- Last updated:
- 05 Mar 2019
|Q1||Does the facility need to remain functional during a 1 in 100 year (Q100) flood event? i.e Given that the area may flood significantly as stated in the competition briefing information, at what height must the facility remain functional for the park/surrounds in terms of access?
|A||Providing flood immunity is a council/statutory requirement for all development in a flood zone, including council development.
|Q2||If to assume it must remain functional during instances of flooding (above say 1.5 - 3m), is it correct to assume that access will be from 'water level' in this case?|
|A|| Flood immunity is about protecting the asset from damage, and allowing it to operate without further maintenance once flood waters subside.
|Q3||Is DDA access required in the instance of flooding given that 'ground' will be submerged and the site itself may become inaccessible?|
|A||Following from the above, it follows that access to the facility in a full flood is not required not advisable, but there are circumstances where it may be required or necessary in minor or localised flooding.
|Q4||The brief says that "The ultimate design of the facility must also resolve a range of coujncil's environmental, car-parking, safety and crime prevention requirements".|
|A||This does not mean that applicants need to fully resolve these issues now as this is an ideas competition, one aimed at conceptual solutions.
But a winning design must not present any major impediments to the ultimate resolution of these issues throughout subsequent detailed design phases.
There is no need for council to provide detail on these issues as part of the process and applicants are reminded to exercise a degree of common-sense, imagination and flair, rather than exacting detail and complete resolution.
|Q5||Building Design - the council is seeking an ‘exciting and original design idea' (page 3). But on page 19 'Neither should building designs represent a dangerous distraction to passing motorists.' There seems to be a degree of conflict here.|
|A||Design is the process of resolving conflicting issues. A solution to this conundrum could result in a winning idea.|
|Q6||Alternative Solutions (page 7 - a clause under Assessment Criteria). This clause indicates that there is an option to change parts of the design brief, if the designer feels a better outcome can be achieved.|
|A||Yes. This is an ideas competition - anything goes. But if you want to win, with an alternative solution it must be a great idea and you must demonstrate it works.|
|Q7||Raised floor level against flooding. On page 3, the required height above NGL is listed first as 3.6m, then as 4.0m.|
|A||The key word is ‘approximately’ 4.0m above depending where on the site the building is located. This is an ideas competition where technical exactitude is less important than a great idea.|
|Q8||Ramps are exhausting for un-motorised wheelchair access - even for access with the aid of a carer ( i.e. exhausting for the carer). Has the council considered the comparative cost of installing a lift, with roof top motor, in place of ramps? With stairs for ambulant visitors.|
|A||Council is only considering a new toilet at this stage. The Kenilworth community is looking for a wonderful piece of art. It is up to the entrants to consider an infinite range of choices between ramps and lifts, and argue for the best option to fit with a great idea.|
|Q9||Number of toilets. One toilet for each gender plus one PWD toilet seem inadequate in relation to the site and proposed expenditure. What happens if a Coach were to call in? Or even a family of four?|
|A||That is a challenge for entrants to solve any problems you think important. It may be the beginnings of a brilliant proposition!|
|Q10||Flooding. The Site falls away from the Mary River, so should the river break its banks, the whole site could flood. In which case the absorption trenches would be under water, resulting in possible pollution of surrounding land and water? Should alternate systems be given consideration? Self composting? Pump out?|
|A||Alternative systems can be considered if they provide the same general technical outcome. Researching a particular issue is worthwhile if it results in a novel solution which generates an exciting design solution in satisfaction of the Competition and Design Objectives. It is important to ensure that the alternative solution doesn’t bring with it another range of problems (such as increased maintenance, etc).|
|Q11||AES. Please clarify the clause on page 21: “The top of the AES treatment tank..." (possibly simply a typographical error).|
|A||AES is an acronym for Australian Environment Solutions, which manufactures the proprietary sewerage treatment system identified in the Brief.|
|Q12||Parking. No mention of parking on Isaac Moore Park is made. Is parking only on the Service Road?|
|A||Page 19 and the Site Analysis refer to access onto the site and existing parking on the service road. Refer to Answer 9 above.|
|Q13||I assume the $250K budget is inclusive of the necessary components listed in the brief (eg. sewer holding tanks, stormwater holding tank, building cost, electricity supply) as well as any artistic licences that form a part of the winning design? Can you provide a breakdown of these necessary components to give us some idea of where the budget for the artistic/innovation licence sits?|
|A||The budget listed in the Brief is indicative only and reflects the amount of funding that has currently been allocated to the project by council. A breakdown of this amount will not be provided, nor it is considered necessary to conceiving ‘a good idea’.|
|Q14||Is the site analysis plan in part B of the competition documents shown with north facing straight up the page?|
|Q15||Is there a specific location on the site where the sewer effluent must be taken to?|
|A||A specific location on the site for trenches for treating effluent has not been identified. This area will need to be fenced off, and this constraint will determine (to some extent) location, as will proximity to the toilet block. Entrants may wish to explore an alternative solution.|
|Q16||Are there any requirements for the on-site detention of stormwater?|
|A||The onsite detention of stormwater is not required (other than for re-use in the toilets) is not currently part of the brief.
