Report Template

11. LANSDOWNE PARK - DESIGN COMPETITION

PARC LANSDOWNE - CONCOURS D’AMÉNAGEMENT

Committee recommendationS

That Council:

1. Initiate a design competition process for Lansdowne Park based on the Rights to Development approach outlined in this report, contingent on the approval by Planning and Environment Committee and Council of the final Design Brief;

2. Consider funding in the amount of $350,000 as part of Council's deliberations of the 2008 Budget, in order to initiate and conduct the subject design competition.

RecommandationS du ComitÉ

Que le Conseil :

1. entreprendre un concours d’aménagement pour le parc Lansdowne en se basant sur l’approche des Droits à l’aménagement détaillée dans ce rapport, sous réserve de l’approbation de l’énoncé de projet final par le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement et le Conseil;

2. envisage un financement de l’ordre de 350 000 $ dans le cadre des délibérations du Conseil entourant le budget de 2008 afin de démarrer et de diriger le concours d’aménagement en question.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager's report Planning, Transit and the Environment dated 1 November 2007 (ACS2007-PTE-POL-0067).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 13 November 2007.

Report to/Rapport au :

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

and Council / et au Conseil

01 November 2007 / le 01 novembre 2007

Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/

Directrice municipale adjointe,

Planning, Transit and the Environment/

Urbanisme, Transport en commun et Environnement

Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Richard Kilstrom, Manager/Gestionnaire,

Community Planning and Design/Aménagement et conception communautaire/

Planning Branch/Direction de l’urbanisme

(613) 580-2424 x22653, Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca

City-wide

Ref N°: ACS2007-PTE-POL-0067

SUBJECT:	LANSDOWNE PARK - DESIGN COMPETITION

OBJET :	PARC LANSDOWNE - CONCOURS D’AMÉNAGEMENT

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

2. Consider funding in the amount of $350,000 as part of Council's deliberations of the 2008 Budget, in order to initiate and conduct the subject design competition.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil :

1. d’entreprendre un concours d’aménagement pour le parc Lansdowne en se basant sur l’approche des Droits à l’aménagement détaillée dans ce rapport, sous réserve de l’approbation de l’énoncé de projet final par le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement et le Conseil;

2. d’envisager un financement de l’ordre de 350 000 $ dans le cadre des délibérations du Conseil entourant le budget de 2008 afin de démarrer et de diriger le concours d’aménagement en question.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis:

This report begins by outlining the reasons for holding a design competition for Lansdowne Park, follows with a description of a basic two-stage competition process, and highlights three different ways in which competition awards and the subsequent implementation of the winning scheme can be approached.

The report concludes that a competition which follows a “Rights to Development” approach will harness creativity and deliver a practical and doable new vision for Lansdowne Park in a timely matter. This approach includes the requirement that proponents provide a detailed pro forma that ensures the design can be built as envisioned so as to increase public confidence in the deliverability. The report provides a proposed schedule for a “Rights to Development” competition and shows the process running from the end of November 2007 to the beginning of December 2008, but notes that this one-year time frame is possible but remains extremely tight.

In order to understand the true value and potential of Lansdowne Park, the report notes that the City will need to undertake several studies such as land appraisals, environmental site assessments, serviceability and transportation impact studies. The information gathered will be used to ensure that the direction in a Design Brief leads to innovative, but realistic and affordable, design solutions. The report notes that prior to the public launch of a design competition, staff will return to Committee and Council for approval of the guiding design principles, business plan principles, the procurement process, and other components of the Design Brief that will direct the competition.

Financial Implications:

Funding in the amount of $350,000 for the design competition is required in the 2008 Budget. The funds are required to prepare strategic and technical studies, undertake public consultation, acquire professional services, and run the competition.

Public Consultation/Input:

Public and stakeholder consultation will input into the preparation of a Design Brief. The findings from this process will be brought back to Committee and Council. Consultation with the public will also continue at key points in the design competition process. It is anticipated that the first public event will occur this December, to further develop the guiding design principles.

RÉSUMÉ

Le rapport présente tout d’abord la raison d’être d’un concours d’aménagement pour le parc Lansdowne, décrit ensuite un concours de base en deux étapes, puis présente trois différentes façons de gérer l’attribution du contrat dans le cadre du concours et la mise en œuvre subséquente du projet retenu.

