parliament square
Exhibition Feedback Report
June 2009
Prepared for the Tasmanian Department of Treasury and
Finance
Contents
1.0 Introduction......................................................................................... 4
2.0 Objectives .......................................................................................... 5
3.0 Exhibition ........................................................................................... 6
4.0 Analysis ............................................................................................. 8
4.1 Evaluation .................................................................................... 8
4.2 Overview ...................................................................................... 8
4.3 Quantitative analysis ..................................................................... 10
4.4 Qualitative analysis ....................................................................... 14
5.0 Appendices....................................................................................... 27
5.1 Tally of returned Exhibition feedback forms ......................................... 28
5.2 Exhibition feedback form ................................................................ 30
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
Tania Parkes, Principal of Tania Parkes Consulting
conducted this work with assistance from Sarah Parkes.
Disclaimer
This report has been prepared with due care by the consultants, who believe the contents to be fair
and accurate.
However, neither Tania Parkes Consulting nor individual authors of the Report accept any
responsibility for any error or omission, nor for any application of its contents.
3
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
1.0 Introduction
As part of its commitment to revitalise the Hobart waterfront, the Tasmanian Government is divesting
the parliament square site. The site comprises eight major buildings of 10 Murray Street, 12 Murray
Street, 34 Davey Street, 34 West Davey Street, 36 Davey Street, The Red Brick Building, 2-4
Salamanca Place and 6 Salamanca Place, plus part of the Parliamentary Annexe that falls within the
parliament square boundaries. Six of the buildings are either heritage listed or nominated for listing.
Currently five of the buildings are vacant with the remaining three occupied by different government
agencies. The total site area is approximately 8,100 square metres (subject to survey).
The Tasmanian Government’s overall vision for the parliament square site includes:
The parliament square site will revitalise the cultural, business and heritage of Hobart’s
cityscape, providing a strong link from the city centre to the waterfront.
Designed to be in keeping with the precinct and to create a lasting place of character and
quality, parliament square will embrace Hobart’s lifestyle and vibrant character whilst reflecting
the focus for the future.
A major development that will consolidate Tasmania’s reputation as one of Australia’s most
liveable, unique regions, it will be functional, best practice and welcoming to residents, business,
government and visitors.
The divestment of the parliament square site is being undertaken through a three stage tender
process that is now in the final stage of completion:
1. Registration of Interest (ROI) which required respondents to advise of their capability and
experience in undertaking the redevelopment of the site;
2. Expression of Interest (EOI) which required short listed parties from the ROI stage to provide
concept designs and initial financial offers for redevelopment of the site; and
3. Request for Tender (RFT) which required short listed Respondents from the EOI stage to
provide firm tender offers including further refined concept designs.
A three stage consultation process has been conducted concurrently with the sale process.
The Department of Treasury and Finance is undertaking the divestment on behalf of the Tasmanian
Government. Ernst & Young has been retained by the Department of Treasury and Finance to
advise on the divestment process. Ernst & Young has sub-contracted Architectural Projects to
advise on heritage, architecture and urban design, and Tania Parkes Consulting to advise on
communications and consultation for the project.
4
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
2.0 Objectives
It is the Tasmanian Government’s intention that community and stakeholder interests are engaged
throughout the parliament square divestment to ensure that the final outcome is beneficial to the city
and people of Hobart.
A Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan has been developed to guide the process of
disseminating information to the community and ascertaining their feedback to contribute
meaningfully to the project. This Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan together with other
information about the parliament square project can be viewed at
www.treasury.tas.gov.au/parliamentsquare .
In 2008 the Tasmanian Government made a commitment to conduct a public viewing of short listed
conceptual site designs for the parliament square site, after the Request for Tender had closed on 6
April 2009 and prior to a decision being made on the preferred developer. The parliament square
Exhibition of the three short listed conceptual site designs conducted from 22 April 2009 to 3 June
2009 fulfilled this commitment.
An evaluation process has been established to select a preferred developer. This Exhibition
Feedback Report relates to the outcomes of the six week public viewing of short listed conceptual
site designs to gain community feedback. It will be used to inform the project evaluation panels that
will assess the tender proposals and assist in the final decision to choose the preferred developer.
The evaluation panels comprise experts in design, economic, financial and legal matters, who report
to an Evaluation Committee. The Evaluation Committee will make recommendations to the project
Steering Committee which ultimately makes recommendations to Government.
5
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
3.0 Exhibition
The parliament square Exhibition comprising the three short listed conceptual site designs was open
to public viewing for six weeks from 22 April 2009 to 3 June 2009 at the old Printing Authority
building at 2-4 Salamanca Place. The Exhibition was open 10.00am – 4.00pm Monday to Thursday
and 10.00am – 7.00pm Friday; and closed on weekends and public holidays.
The Exhibition had four components:
Reminder of consultation process
Feedback from consultation processes
Reminder of key Government requirements
Conceptual site designs
Reminder of consultation process
This element of the Exhibition recapped the eighteen month communications and consultation
processes that have already been conducted for the parliament square project that have helped to
shape the Design Principles that guide the redevelopment.
Feedback from consultation processes
This part of the Exhibition highlights the six key themes that were raised by the community through
the Expression of Interest and Registration of Interest consultation processes.
The six key themes are:
Maintain the waterfront as a working port.
Restore the historic buildings.
The architectural design and scale should not overwhelm or compromise the historic character
of Sullivans Cove.
Social sustainability – a desire for public and community amenity. Public amenity refers to public
open spaces and activities that attract the public such as shops, restaurants, entertainment; and
community amenity refers to spaces for community groups for meetings, lectures or fundraising
activities that can be used or hired, resources such as libraries or information centres. Social
sustainability also includes the sufficiency of infrastructure to support the proposed land uses.
Environmental sustainability – consideration of the overall environmental impact for the site,
when making decisions to demolish existing buildings and construct new ones.
