Letters: Architecture Australia, November 1996

This is an article from the Architecture Australia archives and may use outdated formatting

Unfair to Us and Glenn

It was upsetting to discover the article  Architecture About Aborigines  by Kim Dovey (  AA July/August 96  ). We are offended by the use of two photographs containing ourselves and Banduk Marika’s quotations to illustrate this thinly veiled criticism of Glenn Murcutt as a white architect designing for Aboriginals. Our views on Glenn Murcutt’s involvement were never sought by Kim Dovey, nor was any critical understanding of our specific social, political and economic context. While disassociating ourselves from Kim Dovey’s views, we express the love and gratitude that we have for Glenn Murcutt as a rare and fine architect.

Glenn Murcutt knew something of the ‘traditional’ art and culture of north-east Arnhem Land before he first visited Yirkkala in 1988. By the time he returned in 1991 to view the specific site, he had been well informed by us about a sadly degenerating socio-cultural situation and its effects on individual families. We introduced him to a community divided by church, state and mining company-controlled factions and individuals who were welfare, drug and alcohol-dependent. All levels of the community housing mechanism, from government to builder, had entrenched notions, both conservative and discriminating, which embraced the concrete block-house as the ‘solution’ to Aboriginal housing. Glenn Murcutt knew by 1991 that even though the Aboriginal Council was sympathetic in principle to his female Aboriginal client’s vision for a ‘healthier’ house as a community housing prototype, there was enough scepticism, ignorance and jealousy amongst council members for there to be a high probability of failure. He also knew that, of his clients, the white man held a lowly paid job without influence and that the Aboriginal woman, although a traditional landowner, could not use her land value as collateral for finance and would, regardless of the amount she invested in the project, be a rent-payer in perpetuity, never owning the house. Within these parameters, everything possible was done to build this community house with the resources of one of the best-equipped communities in Australia. Each time that barriers were erected to cripple the project, more sponsors (BHP, Nabulco, Perkins Shipping, engineer James Taylor and builders Simon Thorpe and John Colquhoun, who packed 54 tonnes of house and the equipment to build it into shipping containers and travelled by road to the tip of north-east Arnhem Land to work seven-day weeks for seven months in the knowledge that they would not receive anything like real wages) grouped around us, preventing the project from collapsing. As well as visiting several times before construction began—this in itself being costly—Glenn Murcutt was obliged for reasons of building estimates to redesign and blueprint the house three times; a very time-consuming exercise. When Glenn Murcutt borrowed money from the bank to save the project just prior to contracts being signed, his genius rationalised that he himself had given less than his spirit had received through what he had experienced with his Aboriginal client and her family on her land.

To us, no-one has put their money more eloquently where their mouth is in support of Aboriginal people’s desire to free themselves from the housing ghetto than Glenn Murcutt.

Does the house formally describe the complex parameters of its genesis? No it doesn’t; it describes Glenn Murcutt’s passionate and tireless work on behalf of his clients. It describes the frankness of the many hours of discussion he had with a woman who is as sure of what she doesn’t want for her land and family as what she does want. It describes the rights of individuals and families to privacy and security. It describes the movement of people between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’. It describes the strength of the natural elements that shaped the site on which it stands. It describes a desire for humour and happiness in a world of pain and loss.

Articles previously written about our house have all contained a few errors of fact but have celebrated our efforts and the skill of the architect, as have the architectural awards the house has received. We as occupants are well placed to see whether the house succeeds relative to the broader socio-cultural issues, but it is too early for that. None of us involved, especially Glenn Murcutt, have ever pretended that this house is the definitive word in housing, Aboriginal or otherwise. Glenn Murcutt has moved on and finished the design for another house in Yirkkala which satisfies a whole new set of physical, cultural and economic exigencies. To infer that he is an architectural protagonist of post-colonial domination of Aboriginal people is untrue. To use his friends’ images and words to illustrate this inference and belittle him is right out of line.
—From Banduk Marika and Mark Alderton, Yirkkala, NT

Dr Dovey’s paper also worried us when it was submitted for publication because, although composed by a noted academic, it contained provocative, political opinions not fully researched. However, ‘think pieces’ of this kind are often published in reputable newspapers and journals—and we believe that arguable perspectives are better put out for discussion than (in effect) suppressed. All three mentioned architects were advised of the thrust of his comments and asked if—in the interests of debate— they would supply us with photos of their buildings to illustrate the article. Here we followed a convention that magazines refer to architects, not owners, when seeking photos (to avoid interference in sometimes delicate relationships and allow architects to oversee publicity of their work). The architects are then assumed to confirm with their clients. To their credit, all the architects gave permission. Glenn Murcutt advised us to obtain images of the Marika/Alderton house directly from the photographer, who sent us a selection of previously published shots which we understood were clear for republication in AA. On the other matter—quoting of Banduk Marika’s televised conversation with Glenn Murcutt—we don’t agree that the article was ‘right out of line’. Their statements were made for public consumption and, presumably, reaction. AA’s publication of glowingly supportive comments about this house—by Denis McDonald in that same edition—is not acknowledged here, and there seems to be an inference that we should wastebin critical responses. This is not consistent with our editorial goal to publish diverse attitudes current in Australia’s architectural cultures. However, AA regrets and did not intend personal offence—Ed.

