AILA National Jury Report
National Jury Chair, Associate Professor Linda Corkery FAILA
Canberra provided a typically brisk winter weekend in July when the 2010 AILA National Awards Jury gathered to assess this year’s array of submissions from around the country. Ahead of this meeting, we individually reviewed the 66 entries which had been electronically submitted and assembled for us by the National Office. All the projects had previously established their credentials through a State awards system, some earning accolades in that process. The seven-member jury undertook the task with fresh eyes, bringing to the table their initial impressions of the national significance of the projects, and then entering into robust discussion to eventually arrive at a consensus on the 20 awards made across five categories.In the period between the call for submissions and the date of the jury’s deliberations, a new award category for Urban Design was announced by National Council. Consequently, one of the jury’s first tasks was to define what we considered to be an urban design project. We were then at liberty to decide which projects should most appropriately be considered in the Urban Design category. [Under the guidelines for the National Awards process, the jury is allowed to move projects between categories if they believe it results in a better ‘fit’ and particularly if it will advantage a project to be considered in a different grouping.]
Most of the projects submitted in the Design category this year were located in urban settings, and of those the jury selected several which we agreed could be identified as urban design projects. The criteria applied in making this selection were that the projects were to be:
- designed and constructed, that is, we did not include projects that generated urban design strategies, such as masterplans or guidelines;
- situated in the public domain, generating new connections or repairing disconnections between built and/or natural systems on an urban scale;
- perceived as having a significant social impact beyond the specific activities provided within a site; and
- multi-disciplinary, encompassing landscape architecture, architecture, art, planning, heritage, and realised through a close collaboration between the landscape architects and other relevant disciplines.
These criteria aimed to distinguish urban design projects within the context of landscape architectural practice, and we anticipate they will generate discussion and perhaps some difference of opinion. The projects awarded in this new category vary considerably, ranging in scale and context, but the jury considered that each met the four criteria. With the Urban Design category now included in the National program, the State awards programs will be encouraged to add this category to their programs. Through the process of deliberation at the State level, we look forward to a continued refinement of the category’s definition.
Having come to an agreement on the new award category, the jury then discussed what would be considered an exemplary award-winning project. We agreed that we were looking for “high distinction” work, innovative projects that set new benchmarks, solutions that extended beyond “best practice”. As would be expected in a national awards program, there was a great diversity of project types, scales, budgets and contexts. We gave careful thought to recognising the special factors inherent in each project, and appreciated the attention given in the submissions to explaining how the project addressed the Australian Landscape Principles and reflected environmental responsibility and sustainability. In a number of the projects, we recognised that social sustainability was a central concern, equal in significance to environmental/ecological sustainability. Overall, the jury was impressed with the high level of creativity and design thinking demonstrated in the projects and we were struck by the increasing capacity of landscape architects to undertake and often lead highly complex projects.
I would like to acknowledge and thank my fellow jury members who were thoroughly dedicated to the task, equitable and collegial in their approach, which is not to say that we agreed on every point. But in the end, we were able to reach consensus on the final selections. In particular, we benefited from the astute contribution of Gary Rake from the National Capital Authority—a frequent client of landscape architectural services who was particularly valuable in providing an informed non-landscape architect’s view of the project work. Many thanks also to Paul Costigan, AILA’s Executive Director, and his team for providing a well-organised structure that allowed us to do our job efficiently.
Congratulations to all those who submitted their work for consideration in this year’s Awards program. It was a privilege to review the excellent work undertaken by colleagues around the country and overseas. On behalf of the jury, I commend this work to readers and encourage a continued discussion about how the AILA National awards program can be an effective means of acknowledging Australian landscape architects’ outstanding professional achievements—to each other, to other professions and to the public at large.