Economic sustainability – land uses that have longevity and that do not detract from and that
contribute to the viability of the CBD and waterfront.
6
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
Reminder of Government requirements
This component of the Exhibition detailed the key Government requirements to be included in a
conceptual site design proposal.
The following points set out the main themes on behalf of the Tasmanian Government for parliament
square.
The redevelopment of parliament square is to be sufficiently viable to allow for restoration of the
heritage buildings and revitalisation of the site.
The heritage restoration is to be consistent with the project Design Principles and the
Conservation Management Plan and is also to be redeveloped in conjunction with Heritage
Tasmania and applicable agencies.
The redevelopment is to link with, compliment and increase the functionality of Parliament
House.
The project is to include a future government office component of approximately 15,000 square
metres under a long term lease.
There will be sufficient on-site car parking provided that will support the site’s redevelopment
and that will relocate the existing carparking on the grounds of Parliament House into the
redevelopment site.
The redevelopment is to be a sustainable development that will provide ongoing non-financial
benefits.
Conceptual site designs
The three short listed conceptual site designs were displayed anonymously identified only by the
symbols ‘Square’, ‘Circle’ and ‘Triangle’.
7
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
4.0 Analysis
4.1 Evaluation
On arrival Exhibition visitors were provided three feedback forms each marked with a ‘Square’,
‘Circle’ or ‘Triangle’ which asked them to indicate their views on whether the three short listed
conceptual site designs ‘Does not meet’; ‘Meets’; or ‘Exceeds’ each of the ten Design Principles.
There was space on each form for an open comment (see Appendix 5.3).
The analysis of returned feedback forms is both quantitative and qualitative and assumes equal
weighting for each of the ten Design Principles. In the absence of providing alternate weighting
criteria, it is reasonable to suppose the public would assume equal weighting for each Design
Principle.
a. The quantitative analysis examines the results numerically and reports how each of the three
conceptual site design ‘does not meet’; meets’; or ‘exceeds’ each Design Principle.
b. The qualitative analysis examines the numeric and open commentary results more subjectively
in that it provides context and emphasis to respondents’ views.
4.2 Overview
Between 22 April 2009 and 3 June 2009, eight hundred and ninety four (894) members of the public
visited the parliament square Exhibition at 2-4 Salamanca Place. Of these, two hundred and three
(203) visitors registered their contact details to receive further information about the project.
In total, 1,341 feedback forms were returned. Exhibition visitors were provided three feedback forms
each but not all visitors returned their feedback forms, and some visitors partly completed the
feedback forms. A batch of 244 (18 per cent) feedback forms (81, 78 and 85 respectively for
Square, Circle and Triangle designs) mailed by the Department of Treasury and Finance to the
communications consultant for analysis via Australia Post Express Post, has been confirmed by
Australia Post as being lost by them.
One thousand and ninety seven (1,097) feedback forms were analysed of which 358 were returned
for the Square design; 361 were returned for the Circle design; and 378 were returned for the
Triangle design (see Appendix 5.2). Additionally, the Square and Triangle had two blank returns.
When averaged across all ten Design Principles, 52 per cent of responses for the Square design
believe that it at least meets the Design Principles. This compares with 66 per cent of responses for
the Circle design and 77 per cent of responses for the Triangle design.
Against individual Design Principles, responses to the Square design indicate they did not ‘Meet’ and
‘Exceed’ all ten Design Principles receiving 38 per cent for View Corridors and 37 per cent for Public
Space. This design received responses of 48 per cent each for Site Connectivity and Accessibility.
The Square design also scored its best results for Planning Compliance (62%), Environmentally
Sustainable Design (61%) and Car Parking (61%).
8
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
The Circle design was also thought to ‘Meet’ and ‘Exceed’ the Design Principles. This design was
well supported in all Design Principles receiving most support for Planning Compliance (77%),
Heritage Protection (73%), Appropriate Mix (71%) and Car Parking (70%), and least support for
View Corridors (54%) and new Office Benchmark (60%).
Over 70 per cent of respondents indicated their highest approval in ‘Meets’ and ‘Exceeds’ for the
Triangle design against all ten Design Principles. This design was most strongly supported in
Planning Compliance (85%), Appropriate Mix (83%), Heritage Protection (81%) and New Office
Benchmark (79%), and least supported in Car Parking (71%) and Environmentally Sustainable
Design (73%). However, these lower categories still scored higher than the Square and Circle
designs.
Because the majority of respondents believe that all three conceptual site designs ‘Meet’ and
‘Exceed’ the basic requirements when averaged across all Design Principles (thought to varying
degrees), it is necessary to analyse the returns for “Does not meet’ and ‘Exceeds’ individually to
provide further definition.
The figures show that 37 per cent of respondents believe that the Triangle design ‘Exceeds’ the
Design Principles. This compares with 14 per cent for the Circle design and 8 per cent for the
Square design. This is a positive sway of 23 per cent to the Triangle design from its nearest
competitor. The 18 per cent lost feedback forms would not have materially impacted on this sway.
The figures also show that 31 per cent of respondents to the Square design believe that it ‘Does not
meet’ the Design Principles. This compares with 7 per cent for the Triangle design, which is a 24
per cent negative sway from the Square design. This result could not be altered by the lost 18 per
cent of feedback forms. Eighteen per cent (18%) of respondents thought the Circle design ‘Does not
meet’ the Design Principles.
The qualitative data further emphasises respondents’ preference for the Triangle design, followed by
the Circle design and then the Square design. Of the total positive ‘Open comment’, 36 per cent of
positive responses favoured the Triangle design compared with 17 per cent for the Circle design and
5 percent for the Square design. The returns for total negative ‘Open comment’ showed 12 per cent
negative responses for the Triangle design compared with 22 per cent for the Circle design and 37
per cent for the Square design.
Respondents were most enthusiastic about the Triangle design in their ‘Open comment’. The most
positive ‘Open comment’ focussed on public space that could be used by office workers and the
greater community, as seen in the Triangle design. The possibility of incorporating the University as
a tenant in the Circle design was considered desirable as it would enliven the public space.
Other recurring themes included:
The need for sufficient car parking with access away from pedestrian areas, as well as other
transport options such as amenities for bicycles.
There were mixed views on whether the office blocks should be very modern or blend with the
heritage buildings. The main concerns were whether they fit in with surrounding buildings,
whether the concept continued down to the waterfront, and the impact on the skyline.
Environmental sustainability was of great importance. There were suggestions that the buildings
should be six green-star rating as opposed to five. The use of Tasmanian materials was
praised.
9
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
The majority of respondents favoured demolition of 10 Murray Street through their ‘Open
comment’ and through their lack of comments about the issue for the Triangle and Square
designs, which remove the building.
The key themes from the feedback forms in relation to Design Principles and ‘Open comment’ reflect
the six themes that emerged from the previous consultations conducted throughout the last eighteen
month divestment process.
4.3 Quantitative analysis
The percentages indicated below are of the total returns for each design, not the total returns overall.
The percentages do not add up to 100 per cent because some feedback forms were partially
completed.
Design Principle 1: Planning Compliance
Tally of returned Feedback responses
parliament square feedback forms as a percentage of
Design Principles total returns
■ ● ▲ ■ ● ▲
Total number of returned feedback forms 358 361 378
Blank forms returned 2 0 2
Design Principle 1 - Planning Compliance
Does not meet 88 51 20 24.6 14.1 5.3
Meets 196 234 214 54.7 64.8 56.6
Exceeds 25 43 108 7.0 11.9 28.6
Total Meets + Exceeds 221 277 322 61.7 76.7 85.2
Feedback indicates that respondents believed all three conceptual site designs ‘Meet’ planning
compliance. The Triangle design gained the most support with 29 per cent of respondents to this
design saying it ‘Exceeds’ the Design Principle, compared with 12 percent for the Circle design and
7 per cent for the Square design. The Square design received the most negative responses (25%)
of total Square design responses.
Design Principle 2: Appropriate Mix
Tally of returned Feedback responses
parliament square feedback forms as a percentage of
Design Principles total returns
■ ● ▲ ■ ● ▲
Total number of returned feedback forms 358 361 378
Blank forms returned 2 0 2
Design Principle 2 - Appropriate Mix
Does not meet 125 77 32 34.9 21.3 8.5
Meets 166 183 153 46.4 50.7 40.5
Exceeds 25 72 160 7.0 19.9 42.3
Total Meets + Exceeds 191 255 313 53.4 70.6 82.8
All three conceptual site designs were thought to provide an appropriate mix of uses although the
Triangle (83%) and Circle (71%) designs received significantly stronger support than the Square
design (53%) when ‘Meets’ and ‘Exceeds’ are totalled. There was a 22 per cent variation between
responses for the Triangle and Circle designs in the ‘Exceeds’ category, while 35 per cent of
responses for the Square design thought it ‘Does not meet’ this Design Principle.
10
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
Design Principle 3: New Office Benchmark
Tally of returned Feedback responses
parliament square feedback forms as a percentage of
Design Principles total returns
■ ● ▲ ■ ● ▲
Total number of returned feedback forms 358 361 378
Blank forms returned 2 0 2
Design Principle 3 - New Office Benchmark
Does not meet 105 102 39 29.3 28.3 10.3
Meets 152 165 163 42.5 45.7 43.1
Exceeds 51 52 136 14.2 14.4 36.0
Total Meets + Exceeds 203 217 299 56.7 60.1 79.1
Feedback indicates that all three designs were thought to ‘Meet’ and ‘Exceed’ this Design Principle
with the Triangle design being most supported with 79 percent compared with the Circle design
(60%); a difference of 19 per cent. There was a 22 per cent variation between the Triangle and
Circle designs in the ‘Exceeds’ category.
The variation between responses for the Circle and Square designs were less marked with them
receiving 60 per cent and 57 per cent respectively when ‘Meets’ and Exceeds’ are combined, and
both receiving 14 per cent in the ‘Exceeds’ category.
Design Principle 4: Heritage Protection
Tally of returned Feedback responses
parliament square as a percentage of
feedback forms
Design Principles total returns
■ ● ▲ ■ ● ▲
Total number of returned feedback forms 358 361 378
Blank forms returned 2 0 2
Design Principle 4 - Heritage Protection
Does not meet 111 65 34 31.0 18.0 9.0
Meets 163 211 181 45.5 58.4 47.9
Exceeds 34 53 125 9.5 14.7 33.1
Total Meets + Exceeds 197 264 306 55.0 73.1 81.0
The Triangle and Circle designs received most support for heritage protection recording 81 per cent
and 73 per cent respectively when ‘Meets’ and ‘Exceeds are totalled. When assessed against
‘Meets’ and ‘Exceeds’ the Square design was also seen to meet this Design Principle but with 26 per
cent less support than the Triangle design and 18 per cent less support than the Circle design.
11
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
Design Principle 5: Environmentally Sustainable Design
parliament square Tally of returned Feedback responses
Design Principles feedback forms as a percentage of
total returns
■ ● ▲ ■ ● ▲
Design Principle 5 - Environmentally Sustainable Design
Does not meet 64 64 29 17.9 17.7 7.7
Meets 168 185 137 46.9 51.2 36.2
Exceeds 50 42 138 14.0 11.6 36.5
Total Meets + Exceeds 218 227 275 60.9 62.9 72.8
All three conceptual site designs were thought to provide environmentally sustainable design when
‘Meets’ and ‘Exceeds’ responses were totalled. The Triangle design was most supported in the
‘Exceeds’ responses with 36 per cent; 25 per cent more than its nearest competitor overall, the
Circle design. The Square design scored higher than the Circle design in the ‘Exceeds’ category by
a small margin.
