Hobart Waterfront International Design Competition

This waterfront is nearly perfect the way it is.

I could make a handfull of suggestions rather than changing the entire waterfront, we need to keep the heritage

1. Any buildings that were going to be moved/destroyed, why dont you turn them into cheap 2 story carparks? One of these at the edge of Sullivans cove would be brilliant to fix the current parking issue.

2. Keep the carpark outside mures. What other place in the world has waterside parking in its major city?

3. Mawson place, move the sculpture, move the other un necessary objects and make this small are into a park with a few tress and benches. This will attract people having picnics and eating chips from flippers

4. Create a park the same on the other side where Hunter street is nearest to Davey Street. Then there is still parking spaces because these dont get utilised anyway.

5. Put in more tourist and local information around the cove so that people will walk around the cove to read it

6. Yes bringing the tram back was a good idea. Have it travel back ad forward from Hunter Street to Salamanca.

And I'm sure there are many other suggestions. The entire waterfront does not need redeveloping, just add bits one at a time

Three thoughts came to mind after my brief look at the entries on display: the significance of the City Hall building as a focal point; traffic engineering in central Hobart; and Danish design.

Tony Carro's suggestion to re-vitalise the City Hall building and to cap it in an immense glass conservatory is brilliant. He made reference to the nineteenth century Lyon Opera House which was recently internally reconstructed and topped with a modern glass roof. Hobart (currently without an opera house) may have the perfect site for opera at the City Hall - located as it is at the centre of the Arts precinct. A theatre modelled on the small, traditional 'horse shoe', 60s design of Oper Frankfurt specialising in German opera may be what this corner of the world needs. From the point of view of tourism and the Hobart brand/image, opera could be very good for Hobart. Adelaide has demonstrated the viability of cultural tourism and German opera.

Traffic engineering around the waterfront from Salamanca to Sullivan's Cove favours motorists at the expense of pedestrians - this needs a big re-think, limited access maybe but not through traffic! A tunnel for Macquarie Street at the City Hall; elimination of the entire one way system; and most particularly, closure of Davey Street in front of Customs House must be considered for any Cove proposal to be successful.

The Danes are insightful designers and one look at Anderson's scheme confirmed this. The way his reflecting pond and his islands extend the waterfrontage both inwards and outwards is wonderful and brilliant. The reflections of buildings in the pond (particularly at night) would add significantly to the experience of being in this area. Being able to view the harbour and the City, inwards and outwards, from the islands makes sense (imagine standing on the island looking at the City Hall/ Opera House illuminated glass roof and reflection); for pedestrians, being able to circumnavigate the area of the cove and Arts precinct without traffic, parked cars and excessive concrete would be much more meaningful and pleasant. Within the harbour area commercial activities must be relevant and genuine - Darling Harbour is not an appropriate model. Notably, Anderson's scheme provides a public realm which is not demeaned by commerce - the waterfront remains as much as possible a low key, working port/marina and city park, not a worthless tourist shopping experience.

Leave it alone. My interstate friends used to visit Hobart regularly and in particular they enjoyed the waterfront (as it NOT like Melbourne or Sydney) and it used to be unique and quant. Now they are very disappointed in how it has changed. The new buildings do not blend in the existing surroundings. They cannot understand how this was allowed in particular the extension with 0 Davey street (is this building actually finished?), that round copper thing which has not aged well at all. They class this as visual pollution and I agree. My friends feel disappointed and now prefer to holiday in other less affected states. So much for increasing tourism. Even more amazing is that the local postcards still display the waterfront in the days prior to the developments rather than what is at present, just look at the waterfront web site and again the photo does not show these developments. Interesting mmmm? Does the council actually want to improve the waterfront or just pocked more stamp duty?

Firstly we made a submission to the Sullivans Cove Authority in 2006 and we still await acknowledgement or a response to our comments.

As an Incorporated body of more that 14 years existence in which time we have contributed to the Australian Wooden Boat Festivals growth and the building and restoration of traditioanl wooden boats, we believe we have valuable contributions to make. We recently hosted an International Forum on Maritime Heritage during the Australian Wooden Boat Festival and it was interesting to hear comments of speakers from Holland and Denmark commenting on the fact that we have something very special to preserve in Hobart. A lesson hard learnt in Europe.

Our Guild is charged with a resposibility to ensure Maritime Heritage and the art and craft of wooden boat building is nurtured and passed on to future generations. We take this responsibility seriously.

To achieve this it is essential that maritime heritage, culture and traditional Australian and Tasmanian wooden boat building practices become an integral part of the proposed Sullivans Cove Development.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask that the Wooden Boat Guild of Tasmania Incorporated be given a hearing in regard to the proposed development of Sullivans Cove as our contibution could prove valuable.

I can be contacted at Peter.higgs@bigpond.com or Secretary Wooden Boat Guild of Tasmania Incorporated, PO Box 28 Battery Point, Tasmania 2004.

Best regards and look forward to discussing this with you in the near future.

Well done to the organisers of the HWIDC for putting this important design proposal out to the world.
There is however an idea that's missing from all the entries. To reconnect pedestrians from the City Hall and Tasmanian Museum to the waterfront, the most elegant option would be to sink the road traffic underground. Two short tunnels in Macquarie St and Davey St would allow people easy access from the city to the harbour along a level promenade.

I went to the presentation by the three winners and was very impressed with the Danish entry. Since then I have inspected the display at the Bond Store twice and still feel the Andersen entry is the best.

The way he and a few other entries brought the water back to the Water Gate is a brilliant concept. This is very different to filling in more of the waterfront with buildings which removes the water from the people of Hobart even more.

Dunn St car park should be left an open area. The vista from the top of Campbell Street is wonderful.

By joining the two docks we get even more water which is great, people love looking at water, it is relaxing, almost hypnotic.

The steps on Andersens island get us closer to the water as well which is only available at Watermans Dock in Sullivans Cove. The island also offers protected areas where people can sit out of the wind and look at the water - and it is free!!! Maybe Sullivans Cove could have more free sitting areas like at Darling Harbour - stepped wooden seating going down to the water.

