Design Competitions as Public Policy



This chapter discusses the City of Sydney’s Competitive Design Policy (CDP) in broader intellectual and practical contexts. It reflects on the policy’s contribution to design governance and considers how design competitions can be successfully utilised as a design governance tool. Drawing upon a retrospective assessment, the chapter points to several opportunities for policy refinement through increased public participation, streamlined competition deliverables, enhanced enforcement of consent conditions, improvements in procedural clarity and better alignment of public and private interests in the provision of development uplifts. It also suggests several broader takeaways on elevating design quality through competitions. The chapter finishes with an outline of the spill-over of design competitions out of central Sydney, another indicator of the policy’s success and impact.


  1. 3XN. (2018a). How do we humanize the high-rise? Retrieved from
  2. 3XN. (2018b). A new urban landmark. Retrieved from
  3. Abbott, C. (1991). Urban design in Portland, Oregon, as policy and process: 1960–1989. Planning Perspectives, 6(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Acuto, M. (2012). Ain’t about politics? The wicked power-geometry of Sydney’s greening governance. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(2), 381–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Adamczyk, E. (2015). Practising architecture in global Sydney: Re-theorising the architecture of the global city. In P. Burton & H. Shearer (Eds.), State of Australian Cities Conference 2015: Refereed Proceedings, Gold Coast, QLD.Google Scholar
  6. Adams, D. (1994). Urban planning and the development process. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Adams, D., & Tiesdell, S. (2013). Shaping places: Urban planning, design and development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Alexander, I. (1974). The city centre. Perth: University of Western Australia Press.Google Scholar
  9. Alexander, A. (2009). Britain’s new towns: Garden cities to sustainable communities. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Alexander, E. R., & Witzling, L. P. (1990). Planning and urban design competitions: Introduction and overview. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 7(2), 91–104.Google Scholar
  11. Alexander, E. R., Casper, D. J., & Witzling, L. P. (1990). Competitions for planning and urban design: Lessons of experience. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 7(2), 142–159.Google Scholar
  12. Al-Kodmany, K., & Ali, M. M. (2013). The future of the city: Tall buildings and urban design. Billerica: WIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Allen, L. (1996, August 22). Lend Lease’s Italian architect splits locals. The Australian, p. 28.Google Scholar
  14. Altshuler, A. A., & Luberoff, D. (2003). Mega-projects: The changing politics of urban public investment. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Google Scholar
  15. American Institute of Architects. (2010). The handbook of architectural design competitions. Retrieved from
  16. Andersons, A. (1988). Circular Quay: The image of the city. In P. Webber (Ed.), The design of Sydney: Three decades of change in the city centre (pp. 158–175). Sydney: Sydney: Law Book Company.Google Scholar
  17. Andersson, J. E., Kazemian, R., & Rönn, M. (2009). Architectural competitions: Editor’s notes. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 21(2/3), 5–8.Google Scholar
  18. Andersson, J. E., Zettersten, G. B., & Rönn, M. (2016). Architectural competitions as institution and process. Stockholm: The Royal Institute of Technology and Kulturlandskapet.Google Scholar
  19. Anon. (1971, July 21). A plan for every part of the city [Supplement]. Sydney Morning Herald. Copy in George Clarke papers. Folder 41, Newspaper Clippings, 1970–1972, State Library of NSW, ML MSS 9795.Google Scholar
  20. Architects’ Council of Europe. (2010). Architectural design contest. Retrieved from
  21. Ashton, P. (1992). Planning Sydney: Nine planners remember. Sydney: Council of the City of Sydney.Google Scholar
  22. Ashton, P. (1993). The accidental city, planning Sydney since 1788. Sydney: Hale and Iremonger.Google Scholar
  23. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2001). 2001 census data. Retrieved from
  24. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Table builder: Australian census 2011. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
  25. Australian Government. (2011). Creating places for people: An urban design protocol for Australian cities. Retrieved from
  26. Australian Institute of Architects. (2011, April 21). Draft competitive design policy. Submission to the City of Sydney.Google Scholar
  27. Baker, S. (2014). The City of Sydney strategic plan 1971: Analysis and evaluation of a noteworthy strategic plan. MPlan thesis, University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
  28. Banerjee, T., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1990). Competitions as a design method: An inquiry. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 7(2), 114–131.Google Scholar
  29. Barnett, J. (1974). Urban design as public policy: Practical methods for improving cities. New York: Architectural Record Books.Google Scholar
  30. Barnett, J. (2003). Redesigning cities: Principles, practice, implementation. Chicago: American Planning Association.Google Scholar
  31. Barnett, J. (2011). How codes shaped development in the United States, and why they should be changed. In S. Marshall (Ed.), Urban coding and planning (pp. 201–226). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Baum, S. (1997). Sydney, Australia: A global city? Testing the social polarisation thesis. Urban Studies, 34(11), 1881–1902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Beaverstock, J. V., Taylor, P. J., & Smith, R. G. (1999). A roster of world cities. Cities, 16(6), 445–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Beer, C. (2014). The contingent public value of ‘good design’: Regulating the aesthetics of the Australian urban built environment. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 73(2), 282–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Begg, I. (1999). Cities and competitiveness. Urban Studies, 36(5/6), 795–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ben-Joseph, E. (2005). The code of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Bentley, I. (1999). Urban transformations: Power, people and urban design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Bentley, I., Alcock, A., Murrain, P., McGlynn, S., & Smith, G. (1985). Responsive environments: A manual for designers. London: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  39. Bento, J. F. (2012). Survey on architectural policies in Europe. Brussels: European Forum for Architectural Policies.Google Scholar
  40. Bern, A. (2018). Architecture competitions in an urban planning context. Journal of Urban Design, 23(2), 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Bingham-Hall, P. (1999). Olympic architecture: Building Sydney 2000. Sydney: Watermark Press.Google Scholar
  42. Blaesser, B. (1994). The abuse of discretionary power. In B. Scheer & W. Preiser (Eds.), Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control (pp. 42–50). New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Bleby, M. (2013, November 8). Elevated 8 Chifley bad for city, say planners. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from
  44. Bleby, M. (2017, November 3). 200 George Street tops architecture awards. Australian Financial Review, p. 34.Google Scholar
  45. Blythe, T. (2018, February 12). The transformation of Circular Quay. Talk to the Australian Institute of Urban Studies (NSW), Sydney.Google Scholar
  46. Boland, P. (2017). On the waterfront: Neoliberal urbanism and the politics of public benefit. Cities, 61, 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Bounds, M., & Morris, A. (2005). High-rise gentrification: The redevelopment of Pyrmont Ultimo. Urban Design International, 10(3–4), 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Bounds, M., & Morris, A. (2006). Second wave gentrification in inner-city Sydney. Cities, 23(2), 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UNSW SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.University of CanberraCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations