Design competitions ‘part of the capital’s DNA’

Annabelle Pegrum is better placed than most to understand the significance of the opportunity to reimagine the National Gallery’s Sculpture Garden. The architect and proud Canberran has lived and worked in the capital for some 40 years, in a range of roles across the National Capital Development Commission (the National Capital Authority) and the ACT Government during its formative years.

‘It was a great time to be involved in any government service and I engaged in a range of work, both as an architect and then ultimately in things like cabinet and policy, and business, tourism and our cultural precincts.’ Moving into the National Capital Authority, with a remit ‘to plan and develop things that were considered to be of national significance’, one of the first projects Pegrum worked on, alongside the ACT Government, was the Parliamentary Zone Review, which encompassed the National Gallery on what would become part of the arts and civic campus. This review in 2000 revisited the original Griffin proposal for this area of Kamberri/Canberra, asking ‘what’s been achieved?’ and ‘what are we aiming for?’ explains Pegrum. The findings of the review, which were built into the National Capital Plan, determined a valuable set of guiding principles.

‘[Any future designs for Kamberri/Canberra] had to balance politics with culture, welcome people, celebrate Australian history and society and represent Australian excellence. Planning and proposals should also emphasise the importance of the public realm, make access easy and open, reinforce the integrity of the visual structure, strengthen the relationship between buildings and landscapes, create a variety of urban spaces and establish a comprehensive design management policy for the future.’ Which is where competitions have come in.

‘What a lot of people forget is that from the get-go, Canberra was a city designed through competition and there’s a really interesting history behind the competition. There was a congress in 1901 when the first parliament met in Melbourne. There were architects, surveyors, engineers, all saying, “well what should the capital be like? What’s its identity? What are we looking for here?”’

According to Pegrum, what made Chicagoan Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin’s plan so extraordinarily progressive was that it was designed in and of the landscape, combining grand boulevards with wide green spaces and significant axes providing structure inspired and informed by the surrounding mountains and Molonglo River, which was later dammed to become Lake Burley Griffin.

‘Once you had the city designed by competition, it became fairly clear that anything of significance ought to also be by competition. And so, if you look at the history of Canberra–the War Memorial, Parliament House, the High Court and of course the National Gallery were all selected through design competitions.’

The Parliamentary Zone Review made it official. ‘We built it in that anything of significance should be by design competition because you get the most interesting outcomes, you encourage Australian talent and you have an opportunity to speak to the world about what we’re as a nation trying to achieve. Each time you’re really asking, well, what is our identity about?’

‘When the Gallery said, “we’d like to talk to you about a competition”, it just made complete sense because why wouldn’t you reconsider the positioning of the Sculpture Garden and the Gallery within the context of the arts and civic campus and this history of competitions?’

Pegrum was invited to work with the Gallery as professional advisor for the competition, a role that meant working with Gallery staff and an advisory group on the development of the brief, as well as understanding the complexities of the National Capital Plan, the new federal arts policy, Revive, and National Heritage and Commonwealth Heritage lists, with their respective cultural, environmental and biodiversity considerations and management plans. It also meant supporting the Jury and ensuring integrity throughout the process.

When it came to the competition brief, the challenge for Pegrum was, ‘how do you balance the cultural values already evident within the garden and parliamentary area, with the aspirations of the National Capital Plan and the Cultural Policy, with a rethinking of what the Sculpture Garden could mean in the future?’

‘Probably the most significant, and most challenging part, was how do we ensure the importance of First Nations considerations and input? Such thinking is something [one of the original landscape architects] Barbara Buchanan [has] acknowledged wasn’t front of mind at the time [of the Garden’s opening in 1981]. The Gallery has had a commitment to First Nations considerations for quite some time, so the competition provided an excellent opportunity to redress and imbue such considerations—the question was how do we do just that?’

The final brief outlined ten design aspirations for entrants to consider, which included ‘First Nations Country and narratives through environment and art, mending and strengthening appreciation of place and time.’ Others addressed ideas of an ‘art garden-scape’, heritage, design excellence, and the gardens as a living sculptural extension to the Gallery building.

These same aspirations became guiding principles for the Jury. ‘It’s really difficult for a professional advisor, because you guide but you cannot be part of the jury consideration process or influence them in any way. But at the same time, you’re sitting there, hearing their thoughts, listening to all the presentations and you think, “oh I hope they ask this! And I hope they see that!” It was a privilege to work with this jury.'

Now that multi-disciplinary team CO-AP Holdings, comprising CO-AP, Studio JEF, TARN and Plus Minus Design, have been announced as the winner, Pegrum happily shares her delight in the Jury’s decision. ‘CO-AP really hit the mark about this being about landscape, and art in the landscape and the possibilities for that, while completely respecting that there was already this very rich cultural background yet understanding that this was now their moment to contribute, at this point in time in our country and this wonderful National Gallery.’

‘Culture is not “frozen moment” stuff. There’s a part of the Garden which is about restoration and respecting existing cultural values, but this is a living landscape and art evolves. It’s about allowing the gardens and setting to continue to be as unique and provocative as it was at the time [it was first unveiled], celebrating its extraordinary beauty, and making art and people places for the future.'

Further information on the National Gallery Sculpture Garden Design Competition is available here.