|Q17||Are the holding tanks for supplying water to the toilet to be connected to mains water, and/or is it okay to collect stormwater from the dunny roof and elsewhere from the site?|
|A||There will be no connection to mains water supply. The holding tanks are for rainwater re-use in the toilets.|
|Q18||I'd be interested to know what the message/concept is behind the Kenilworth Designer Dunny (KDD) logo?|
|A||Questions about the KDD logo and its conceptual underpinning should be directed to KDD. Representatives of KDD will be (informally) in attendance at the Q&A on 11 December.|
|Q19||Is it okay to post up a few comments on the Facebook site without it being considered a way of trying to influence the design jury? I have put up a few comments but can remove them if they are considered undue influence.|
|A||Comments on the Facebook page are unlikely to influence the Jury who will guided by the Brief in their deliberations. As with all social media, entrants should be respectful and prudent with their commentary on the site.|
|Q20||Is there a local indigenous representative that has expertise on the Kabi Kabi that can help with understanding the significance and plant identification of the Hinka Booma 'wild Apple tree'?|
Access to the traditional owners will not be specifically orchestrated as part of this competition, however entrants are encouraged to connect with traditional owners and research any aspect of the site’s context and to help craft a unique design response to the site.
||Would council be open to further consideration of the toilets below the Q100 level height line or alternatively could you confirm if there are other requirements that are dictating that the toilets must be housed at Q100 flood level?|
|A||This is foremost an ideas competition. It is therefore accepted that challenging the assumptions of the brief is a vital way to generate new and exciting ideas. However, if an entry is proposing an alternative solution or a radical departure from the brief, the jury will need to be satisfied that the scheme can be made to work in order to award the prize. It is up to the entrant to balance the rise of an adequately convincing argument for an alternative solution, alongside the power of the accompanying 'big idea'.
The brief requires that the holding tank for the system is Q100 flood immune, not the trenches. The reference scheme can be regarded as a compliant option. The technical detail of how this is to be achieved will be the subject of the design detail phase following the competition. Other solutions may be considered.
Entrants need to be mindful that providing floor immunity to the toilet is as much about protecting the whole of the asset and not just maintaining the technical operation of waste disposal. It's also a council policy and legislative obligation to ensure that building in flood zones are flood immune. So an holistic approach to the design of the facility and its long-term maintenance should be demonstrated.
|Q22||The design brief states that the dunny has to be approximately 3.6 metres above ground level, but the site falls 1.5metres to the east, so which contour line on the CAD plan provided is considered the ground level under discussion? Is it the level of the existing picnic shelter? I'm assuming the existing shelter is at 95.5m AHD.|
|A||The brief provides an approximate finished floor level for the dunny, regardless of where it is located on the site.|
|Q23||Appendix 3 of the Part B competition documents states that parts of Isaac Moore Park are regularly inundated. Can you outline where these parts of the site are, and what flood depths are typical on the site? Is there the opportunity to capitalise on these floods for creating intermittent ephemeral waterbodies on site?|
|A||The site has been completely covered by water several times, to a significant depth (no specific data available). There is opportunity for creating intermittent ephemeral water bodies on the site.|
|Q24||Can you provide any information on the height of the adjacent bridge that crosses the Mary River, and how that relates or differs to the height of the proposed toilet block, and whether it may be possible to link the two together by a path of travel for pedestrians/overland walkers or cyclists?|
|A||Contour/level information for the bridge is not available as part of this project. General guidance could be gleaned form Google Earth/Street View which shows that a link is possible.|
|Q25||The CAD plan provided does not provide any actual heights, although the Lot Plan in the Part B documents has some indicative heights.
Can you please confirm the 3D contour heights in the CAD drawing to those of us who don't have access to Google Earth?
|A||The RL’s in the Lot Plan in the Brief are correct. The contours occur at 0.25m intervals. The Reference Scheme is only a diagram, and does not contain contours/slope information. For ease it assumes the site is flat.|
|Q26||Is it possible for you to provide a 3D software drawing of the dunny that is pictured in Part B of the competition documents to competition entrants who wish to incorporate this into their design entry?|
|A||No. But entrants are welcome to trace over the Reference Scheme Drawings or modify these images with other software packages. This is an ideas competition and final/CAD based, highly resolved drawings are not required.|
|Q27||I want to know current uses/activity that community do on Isaac Moore Park|
|A||The site currently operates as a picnic/rest area for travellers and locals.|
|Q28||What uses/activity that currently local community do on the park?|
|A||See response to Q26|
|Q29||Were there any regular local community event organised on Isaac Moore park?|
|A||Not that I am aware of.|
|Q30||What uses/activity that usually visitor do on the park?|
|A||Picnic, walk down to the River and general recreation activities > kick balls, dog walking, etc|
|Q31||I am seeking clarification on the prescribed finished floor level of the toilet. The competition information varies as it states between 3.6-4m above the ground however the fall of the site from west to east is 1.5m and depending on where one locates the toilet and the start of the ramp the required length of ramp needed varies considerably. The reference scheme for example shows approximately 54.5m linear metres of ramp, which at 1:14 would result in a ramp rise of approximately 3.9m. The reference scheme ramp starts at RL 95.5 resulting in a finished floor level of the toilet 95.5 + = 99.4, 1.1m short of RL100.5. Therefore is the requirement for the toilet to be at RL100.5 or just 4m above the prevailing ground level at the base of the toilet?|
|A||Min. floor level should be at RL100.5, unless of course you want to challenge this proposition as part of your idea. Entrants are advised to not 'over analyse' the Reference Scheme - it is only intended to be a diagram describing the 'lowest common denominator' from the brief. The Reference Scheme should be regarded as an 'ideas free zone' or the antithesis of a winning entry.|