Dans le rapport, on en vient à la conclusion qu’un concours qui respecte l’approche « Droits à l’aménagement » encouragera la créativité et permettra d’élaborer une nouvelle image pratique et réaliste pour le parc Lansdowne dans des délais raisonnables. Selon cette approche, les proposants doivent fournir un pro forma détaillé qui garantit que l’aménagement peut être réalisé tel qu’il a été envisagé pour accroître la confiance du public à l’égard de la livrabilité. Le rapport présente une proposition d’échéancier pour un concours sur les « Droits à l’aménagement » et un processus débutant à la fin de novembre 2007 et se terminant au début de décembre 2008, mais affirme que ce délai d’un an, tout en étant possible, demeure extrêmement serré.

Afin de comprendre la valeur et le potentiel réels du parc Lansdowne, le rapport indique que la Ville devra entreprendre plusieurs études, comme des évaluations du terrain, des évaluations environnementales des sites et des études sur la fonctionnalité et l’impact du transport. Les renseignements recueillis seront utilisés pour veiller à ce que les demandes de l’énoncé de projet mènent à des solutions d’aménagement innovatrices, mais tout de même réalistes et abordables. Le rapport indique qu’avant le lancement public d’un concours d’aménagement, le personnel devra obtenir l’approbation par le Comité et le Conseil des principes directeurs d’aménagement, des principes du plan d’activités, de la façon de procéder et d’autres composantes de l’énoncé de projet qui orienteront le concours.

Répercussions financières

Il est nécessaire, dans le budget de 2008, d’allouer un montant de 350 000 $ au concours d’aménagement. Les fonds serviront à préparer des études stratégiques et techniques, à entreprendre une consultation publique, à obtenir des services professionnels et à organiser le concours.

Consultation publique / commentaires

La consultation du public et des intervenants aidera à la préparation de l’énoncé de projet. Les résultats de ce processus seront transmis au Comité et au Conseil. On continuera de consulter le public à des moments clés du processus du concours d’aménagement. Nous prévoyons que la première consultation publique aura lieu en décembre, afin d’élaborer davantage les principes directeurs d’aménagement.

BACKGROUND

This report is in response to Planning and Environment Committee's direction to the Planning, Transit and the Environment Department, to outline the process and costs required to organize and host a design competition for Lansdowne Park.

By directing staff to prepare this report, Committee has recognized that a site as significant as Lansdowne Park is deserving of consultation, detailed thinking, scrutiny, and deliberation as its future is determined.

The benefits of determining this through a competition process are many:

Holding a competition, in itself, makes a statement of the importance of the lands and the need for design solutions beyond the ordinary,
Competitions are broadly advertised and this brings the attention and interest of professional talents who may not normally work in the Ottawa area,
The focus of both design professionals and the media enhances the exploration of, and debate around, potential design ideas,
The competition process allows for public input, and
The use of an outside jury adds credibility and professionalism to the process.

Design competitions have been used successfully in other Canadian municipalities to generate designs and development plans for buildings and sites of significance. Some examples include the competitions for Downsview Park and Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto, for Cartier Concordia in Montreal, for the Art Gallery of Alberta in Edmonton, and for Point Pleasant Park in Halifax.

DISCUSSION

PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS

The following paragraphs give a general outline of the key steps in a typical design competition process. Although the detail is not given in the description of the process, it is important to state that any process would include numerous opportunities for contact with the public; these would likely include project information sessions, public workshops, the creation of a Public Advisory Group, public displays of competition submissions with opportunities for public feedback etc.

As an early step and in preparation for a competition, staff plan to consult with the public on the guiding design principles of future development. To promote public discussion, a suggested list of guiding design principles is provided in Document 1. This list is an updated version of the list contained in the report entitled “International Design Competition for the Revitalisation of Lansdowne Park” (ACS2007-CCS-PEC-0014). Following consultation with the public, a revised list of guiding design principles will be brought to Committee and Council for approval. The timing of public consultations is not yet set but given the accelerated thinking, the first event would likely occur in December of this year.

At the same time as the guiding design principles return to Committee and Council for approval, staff will also bring forward the business plan principles, the procurement process, and other components of the Design Brief for approval (description follows).

COMPETITION PROCESS

In general, competition processes all follow a similar path but diverge in the structuring of awards. Described below is a basic two-stage competition process. This is followed with an explanation of the point of divergence – the structure of awards, a summary of the perceived benefits and drawbacks of each approach, and a recommended approach for a Lansdowne Park competition.

Design Brief

All competition processes begin with the preparation of a Design Brief. This is a detailed document that provides information and instructions to all potential competitors.

The Design Brief includes information such as the vision, competition goals and objectives, findings from public consultation, site context and conditions, background studies, rules governing the competition, criteria for evaluating submissions, competition schedule etc. Due diligence research feeds into the Design Brief, and includes land appraisals, environmental site assessments, serviceability and transportation impact studies.

The more information that can be included in the Design Brief, the more clarity that is provided to competitors in terms of what is expected of the design solutions. Thus, in addition to design direction, the Design Brief must also include details of the business guiding principles and the procurement process. A thorough Design Brief leads to more ingenious and implementable design submissions.

Stage I

The competition is launched with the public release of the Design Brief.

Stage I invites all eligible competitors to submit documents that express their interest in the competition and their desire to be considered for the second stage. Submissions generally include documentation of professional experience, qualifications and visions for the site. Competitors can also be required to provide evidence of the financial capacity to deliver.

All submissions are received and evaluated by the competition jury, a short-list of competitors is announced, and these competitors are invited to move on to Stage II.

Stage II

The short-listed teams are given the opportunity to develop and submit their detailed design proposals for the site.

To ensure that the winning scheme can actually be implemented, all short-listed teams can be required to submit a detailed pro forma of their proposal. In general, these are then independently audited to ensure their accuracy. Submissions are generally evaluated based on aesthetic, technical and financial criteria.

Submissions are received by the jury and evaluated. A winning design is announced. Note that it is also possible for the jury to determine that none of the submissions are acceptable.

COMPETITION AWARDS

The approach to competition awards is where competitions tend to differ. Although awards can take many forms, awards are most commonly: monetary prizes, professional opportunities, or rights to development. The differences between these three options are summarized below.

Monetary Prize

The design competition results in a design vision for the site. This design vision:

§ Provides a clear picture of the proposed uses on the site, their sizes and their locations,

§ Identifies public and private lands, and

§ Develops the architectural imagery for the site such that the appearance of buildings is clear.

Proponents of the winning submission receive a cash award for the vision; essentially the City buys the design. The City is then responsible for implementation of the design vision.

This approach results in the most control to the City of the subsequent site development process, but the time required to deliver a final built product can be lengthy as additional procurement stages are required.

Professional Services

The design competition results in a design vision for the site whose components are as noted above under Monetary Prize.

Proponents of the winning submission are compensated with the right to further contracts with the City (e.g. for the refinement of the design, detailed working drawings and preparation of tender packages for the public infrastructure components of the site’s development/ re‑development etc.). The proponent works directly with the City towards implementation. Costs for professional services depend on the scope of work to be completed and are generally not included in the competition budget because those costs cannot be known until the scope of the construction work is known. The City may chose to also award the construction contract to the proponent in order to achieve further time and cost efficiencies.

This approach tends to be most common when the works to be completed are and remain under public control. This approach also gives the City a good level of control of the public elements of the site development, and could be combined with a ‘Rights to Development’ approach for the balance of the site.

Rights to Development

In addition to producing the design vision as outlined above, all short-listed proponents are required to supply a detailed financial pro forma which confirms that their vision can be built as described and illustrated, and that it provides a financial return to the City and to the proponent. This provides some assurance to the City that in exchange for development rights, the design concept will be realized.

The winning submission’s proponents receive the right to develop the land and negotiate with the City for the transfer and/or long-term lease of the lands; terms are tied to performance and development requirements. This approach tends to be most common when some or all of the works will be transferred out of public control, whether via sale or long-term lease.

Although there is no cash prize, funding is required for subsequent tenders and contracts.

With this approach, the City has less control of the site development process relative to the previous two approaches; however, all the usual planning approvals are still required. This approach delivers the fastest timelines to a built product.

Note that a detailed pro forma could be required of the Monetary Prize and Professional Opportunities approaches. However, unless the monetary compensation for winning the design competition was substantial, it is unlikely that firms would be willing to invest the additional time and resources required by a pro forma.

Documents 2 and 3 provide a further comparison of the three approaches and the benefits and drawbacks of each.

Given the goals of an inexpensive competition process and quick implementation of a winning design vision, it is most likely that a competition that follows the Rights to Development approach will be most successful. The requirement of a detailed pro forma that ensures the design can be built as envisioned is the primary factor allowing for a quicker delivery. The absence of cash prizes or further contracts reduces the competition budget.

