Letters: Architecture Australia, March 1996

This is an article from the Architecture Australia archives and may use outdated formatting

Fatal Flaw in New Urbanism

I read with a mixed sense of horror and amusement the article on the revival of new urbanism in the November/December Architecture Australia. Leaving aside the potential for a point-by-point attack on this foolishness, I would like to respond through the words of Jean Cheneaux in his book Brave Modern World: The prospect for survival:

“In most of the world, new urban space has taken the form of suburbs artificially planned, overgrown, repetitive and bloated. The almost surreptitious product of real estate operations moving in great uniform masses, it has not had time to form successive temporal layers. It is not organised around cores charged with meaning. Suspended in a spatio-temporal vacuum, suburbia is an artefact born on engineers’ drawing tables, practically a laboratory hybrid. It tried to cross city and countryside, but it has lost both the human richness of the genuine city and the open horizons of the fields, hills and woods it had wiped out. Suburb dwellers often feel the need to stroll in town or even to take a walk in the country, but it takes a precise motive to make them venture through their own space emptied of reality.”

It was with relief that I found Philip Graus expressing the shortcomings of this new urbanism “revival”. There is, however, a fatal flaw in the new urbanism proposal and inherent in the suburb in general that was not picked up in this article. There is a long list of players in the development of conventional suburbs, at the very end of which is the occupant. For any real change to occur, there must be a change not only in the physical form of development but also in the process that engenders it. We should recognise the fact that conventional development takes place only to fill the pockets of developers. The creation of any built environment should be driven by the community that will inhabit it.

We should not be searching for a way to build a “sense of community” in the suburbs or anywhere. The search should be for a way to build the communities themselves. I work on the design team of the Halifax EcoCity project and I am here because this is the only project I have found anywhere that is making a serious attempt to rediscover social purpose in development while making community value and ecological viability inherent in development.

From Glenn Versteegen, Adelaide

Glib Accolades

If by the selective publishing of the jury’s comments on Edmond & Corrigan’s Building 8 you intended to gloss over its most outstanding attributes, CONGRATULATIONS. While references are glibly made to “evidence of a driving philosophy”, for the interested reader this philosophy can only be inferred through the pictures. By describing it as merely “optimistic and joyful”, it seems you have sidestepped the issue of its inherent complexity at a dialectical level (whether this was intended by the architects or not). What of the critical object? Its sardonic and perhaps esoteric jabs at iconic architectural works? Its relationship to John Andrews’ building at a semiological level? Instead we are told how well its levels (physical, that is) correspond with levels of adjoining buildings.

Also, I am astounded by the awarding of your highest residential judging criteria. In the light of this, reference is made to the RAIA’s quandary as to what constitutes great architecture. It is indeed a valid point of contention, but may I be so bold as to suggest that it is not necessarily given by practical value and, in Clare’s case, it does not equate with “a shed that works”.

While I applaud its functionalism and self-sufficiency, let’s put the building into perspective—“solar power, water collected from the roof and gas for cooking” are not innovations.

“Architectural critics” of this country might dress up the work by describing it as “an elegantly responsive shelter whose enlightened use of common materials lends itself to a vernacular context” but then, so is my tool shed. And, as Nikolaus Pevsner has penned, “a bicycle shed is a building; Lincoln Cathedral is a piece of architecture”.

From Darryl Chen, Brisbane

RAIA—A New Name and Direction?

Through you I would like to stimulate discussion on two matters which have some bearing on the way in which members perceive our august profession moving in upcoming years.

The first issue is whether the name of our professional body reflects our desired image, and the second is whether the interests of practising principals and the remainder of the profession are truly common or too conflicting to be properly cared for under one common professional body.

It appears to me that the profession needs to project a revitalised character, a matter which seems to obtain resonance from time to time with other busy practitioners. As things often do, this would seem to commence with self-perception.

For instance, I wonder whether the time is yet ripe for the RAIA to rename itself as the Australian Architects Association (AAA) or the Academy of Australian Architects (AAA also)? What’s in a name? Well, a fair bit if you think about it, but rather than pre-empt correspondence, I would like to hear from others.

The other related ‘for instance’ is to review whether there are conflicts of interest amongst the membership which act as unnecessary impediments to progress for each competing interest, and if so, how this reflects upon our work.

I would encourage the President or his/her representative to prepare an editorial which could be published in the same edition as this letter so that others could respond to this stimulus. Alternatively, practitioners could communicate direct with me at Evans and Evans, 66 King Street, Sydney 2000; Fax 02 262 2212.

From Maurice Evans, Sydney

RAIA Response

I am very grateful to Maurice Evans for encouraging discussion on Institute affairs through the pages of AA. The RAIA’s official magazine is the appropriate vehicle for the conduct of responsible, informed discussion on the affairs of the national association which represents the architectural profession.

Information on the Institute is disseminated through Memo and Chapter publications each month and members have the opportunity for making their opinions known through direct contact with RAIA offices, to the committees and councils of the Institute. In these forums, I assure you, there is constantly very lively debate about “the way … members perceive our august profession is moving.”