The area from Argyle Street down beside the City Hall looks very inviting as a tree lined walkway. Overall we need less parking and more walkways in Sullivans Cove.

interesting projects

- 3509
- 2871
- 2931
- 2938
- 3339
- 3528

Could the megadevelopments which have won prizes have anything to do with the megacruisers which dock here? Are the winners seeing their constructions from the river elitists point of view, rather than from the land, where most of the inhabitants of Hobart live? Please lets remember that this area is on a river, and a very beautiful one at that. Do not close off views to the water from the land, rather open up to it, it is very much part of Hobart's allure, and a charming place to walk to and around at any time. The northern part of the area now is quite picturesque with its fishing boats and punts and the Henry James row of buildings. OK, moving south from the Elizabeth Pier, move the car parks underground, do something imaginative with that desert (a park perhaps?) and remove the unfortunate building which houses Cisco's Restaurant and also the old warehouse. But keep any new construction low rise, perhaps any building materials required could be taken from the ziggurat known as the New Chancellor Hotel after demolition.

The river in Hobart is a natural asset to be admired, not something to be blocked out by concrete monsters. That's all been done before in other places (Barcelona Spain being one) where ideas have been sold to the public as good urban planning and opening up to the sea, but have then ended up as self-serving and actually closing the city off from the sea.

Good luck Hobart!

I have visited the exhibition of the entries and winners for the Hobart Waterfront Competition, so far so very good, hope you are able to pick some of the good ideas, here are a few comments for you.

1. Getting rid of the car parking the first priority, only vehicles servicing the boats and buildings in the area permitted for very short periods.
2. Hobart Rivulet bring it through the area particularly through Dunn place car Park.
3. Cultural Centre with appropiate Arts with the Theatre Roal
4. Extra Wing onto the Museum & Art Gallery with the security and enviornment facilities so that high quality exhibitions can visit Tasmania.
Art court incorporated spilling out into Dunn Place.
5. Dunn Place Car park make into a pleasant park with the Rivulet and trees etc
6. Two Walk ways very wide over Macquarie Street and Davey Street at Elizabeth Street and from City Hall to Fishermans Market.
7. Hobart and Tasmania Information Centre promenent in the centre of the area, at present this facility in a very difficult area for visitors to find or get too.
8 A Maritime Museum a large one to incorporate a water area so as old boats can be incorporated, make this a central attraction to attract visitors to the area, we have lots of maritime history to be shown, there is probably some aboriginal water history, the waleing history, (Note see the Maritime Museum in Darwin)
9. Extra spaces for cars displaced by adding to the multy story car park off Market place, there is some very old and untidy buildings on corner of Market Place and Collins Street.

Hope these comments are of value

With a tendency towards wide open spaces proposed in the design competition entries, I wonder whether adequate consideration has been given to the impact on visitors to the revamped area on a cold winter's afternoon, with strong southerly winds coming up the river straight from the Antarctic? I well remember how forlorn, cold and breezy a place was the waterfront in such an environment, when I used to visit the area, years ago. Has things changed much since ? Will the revamped area be deserted during winter and at other times of inclement weather conditions, as potential visitors find it too blustery and freezing cold to stay in the area longer than can be helped ?

I also wonder whether proper consideration has been given to the need for the number of exhibition halls and spaces, proposed or will such facilities remain under-utilized; during the off season. I assume that these infrastructurial facilities will only be avaiable on a commercial basis;
user pays basis.

Were at least one or more exhibition facilities to be made available for 'free gratis' community use, may I suggest that thought be given to establishing a complex in which various voluntary organisations such as
- the Tasmanian, Maritime and Transport Museums,
- Sound Preservation Society,
- Nurses' Graduates museum,
- Military museum
and the like could be brought together to display their assorted exhibits, on a permanent basis.

The Hobart waterfront redesignation and creation of a new entertainment axis for the purpose of interlinking the east and west sides of the cove.

The waterfront concept can be reduced in complexity to three fundamentals as follows;
1. Major requirements
(a) improve pedestrian access connection
(b) reduce vehicle density obstruction
2. Development requirements
(a) designated art gallery
(b) cruise ship terminal
3. Associated requirements
(a) Theatre Royal extensions
(b) Taste of Tasmania improvements
Everything else is ancillary to the future of the cove in relation to developments and can be encompassed through normal ongoing time frame consideration with the ebb and flow of public conception wishes and opinion.

The recent competition to find suggestions has not provided any great impetus for me personally in my mind. Unfortunately seeing the artistic impressions has given me a sense of their naivety almost to the point where their concepts have reached construction without a correct comprehension of the vagaries of the location especially specific to weather. This is despite the statements to the contrary by the proponents.

It would appear obvious that items 3(a) and 3(b) can virtually proceed with minimal impact on the creation of an entertainment axis and should be budgeted for as a matter of course. The improvements to the Taste of Tasmania location should be undertaken to remove the asbestos and reconstruct a multi purpose exhibition hall for this and other purposes to replace the old City Hall. Naturally landscaping is required to link the Theatre Royal within the axis.

Items 2(a) and 2(b) do become jewels somewhat because they begin to provide an embellishment factor of culture onto existing facilities in Hobart and do of course become the connections for linking the east with west aspects of the cove. The cruise ship terminal is not needed to be grandiose but functional and representative of our state and its productivity for visitors, as well as enhancing the Macquarie wharf locality. The real gem in the whole concept can be the art gallery. What a marvellous opportunity exists to revamp the old City Hall building shell and facade finally embracing it fully into an entertainment precinct after so many years in the wilderness. This may well become the icon visible from the approach by sea that Hobart richly deserves.

Items 1(a) and 1(b) are the designating factors whereby ultimately the total practicality of all concepts hinges upon. Without substantially addressing these problems we gain nothing. We can look at them somewhat laterally by utilising parking areas for other functions at various times but that will not address the problem of generating connectional access with the city, an entertainment precinct and the waterfront.