In choosing this option, it is essential to recognize that this option also affords the fewest post-competition opportunities for slowing the process to evaluate options and for involving the public. This option may transfer the land into private control and leave the City with the least control over the final built product. Thus, the trade-off for a faster delivery of built form is a reduction in future public control.

ALTERNATIVE PROCESS TO A DESIGN VISION FOR LANSDOWNE PARK

The City has undertaken a number of Community Design Plan processes and it is possible to use this approach to developing a design for Lansdowne Park. In such a scenario, the City would undertake strategic studies (e.g. environmental site assessment, servicing potential etc.), consult with the public, develop a preliminary design concept for the site and complete a pro forma of this design.

The City could then go on to do detailed design work or could undertake RFP processes for the delivery of specific elements within the design concept. The City’s Strategic Projects Division in conjunction with RPAM would undertake the process of implementing the design vision.

The primary benefits of undertaking a CDP process, instead of a design competition, are the possibility of greater opportunities for public input and more involvement by City departments in determining their program needs.

The drawbacks of the CDP approach are the difficulty of delivering a final vision within one year, and the limited (or non-existent) exploration of, and debate around, potential design ideas by recognized design professionals and visionaries.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

There is an existing agreement between the former Region (which would have been assumed by the new City as a result of the City of Ottawa Act, 1999) and Canadian Gateway Development Corporation. A Release made in favour of the old City of Ottawa as a condition of the sale of Lansdowne to the former Region provided to Gateway: "the right to be considered pre-qualified in respect of any development or redevelopment at Lansdowne Park for a period of 10 years following the transfer". This obligation is in effect until December 31, 2009.

Also, as a condition of the sale of Lansdowne Park by the old City the former Region entered into an agreement with Canderel Management and Development Services Inc. pursuant to which it would be appointed as Project Manager for major capital improvement works to be undertaken by the Region at Lansdowne Park for an eight-year period following the transfer of the Park from the City to the Region. Thus, this obligation, which would have been assumed by the new City as a result of the City of Ottawa Act, 1999, is still in effect until December 31st of this year.

COMPETITION SCHEDULE

A proposed schedule for a “Rights to Development” competition is given in Document 4. This schedule shows the competition process running from the end of November 2007 to the beginning of December 2008, when a winning scheme would be announced. Although this one-year time frame is possible, it should be noted that it is extremely tight. In particular, the work required to prepare the Design Brief is squeezed into a three-month time period. Given that within this period, time is required for translation, web building and bringing documents to Council for approval, public consultation will have to happen very quickly.

Prior to the release of the Design Brief, the City will need to undertake background studies such as land appraisals, environmental site assessments, and serviceability and transportation impact studies. By allowing time to complete these studies, the City is given a greater understanding of the true value and potential of its asset. It is important to understand the potential value of Lansdowne Park as it compares with the cost of development/re-development of any public elements on the site. In order to ensure that the direction in the Design Brief leads to an innovative, but also realistic and affordable design, staff’s due diligence will determine the degrees of municipal subsidy that will be necessary to offset different levels of investment needed by the private sector for funding the public realm.

The availability of this information would allow the City to properly assess the benefits and affordability to the City and its citizens of any proposed design, whether the design be unsolicited or obtained through a competition process.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Running a competition, as in any call for services, requires funding in order to:

§ Prepare a Design Brief (conduct strategic and technical studies, undertake public consultation etc.);

§ Acquire professional services (professional advisor, fairness commissioner, legal counsel, financial services etc.); and

§ Run the competition (advertising and media, facility booking, workshops materials, document printing, public consultation, jury costs, honorarium and awards etc.).

It is estimated that a competition for Lansdowne Park that follows the “Rights to Development” approach will require a financial commitment of up to $350,000. The other two approaches would require a commitment of $400,000 or more. In all cases, efforts will be made to deliver the competition at less than the estimated amount. It is, however, valuable to compare these estimates against the costs of other similar design competitions and RFP processes.

§ Nathan Phillips Square, Toronto, Ontario (competition) - Design for revitalization of a public square. The initial budget to run the competition was set at $500,000. Final costs are unavailable.

§ CFB Downsview, Toronto, Ontario (competition) - Design to create a vision for a national urban park on the former Canadian Forces base. Total competition costs are unavailable, however honoraria alone at the end of Stage 1 totalled $500,000 and the winning team received $375,000 as an advance on professional services.