Design Principle 6: View Corridors
Tally of returned Feedback responses
parliament square feedback forms as a percentage of
Design Principles total returns
■ ● ▲ ■ ● ▲
Total number of returned feedback forms 358 361 378
Blank forms returned 2 0 2
Design Principle 6 - View Corridors
Does not meet 151 95 28 42.2 26.3 7.4
Meets 120 162 129 33.5 44.9 34.1
Exceeds 17 33 150 4.7 9.1 39.7
Total Meets + Exceeds 137 195 279 38.3 54.0 73.8
While both the Triangle and Circle designs were thought to ‘Meet’ and ‘Exceed’ this Design Principle,
the Triangle design received 31 per cent more support in the ‘Exceeds’ category than the Circle
design. The Square design received 38 per cent responses when the ‘Meets’ and ‘Exceeds’ were
totalled while 42 per cent of responses indicated this design ‘Does not meet’ this Design Principle.
Design Principle 7: Public Space
parliament square Tally of returned Feedback responses
Design Principles feedback forms as a percentage of
total returns
■ ● ▲ ■ ● ▲
Design Principle 7 - Public Space
Does not meet 157 72 18 43.9 19.9 4.8
Meets 118 159 85 33.0 44.0 22.5
Exceeds 14 61 205 3.9 16.9 54.2
Total Meets + Exceeds 132 220 290 36.9 60.9 76.7
The Triangle and Circle designs were both thought to meet this Design Principle when ‘Meets’ and
‘Exceed’ scores were tallied with 77 per cent and 61 per cent respectively. Significantly, the
‘Exceeds’ responses for the Triangle design were 37 per cent higher for this Design Principle than
for the Circle design. The Square design did not meet this Design Principle when ‘Meets’ and
12
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
‘Exceeds’ scores were tallied with 37 per cent. Forty four per cent (44%) of responses to the Square
design indicated that it ‘Does not meet’ this Design Principle.
Design Principle 8: Site Connectivity
Tally of returned Feedback responses
parliament square feedback forms as a percentage of
Design Principles total returns
■ ● ▲ ■ ● ▲
Total number of returned feedback forms 358 361 378
Blank forms returned 2 0 2
Design Principle 8 - Site Connectivity
Does not meet 118 59 17 33.0 16.3 4.5
Meets 154 188 125 43.0 52.1 33.1
Exceeds 17 45 163 4.7 12.5 43.1
Total Meets + Exceeds 171 233 288 47.8 64.5 76.2
The Triangle design received 31 per cent more responses to the ‘Exceeds’ category than the Circle
design (12%) and 38 per cent more than the Square design (5%). When ‘Meets’ and ‘Exceeds’
responses were tallied, the Triangle design receives more support (76%) than the Circle design
(64%). The Square design received responses of 48 per cent in this category. Thirty three per cent
(33%) of responses to the Square design indicated that it ‘Does not meet’ this Design Principle.
Design Principle 9: Accessibility
Tally of returned Feedback responses
parliament square as a percentage of
feedback forms
Design Principles total returns
■ ● ▲ ■ ● ▲
Total number of returned feedback forms 358 361 378
Blank forms returned 2 0 2
Design Principle 9 - Accessibility
Does not meet 112 45 16 31.3 12.5 4.2
Meets 161 199 135 45.0 55.1 35.7
Exceeds 12 45 148 3.4 12.5 39.2
Total Meets + Exceeds 173 244 283 48.3 67.6 74.9
When ‘Meets’ and ‘Exceeds’ responses were totalled the Triangle and Circle designs scored highest
in this category with 75 per cent and 68 per cent respectively, compared with the Square design
(48%). The Square design received 27 per cent more ‘Does not meet’ responses than the Triangle
design.
13
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
Design Principle 10: Car Parking
Tally of returned Feedback responses
parliament square feedback forms as a percentage of
Design Principles total returns
■ ● ▲ ■ ● ▲
Total number of returned feedback forms 358 361 378
Blank forms returned 2 0 2
Design Principle 10 - Car Parking
Does not meet 65 38 33 18.2 10.5 8.7
Meets 192 198 192 53.6 54.8 50.8
Exceeds 26 54 76 7.3 15.0 20.1
Total Meets + Exceeds 218 252 268 60.9 69.8 70.9
There was little variation in the levels of support indicated by ‘Meets’ and ‘Exceeds’ responses to this
Design Principle, with all three designs seen to provide sufficient car parking. The Triangle design
received the most support for ‘Exceeds’ with 20 per cent and the Square design received least
support with 7 per cent.
4.4 Qualitative analysis
A table of all ‘Open comment’ referring to 10 Murray Street is provided for all three short listed
conceptual site designs. The majority of “Open comment’ ,across all three designs, favours
demolition of 10 Murray Street. Those wanting to retain the building have mixed reasons:
architectural value or environmental value.
Square design
The Square design received the most negative feedback of all three designs. It also recorded the
most ‘Does not meet’ feedback for all the Design Principles. Some respondents chose to tick the
‘Does not meet’ box for all Design Principles on the ‘Square’ feedback form because it was their
least favourite design. The Square design performed best in Planning Compliance, Environmentally
Sustainable Design, Car Parking and New Office Benchmark. The Square design performed worst
in the Design Principles for Public Space and View Corridors, followed by Accessibility and Site
Connectivity. The comments reflected these figures.
The most negative comments concerned the appearance and size of the new office block.
“Hideous and an eyesore.”
“The white frit pattern will stick out like a sore thumb and irritate from every angle. Rather
than blend in and compliment heritage views. It will make heritage buildings look
uncomfortably placed. This design is domineering.”
“Don't like the shiny buildings. Need to be careful of reflected sun and glare. They do not
blend into existing environment.”
“Too blocky, but my 5 year old liked the "sparkle".”
“I think having 2 large "white cubes" would be too dominant on the site.”
“Ice cubes sitting up above heritage buildings - yuk. Come on - not seriously considering
this - I hope!!!”