> In respect to the issues Maurice has raised:
> National Council has considered the name of the Institute and a survey of member opinion has been conducted and it has been concluded that members, at this stage, believe it is not an issue of sufficient importance to warrant change.

The present structure of the Institute reflects that there are differences between the interests of practising principals and other members and it has accommodated this by ensuring that firms pay for the services provided by RAIA Practice Services. It should be noted in this context that surveys of all members rate this service very highly and that members who enjoy the products of the service at their place of work do so at practically no personal cost.

From Michael Peck Chief Executive Officer, RAIA, Canberra

Is It Any Wonder?

Is it any wonder [that] the general community holds the profession of architecture in such low esteem? When making an irregular perusal of Architecture Australia, Nov/Dec issue, I read all the letters, which contain nothing but petty self-promotion and corrections of who did this or that.

I am not sure whether this is a reflection of the poor quality of the magazine (yes, magazine) or a true reflection of the issues which concern architects in this country: please can anybody help me?

From Lindsay Webb, B.Arch student, University of NSW

Dangers in Dismissals

We wish to draw to the attention of all architectural consulting firms the impact that the federal industrial relations legislation relating to unfair dismissals can have on their business.

Since the introduction of this legislation in March 1994, some 15,000 applications have been lodged throughout Australia, with the average settlement in court being approximately $7500. Employers have only successfully defended five percent of these claims. However, many disputes are settled out of court.

Our firm was recently involved in a claim for unfair dismissal when one of our independent contractors lodged an application form to the commission, quoting our client as the employer. On behalf of our client, we responded to the commission, eventually defending the application in court. We successfully defended the claim for unfair dismissal on the basis that the engagement was a contract for service, not a contract of employment. We had implemented the correct contract documentation to support this engagement.

Whilst we do not wish to condone the acts of unscrupulous employers, the difficulty with this particular legislation is that it allows most workers to lodge a claim, even though in many cases the case for termination may have been justified.

We observed a number of interesting and important issues whilst being involved in this recent matter:
> Applicants are not always requested to produce evidence of employment at the time of application.
> Only the applicant and court can close the case once opened. > Independent contractors and temporary employees are among the applicants who have lodged claims.
> Very few employers successfully defend a claim.
> Conciliation appears to lean towards the deemed employer offering compensation.
> It highlighted the importance of having adequate employment documentation.

Our concerns when defending the case were not only the cost to defend but also the possible reinstatement of the deemed employee, the settlement amount, loss of productivity and general work disruption. In addition, the potential for a new claim is always a possibility after unsuccessfully defending a case. In summary, the overall impact to architectural consultancies is the need to review the way contractors and employees are engaged.

From Peter Cottee, Bayside Personnel, Sydney

Calling All Jurors

I am preparing a book for publication on the RAIA National Awards 1981-95 and wish to include in this the names of all those who participated in the jury panels of each year. As the RAIA records are incomplete, I would be pleased to hear from each year’s chairperson and/or from individual jurors, with, if possible, a copy of the jury’s final report, so that a full reference is available.

My contact details are 40 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road, Bondi, NSW 2026. Ph (02) 365 3218, fax (02) 365 3938.

From Neville Quarry, University of Technology, Sydney

Proud of the Powerhouse

How proud we are with our Powerhouse Museum (Sydney). We showed them that a museum can be a great place to learn all sorts of things— and indeed it certainly is. The multilayered movement experience within the enclosure does the architects and set designers great credit.

But Saturday January 6 was wet, wet all day! The elephantine covered way along Harris street leaked virtually its full length. It leaked where there may be a small box gutter about five metres above the wet pavement. It leaked down what appeared to be the back (and front) of the cladding on the oversized structure—both sides. And of course this covered way is just that; it touches the building not at all and so the rain fell through the half-metre gap.

“OK,” I said to my juvenile charges, “don’t take your coats off till we get to the main entry shelter”. Well yes, the shelter was a little better over one set of doors (crowded waiting space) and almost missing on the second set of south-facing entry doors.

Please, could we remove the Sulman Medal for ‘renovations’ till the architects fix this ridiculous situation?

From Brian Jessep, Pymble NSW

We welcome your concise views on issues of interest to architects. Please provide fax and phone numbers—we may need to edit. Only letters to the editor, not copies of letters to others, will be published. The RAIA’s chief executive officer has right of reply to criticism of the Institute. Address to 4 Princes Street, Port Melbourne 3207. Fax (03) 9646 4918.

Source

Archive

Published online: 1 Mar 1996

Issue

Architecture Australia, March 1996

More archive

See all
The November 2020 issue of Landscape Architecture Australia. November issue of LAA out now

A preview of the November 2020 issue of Landscape Architecture Australia.

The May 2021 issue of Landscape Architecture Australia. May issue of LAA out now

A preview of the May 2021 issue of Landscape Architecture Australia.

Most read

Latest on site

LATEST PRODUCTS