Currently there is in the main, two giant mobile trenches obstructing an empathy with all three in this concept. For everything to work such as utilising the Mawson Place as a type of forecourt with the Tasmanian Museum, Town Hall, Maritime Museum and Carnegie Hall amongst other things, the vehicle traffic must be negated. Despite its initial costs if we truly want to proceed with the development of a cultural precinct there is no other alternative. This would involve excavations below the existing road levels of both Davey and Macquarie Streets along the distance from Macquarie wharf to Murray Street. There are difficulties with this and some are well known but it also opens up the possibility in the dock areas of underground viewing areas for instance where heritage locations may exist.

More importantly by putting the vehicle traffic underground and neutralising its impact, it also provides the bridge by which the pedestrians can access the whole precinct without these threats, as they seek empathy with the locality.

http://www.apb.es/es/SERVICES/Galeria_imagenes/files/01-Port_Vell.jpg

I dont need to say anymore!!!!!!!!!!!

The charm of the waterfront is the vision of boats, ships and liners and their close proximity. Constitution and Victoria docks are positive aspects of the Cove, and we are fortunate that we can even see the water from Davey and Macquarie Streets as we drive by. This is a unique consequence of living in Hobart.

I challenge the apparent underlying premise that the waterfront would be immensely improved by excluding vehicles. Good vehicle access and parking encourages people to use the area. This is actually a benefit not a disadvantage, as the current parking arrangements make the waterfront accessible. In addition, events like the Wooden Boat Festival can temporarily exclude vehicles to make alternate use of the resulting open space.

Some things are worth retaining, like Mures, which is a family friendly venue appreciated by many. It is also enhanced by the ability to get close to the venue in a vehicle. The City Hall could use a revamp to make it a more usable and flexible venue. However, large buildings erected on the outer wharf area will cause the distant water views to be lost.

Locals constantly use and love the waterfront area and actually live here all year round. The amenity needs to attend to local needs before the needs of temporary visitors, because locals are the ones who keep the area constantly ticking over, whatever the weather and whatever the season.

To suggest that people's minds are automatically closed because they want some things to remain unchanged is wrong. Hobart does not need to be the same as larger cities. Fortunately we do not exclude people from our waterfront areas and it is worth retaining the accessibility for both people and vehicles. I constantly use and appreciate this city's unique and special waterfront. Certainly enhance it, but don't mess it up in a rush to be up-market.

I would leave the Hobart waterfront as it is now. It has some life, it is genuine and it doesn't look like everywhere else. The designs on offer would be incredibly expensive and would produce a mess that looks just like Barcelona's water development or other such areas in crowded cities where the seafront has been reclaimed ( from old industrial development). On the other hand, Hobart 's beauty is already in the surroundings and the waterfront. Let's face it the city centre is dead outside business hours - and on Hobart's water front round Mures and the fishing boats, there is life. If you want to do something to improve the aesthetics of the area, demolish the New Chancellor and the Marine building and turn the museum car park into a park and do something about the traffic . I am sorry but after the recent construction of Zero Davey added to the hideousness of the New Chancellor I have no faith you will improve rather than ruin the area.

I was disappointed to see that the Jury Report did not even raise the vital questions posed by Macquarie and Davey street until its end and then left them hanging. To my mind traffic is a key consideration as far as the waterfront and its relationship to the rest of Hobart is concerned. At the very least I would have expected the Jury, at the outset, to emphasise the necessity for a resolution of the traffic problem in Hobart by the State Government and City Council Government. Indeed the Jury could have fairly made some suggestions as to how to ameliorate the situation. For example:- the institution of ferries and water buses to diminish the deluge of traffic to and from the eastern shore and elsewhere. That at least would be a most fitting development for the waterfront. While the active encouragement of public transport, bicycles and walking rather than private motor vehicle use could be seen by some as beyond the scope of this project I believe that it is not. The reality is that the Waterfront cannot be considered in splendid isolation from the rest of the city and the determination of its future could be the catalyst for the resolution of several of the problems that beset the city as a whole.

I would like to see the cars, streets and car parks to go underground. Like to see more open spaces, places to gather, Highlight our strengths our natural heritage, the mountain art, culture, wilderness, fine food and wine. Open up the city hall shops, restaurants, theatre, art displays, expand the mueseum to hab\ve open installations. Create lots of water features - focus on the water, the old fishing port people LOVE water - looking at it swimming in it looking at it. Keep everything Low 1-2 stories nothing too high. knock down Grand Chancellor and Zero one and the Marine Board building while you are at it!! Create fish markets, cafes hives of activity parks to sit and rest. Keep it beautiful anbd simple.

The entrants in the Competition have put many hours into their entries, but few have captured the heritage, the spiritual feeling of the area or the ambience, particularly in the Dunn Street area. It would be nice to have all entries on view over a period of time.
The plan by the consultants, first put out by the Waterfront Authority addressed many of the above. Hopefully, the people of Hobart will not be hoodwinked into more unsightly buildings in the waterfront area. It must be people friendly with some of the buildings of a more recent time modified or removed. We need green areas near the waterfront, particularly on the eastern end of the cove, as there is already too much tar and cement. The building used for the Taste of Tasmania should be demolished, it is not historic. Replace it with a multipurpose building which has removable sides. It could be used for the Taste, Art and Drama, Cultural events, a cruise ship terminal etc. No more Zero Davey, Marine Board buildings or Tanks with the insulation protruding, blue Triangles on walls or unfriendly Mawson Places. Mures should be reduced to one level or moved. Let us enjoy the view of the harbour, after all, that is why we go there.