14
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
“I believe the idea of the design will out date. And I believe that compared to some of the
other designs it doesn't fit with the idea of Tasmania.”
Lack of public space also attracted negative feedback.
“Parliament Lane elevations stark and too high. Covered public space area will be tough to
ensure it is well used and nice. Bridges over public space no good. Tight access behind 12
Murray.”
“Not favourable! Little public space. Just a remodelled current set up. Doesn't appear user
friendly or attractive for public use. No reason to want to go there.”
“Seems to be ignoring the potential of Parliament Lane.”
“While apparently meeting all principles, the "iceberg" structure is too big - taking too much
public space and generally not fitting is with heritage character. Public space looks boring
and lifeless.”
The design was not considered to have an appropriate mix of public, commercial and government
space on the site compared to the other designs.
“This is commercial solution.”
“Dark public space. No real mix - nearly all offices.”
“High site density and overly strong visual presence. Congested.”
“Doesn't appear user friendly or attractive for public use. No reason to want to go there.”
“It needs to have more possibilities for retail and things to attract the younger generations.”
While the majority of feedback was negative, there were some positive comments. However, they
generally praised one aspect and suggested improvements to others.
“Ice cube‟s interesting and forward looking, but too big in volume because 10 Murray pulled
down. They dominate older buildings too much. My second choice.”
“Security of Parliament House is a better feature on this proposal. Query wind tunnelling
effects.”
“Aesthetically speaking, it's an eyesore. However, light colour is ok.”
“Well considered, inspired and innovative approach to design/exterior. Aligns well with
existing structures as well as defining itself as a unique structure. The design's „austerity‟
may prove difficult for the public to accept.”
“I like the new buildings but there doesn't seem to be much public space. New buildings are
bold and interesting and compliment existing architecture rather than attempt to compete
with the existing buildings.”
“Don't like harsh facade of new towers. Good idea to remove 10 Murray to make Parliament
House stand out. Good use of sandstone to existing cladding and infill. Good idea of re-
establishing Parliament Lane. Good view lines and set backs.”
15
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
One reason for some of the negative comments and the lack of detailed feedback on the Square
design could be a result of the presentation.
“Love the general concept of the building. Love the Murray St streetscape - draws people as
a step between waterfront and CBD. But fails to meet key principles - info is not fully
provided.”
“Presentation does not supply sufficient info to make informed judgements particularly
lacking in visuals of the actual site.”
‘Open comment’ on the Square design’s removal of 10 Murray Street and 2-4 Salamanca Place
Positive Negative
1 2-4 Salamanca and 10 Murray St should be kept and
not demolished. 34 Davey should be kept as is. These
3 buildings are part of site heritage, whether listed or
not.
2 Don't like harsh facade of new towers. Good
idea to remove 10 Murray to make Parliament
House stand out. Good use of sandstone to
existing cladding and infill. Good idea of re-
establishing Parliament Lane. Good view lines
and set backs.
3 10 Murray should be retained as a heritage building
and one of the better high rises in Hobart. Should aim
for higher Environmentally Sustainable Design
benchmarks.
4 The removal of 2-4 Salamanca is inconsistent with
heritage conservation.
5 Wasteful to knock down 10 Murray St. Iceberg
horrible.
6 Tassie is not modern. It's ugly. Do not do it. We want
to keep old buildings. Got it?
7 Visually neutral design - backdrop to
Parliament House. Poor open space. Scale
imposes itself on site and over Parliament
House. Removal of 10 Murray St (tick).
8 Why demolish 10 Murray and Sal Place buildings? -
Bad Eco sustainability. Good massing and use of land.
9 Glass? Ugly open space. Ugly buildings. Keep 10
Murray St.
16
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
Circle design
The data collected on the Design Principles place the Circle design below the Triangle design in all
categories, in terms of ‘Exceeds’ expectations, but above the Square design. Although the Circle
design ranked lower than the Triangle design in terms of ‘Meets’ and ‘Exceeds’ the Design
Principles, when averaged overall there was an 11 per cent difference. The variation in responses
to individual Design Principles between the Circle and Triangle designs ranged from 1 per cent for
Car Parking to 20 per cent for Public Space. The Circle performed best in the areas of Planning
Compliance, Heritage Protection and Appropriate Mix. It performed worst in View Corridors, New
Office Benchmark and Public Space.
In terms of meeting the Design Principles (not exceeding them), the Circle design scored
consistently highest overall. This indicates that the majority of respondents considered the design to
be a viable option, but not necessarily the most desirable option in its current form. These results
were reflected in the comments.
The Circle design received a range of positive and negative comments across the Design Principles.
Many individual respondents had mixed opinions on different aspects of the design. For example,
some respondents liked the inclusion of the University as a possible tenant but did not think the
public space was effective.
“Good scheme although not very civic or accessible urban space - corporate rather than
civic.”
“Nice open public space, but don't like the facade around 10 Murray. Certainly lacks strength
of the other concepts.”
“I really like the new building on Salamanca Pl. Have reservations about re-jigged 10
Murray. Like the open space but not sure about who would use it as it is essentially internal.”
“I think the idea of a central square is excellent. The dilapidated buildings behind the
heritage ones should go.”
The most positive feedback for the Circle design was for the incorporation of the University because
it was seen as a way to attract people to the site and engage the community. This idea was also
suggested for the other designs.
“I like the face lift, very nice, UTas is awesome for people/community. Major attraction.”
“This is ok. I like how UTas has a spot in this design. More car parking.”
“Appearance is too "blocky" but we like the interpretations of the university.”
“I really like the way the space is divided - having some space for UTas is excellent. I think
more of an effort could be made to be environmentally friendly.”
There was also some positive feedback regarding the public space and modern appearance of the
new office block.
“It looks ok. I like the sunlight idea and it's nice and open.”
“Provides a good mix of spaces and uses. Public area is quite expansive and welcoming.”
