I wonder why....
Especially when you consider the criteria that were agreed by each of the three main institutions - ARC, Auckland City Council and Central Government. The design competition criteria, which I voted for at ARC, include these:
2. To achieve a high quality work of contemporary architecture, heritage and public open space which celebrates Auckland’s maritime and Pacific culture and New Zealand’s innovative and creative culture in an exemplary way that attracts local, national and international acclaim.
3. To create a distinctly Auckland place that showcases our harbour environment, history, diversity and Pacific culture.
Points 2 and 3 clearly refer to the importance of Auckland’s "maritime culture” and “Pacific” culture. These criteria were also in Design Compteition Stage 1 brief. I went and looked at the 237 designs that were submitted and many of the actual designs submitted at Stage 1 did reference a number of cultural images and symbols, - maritime, Pacific and Maori. As well as built forms and so on....
But none of those got through the judging process. This process included selections from the Panel, and then a final selection decision by ARC, ACC and Government representatives. And no mention is made of this requirement in the panel's further guidance for Stage 2.
So. Do these criteria also apply to the panel and those who are making decisions?
Or are they there to appease.... encourage Pacific culture related designs for appearances sake... and lack real commitment and force when it comes to implementation... ?
I am asking these questions internally within the ARC, but not getting very far.
And the entry from Shanghai is a copy of Toronto's waterfront design - hardly original.
ReplyDelete