Recently I attended the exhibition of entries in the competition to change the Hobart waterfront. In general I found this to be disapponting, primarily because never have Tasmanians, nor Hobartians in particular been asked whether they would actually like the waterfront altered. I found many of the entries to be soulless and "cold", especially the winning entry, as best I could interpret it. Most of the entries wanted quite dramatic changes, but nice as it would be to have a pedestrian promenade, the whole focus of a working port is removed. This waterfront is described by many as the "charm of Hobart", and that certainly is how it should remain, with cars, boats and people. I often drive and walk in that area and never find too much traffic to bother me when walking with or without my dog, and frequently I go there to purchase fish from Mure's or the punts and sometimes have more trouble finding a parking spot. For locals it has to continue to be accessible, Occasionally I take my 94 yr. old mother there and she needs close proximity to restaurants due to her walkng disability. My sister-in-law with multiple sclerosis goes there at least weekly because she has fish to eat at least once a week and likes buying it there. To remove personal transport removes a lot of people. How do we get to the local restaurants without cars (don't tell me public transport or taxis)? How do businesses function with heaps of limits on their ability to be serviced and to patrons? The idea of removing Mure's is abhorrent - it s a "part of the 'furnture'". I am disapponted that the Princes Wharf shed no 1 (Taste of Tas. building) was not included, because it is the one building which needs a revamp. I do not agree with the proposals for the Dunn
St. car park - it should remain as a leafy car park - it is a breathing space in an area which is rather devoid of greenness.
I have often suggested to HCC councillors that Mawson Place could be improved with the huge pots holding trees (as in Bondi Junction, NSW), placed in strategic positions, but could be moved if or when the occasion arises - they would soften that area significantly as well as providng some shade for people who wish to sit on the benches, and therefore encouraging more people to visit the area.
Hobart needs to be different and this waterfront simplicity is part of the difference from other captals and cities round the world - please don't spoil it!!

It seems that the notion of Tasmania moving forward is completely at odds with the vast majority of the community who cling to the vestiges of past glory. It is saddening to think that Tasmania will remain that 'backward state' but it is the stark reality because those who live here are simply not open to change. What a fantastic ideas competition the HWIDC has been. I congratulate the Waterfront authority for taking a proactive move by generating ideas for future development. It is a crying shame that so many others do not see it this way. Is it because they are old fashioned and cannot accept change? Get with reality people and open your closed little minds to the world and accept the brilliant ideas that have been presented before you. This is a wake up call!!!!

Fantastic exhibition - really enjoyed the futuristic energy of the student designers. We absolutely need to listen to our young people - they have fantastic ideas! I think the Authority should seriously consider TMAG split into 3 - Tasmanian Heriatge Collection, Museum of Contemporay Art and Centre for Indigenous Studies showcasing cultural groups from around the world and focusing upon the Tasmanian Aboriginal story in particualr. A Centre for Performing Arts next to the Theatre Royal is a winner. Also for consideration is a Centre for Film Studies with working studios for visiting film crews to shoot major features in an economically competitive environment in state of the art facilities with a trained and skilled workforce at the ready. A Centre for Digital Arts would also supply skilled young artists to a thirsty local and global economy. We need to get a balance of education and business into the area, giving the place a contemporary, sophisticated vibe and flooding the place with young creative people. Also for consideration: a serious arts incubator (similar to Granville Island, Vancouver) with working industrial studios and a College for Creative and Contemporary Arts to feed into a suite of extant and proposed arts infrastructure (School of Art, Conservatorium of Music, Centre for Performing Arts, Centre for Indigenous Studies, Centre for Film Studies, Centre for Digital Arts, Industrial Arts Incubator, Writer's Centre, Salamanca Arts Centre etc). Have small, boutiquey educational centres for excellence, appropriate to Hobart's scale. Don't be afraid of the futuristic stuff - the city is built on layers of modernism and we, at some stage, may have to grasp the nettle of being an interesting, exotic, exquisite but smallish contender on the world stage, for the sake of our economy and our young people. Let's look forward, not back!

why wasn't there a judge from tassie? how would any one else know what was best for the people of tasmania and their waterfront? A judge from spain? The Netherlands? Perth? Melboune? I don't think so.

Why should they get to pick a winner of a design competition of a waterfront in a state/country they don't even live in and maybe never even visited!

I know a lot of people oppose any change happening to the Hobart waterfront but we can't always have things the same. Inevitably things will change wether you like them or not. Often they will be small things like a new apartment block or a new swimming pool (okay so they're not that small). But why not do something big and brave! like tackle the Hobart Waterfront? personally, I do think A LOT of the design entries were just concrete and ostentatious (including all three of the winners). Execept take another look at the design by LFA (Pacific) who come from Sydney, Australia. Now you may completely and utterly disagree with me but I think this design would look fantastic ! Just think about it, they have kept the two docks that so many people would hate to see disappear, and unlike so many of the designs (that just don't even seem to realise they're designing a waterfront), LFA have tried to fit in with the water by doing small things like, make one part look like a sail, while also bring the "theme" of the waterfront all the way up to the hospital and the theatre royal with pools of water and what looks to be a real or imitation timber pathway. oh and guess what? They've scrapped the Grand Chancellor! Instead there is another dock . So the water comes right into the city with many more trees and places where you can just sit down and enjoy the water. So how about instead of just saying, "don't do anything to the waterfront, never change it, the idea is preposterous!" Keep an open mind. I'm sure there might have been a few people who didn't want the very first wharf built but it was a great thing to do, wasn't it? Maybe we should welcome the idea for something new and different. I don't want the waterfront to end up as a concrete block that is just there for the sake of doing something different either. So what about a design that fits in with the water and the boats. what about LFA's design. It doesn't have to be old to be attractive and look the part. We can't live in the 1800's -1900's forever.

I have visited the wharf this week end for the Wooden Boat Festival. It was great so please don't make it impossible to stage such a wonderful community affair. I liked the idea of using the Town Hall for the Conservatorium, adding a building for Drama students next to the Theatre Royal so that they are both close to the Art School. Please don't build any more residential blocks and keep the space open for the public. We don't need any more shops. The idea of the competition was great as it has given the citizens of Hobart and Tasmania a way of discussing what we want.

I agree with a great deal of the comments, in that the competition seemed to be established to substantiate a vision for a "new" Hobart. Something that would regenerate + respond to the city.

A lot of criticism has been given to the winning entries. To most its clear that the Danish/Perth scheme was the strongest.

As an entrant I would like to challenge the criticism that has been made as most critics have failed to identify positives in other schemes. I believe this is making the whole process negative, when it should be noted that there were schemes submitted that truely challenge the brief, notions of Hobart, and what constitutes historical value in Australia (why should it be white?).

Its a pity that we cant use this forum to generate further discussion on the possiblities for Hobart by responding to all the entries submitted, and identify the ones we see as successful.

