What Makes Good Housing? | A juror’s perspective

I was privileged to be selected as a juror for the 2015 NSW Architecture Awards, judging the multiple housing category. It is an honor to be recognised by your peers as the expert you have aspired to become but it is also an extraordinary opportunity to visit so many great projects which you would not ordinarily get the opportunity to see, and be offered insights (and there were many!) directly from another Architect’s perspective. It is also a great opportunity to consolidate your own thinking about your own work, the principles you apply, and what it takes to make a truly great project.

I felt great responsibility and obligation as a juror to be rigorous and equitable in the process of assessing the prospects for the Awards. And so, with my heart in my mouth and before being presented this year’s entries I thought it useful to establish an elaborated assessment criteria developed for my own use and also as a basis for further discussion with my fellow jurors, Peter Smith (our chair) and Jad Silvester.

But first, it is important to consider the criteria for the awards. The juror’s handbook states permissible entries “must be residential in nature and comprise two or more self contained dwellings”. Awards are to be granted for “a work of excellence demonstrating consummate architectural skill that contributes to the advancement of architecture”. Section 7.2 of the Handbook provides some guidance in relation to the Core Evaluation Criteria, which cuts across all awards categories. These include: Conceptual Framework, Public and Cultural Benefits, Relationship of Built Form to Context, Program Resolution, Integration of Allied Disciplines, Cost/Value Outcomes, Sustainability and Response to Client and User Needs.

From this starting point, I needed to consider what these headings meant within the realm of multiple housing, and what contributes “to the advancement of architecture”. The architectural profession prides itself on the refined “bespoke”, but I believe the provision of good housing should go beyond this, offering strategies, models or interpretations that improve upon the norms. From my perspective to see finely detailed dual occupancies (a pair of interconnected houses) be awarded for their refinement if they do not offer a model for comprehensive adaptation or use across at least a portion of the city does not contribute to the advancement of multiple housing, but rather it’s stagnation.

Furthermore, how do we assess the complexities and difficulties of a large, challenging project over those of a smaller project where the architect has greater scope to exercise control?

To help with deliberations, and as a further layer to the core evaluation criteria I developed the following consideration points of what makes good housing:

Urban response
The building’s response to the street and the urban context. In simple terms; Is it a good neighbour for its given context, and in instances where the context is changing, does it project a model of a good future neighbour by anticipating what is to come. Does the building provide “eyes over the street” with a scale and respect for the public realm.

Homecoming/apartment organisation
In multiple housing the organisation of individual units along a street, a path, a corridor, a courtyard, can project a clear idea of the type of community that is being anticipated and define the homecoming experience. The homecoming experience may be routine but at its best it should be a celebration; joyous.

Landscape response
Does the building value landscape; either by retaining a remnant stand of trees, or by projecting an ambition for a future landscape. In a densely urban context this may not be possible which puts greater emphasis on the building’s urban response.

Amenity/Unit Interior’s organisation
Apartments are after all about living. Amenity (light, air, appropriate room sizes….  all those things identified by the Residential Flat Design Code); what the apartments feel like and are like to live in. If an apartment building does not provide good amenity for its occupants then it is not worthy of award, in spite of any refinement which the architectural community, the real estate industry and their associated publications lust for in their search for image, quite often at the expense of substance.

Construction rationale
If procuring housing is about economy (which it must be if we are to overcome the ongoing challenges of providing economical housing) then architects must understand and engage with the construction process and recognise the opportunities and limitations in working with a particular developer, builder, client, without forgetting our obligation to the building’s future inhabitants. The character of a project should be determined by and distilled from economical construction, and not inflicted upon the project at the Architect’s will.

Identity / architectural character
The best projects recognise the above and project a clear identity and architectural character that comes from satisfying all of the above, and a deep understanding of the building’s physical, social, economic and environmental contexts and it should sit comfortably within them.

Sustainability
Sustainability has broad tentacles which reach into all of the above areas. There were a couple of projects this year that were thought provoking in this regard and exemplary in optimising use and minimising resources, but did not correlate this deeper understanding with an overt expression of rainwater tanks or solar panels.

As a jury, we did agree on a broad hierarchy for the shortlisted project, but as individuals we placed different emphasis on the assessment criteria and accordingly the lines between the Award/Commendation/Shortlist categories within our individual assessment did vary. It was ultimately the chair’s responsibility to determine the final lines and nominations put to the Institute of Architects in consideration of our collective views. Without the chair’s final determination we would still be debating the finer merits of one prospect over another.

If from this article you hope to glean which projects are the recipients of the awards from the published shortlist then go ahead, but I suspect that despite my efforts to clarify my position and the process, you will nevertheless be surprised.

It was a privilege to serve as a juror, particularly in a year where the standard was so very high and I thank the Institute of Architects and my fellow jurors Peter Smith and Jad Silvester for their equal respect for the process and our engaging discussions.