Heroic Melbourne and Dr Who?
Dr Philip Goad’s review [AA May/June 96] of Norman Day’s RMIT student publication Heroic Melbourne: Architecture of the 1950’s cannot pass without comment.
The almost grudging attempt to balance the review is sadly lost in Dr Goad’s thinly veiled, pedantic emphasis on the book’s regrettable editorial and production shortcomings. More importantly, this review perhaps highlights what appears to be the danger of continuing disenfranchisement of architectural research in Australia. It must gall historians and researchers, even one of Dr Goad’s considerable abilities, to see small, enthusiastically produced publications such as this reach the public domain. The undeniable expertise of Dr Goad and his colleagues often appears distant and remote and their agendas seem more preoccupied with academic legitimacy than accessibility. Much is promised yet little is delivered to readily inform and enrich our profession and culture. In 1994, I approached Dr Goad with a proposal that he consider researching and producing a commemorative publication celebrating 50 years of post-war architecture in Victoria (1945-1995), based on the awards archives of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects. The suggestion appeared to be taken up with some enthusiasm by Dr Goad and I believe from subsequent discussions with him that research was under way, possibly with the financial support of the University of Melbourne. It is now 1996 and still no publication! Surely it is time for Dr Philip Goad to come on down! We need him for what he knows and, more importantly, we want to be his audience! Norman Day and his students have shown us theirs; now it’s time for the good doctor to show us his! —From Lindsay Holland, Melbourne
Dismay
This letter is to express my dismay about our recent dealings with the South Australian Architects Board. I am a registered architect (in four states) and have practiced as a conservation architect for 20 years. I have been in practice for 10 years in South Australia, in partnership with Katrina McDougall, a historian specialising in architectural and social history. Our business name, McDougall & Vines Architectural and Heritage Consultants, was recently deemed by the board to be illegal. I requested to meet with the board to discuss this matter; the response was a solicitor’s letter informing us that a $1000 fine would apply if we did not change our name within two weeks. We were required to remove all reference to ‘architectural’ since my business partner is a historian and not an architect.
The Architects Act makes it quite clear that there is a possibility for the board to act on their discretion in such a matter. The board’s lawyers informed us that they had no intention of making any exceptions, and our request for personal discussions about the matter went unheeded. We have practised for 10 years now and have established a reputation as one of South Australia’s leading heritage practices. There has never been any intent within the practice to mislead anyone as to the qualifications or expertise of the partners—architectural matters are dealt with by me and research and historical issues are dealt with by my partner; conservation policy is dealt with jointly. This was all clearly explained to the registrar, Ms Fiona Ritchie. However, despite our seemingly amicable discussions, the matter has been dealt with in this peremptory manner. Under the Act, it is possible for us to include ‘architectural’ in our title if we incorporate into a company or, indeed, if I was to marry my business partner, this would be a straightforward matter! However, our accountant has advised us against a change of business structure due to unnecessary added costs. Had we incorporated into a company, our business and professional activities would not have changed in any way. I strongly support the board’s endeavour to restrict the use of the word ‘architect’ or its derivative to those who are qualified to use it. I believe that I am entitled in my business structure to use this title. Informal discussions with board members in Victoria indicate that this situation would be unlikely to arise in that state. I certainly feel let down by the attitude of the South Australian board and just wonder what value I have received from my annual fee to be a registered architect. I feel that my partner and I have been treated with less courtesy than could be expected, with little regard for our professional qualifications and reputations. —From Elizabeth Vines, Norwood, SA
No Recognition for Houses?
Due to my keen interest in architecture, I recently attended the RAIA (SA Chapter) awards night—where I expected to see excellence in design chosen from a cross-section of work by architects. I was disappointed that not one new single residence (ie. a house) was recognised. Are Adelaide architects not good enough to design a new house? | In the residential category, the ‘award-winning’ entries—low-cost city accommodation and an addition to a heritage mansion— are not representative of the needs of the typical family. Architects who design houses for client families have different criteria by which to abide and should be judged accordingly. Successful client/architect relationships are also important in developing optimum solutions (as stressed by key speaker Glenn Murcutt). Perhaps juries could take notice of satisfied clients—who will soon say if their needs have not been met.
In SA, approximately 85 percent of residential buildings are planned by building designers, not architects. Does the RAIA, in not recognising domestic work, think that their members are too elite for it? I hope not! Architects have specialised skills to create custom-made ‘dream homes’ while contributing to the bigger picture of well-designed housing for SA. The RAIA must redefine the awards categories and eligibilities (ie. one category per entry, perhaps with an overall award) so that the process will be a more accurate promotion of architects to the wider community. The awards must not be just a self-gratifying endorsement of the ‘old school of architecture’—let’s give recognition to young, innovative architects striving for excellence. —From Ms C. Riley, North Adelaide
Is It Just Us?
Is there a subliminal conspiracy at foot to devalue architects following the recent failure of the cohorts to deregulate the use of the word ‘architect’? Or do we still have a significant job of educating the media and wider community to the worth and skills offered by our profession? For example:
When referring to the principal in a deliberate catastrophes complete balls-up or institutionalised deceit, we find (paraphrasing): - “Pol Pot, the architect of the genocide of the Cambodian people”— 3LO, 6 June 1996, 2pm and 3pm news bulletins.
- Architect of the debacle in Chechnya—3LO, 18 June 1996, 6.10 pm, comment on a candidate in the recent Russian elections.
- “Machiavelli, architect of modern political theory”—ABC TV, 23 June 1996, evening promo for a program at 9.30pm.
And yet, when it comes to a grand, working and worthwhile structure, we find a reference to: - “The Cosmic Draughtsman”—ABC TV, 19 June 1996—title of a Lateline program discussing God, the universe and some new theories in physics and biology.
Do we have a marketing department or what? —From Vincent McDonald and Wendy Jacobs, Ballarat, Victoria
Unnecessary Petulance
Philip Drew [AA May/June 96] should know that it is really his publisher’s responsibility to beg book reviews from the editors of relevant periodicals.
His publisher would know that to donate a book in return for a review yields far better and cheaper publicity than advertising. Although most new books are sold within the first few months, their newsworthiness is prolonged by notices which appear in due course. In view of his misplaced accusations, Mr Drew may count himself lucky that his letter was printed. On the other hand, it does his cause no good in the limited circle of Australia’s architectural media. —From Giles Walkley, Aldinga Beach, SA
Cassandra’s Father
I’m working on a biography of Pierce Brosnan and am trying to find out more about his late wife Cassandra Harris’ family. Cassandra, who grew up in Australia, states on her marriage certificate that her father was architect Walter Waites Harris. At a guess, he was born in the 1920s and practiced after the war but I would be very grateful to anyone who can enlighten me further. I can be contacted at 77 Queenstown Rd, London, SW8 3RQ. Ph 44171 720 9773.
—From York Membery, London
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. |