I believe that the scheme submitted by Des Smith is one of the strongest. I appears to be peeling back the layers of negative occupation in order for the city to really challenge itself. It is also in my opinion the most evocative of all presentations.

I would also like to suggest that xenophobia applies to buildings as well as people in Australia. The Sydney Opera House is a reflection of this, where the architect was chased of the project, and then exhaulted once we knew what we had. We must be willing to take chances in this country rather than continually fall into mediocrity (such as the current concert hall in Hobart exhibits). This does not mean every building must look like the Guggenheim in Bilbao, or be Spice Girl architecture as one person suggested.

As the designer of 3241, I first thank Associate Professor Jim Wasley of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee's School of Architecture and Urban Planning for his willingness to sign the declaration enabling 3241 to appear for your consideration. I then thank Hobart and its Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority for presenting the opportunity to get to know from afar a spectacular and fascinating piece of our planet, and for engendering the design that came to me, and for repeatedly encouraging that it be entered, which overcame my dissatisfaction with 3241's quality of finish.

I have scanned the winners and entries, read the jury report, read the news release of Premier Lennon's statement and Chief Executive Gilmore's statement, and read through 'what others have said'. My reaction is that I wish I had succeeded in getting together with someone having better rendering skills so that the concept of 3241 would have had a better visual presentation. There is much more detail in 3241's text than in its visuals, and I hope enough will read it thoroughly to extract the details of the concept's larger vision for Hobart and Tasmania.

Of all the comments I have read so far, in my opinion, the most important is Mr. Gilmore's description of the site - "It is cold, lonely, windy and isolated . . ." That confirms my observations about the site's high potential for capturing (and lessening the discomfort of) wind energy being drawn down off Mt. Wellington with arrays of small, safe, urban-friendly devices, and presents the opportunity to establish a first-of-its-kind urban system to do so, while adding attractive signature structures to enliven the 'cold, lonely, . . . and isolated' part of the site's characterization by those who know it well.

The second comment that stands out is in Bill Godfrey's post, citing the couplet as the site's 'single major design problem'. I hope 3241 recognizes the expense and inconvenience of doing something big to change the couplet by creating a pedestrian level above the streets.

3241 also provides total flexibility for Dunn Place, which after archeological excavations may allow the east face of TMAG to have very special water frontage transitioning a re-channeled rivulet with the cove. Though the most complicated potential new ground-change proposed for the competition area, it has the greatest heritage restoration potential, and presents the possibility to extend water frontage to the front of City Hall, a theme of several entries, but any final look will depend on honoring what is found sub-surface. And I hope TMAG's expansion plans will preserve the heritage potential of Dunn Place. (3241 proposes a spectacular expansion of TMAG gallery and performance space.)

I am excited big-time by this project, and could go on and on with this posting. I hope several of the many solutions of 3241's design will be incorporated in what is finally decided for this corner of Sullivans Cove.

Those dirty big white ships come here to see Hobart and it's waterfront as it is. Why stuff it up?

I like those ideas that propose the waterfront being extended and returned to nearer the City Hall.

Don't get too flashy with the whole concept - keep it simple!

Also be careful not to let it become another disaster like Melbourne's Federation Square.

Somehow give serious consideration to those proposals which suggest rerouting the existing Davey St traffic away from the waterfront thereby keeping the area a pedestrian precinct.

Further, consideration is needed to link the city, from around Franklin Square, with the waterfront via pedestrian friendly access.

I have lived in Hobart for 30 plus years. Over that time I have taken hundreds of visitors to the docks area. They love the fishing boats being part of the experience of parking close to the docks and buying fish from Mures or the punts. It is unique and special. we do not want to look like every other city. Darling Harbour is lovely but not as accessible, friendly etc. We don't want to look like that. Parking close to the boats is a real pleasure. Let's keep that. I also go the museum with my grand children regularly. Again, easy parking encourages this. The competition winners are very modern and exciting but they do not suit our life style. My daughter's comment about one (Danish design?) is that it looks like a skate boarding area.

The aquarium idea appeals, but not necessarily there. Why not around the corner a bit where some ugly industrial stuff sits next to the beautiful Engineers building. My grandchildren have asked me to "vote" for keeping Mures so they can have their fish and chips while we check out all the boats. They may be under age to vote but I hope their voice is still able to be listened to.
Thank you.

Any competition for the waterfront that leaves the five outstanding eyesores in place (Zero Davey, the Grand Chancellor, the 'gasometer', the Marine Board building, the Quarantine sheds) is fundamentally misconceived, as it leaves the essential character of the Hobart waterfront in its present sad state. In consequence the competition itself has to be regarded as an unfortunate waste of an opportunity.

I hope and assume that whoever decides to move ahead with any implementation will be free to choose elements out of any design and not be stuck with a single design or architect. The essential charm of Hobart is its intimate scale, organic development and large number of surviving heritage buildings. Any development should base itself on preserving and enhancing these characteristics. Few of the entries do: there is a depressing tendency to 'make a statement' by building pretentious monuments (and clothing them in even more pretentious and sometimes illiterate language). Perhaps that is what a competition encourages.

Across the range of entries there are some very interesting ideas. The elements that interested me most designed for flexibility, both in use and configuration - for example the interesting use of rafts (which would also be the only design feature that could cope with rising sea levels - and anything as expensive as the redesign proposal MUST be designed to last 100 years or so). Several of the contestants also chose to 'blur' the transition from land to water, which is an attractive idea. There are some good treatments of the Dunn St car park.

It is a major problem that the vast majority of entries either put Davey St and Macquarie St underground (under water!) or disrupt traffic flow. The first will be impossibly expensive; the latter impractical. I have not yet examined all the entries, but I would have thought that careful use of overpass designs would be both cheaper and more practical. In any case, dealing with the fact that Hobart's major traffic artery goes straight through the middle of the site is the single major design problem, and solutions to the problem do not seem to have been well thought through.

Has anyone thought through the ways in which the present set of buildings around the area under consideration could be beautified so that their impact is not so obtrusive on the heritage buildings along Hunter Street and Davey Street.