§ Dockside Green, Victoria, British Columbia (RFP) - RFEI and RFP process for the design and redevelopment of a contaminated City-owned parcel (app. size 12 acres). Council approved a maximum total budget of $774,000 for the RFEI and RFP processes.

Note that, given the timing of this report, the funds for the competition were not included in the draft budget document.

CITY STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS

Several of Council’s Strategic Directions will be furthered by a design competition for Lansdowne Park.

F Planning and Growth Management

F1 - Become leading edge in community and urban design including housing creation for those in the city living on low incomes and residents at large.

C Infrastructure Renewal

C6 - Identify key municipal facilities of city-wide significance and implement an effective remediation and restoration plan for these assets where required.

D Solid Waste and Environment

D5 - Meet the intent of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard by 2020, for existing City owned buildings to support the implementation of Council-approved environmental goals and targets

E Healthy and Active City

E1 - Support recreational facilities and programming to match population growth.

CONSULTATION

Public and stakeholder consultation will form part of the preparation of the Design Brief and will continue at key points in the design competition process.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Funding in the amount of $350,000 for the design competition is required in the 2008 Budget.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 - Suggested Guiding Design Principles for Initiating Public Consultation

Document 2 - Comparison of Competition Awards Structures

Document 3 - Perceived Benefits and Drawbacks of Competition Approaches

Document 4 - Proposed Competition Schedule

DISPOSITION

Planning Branch to (1) undertake the first public consultation session(s) to establish the guiding design principles for future development, (2) prepare the other components that will establish the Design Brief; and (3) return to Committee and Council with the recommended guiding design principles, the business plan principles, the procurement process, and other components of the Design Brief.

SUGGESTED GUIDING DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR INITIATING

PUBLIC CONSULTATION DOCUMENT 1

1. Public Open Space

A substantial portion of the existing hard surface area must be reserved as, and designed as, public open space. Open spaces must be green and sustainable, suitable for recreational use and complimentary to Lansdowne Park’s overall function.

2. The Aberdeen Pavilion and Horticulture Building - Heritage Structures

The Aberdeen Pavilion: Competition submissions must showcase this nationally designated heritage structure. The Pavilion will remain in its current location and plans must preserve and enhance sight lines to this building from the surrounding streets and from the Rideau Canal. The Horticulture Building: The façade of this building has a City heritage designation. Plans must highlight this building and propose adaptive reuse.

3. The Rideau Canal

Proposed plans must recognize and respect this designated World Heritage site, and propose improved public access to the Canal and adjacent scenic pathways.

4. Frank Clair Stadium and the Civic Centre

These facilities will be retained on site and enhanced.

5. Bank Street

The proposed plans must recognize Bank Street’s designation as a Traditional Mainstreet in the Official Plan, and propose uses and built form to accommodate that designation.

6. National Capital Commission Lands

The plans should enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to the recreational pathways and gardens that abut Lansdowne Park

7. Community Focus

The opportunities for use of the site by community stakeholders, such as local sports groups, should be enhanced.

The plan should provide for the continuation of the seasonal Ottawa Farmers’ Market in an exterior public space.

Plans should also explore opportunities for outdoor performance and festival areas.

8. Sustainable Buildings

Any proposed buildings should achieve a minimum standard of LEED Silver.

9. Site Access and Community Connections

Proposals should improve community access to the site and enhance the relationships between Lansdowne and the adjacent parks.

10. Value to the City of Ottawa

Designs will be evaluated in part upon on their ability to be implemented in a timely fashion, keeping in mind the City’s financial ability to contribute to the redevelopment.

COMPARISON OF COMPETITION AWARDS STRUCTURES DOCUMENT 2

Rights to Development

Monetary Prize

Professional Opportunities

The City undertakes negotiations for the lease of lands to the winning team, who has also won the rights to develop the land.

The winning team is awarded a cash prize (i.e. City “buys” the rights to the design).

The winning team has the opportunity to negotiate contracts for further professional services relating to the design, or design-build services.

The winning team is required to work with the City and stakeholders to refine the winning design. The City directs this work, but the cost of further design work and consultation is borne by the winning team. Thus, the winning team must commit to continued input and budget accordingly.

The City is responsible for further refinement of the winning scheme. All work is undertaken by or through the City and all costs are borne by the City.

