A question has been raised by an observer of the recently completed 3rd Living Steel International Architecture Competition for Sustainable Housing that merits an open response. The question pointed to the fact that Peter Stutchbury Architects is known to the Chair of the Jury, Mr Glenn Murcutt, and implied there was bias and favouritism in the selection of the winning competition entry.

When Living Steel decided to undertake a 3rd international architecture competition for sustainable housing in late 2007, it was decided to alter the competition format to encourage the open sharing of ideas on sustainable design among the competition finalists. Further, the decision to have a competition where the finalists were not anonymous was in answer to suggestions the competitors should have the opportunity to present their concepts to the Jury directly. It was felt such an approach would allow for a clearer explanation of the submissions, as opposed to submitting printed boards and having the Jury interpret only the printed material. The lack of anonymity to the jury was a trade off with this approach, but it was believed that by selecting professional and highly regarded Jurors and by following a good process the concern over bias could be overcome.

Following this competition format also enabled Living Steel to include a design charrette for master planning of the site in Cherepovets, Russia. The charrette proved a valuable addition to the competition where the competition teams were integrated to collaborate in the design process, sharing their ideas and experiences to deliver some interesting concepts. An additional Architects’ Prize was added to the competition in recognition of the efforts in the charrette.

Of the some 1,200 expressions of interest received for the 3rd competition, 246 entries were deemed to have fulfilled all of the submission criteria and were evaluated by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee was composed of Living Steel staff, architects from Member Companies of Living Steel, and independent architects. The Selection Committee was charged with the task of selecting 10 teams as competition finalists. Given the quality of the expressions of interest, the Selection Committee decided to include an additional two competition teams, for a total of 12 teams comprised of two architects each. The Selection Committee acted independently of the Jury, with no Jury members having any input in the decision on selection of the competition finalists.

Each competition finalist team presented their submissions in person before the Jury and in the presence of each of the other finalists. A question and answer session was permitted between the presenting team and the Jury to clarify understanding about the presentations. No Jury member participated in the development of any of the competition submissions.

After the two days of presentations, the Jury met for almost 1.5 days to discuss the competition submissions, make their selections and prepare the Jury Report. Glenn Murcutt was elected by his fellow Jurors as Chair of the Jury. Mr Murcutt disclosed to the other Jury members that he knew Mr Peter Stutchbury. Mr Murcutt and Mr Stutchbury have never collaborated on a project, but both gentlemen are tutors at a master class organised by Architecture Foundation Australia. Architecture Foundation Australia is a non-profit organisation for the advancement of learning in architecture.

The Jury followed a detailed and precise process to assess each of the competition submissions. The pros and cons of each scheme were debated in an open manner, with each Juror contributing to the discussion. All of the Jurors agreed on the selection of the three teams identified for further consideration. Indeed, the Jury was enthusiastic enough about these three teams that they made a special request to Living Steel that two teams be given Honourable Mention and an additional prize, even though this was not part of the original competition brief. Living Steel agreed to this request and made available an additional award of €3,000 for each Honourable Mention team.

In selecting the winning entry from the three teams, the Jury voted 5-1 in favour of Peter Stutchbury Architecture. It was noted at the time that if Mr Murcutt’s vote were excluded, the result would be 4-1 and would not change the outcome of the competition. The Jury therefore took confidence in the knowledge Mr Murcutt’s relationship with Mr Stutchbury did not affect the outcome.

During the deliberations of the Jury, two Living Steel staff members, including the Programme Director, as well as a person from a Living Steel Member Company were continuously present. At no time did the Living Steel representatives witness any coercion or influence of one Juror over another. In fact, the Jury was most courteous to the opinions of each Juror and each opinion was duly considered in arriving at the conclusion. Mr Murcutt in particular, acting as Chair, was methodological in soliciting the opinions of all Jurors and promoting discussion of all points made.

Mr Murcutt has served on all three Living Steel competition Juries, twice agreeing at the request of his peers to be the Chair. He is well-respected and acknowledged globally for his work, his character and his integrity, and for this reason, he is a sought-after juror. The other Members of the Jury, including Patricia Patkau, Sergei Skuratov, Kimmo Lintula, Alexei Venediktov, and Mark Middleton, are all accomplished professionals with their own record of excellent achievement and certainly capable of presenting their own opinions with knowledge and authority.

It can be reported by Living Steel, with the highest degree of confidence, that each Juror acted independently, with the knowledge of Mr Murcutt’s relationship with Mr Stutchbury, and that this knowledge did not affect the outcome of the competition.

The independence and fairness of the Living Steel competitions is of utmost importance to us. Each competition team must be given an equal opportunity to succeed, regardless of nationality, language, firm size, gender, years of experience or any other factor. Living Steel has attracted the interest of architects from over 80 countries. Through the course of three Living Steel competitions, over €700,000 has been awarded as prizes, contracts have been agreed for project development, and the winning firms come from Australia, Brazil, Israel, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The three competition Juries have acted independently of Living Steel, with due consideration of their respective range in ideas and opinions, and they delivered outcomes that Living Steel are confident were arrived at in a fair and unbiased way. The decision to follow the method of the 3rd competition represented a new approach for Living Steel. The result, as judged by the feedback of the competition finalists, the Jury and Members of Living Steel was that it was very well received. Several participants described it as ‘an once-in-a-lifetime experience’, or the ‘best experience of my professional career’. The competition presented a rare opportunity to participate in person while also affording the chance to cooperate with peers from around the world. Should Living Steel decide to undertake a 4th competition, the model of the 3rd competition will be seen as the benchmark. Living Steel welcomes further feedback on the 3rd Competition. To submit a comment, please send an email to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Scott Chubbs
Programme Director, Living Steel