Intelligent and attractive options for the Dunn Street car park could be a good place to start improving and updating the waterfront with an eye to enhancing the unique old buildings next to it and using the wonderful space to the advantage of all Hobart residents (and the Museum). This would be affordable for a city of less than 200,000.

One of the lovely things about Hobart is that it is still a city centre right on the water, and the harbour is still being used. Don't let's clutter the waterfront with big buildings and become a closed in city like any other.

It is great to see that some consideration is being given to making the most of such a valuable asset. Hobart is a fortunate city in many ways. However the waterfront area will never be friendly or welcoming until the traffic problems in Davey and Macquarie street are addressed. The noise, polution and danger will detract from any plan for the area. It will never be peaceful or quiet until the traffic is diverted.

Overall, the plans are encouraging and I hope that some of the ideas are incorporated.

Where is the viable and exciting future for Hobart?
Where is the significance of the historical nature of the Hobart waterfront ?
Where are the competition objectives that you have identified in the brief!

The selected wining projects are so much uninspiring; designs lack any creativity, even if they have a clear respond for some factors, but they are so traditional, and donot have any distinctive character, that shows Hobart as an outstanding waterfront, in comparison with others entries....
Presentation too is so poor, some of which like a magazine, I cannot find anything extra-ordinary in such a shot of 2 persons on a stepped pier and the river behind them, well I can find this anywhere and everywhere! This does not address anything more than covering an area in the presentation sheets...

There is nothing-special in the wining schemes, many other designs reinforces the connection between the City and the harbor, many designs took the water back to the city, but in many profound ways...

If you were looking for such designs, normal ones, that exist everywhere, then, why would you even bother to run an international competition! donot spend your few free moments writing down a brief, that was nothing but a misleading brief, donot waste your precious time changing the competition objectives which you have first identified, to establish your own judging, cause we designers donot want to waste our time in such a negative experience.

You Great Organizers;of an international competition submitted a brief, with a main 4 objectives, then how come you completely ignore, and establish your own judging upon new objectives, something is wrong here!

This is an insulting and a deceiving for all entries, and I think the jury owes an explanation for that, owes a profound apology to all entries, cause probably its not your first time to organize an international competition, which considered to be a negative experience compared to similar held world wide.

Try to make something to reward the entries trust in you... give out an Honorable mentions...explain your point of view if you have one...

And I hope one day you will come to an understanding that if you apply any of these wining schemes, this will do nothing but keep Hobart the same or even under...

Yeah!!!

I hear you Hobarts claim to fame!!!! hobart needs some building to take over the axis like Barcelona except a lot smaller Hobarts mid rises are shockers they attempted to consider this in 2429.

I hate the first 1 (big car park) the second 1 just blocks everything and is kind of like Venice
but connects to the trains well the 3 one is great however deeper into the city grid it is nothing exciting.like the comments said and it also takes away all the car parking boat access which was part of the brief what gives?.... Comment below is funny! and so true....

27-01-2007 | Scott

When I was on holiday in far north Queensland I came across a souvenir tea towel which illustrated Australias' major cities via their iconic landscapes and Architecture. Sadly the Wrest Point Casino was used to portray Hobart. None of the winning entries address Hobarts' national and global identity sufficiently. If Hobart does not take its image more seriously the most remarkable feature that foreigners may associate with Hobart could continue to be Wrest Point Casino and this is rather dull.

Any way I think they should draw a list of concepts from all entries. My idea was the north pole south pole!! one in dublin one in hobart!! any way its funny to see what happens... if number 1 or 2 is built i will cry...its just such a safe shit option.... 3 i like but the deep deeper grid is weak

Wow, I hope the fruit of Tassies emerging wine industry is a little sweeter than the relentless invective delivered by a number of aggrieved individuals here.
The jury have got it absolutely right, through their understanding and support for the processes of organic, authentic, real city place making. A panel for once not seduced by the quick-fix of a Bilbao-like icon, but a preference for gentle, careful, inclusivist public building and landscape programs within what is a fragile though wonderful, egalitarian place. Some say the winners are boring, but they fail to understand that an urban design plan is about creating a framework and platform for many designers to embroider the rich tapestry of the city. Not about Spice Girl eye candy. Well done to the organisers for having the courage of your convictions.

The problem with ideas competitions such as this is that they tend to attract architects and designers keen on establishing themselves rather than those who are established and have a reputation for the quality of their work. The highly reputable international designers that the organisers were hoping to attract generally are interested in projects which offer a real commission in the end - not just some un-needed cred. and a share in the prize pull which would barely cover their costs. Consequently, while this competition attracted a large field, there are very few well known national architects and practically no well known internationals named in the list of entries.

On another front - it was disheartening, while I guess not surprising, that mention of the 3000 generations of locals that have lived on and around the competition site while mentioned in the competition brief, were with 1 or 2 exceptions largely ignored by the entrants. I guess that is because their method of occupying the land tended not to leave the kind of physical evidence which we are now so convinced represents the cultural heritage of the place. The competition was a great opportunity to address this critical part of the local cultural heritage. Its a great shame that this opportunity seem to have been missed.

I think the REAL TRUE results of this competition is not the three winners but it is "what others have said" section and their opinions against the wrong jury judging .

People from all the world come to Sydney to just take a look and feel the beauty of Opera Sidney and it's creative design , but still NO ONE will think for single minute to come to Hobart after that wrong competition design results.

Asking the Organizers of this competition to do something regarding the future of a place we love to be brilliant designed .

Perhaps some of the entries miss the significance of the historical nature of the Hobart waterfront. From my perspective, I'm not sure that we want to loose that but to enhance what has evolved into a central, vibrant, outdoor location. I like a combination of the Tony Caro and Jeppe Aagaard Andersen, Heisingor entries, which seem to preserve the waterfront's openness with long views up through the city, enhancing connnectedness. This is an oppotunity to include free entertainment and cultural presentation areas linking Salamanca (and perhaps a waterfront walkway to Battery Point), with the Art School and that central spine, taking the waterfront back to the City Hall and Theatre Royal.

