, the building and eastern landscapes through design resolution and access issues.

18

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

Stage 2 Following verbal presentations by the five finalists on the first day of judging, and initial deliberations on day two, the jury further shortlisted and debated the characteristics and merits of the two schemes by Andrew Burns and Andrew Burges. Both schemes were found to present clear intentions, and were based on strong concepts. They also both had clear, though very different approaches to the landscape. The jury commented as follows:

Andrew Burns (with NBRS & Turf) The jury was impressed with the initial Stage 1 strategy, and with its elaboration in Stage 2. The jury would like to commend Andrew for his verbal presentation and the team for their overall presentation and report.

This scheme was based on a very clearly defined and compelling concept in Stage 1, where the simple shed met the cricket fence, providing an elegant overall form-driven proposal for the site . The jury was impressed by the idea of the fence as a simple compelling diagram and organising strategy to unite the design, but also questioned whether it would be perceived as a separating device - a divider as much as the unifying element described. Along the same lines, there was the concern that the landscape space inside the fence would be ‘read’ as part of, and under the control of, the pool facilities – as opposed to the park being an open community space operationally distinct from the pool building.

The jury liked the treatment of the landscape at the corners of the site, allowing the building to sit free of the corners, with suitable planting and mounding. The resolution of form in space in Stage 2, however meant that the overall elliptical geometry used left very little room at the narrow edges for any planting treatment that would either fully describe the seasonal planting intent or be safe from being walked over. There was concern that the soft landscaping on these long edges would not survive and ultimately would be replaced by hard landscape. The need for an additional building on the eastern edge of the site was not fully justified, and the jury were also not fully convinced by the detail of the cultivated gardens.

The jury questioned whether the issues of the easement and overland flow had been fully resolved, particularly with the fence acting as a potential hydrological barrier.

While the layouts and connections between the different pool spaces were straightforward, even conventional and highly functional, there was some concerns that there was not enough sense of openness and interconnectivity that might encourage softer borders.

The jury found the building to be an exceptional formal and idea-based solution with the organised functional planning very well considered, and were very impressed with the confidence of the design and the resolution of the materiality of the architectural experience but with some limitations in terms of site resolution and the balance between architecture and park landscape.

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

19

Stage 2

Andrew Burges (with Grimshaw & TCL) From the outset this competition was about a park with a building, and this scheme understood and embodied that idea. The jury found this to be an intelligent and skilful scheme with a complexity of ideas creating a true community facility with the most interesting overall architectural and landscape experience.

The jury would like to commend Andrew for his eloquent verbal presentation and the team for their overall presentation and report. The jury would also compliment the team for working so well together to evolve the scheme from Stage 1 to Stage 2.

The jury was extremely impressed with the serious and rigorous improvements in this design from Stage 1 to Stage 2, particularly the overall landscape and the integration of the landscape with the building. While the functional planning of the building will need some fine tuning (and the overland flow issues need further resolution), the jury believes that this design can withstand the rigours of the design development process and, given the evolution from Stage 1 to Stage 2, believes that it will probably improve even more along the way.

The initial concept of translating ocean pools into an inner-urban context was very compelling, and the jury was impressed with how successfully this idea has been explored and resolved.

The overall recreational and relaxed approach to the idea of swimming, without compromise to the ‘functional’ swimming is to be highly commended. This appears to be a pool about relaxing as well as providing for active swimming and recreation, and is a sensual reading of how people use swimming areas.

The integration of the ‘hard’ program with the wider landscape idea, and the use of the roof to provide shelter to the interior and to external spaces was also considered highly successful. The jury also agreed that the thinking about both the architecture and the landscape most fully met the aspirations of the overall brief.

The jury found the park resolution to be a conceptually strong design approach that demonstrates the integration of the active areas with the play and more passive areas very well considered, and commends the team for being able to work together to create a greatly improved and unified scheme for Stage 2. The scheme also reduced the dominance of the playing field with overlapping and open uses around its edges. The jury found the landscape approach to be the most convincing of the five schemes with the park and garden areas well resolved and the more detailed and flexible garden elements to be highly intelligent and focused on community engagement. This is a true park and garden for the community.

The jury believes that this scheme will become a very special and unique type of community experience for the residents of Green Square.

20

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

Stage 2

Juryi Recommendationi The jury was unanimous in its decision and recommends the Andrew Burges (with Grimshaw & TCL) scheme as the winner of the Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Competition.

The jury believe that this scheme will be a world class exciting new project for the City of Sydney, further enhancing its reputation as a leader and a patron of architectural excellence.

Carey Lyon Jury Chair

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

21

Stage 2

Additionali Recommendationsi In addition, given the high quality of the shortlisted entries, the jury would also recommend to the City of Sydney that two other projects be recognised.

Firstly, the jury recommends that the Andrew Burns (with NBRS & Turf) be formally commended as the recipient of Second Place. In addition, the jury would also recommend that the TYP-TOP (with Tonkin Zulaikha Greer & JMD Design) be given a ‘Special Commendation’.

Afterwordi

The jury would also like to congratulate the City of Sydney for its commitment to improving the built environment through the professional running of this form of architectural design competition. The jury believes that this process has been a successful one giving opportunities to a broader range of architectural talent to expose their ideas in a public forum. They also believe that this has been an exciting and worthwhile process and hope that the successful conclusion to this competition might provide the impetus to other bodies in Australia to follow the example of the City of Sydney.

As an indicator, for the City of Sydney to receive over 140 entries from both local and international entrants, is a testament to the way these competitions are being promoted, run and delivered by the City. The jury would also like to compliment the City of Sydney on the conduct of the Competition - it has been both a stimulating and well organised process to participate in. The jury would particularly like to congratulate those within the City of Sydney who are responsible for organising and facilitating the process.

22

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

Winning Entry

List of Entrants

List of Entrants

Number

Competition entry name

101

1110+ARCHITECTURE & Heinz von Eckartsberg, Melbourne, Australia

102

AART architects A/S, Aarhus, Denmark

103

Active Living Landscapes, Yeppoon, Australia

104

ALA Architects Ltd, Helsinki, Finland

105

Alan Chan, Burwood, Australia

106

Alberto Sunderland, North Willoughby, Australia

107

Alessio Cancellieri architetto, Rome, Italy

108

Alireza Bolandnazar, Melbourne, Australia

109

Andrew Burns Architect, Chippendale, Australia

110

Architects Untitled, Surry Hills, Australia

111

arkilab ApS, Copenhagen, Denmark

112

Atelieriberico Pty Limited, Potts Point, Australia

113

Barrett Pinet Architecture, Bondi Junction, Australia

114

Bennett and Trimble Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia

115

Bokor Architecture + Interiors, Surry Hills, Australia

116

Burton Architecture, Newtown, Australia

117

CHRISTOU Design Group, Claremont, Australia

118

Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners Pty. Ltd., Kings Cross, Australia

