Revisiting Green Square Design Competition with Jesse Lockhart-Krause

What drew you to the Green Square Design Competition as an emerging architect?

The Green Square competition stood out because it asked a lot of questions I was already grappling with — about the role of architecture in shaping civic life, and how public buildings might carry a kind of local cultural resonance. It was an opportunity to test ideas at scale, within the framework of a real place with complex history and community dynamics. I was just out of university at the time, working in larger practices, and this was a moment to define an independent voice.

How did you approach the design brief, particularly in terms of community connection?

We were very conscious of the site's layered histories—industrial, residential, and more recently, gentrifying. The community was not homogenous, and we didn't want to design something that imposed a single narrative. Instead, we aimed to create a civic centre that acted as a kind of open stage. The public plaza, the library and community rooms were all arranged to support different ways of gathering, observing, participating. We imagined it less as a monument and more as infrastructure for evolving social life.

What did you learn from entering a major public competition so early in your career?

A great deal. Firstly, that design alone isn't enough—you need to clearly communicate intention, and explain how your architecture addresses civic needs, not just aesthetic goals. We also learned about constraints—of budget, planning, and legacy—and how design has to respond strategically. But perhaps most importantly, it reinforced that architecture should be a dialogue with its users. That insight carried through into future projects.

How did that project influence your later work with Lockhart-Krause Architects?

It laid a foundation for how we think about public space and engagement. Even now, we refer back to some of the spatial strategies we tested there: generous thresholds between inside and outside, flexible spaces that adapt over time, and the importance of material tactility in public buildings. It was also our first attempt at co-design principles, albeit speculative—we asked, “how would people inhabit this?”, and tried to let those answers shape the form.

Were there aspects of the project you'd approach differently today?

Of course. With the benefit of more experience—and better community engagement tools—we would spend more time listening first. At the time, our engagement was largely research-based, drawing from demographics and urban studies. Today, we'd prioritise deeper consultation and first-hand conversations with community groups, cultural leaders and local residents. But that impulse to design with—not just for—people was there from the start.

What advice would you give young architects considering entering competitions like this?

View it as a research process, not just a design challenge. Use the opportunity to think critically about the kind of architect you want to be, and how your work can contribute beyond the brief. Competitions can be time-consuming and speculative, but they offer a space to test ideas outside the constraints of commercial practice. And sometimes, those ideas shape your path in ways you don't expect.

Reflecting forward

Jesse Lockhart-Krause's Green Square competition entry may not have been realised, but its influence is evident in the practice's ongoing commitment to socially responsive architecture. It served not only as a platform for early experimentation, but also as a catalyst for a more grounded and participatory approach to public design.

As Lockhart-Krause Architects continues to evolve, the ethos seeded in that first submission—to design with empathy, to foreground place, and to learn through engagement—remains a guiding thread in their work.