“Best by far. Feels in keeping with Hobart style. Good to retain and reuse and lower 10
Murray St. Its courtyard looks inviting. Buildings link well.”
17
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
“Preferred design retaining existing buildings with sensitive height modification. Public space
areas are more appealing and user friendly.”
While many people found the public space inviting and open, other respondents were not happy with
its design. Wind, light, use of concrete and public use were all concerns.
“Need to be careful about passive surveillance and getting enough light into the open
space.”
“Parliament does not equal Government. Query wind tunnel effect. This plan will have a cold
heart. 10 Murray will create almost permanent shade.”
“Barren wind tunnel, just what we need - more concrete! Harsh sterile, unwelcoming public
space.”
“Like the new open area but it seems a bit dark and enclosed.”
“Doesn't meet public space use requirements. No grass.”
“The elevated view-point of the proposed courtyard confirms my opinion that there is more
hope than reality in the current design. Solar penetration will not generate a rewarding
experience for much of any year. The designer needs to learn more about Hobart‟s weather
patterns and the real effects of the sun at 43 degrees south.”
Other negative comments varied across the Design Principles. Some respondents suggested the
design of the office block was too modern for Hobart and the modern buildings did not fit in with the
heritage buildings.
“It's much too urbanised for Hobart, more suited for Melbourne. Does not fit in with the old
buildings.”
“The master planning is reasonable, yet the architecture is poor, unimaginative, bland and
lacks quality, interest for people and any aesthetic value. Seemingly development driven.
Hobart deserves better quality architecture.”
Another prominent concern was about rubbish.
“People will throw rubbish in the water. People will trip over the water drainage. The
education is good.”
“St Mary's Wall will need to be maintained regularly (rubbish, debris).”
“The public space seems over shadowed, literally, by buildings. St Mary's Wall "pool" will
end up with rubbish hard to remove in it.”
Another comment worth noting:
“It's great that you have disabled access. This was excellent, incredibly well thought out,
good use of pictures to show it. 10/10! Go Circle!”
The Circle design was the only one to retain 10 Murray Street. Consequently, the issue of whether
to demolish or retain the building dominated the feedback. As seen in the table below, the majority
of respondents wanted to see the building demolished because of its appearance. However, some
respondents believed it was more cost effective and environmentally sound to retain the building.
Other respondents thought it should be kept for heritage reasons. The fact that the most comments
about the building occurred on the Circle feedback forms and not on the others, indicates that the
majority of respondents overall were happy to have the building removed.
18
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
‘Open comment’ on the Circle design’s use of 10 Murray Street and 2-4 Salamanca Place
Positive Negative
1 Recycling 10 Murray St is presumably the cheapest
option but it is far from inspiring solution.
2 2-4 Salamanca Pl should not be demolished.
It should be kept. 34 Davey should be kept as
is. 10 Murray existing facade should be kept.
All part of site heritage (whether listed or not).
3 Modifications to 10 Murray are not sympathetic. Rear
elevations of 34 Davey St etc need lots more work.
Parliament lane needs a lot of work as will be
important view line and pedestrian link.
4 10 Murray St is the problem with this design. It is
totally out of scale with its surroundings and is built of
ugly materials.
5 Knock the old eyesore down, don't recycle rubbish.
6 Retaining 10 Murray St is good for
environmental sustainability but not aesthetic
appeal. What's more important to Hobart -
looks or environmental impact?
7 Best by far. Feels in keeping with Hobart
style. Good to retain and reuse and lower 10
Murray St. Its courtyard looks inviting.
Buildings link well.
8 Least preferred - existing 10 storey building too
dominant.
9 Better design than Square. Old 10 Murray building
needs to go. Too big for that spot.
10 I don't much like the idea of retaining 10 Murray St.
11 10 Murray St should go.
12 10 Murray St in its present form does have
historical merit. Any modification to the facade
could affect this.
19
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
Positive Negative
13 Don't like retention of Murray St. Design mix a bit short
of open space.
14 Like a lot of this especially bringing the car and the
new building design. Not sure how well taking the top
floors of 10 Murray would work.
15 The removal 2-4 Salamanca is inconsistent with
heritage conservation.
16 Thank God someone realises the economics
of retaining 10 Murray rather than willy nilly
demolition of an asset and demolition costs.
The building aesthetics can be improved at far
less cost!
17 Doubtful of amount of light and sun in the square. New
extension to 10 Murray is too visible in Murray St,
draws away from heritage buildings.
18 10 Murray St should be reduced in height.
19 Like the idea of saving 10 Murray St and
reusing the structure. Would save a lot of
carbon.
20 Design Principle 1 - 10 Murray St. 2 - methods
of reuse not indicated.
21 Reasonable reuse of 10 Murray St. Unsure of
use - top floor food restaurant. Provision of
Government office pool area. New building a
bit low rise. Does this development stack up?
Building of landmark building lost. Public
space not strong enough.
22 Middle of the road choice. It would be nice to see 10
Murray St demolished but it can be improved.
23 Good to make use of 10 Murray. Open space
good. Good use of space. Car parking
inadequate.
20
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
Positive Negative
24 Limited environmental concepts. Good to see
minimal destruction of existing buildings
compared to other designs. If really concern
with C02 emissions C20 cars wouldn't feature
on plan.
25 This should remain the preferred option
unless it is an accepted fact that the circle
option advantages are sufficient to outweigh
the destruction of a perfectly functional office
tower block.
26 The new facade over 10 Murray is a bit risky.
27 Changes to 10 Murray St are just stop gap - not at all
sympathetic! How much more mere office space is
needed. Does not enhance surroundings of
Salamanca Pl i.e. not at all sympathetic to heritage
buildings.
28 Questions economic benefit of retaining 10
Murray St as against new building onsite.
29 10 Murray fixes - out of sync.
30 I really dislike the big office block at 10 Murray. It may
be smaller than current building - but it is almost as
ugly.
