[Updated with a response by the competition registrar below my original enquiry]

I have sent the folowing open letter regarding the East Darling Harbour Competition Shortlist to the parties listed below:

As there are no contact details for the Competition Registrar in either Competition Brief nor the Competition Website, this email is an open letter to the following:

Chris Johnson - Jury Chair,
Dr Deborah Dearing - President, RAIA NSW Chapter,
Elizabeth Farrelly,

I am writing with regards to the recent shortlist for the East Darling Harbour competition in particular the application of Section 5 Competition Conditions. I bring to your attention item 5.10 of these conditions.

5.10 Anonymity and Confidentiality

Strict anonymity is to be maintained by Entrants through Stage One of the Competition. The only means of identifying will be the use of the Entrants unique Identification Number on each panel as stipulated in Section 7 Submission Requirements. In order to preserve anonymity, all Stage One Submissions shall be made without any name, business name, logo or identification mark on the drawings.

Identifying marks such as names or logos evident on any Stage One submission will cause immediate disqualification.

A public announcement of those selected to participate in Stage Two will be made. Anonymity will not carry into Stage Two. However, all participants are required to maintain confidentiality through the Competition process.

No Entrant shall disclose, exhibit or publish the submitted proposals in any form until the completion of the Competition.

In respect to this clause there has been serious concern raised in regard to the compliance of Entrant # 70184 - Lippman Associates, Richard Rogers Partnership, Martha Schwartz Partners and Lend Lease Development. In the submitted documentation this entrant included well known and highly published work by Richard Rogers Partnership; in particular 88 Wood St, London.

We are confident that the architectural members of the jury would be very familiar with the work of Richard Rogers and due to the arrangement of the project references on the presentation panels there would be have been very little doubt as to the authorship of the submssion. As this is a jury that has members at the most senior levels of their profession it is expected that the Competition Conditions and Procedures would have been referred to in this situation. In reference to Section 6 Competition Procedures, the following item is noted:

6.4 Disqualification

Entrants that fail to meet a significant number of the Competition Conditions may be disqualified, in particular where:

- The submission is recieved after the lodgement time and date
- The jury deems the submssion to be contrary the objectives of the brief
- The submission is not submitted in accordance with the submssion requirements, as stated in the document
- The identity of an entrant is disclosed to the jury or any other deliberate offence against the principles of anonymity;
- An entrant attempts to influence any member of the jury; or
- Improperly influence the decision of the jury

On behalf of the competition entrants, clarification is sought by the Competition Registrar in regard to the compliance of Entrant #70184 and on what basis the submission was not considered for disqualification.

Regards,

Marcus Trimble

As always, I will keep you updated with any feedback I recieve. Unless I am in Japan.

The Official Response:

Dear Mr Trimble

East Darling Harbour Urban Design Competition

I refer to your e-mail of 22 August addressed to Chris Johnson as Jury Chair of the East Darling Harbour Urban Design Competition. I wish to advise the following in relation to your concerns regarding Entry No 70184.

Entry 70184 was not in breach of clause 5.10 as it did not provide any “name, business name or logo or identification mark on the drawings”. Inclusion of imagery of built structures is not a breach of this clause and is a common technique in design competitions to illustrate the proposed design language of a proposal. It is inevitable that in a field of 137 entrants there will be visual details - such as images, drawing styles, architectural signatures or graphic languages - that may or may not be clues to an entrant’s identity. If a Registrar were to exclude entrants on this basis then no architect with a clearly identifiable style could enter.

In this case however I can advise that during the entire Jury deliberation no Jury member raised the potential identity of this scheme or any other scheme.

I have also raised the matter with Jury Chair Chris Johnson, who advises, “In judging architectural competitions it is sometimes tempting for jurors with knowledge of the industry to speculate on the identity of entrants based on visible elements. In the case of the East Darling Harbour Competition this was less likely as the Jury was unusual in having architects in the minority - a deliberate strategy by the Government to ensure a wide range of views and professions represented in the Jury. Further, it has been my experience from numerous competitions that such speculation is more often than not incorrect, a point which I made to the Jury during the process. The Jury debate and discussion focussed on the merits of schemes and at no time referred to potential entrant identities.”

I trust this provides you with the information and assurance you require. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can assist further.

Yours sincerely

Russell Rodrigo
Registrar
East Darling Harbour Urban Design Competition