The winning team works with the City and stakeholders to refine their design. The City directs this work and pays for the professional services of the team to complete this work.

The winning team is responsible for obtaining all approvals through the planning process, as well as all associated costs.

The City is responsible for implementing the winning scheme (e.g. rezoning, release of lands for development etc).

The City may be responsible for implementing the winning scheme (e.g. rezoning, release of lands for development, construction tenders etc) or it may also award construction contracts to the winning team.

The winning team commits to the full delivery of all public and private elements in its design

The City is responsible for the delivery of all public elements. This is financed through funds received from the transfer of lands and other sources.

Competitions and RFPs that have used this approach:

Dockside Green, Victoria

Beaver Barracks, Ottawa

Competitions and RFPs that have used this approach:

Nathan Phillips Square, Toronto (prize money awarded to runner-up teams - encourages better submissions).

Competitions and RFPs that have used this approach:

Downsview Park, Toronto

Lower Don Lands, Toronto

Central Waterfront, Toronto

Nathan Phillips Square, Toronto

In all three approaches, further review and refinement is based on jury comments, professional input and public consultation and can include a charette process. The design process for the Beaver Barracks site included a highly successful post-award charette with the winning team that resulted in positive refinements to their scheme.

In all three approaches, the proposed development must go through the regular planning approvals process.

PERCEIVED BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF COMPETITION

APPROACHES DOCUMENT 3

Perceived Benefits and Drawbacks of each Approach

Rights to Development

Monetary Prize

Professional Opportunities

Competition Schedule

Competition timeframes up to the award are identical

Time from award to Implementation

Generally, results in the fastest timeframes to full build-out

Takes more time to achieve full build out of the project

May take more time to achieve full build out of the project

City control of the process and product post-competition

Limited by what can be negotiated after the winning scheme is chosen

More opportunities to review and refine the work

Costs

No cash awards or professional contracts - may result in a cheaper competition process

Potential for higher costs due to cash award for winning scheme

Potential for higher costs due to award of contract. The City receives design work from the additional payment

Control of land

Sale or long-term lease of the land; with lease, City maintains more control

Sale or long-term lease of the land; with lease City maintains more control

Public Involvement

Involvement during the competition process is identical

Not as easy to facilitate public involvement in the post-competition review process

Easier to facilitate public involvement in the post-competition review process

Easier to facilitate public involvement in the post- competition review process

Delivery of Design

Appearance of buildings tends to adhere closely to the image in the winning scheme

Individual release of parcels can lead to more variety in appearance than shown in the winning scheme

If the winning team does not also control construction of buildings, the buildings may differ in appearance from the winning scheme

Design Impact

Projects designed by a single team, over a large parcel, can be very uniform and can loose the visual interest that comes from the input of various design teams

Releasing parcels over time can stimulate more varied architectural solutions that respond to changing conditions and new innovations in design and building

PROPOSED COMPETITION SCHEDULE DOCUMENT 4

1. Mid November, 2007 – End of February, 2008 (Preparation of Design Brief)

§ Undertake public consultation on the guiding design principles

§ Complete any required studies, such as land appraisals, environmental site assessments, and serviceability and transportation impact studies

§ Develop business case principles and the procurement process

§ Prepare background information for Design Brief (e.g. photos, base mapping etc.)

§ Draft Design Brief (and release draft for technical review)

§ Build and test web site

§ Translate all competition materials (Design Brief, web material, advertising)

§ Council approval of Design Brief

2. Beginning of March, 2008

§ Council approval of Design Brief which will detail the guiding design principles, guiding business plan principles, and the procurement process

3. Mid March, 2008

§ Launch of competition / release of design brief (Beginning of Stage 1)

4. End of June, 2008

§ Stage 1 submission deadline

§ Review of submission by staff and TAG

5. Beginning of July, 2008 (End of Stage 1)

§ Jury evaluation of submissions and announcement of short-listed teams

6. Mid July, 2008 (Beginning of Stage II)

§ Briefing of short-listed teams by Technical and Public Advisory Groups

7. Beginning of November, 2008

§ Submission of final designs

§ Public viewing (and comment period) of final designs

8. End of November, 2008 (End of Stage II)

§ Briefs to Jury by Public and Technical Advisory Groups

§ Jury evaluation of final designs and selection of preferred submission

9. Beginning of December, 2008

§ Committee and Council approval of jury’s recommended submission

§ Announcement of winning scheme