31 Would like to remove present 10 Murray building.
32 Height deemed to comply. Still 10 Murray. Mediocre.
33 I really like the new building on Salamanca Pl. Have
reservations about rejigged 10 Murray. Like the open
space but not sure about who would use it as it is
essentially internal.
34 Get rid of 10 Murray!
35 Keeping 10 Murray is a good idea. Also I like
the fact that Uni of Tas will be a tenant. Much
lower cost so more likely to be successful.
36 I think the idea of a central square is excellent. The
dilapidated buildings behind the heritage ones should
go.
21
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
Positive Negative
37 Shared car and pedestrian areas. Keeps old 10
Murray St building (bad). Does not improve vistas.
38 10 Murray St should be retained - this is a
good solution. Environmentally sustainable
design commitments are poor and non-
specific. Should be 6 star green star etc.
39 Get rid of 10 Murray St.
40 Don't like modern facade on Salamanca Pl. Too
heavy. 10 Murray St should be removed. Don't return
buildings that don't work. Confused public open space.
No views to the bay. Could be anywhere. No right
activation.
41 10 Murray should go.
42 Do away with 10 Murray St.
43 Not enough open space to allow 40 degree (lat) light.
10 Murray St has the design element of a shoe box.
44 10 Murray demolish.
45 Nice design for new office building on Salamanca. I'm
not convinced that 10 Murray St is worth keeping
though, and I can't see that it could be converted to a
good place to work. 10 Murray is ugly.
46 This is the better design for protection and
restoration of the heritage buildings. More
should be done to reduce height of 10 Murray
and preserve historic look of Hobart.
47 Generally I liked this scheme. It has a good
mix and I like the idea of keeping 12 Murray
Street.
48 Using Salamanca Place to access the car
park would be a better solution. The
imaginative treatment and retention of 10
Murray Street is a plus as is the reduction in
height of 34 Davey Street.
49 Good to see reuse of 10 Murray Street.
22
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
Positive Negative
50 This is my third preference. This design
solution provides a light airy public space,
uses existing building constructively and
importantly blocks out wind (a factor in
Hobart).
51 Keep 10 Murray St same height. Great new
buildings.
52 Great to keep 10 Murray. Why demolish
Salamanca Square buildings? Good massing
and proportions.
53 Reduce height of 10 Murray (tick). Use 34 and
36 Davey as heritage uses as in Square.
Rebuild Print Authority in old style as in
Square. The Circle design is too avant garde.
But keep the height equal to 34 Davey!
54 This is an important panel because of the
issues it raises about energy conservation (in
operational mode), minimising the impact of
energy consumption (during construction) and
reducing environmental intrusions by recycling
a large building – 10 Murray Street. I
commend the designers for this approach.
Triangle design
The Triangle design received the most positive feedback across all design principles. More
respondents thought this design exceeded the principle requirements in each category. The
Triangle design performed the best in the areas of Public Space, Site Connectivity and Appropriate
Mix. These Design Principles also recorded the greatest variations between the three designs.
The Triangle design performed worst in Car Parking, followed by Environmentally Sustainable
Design and View Corridors (based on the lowest totals of ‘Meets’ and ‘Exceeds’). The amount of
‘Does not meet’ feedback was spread evenly across the categories suggesting a certain number of
respondents may have ticked the lowest box across all categories to indicate their dislike.
The comments were dominated with positive feedback about the Public Space and the introduction
of a screen:
“Outstanding. Good use of open space. Highlights heritage buildings. New building more
sympathetic designs. Better materials.”
“Great public open space and use of recycled materials. Good street interface with
pedestrians.”
23
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
“Excellent provision of public space. Retains heritage views of key building - new structures
do not dominate old.”
“Most effectively creates a useable, appealing public space. I would visit.”
“I think that this design best fits Tasmania as it is known as the "island" state. With the use of
Tasmanian resources. Also the concept of the outdoor cinema and entertainment view is
what Hobart needs.”
There were a few references to the similarities with this design and Federation Square.
“I like the big screen - opens this space up for things like watching The Australian Open,
Triple J Hottest 100 events a la Federation Square.”
The Triangle design was considered to work well for many different types of uses compared to the
other designs that were believed to be more restrictive.
“Provides a good civic space which visible for onsite and offsite users. More spacious and
could be more welcoming than the other proposals.”
While most of the comments were positive there were some concerns with the Public Space. The
comments mainly addressed the size, formal nature of the space and the lack of shelter.
“Public space not defined (too big?). Will people come and fill it all? Good views, but it will
mean lively and exposed public spaces.”
“Good but urban space is very formal/rigid. Old school urban design. Good
orientation/accessible.”
“Clever concept but public space seems to lack "warmth".”
“No wind protection - cold artist space. Little info on item 2. Maintenance cost to us looks
high with timber facades. Looks like government housing (Stanford Court). How many
eateries are sustainable in this space?”
Other comments recommended the inclusion of an educational facility, as suggested in the Circle
design, and the continuation of the concept down to the Princes Wharf area.
The most negative comments for the Triangle design concerned the impracticality of the timber
façade and the lack of car parking. The comments about the timber façade seem to be based on a
misunderstanding of the design that the timber was on the outside of the glass.
“Timber facade is impractical - will require endless maintenance.”
“Too much wasted space. Timber facade a worry over time to deterioration.”
“Hate wooden building!!! Love open space concept.”
There were concerns over the number of car parks as well as the access.
“I vote this as second best. No indication of how many car spaces or whether publicly
available.”
“The most innovative of all designs. Pity the car park access had to be through "shared"
access.”
“Needs more public car parking.”
24
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
“This is my favourite. The outdoor cinema would definitely attract people. Parking is an issue
though.”
Many people commented on the need for bicycle access and storage.
“Does not address bicycle access and parking.”
There was a comment that there was not enough information about the environmental elements.
“Environmentally Sustainable Design evidence of implementation not evident. Public space
with views to harbour is a winner.”