119

Clouston Associates Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia

120

CODESSI, Sydney, Australia

121

Conybeare Morrison International Pty Ltd, East Sydney, Australia

122

Cook Robotham Architecture Bureau Ltd, London, United Kingdom

123

Cox Architecture Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia

124

CplusC Architectural Workshop Pty Ltd, Darlington, Australia

125

Cristina Aranzubia, Newtown, Australia

126

Cullinan Ivanov Partnership Pty Ltd, Surry Hills, Australia

127

Cumulus Studio Pty Ltd, North Hobart, Australia

128

Daryl Jackson Robin Dyke Pty Ltd Architects, Chippendale, Australia

129

Design Network Australia, Darlinghurst, Australia

130

design neuob Inc, Tokyo, Japan

131

DesignInc Ltd, North Sydney, Australia

132

Drummond Adams Architects Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia

133

Duncan Reed Architects Pty. Ltd., Surry Hills, Australia

134

Estrella Jazmin Sandoval Andrade, Linares, Chile

135

Felix Laboratories Pty Ltd, Fremantle, Australia

136

Firm Architecture and Design, New York, USA

137

Fitzpatrick & Partners Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia

138

Francois Blanciak, Sydney, Australia

139

Giancarlo Ghirardelli Archtects, Rimini, Italy

140

Greenbox Architecture Pty Ltd, Pyrmont, Australia

141

Groundlab, London, United Kingdom

142

Guida Moseley Brown Pty Ltd, Fyshwick, Australia

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

Number

Competition entry name

143

Guildsman Limited, Pontypridd, United Kingdom

144

Hassell, Sydney, Australia

145

hecticrat architects, Bondi, Australia

146

Hector Gato, Madrid, Spain

147

Mark Joseph Hill, Surry Hills, Australia

148

HLArchitects, Kowloon, Hong Kong

149

Index Architecture Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia

150

Insomniarch, Alexandria, Australia

151

j2a architecture studio pty ltd, Paddington, Australia

152

Jasper Brown Architects Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia

153

Jesse Jacob McSweeney Lockhart-Krause, Brisbane, Australia

154

Johannes Lupolo-Chan, Perth, Australia

155

John Henry Architects, Melbourne, Australia

156

Jonathan O. Gan + Associates, Manila, Philippines

157

Jun Sakaguchi Architect, Artarmon, Australia

158

Kelkan Pty Limited, North Carlton, Australia

159

Khallaf Partners, Alexandria, Egypt

160

KI Studio, Pyrmont, Australia

161

Leggett Loh Design Studio, Northcote, Australia

162

Lewis + Rebecca, Carlton, Australia

163

Line Studio, Sydney, Australia

164

Linearscape Architecture, New York, USA

165

Lippmann Partnership, Surry Hills, Australia

166

Liquid Blu Pty Ltd, Fortitude Valley, Australia

167

Luchetti Krelle, Surry Hills, Australia

168

Luke + Delia, The Rocks, Australia

169

Manuel David Romero Rodriguez, Madrid, Spain

170

Marco Cartelli Architetto, Siracusa, Italy

171

MCK Architects Pty Ltd, Surry Hills, Australia

172

MIX, Epping, Australia

173

MODE DESIGN Corp. Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia

174

MODU Architecture, PLLC, Brooklyn, USA

175

Mr Nicholas Eric Flutter, Brisbane, Australia

176

Nabito Architects & Partners, Barcelona, Spain

177

Nation Architects, Woollahra, Australia

178

NBRS & Partners Pty Ltd, Milsons Point, Australia

179

Nelson Velazquez, Mortdale, Australia

180

Zijian Li, New York, USA

181

Office for Metropolitan Architecture, Hong Kong

182

Olivia Hyde Architecture, Newtown, Australia

183

Ostinga Pty Ltd, Surry Hills, Australia

184

Pattern Studio Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

Number

Competition entry name

185

PDT Architects, Brisbane, Australia

186

Peddle Thorp Melbourne Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia

187

Populous Design Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia

188

PTW Architects, Sydney, Australia

189

Rainsford Architecture & Design, Newcastle, Australia

190

REALMSTUDIOS PTY LTD, Paddington, Australia

191

Rebekah Araullo, Manila, Philippines

192

Remmus Architecture, Carlton, Australia

193

Robert Watson Architects Pty Ltd, East Melbourne, Australia

194

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

195

Ryuichi Ashizawa Architects & Associates, Osaka, Japan

196

Sanjay Ektate, Mumbai, India

197

Sarah Bridges, Bilinga, Australia

198

Scale Architecture Pty. Ltd., Darlinghurst, Australia

199

SIGNES, Paris, France

200

Silvester Fuller Pty Ltd, Rushcutters Bay, Australia

201

Simon Whibley Architecture, Melbourne, Australia

202

Site Studio, Gosford, Australia

203

SMAR (Smart Architecture), Madrid, Spain

204

Smart Design Studio, Surry Hills, Australia

205

Sou Fujimoto Architects, Tokyo, Japan

206

Spackman Mossop Michaels, Darlinghurst, Australia

207

Stephen Collier Architects Pty Limited, Darlinghurst, Australia

208

Stewart Hollenstein, Chippendale, Australia

209

Studio Haptic Pty Ltd, Darlinghurst, Australia

210

Sulinski Booth Architects Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia

211

Tanja Barjaktarevic, Rose Bay, Australia

212

Terroir, Hobart, Australia

213

CHROFI & McGregor Coxall, Many, Australia

214

Thomas Hale, Canberra, Australia

215

Tonkin Zulaikha Greer, Surry Hills, Australia

216

Tony Caro Architecture Pty Ltd, Milsons Point, Australia

217

TPA Landscape Architecture, East Kurrajong, Australia

218

Trinity Plus One Pt Ltd, Glen Waverley, Australia

219

tsai Design, Epping, Australia

220

tyrrellstudio Pty. Ltd., Manly, Australia

221

Vim Design Pty Ltd, Ultimo, Australia

222

Weston Williamson + Partners, London, United Kingdom

223

Williamson Architects Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia

224

Wilson Architects, Spring Hill, Australia

225

ymds, Selangor, Malaysia

226

Urban Possible, Rosebery, Australia

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report

Number

Competition entry name

227

Carter Williamson Architects, Summer Hill, Australia

228

Environa Studio, Surry Hills, Australia

230

Andrew Burges Architects, Sydney, Australia

231

Jensen Young Pty Ltd, Drummoyne, Australia

232

Shed Architects, Redfern, Australia

233

Sam Samarghandi & Michael Waterman, Killarney Heights, Australia

234

TYP-TOP Studio, Sydney, Australia

236

Gregory Grivas, Fairlight, Australia

237

Inner Architecture, Camperdown, Australia

239

Anthony Gill Architects, Surry Hills, Australia

240

Supermanoeuvre, Surry Hills, Australia

241

Other Architects Pty Ltd with LCLA Office, Bondi Junction, Australia

243

Crawford Architects, Pyrmont, Australia

244

Jasper Brown Architects Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia

245

Gresley Abas, Perth, Australia

246

Hector Gato, Madrid, Spain

247

Zijian Li, New York, USA

248

Code Green with Ian Bassett & partners, Port Macquarie, Australia

Green Square Gunyama Park & Aquatic Centre Design Competition/Jury Report