Three things I believe to be necessary to improve on their designs are: preserve Mures fish place (it has become part of the local waterfront, especially for families); redirect trafic from the waterfront area of Davey Street; and provide an indoor/outdoor screen area.

No. 2491 Lacoste and Stevenson,
Sydney, Australia.

Jeppe Aagaard Andersen's design is far superior to the other 2 winners. It provides a sensational "bridge" across the vista and yet views are retained, if not, enhanced!

congratulations
finally george bush and john howard's fear of the future has been taken seriously and realised in the three identical relentlessly middlebrow winning proposals

it would be great if you could post the lists of the entries that made it to each stage of the judging. from 280 to when the winners were selected.

What a pity the Uni of Ljubljana was not the overall competition winner. A really striking design that responds no less to the brief than any of the professional winners!

Wow! What can we say - magnificant, outstanding - nice, unusual, different. Could not have done better myself. What an array of fine student work at its best. Bravo boys and girls bravo.

Dear Orgaisers.

Can you list the 55 that were reduced to the shortlist. It would be interesting to see the process of judgeing entirely.

Thank you

It is good to see the transparency in the process and the many variety of designs and their potential to create better environments.

However, I was disappointed that the selection criteria and the schemes chosen did not allow for the progression to a viable and exciting future for Hobart and towards a more sustainable world.

The schemes selected appear to reflect a make over rather than such a progression (eg planting trees at the seawater line)

Similary, the city's history appeared to be not adequately considered in some of the chosen schemes, which screened heritage facades at the waterfront, and removed significant buildings whilst retaining the more questionable buildings intact (eg the removal of the town hall and the keeping of the multistorey hotel).

The selected schemes indicated a preference towards landscaping solutiopns rather than the redevelopment - commercial / residential aspects to revitalise the site. This was not articulated in the competition brief.

Could you please make available the selection criteria and respond to the above concerns.

If i remember I thought that you wanted something different. For me this is nothing different. When you wrote that you want some IDEA this is not that. Design could be good but true is that. People don not want visit this place because is nothing special. I watched all projects and is many great IDEA, many great DESIGN but true is what we see. Simple, normal building which is every where on the world. If you looking something simple do no't write that is international competition, because good designers do not want to waste time for something like this. I have hope that some day you wake up and you understand. Example people fly to BILBAO for the great museum not for the place. People want to visit Paris because its Eiffel tower. Hoart now is still this same place. Think next time

Conforming ideas win the day again.

Why didnt anyone step outside of the box to focus on the surrounding contexts on a larger scale to think about the masterplanning issues of Hobarts whole Waterfront?

How sad - I guess we can take our grandchildren there and describe to them what it used to be like. My reactions range from disappointment to shock at what the participating entrants regard as aesthetic beauty. My fear is that the whole area will become as antiseptic and alienating as Mawson square.

Although this was an 'ideas' design competition I think it should be noted that the winning entries were able to respond to the site at an appropriate scale. Hobart is an amazing city with a beautiful setting. This natural quality would only been lost if some of the more outrageous designs were chosen. I think entry 2903 is particularly successful in realizing the important opportunity in emphasising the potential in creating a successful urban scale public space around it greatest asset - its harbour. Their design consolidates and reinforces the connection between the City and the harbour by removing Franklin Warf and bringing water back up to the City Hall. I also like the connection they have made between Salamanca Place and the Eastern side of the harbour through their "Island Parkscape" axis. I think this is a truly unique landscape approach, which would contribute to the civic experience of the city and its harbour. What good is it having great ideas if they do not respond to the characteristics of its site.

Congratulations to the Danish entry

When I was on holiday in far north Queensland I came across a souvenir tea towel which illustrated Australias' major cities via their iconic landscapes and Architecture. Sadly the Wrest Point Casino was used to portray Hobart.

None of the winning entries address Hobarts' national and global identity sufficiently. If Hobart does not take its image more seriously the most remarkable feature that foreigners may associate with Hobart could continue to be Wrest Point Casino and this is rather dull.

It is difficult to understand how the brief you created could be completely ignoreed when establishing your own judging critera. That you should have change the ground rules so dramatically, shifting from an ideas based competition to a rudimetary landscaping proposal that could be built immediately and at the lowest possible tender price is insulting to all the entrants. Your judging criteria appeared to completely ignore the potential of the critical sites that you identified in your brief. It also completely forgot to deal with the deeper historical and cultural issues at play, from which the most significant ideas would stem. In may regards you deceived a majority of the entrants in this competition by failing to live up to your own brief. Obviously you conceded to the lowest common denominator out of a sheer lack of courage and vision. Given that this perported to be an international design competition dealing with ideas, it should have maintain the greatest level of coherence between its brief and judging criteria. In the end all that resulted was further evidence that provincialism and intellectual xenophobia will alway mark regional governments. Ultimately, it appeared that the competition should have made it clear that all that it was interested in were landscaping outcomes, with minimal architectural imports. Again this reflects an embarassing lack of conviction, betraying the sentiment of the competition. It is disturbing that a site so scarified by european intervention to the point of its indigenous and natural history being so comprehensively annihilated, should demand that the errors of the past be reinforced by the way it has manipulated the judging criteria to award those designs that offered the lowest degree of intervention. By dismissing all the entrants who sought to question the status quo, who dared to disturb the ground and thereby question the past, the competition merely served to affirm the ills of the past. It also indicated that the competition had no interest in significant ideas or a visionary approach, despite what is may have stated in its brief. A great opportunity has been lost, but then is anyone surprised given the nature of hobart and the obvious political intervention at play. Why would you even bother to run a competition at this level if you merely desired sophomoric outcomes. Its so insulting to the international architectural community. You would have been better placed running it as a single page brief restricted to design faculties with a few minutes to spare between classes. Looking through some of the submissions, I'm so angered when I considered the huge amount of time they must have spent/wasted on a fraudulent premise. The HWIDC owes all of its entrants a profound apology.

Went to the public lecturer in Hobart.
The winners should be congradulated for getting the scale right.
The so called Danes team it was revealed was actually full of WA young architects. That made my day! Comments on their design being boring - no way - beautiful.. as they make the east- west axis a public domain - for the people! They also repect Dunn place > by putting a reflective water body in the space and making in a plaza which works well with the museum.