‘Open comment’ on the Triangle design’s demolition of 10 Murray St and 2-4 Salamanca
Positive Negative
1 Doesn't have a Hobart feel. Unimaginative, "dumb"
use of the open courtyard space. Building to replace
10 Murray is uninspired. Don't build this one!
2 Of the 3 concepts this is the only one that
appeals at all - open space is better. 10
Murray going all together is great.
3 What a waste. 2-4 Salamanca is a solid, well designed
post WWII art deco building. It should be adaptively
re-used, not destroyed. Ditto 10 Murray St - just
because its design is unfashionable now, doesn't
mean knock it down.
4 Really like the usable, open area and removal
of 10 Murray and low visual impacts of
replacement building.
5 2-4 Salamanca and 10 Murray St should be kept not
demolished. 34 Davey should be kept as is. These 3
buildings are part of site heritage, whether listed or
not.
6 Best one! Great access through site. Love all
the public open space. 24 hour use like
Federation Square. Water views from public
open space. Good working environment.
Good removes 10 Murray. New building not
intrusive on skyline.
7 The removal of 2-4 Salamanca is inconsistent with
heritage conservation.
8 Like the removal of 10 Murray St. Also total
refurbishment of heritage buildings. Like this
design best.
25
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
Positive Negative
9 I do not like the idea of demolishing 10 Murray St and
replacing it with the proposed office block. Gaining
nothing.
10 Best design. Like the open square accessible
to Murray St. Removes 10 Murray St,
Excellent!
11 Wasteful tearing down 10 Murray St.
12 This design for 10 Murray St is the only one
which is in keeping with heritage of the
square.
13 Keep 10 Murray St. Exciting new buildings. Great
open space.
14 Too big on Salamanca Place. Why remove 10
Murray? Only to replace with another tower? Too
much open space - we don't need it - St Davids Park
and Salamanca.
15 Overall this is the best balance, fits with the
character of the area and surrounding
buildings. Scale appropriate. Good mix of
public/private. Good to see 10 Murray St go (a
symbol of correcting mistakes).
26
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
5.0 Appendices
27
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
5.1 Tally of returned Exhibition feedback forms
Tally of returned Feedback responses
parliament square feedback forms as a percentage of
Design Principles total returns
■ ● ▲ ■ ● ▲
Total number of returned feedback forms 358 361 378
Blank forms returned 2 0 2
Design Principle 1 - Planning Compliance
Does not meet 88 51 20 24.6 14.1 5.3
Meets 196 234 214 54.7 64.8 56.6
Exceeds 25 43 108 7.0 11.9 28.6
Total Meets + Exceeds 221 277 322 61.7 76.7 85.2
Design Principle 2 - Appropriate Mix
Does not meet 125 77 32 34.9 21.3 8.5
Meets 166 183 153 46.4 50.7 40.5
Exceeds 25 72 160 7.0 19.9 42.3
Total Meets + Exceeds 191 255 313 53.4 70.6 82.8
Design Principle 3 - New Office Benchmark
Does not meet 105 102 39 29.3 28.3 10.3
Meets 152 165 163 42.5 45.7 43.1
Exceeds 51 52 136 14.2 14.4 36.0
Total Meets + Exceeds 203 217 299 56.7 60.1 79.1
Design Principle 4 - Heritage Protection
Does not meet 111 65 34 31.0 18.0 9.0
Meets 163 211 181 45.5 58.4 47.9
Exceeds 34 53 125 9.5 14.7 33.1
Total Meets + Exceeds 197 264 306 55.0 73.1 81.0
Design Principle 5 - Environmentally Sustainable Design
Does not meet 64 64 29 17.9 17.7 7.7
Meets 168 185 137 46.9 51.2 36.2
Exceeds 50 42 138 14.0 11.6 36.5
Total Meets + Exceeds 218 227 275 60.9 62.9 72.8
Design Principle 6 - View Corridors
Does not meet 151 95 28 42.2 26.3 7.4
Meets 120 162 129 33.5 44.9 34.1
Exceeds 17 33 150 4.7 9.1 39.7
Total Meets + Exceeds 137 195 279 38.3 54.0 73.8
28
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
Tally of returned Feedback responses
feedback forms as a percentage of
parliament squareDesign Principles
total returns
■ ● ▲ ■ ● ▲
Total number of returned feedback forms 358 361 378
Blank forms returned 2 0 2
Design Principle 7 - Public Space
Does not meet 157 72 18 43.9 19.9 4.8
Meets 118 159 85 33.0 44.0 22.5
Exceeds 14 61 205 3.9 16.9 54.2
Total Meets + Exceeds 132 220 290 36.9 60.9 76.7
Design Principle 8 - Site Connectivity
Does not meet 118 59 17 33.0 16.3 4.5
Meets 154 188 125 43.0 52.1 33.1
Exceeds 17 45 163 4.7 12.5 43.1
Total Meets + Exceeds 171 233 288 47.8 64.5 76.2
Design Principle 9 - Accessibility
Does not meet 112 45 16 31.3 12.5 4.2
Meets 161 199 135 45.0 55.1 35.7
Exceeds 12 45 148 3.4 12.5 39.2
Total Meets + Exceeds 173 244 283 48.3 67.6 74.9
Design Principle 10 - Car Parking
Does not meet 65 38 33 18.2 10.5 8.7
Meets 192 198 192 53.6 54.8 50.8
Exceeds 26 54 76 7.3 15.0 20.1
Total Meets + Exceeds 218 252 268 60.9 69.8 70.9
Total average Does not meet as a percentage 30.6 18.5 7.0
Total average Meets as a percentage 44.4 52.2 40.1
Total average Exceeds as a percentage 7.6 13.9 37.3
Total average Meets and Exceeds as a percentage 52.0 66.0 77.3
29
parliament square EXHIBITION FEEDBACK REPORT
5.2 Exhibition feedback form
30