They handed me a business card with www.jaawa.com
on it - check it out! Finally in Australia we have designers in Australia of world class standing! We should be proud.

Visiting Hobarts' Waterfront is underwhelming. We should not be convinced that the wining entries do much to address the issues that make it so.

It seems the overbearing effects of Davey Street and Macquarie Street are not to be mitigated. This is a pity because the "intimate scale and nature" of the site was supposedly a key design evaluation principal. The Jeppe Aagaard Anderson entry is the better of the three, however, its romantic illustrations are notably absent of cars. The design is deceptive as it will not deliver the same spatial qualities or impact in reality with cars included.

It is disappointing that the vision for Hobart is unremarkable. Hobart has to be smarter if it is to establish itself as one of the great waterfront cities of the world. After all was that not the competition objective?

Congratulations on choosing entry 2903 as one of the three winners. For me it removes the current clutter and ad-hoc nature of the waterfront and turns it into a public open space free of vehicle car parking un-necessary new buildings and congestion.

It maintains the traditional feel for the area while modernising it.

I particularly like that there is an absence of a whole lot of new buildings and the design has retained alot of existing structures (the Mures Building is no great loss!!!) but recognises important infrastructure must remian (Davey St)

I think the design is totally achieveable quite quickly and without controversy

A big fan of this design!

I wonder how you could put other points the jury judge upon them , different than the 4 objectives .
If you want that points , you should have mentioned them from the start , as all international competitions .

Very disappointing lack of 'visionary ideas' in the winning schemes. How have they addressed the issues of heritage, the Indigenous links, maritime history, circulation etc? I think we need a bit more of an explanation. Most of the other entries embraced the idea of harbour and views, which I would have assumed to be in respect to the city of Hobart and it's inhabitants.

I particularly like the Danish design incorportating treelined boulevards all around the waterfront area. Having lived in Melbourne for 10 years with all their tree lined streets, I can say that they have the impact of creating beauty, tranquility, and peace, and bring life to the static elements of the waterfront. Bring on as many tree lined areas as possible, for future generations to enjoy as well.

The Danes understood the site - the rest did not. Preston Lane - need to explain how they can put a commerial strip across the east-west axis. It seems so rediculous in scale.

First of all I would like to thank all who have shared in that work , Organizers and the jury , whom I all trusted since hearing about that great competition , and I looked forward for joining that way for reaching an amazing creative project
But unfortunately I was disappointed when I watched the results . Before I write here my opinion I read and read the jury report and the brief we started this compet. with again and again . I came to some points that I wanted to share with

- The first brief of the compet. showed some points if you remember :
*create a major focus for Hobart that enriches
the cultural life of the city with new activities,
buildings and spaces
*create effective and innovative connections
between the city centre and Sullivans Cove
*interpret and embrace the coves rich
cultural heritage
*attract and extend activity across Sullivans Cove
which I can not see in any of the winners , and I see it in other entries

Then you changed and put another points in the jury report under the title (Principles for Evaluation of the Designs ) , and this is completely contradicted . you can check that in the judging of competitions under the patronage of the UIA for example .
And you forget some important targets that again was clear in the brief ( as Hobart new gateway , and main axe passing between the cove and the city center ) please check

- The organizers stress on feeling free to present creative ideas and even removing and changing any zones and buildings in the site that could stop creativity , but the 3 winners miss creativity , futuristic , inspiring which was the main goal here

- I see the winners specially the 1st , 2nd have not changed anything , so why were the compet. . we have to look for the future not remaining as we are . I do not say forgetting history and its treasures but at the same time not forgetting the future . I can not imagine how after all this time , you got modifications to very minimal limit

Am not saying that here because I did not win . No , am saying my word to share my ideas in which I believe sharing our different perspectives is for the best of Hobart . I saw very intelligent projects among the entries.

At last , I would like to ask from the organizers of the competition from Hobart and Australia to think of something to do , like giving Honorable mentions to other projects because I think this results will affect the urban design growing of the compet. area , and this will not be for the best cause you will gain nothing but years of misleading architecture and urban design

Thanks again for letting me say my word , cause I believe that sharing different ideas will always be the only way to better future

Dear ladies and gentlemen,
thanks for the professional way of managing the competition. I would be very interested in a documentation of the entries. This would be a chance to reflect the results more deeply.
Looking trough the jury report I would be interested to know - who are the remaining 27 proposals (finalists)?
regards Jan Blanek

This competition was an opportunity to put Hobart on the map. But due to the mediocrity of the winning results Hobart still will remain "down under".

mediocore or half-hearted designs are not expected in an idea level competition...there were some bold designs in the winner category(both) but is that the idea of minimal intervention u were looking for?... plz explain! thanks... congrats to winners

Congradulations to the winners however how does these designs relate to the brief statement.

Basically they spent 1.8 minutes per entry reviewing 280 entries on day 2.
This is really quite weak and should be explained people put alot of work into this 2 minutes does not do it justice.

They also should of reviewed it based on the sites in the brief not over all...

Very impressed with all the entries I have seen on this site, especially the three winners. Really impressed with the graphics on the JAA/WA entry and their clear and dynamic presentation but many were fantastic.
Its inspiring that competitions such as these exist for architects and landscape architects.

In fact, there is no winner because no one had solved more than one third of the problems but the 3 winners need a mix-together chalenge to be perfect. The urban context was seem to be forgotten here, no one could see futher out of the competition area. Anyway, this is only the idea competiton, congratulation !!!

I'm disappointed that the winning entries have chosen to block the view of the river

How profoundly conversative and uninspiring the winners are, but then what else could have been expected. I feel that this competition was misleading, in as much as it intimated that it was an ideas competition. You should have expressively made the point that you were interested in simple and provincial outcomes that sought to consolidate the static and reductive cultural conditioning of hobart. How incredible sad that you let such a golden opportunbity slip into the mediocrity that I always imagined was in danger of surfacing. This competition has learnt very little from similar proposition held world wide,

I think the july have to explain the plan of winners much more.