Get Off the Grass, Kim

I have been under a misapprehension that scholars research material before putting pen to paper. Apparently not so where this so-called ‘white scholar’ is concerned ( ‘Architecture for Aborigines’, AA July/August 1996  ). Firstly, what are this so-called white scholar’s credentials, that he feels able to attack one of Australia’s finest architects in this way?

At least Glenn Murcutt is prepared to get off his arse and try to help people at a grassroots level, rather than sitting in an ivory tower writing pathetic prose about subjects he is obviously unfamiliar with.

Yirkkala is not on Cape Arnhem as you state, and a quick look at a map of the area would clarify this for you.

Mr White Scholar, you were not involved in this project in any way, so all your information is second and third-hand or dare I say, hearsay. When was the last time you visited Yirkkala to look at Aboriginal housing or talk to the people regarding their needs or concerns (never) but you still feel justified in attacking a project that you really know nothing about.

Get off the grass, Kim, get your facts straight and stick to something you are familiar with.

I am amazed that  Architecture Australia  would allow itself to be duped with this sort of bullshit.
—From Kevin Facer, Yirkkala Community, NT

Olympic Clarifications

I am writing to express concern about an article which appeared in the ‘Radar’ section of  Architecture Australia ‘s July/August issue.

The statement by the writer that the NSW Chapter of the RAIA’s Olympic committee was reshuffled to address concerns “that councillors with conflicts of interest have restrained the Institute from public involvement in the Olympic debate” is incorrect. Considerable effort has been made by the Chapter in the last six months to improve communication between the committee level of the organisation and the Chapter council. The Olympic committee previously existed as a subcommittee of our urban design committee, which in turn sits under the Environment board. This extended line of communication caused some difficulties.

A decision was therefore made to establish a work group to address Olympic issues, with a direct link to council. To facilitate this process, it was decided that a Chapter councillor should chair the new work group and thereby improve lines of communication within Chapter. It was not a punitive measure as a result of an individual’s comments to the media.
—From Mark Jones, NSW RAIA President, Sydney

More on the Adelaide Guide

We write in response to your recent review ( ‘Radar Books’ AA July/August 96 ) of our book  Adelaide’s Architecture and Art: A Walking Guide . As the authors, we wish to add further background to the book in order to clarify the comments and concerns of the reviewer, Sean Pickersgill.

The book was prepared as an initiative of the communications committee of the SA Chapter of the RAIA but was not principally sponsored by the RAIA. The main sponsors were the SA Department of the Arts and Cultural Development (Art for Public Places program), the Corporation of the City of Adelaide and the publisher, Wakefield Press. The RAIA provided administrative support and covered photographic production costs.

The reviewer comments that few contemporary buildings were included in the guide. On the contrary: all RAIA award-winning buildings and many buildings dating from the 1930s to the present were included. Buildings from the last century are greater in number in the book as Adelaide has so many notable examples of Victorian era architecture.

Your reviewer expressed disappointment that the guide did not include buildings in North Adelaide, such as a house by Robin Boyd. This was intentional, as we plan to produce a second guide covering the architecture of North Adelaide.

There is also no recognition of the artworks featured in the book. Adelaide has many excellent works in the city and many are integral with noted buildings, giving a good illustration of the collaborations possible between artists and architects.

The book was produced for the public and tourists, as an educational aid to highlight the importance of architecture and design in the community. It is selling well and has received wide and positive publicity, stimulating community awareness and debate about architecture and art.
—From Michael Queale and Nicolette Di Lernia, Adelaide

Patience, My Friend

Lindsay Holland’s letter to AA (September/October 96) regarding my review of a recent book authored by Norman Day appears to have been a reason to ask publicly a question regarding one of my own research projects. He seems to believe that there is a reluctance on the part of academia to publish. That is certainly not the case.

If Mr Holland had cared to keep in touch with me since 1994, he would know that in Semester 2 1994, some 20 students at the University of Melbourne began research on the RAIA awards programme 1945-1995. That same year, I was also awarded a special initiatives grant by the university to assist with this research. Five thousand dollars was spent on research assistance in 1995-96 to confirm the student work of the year before and fill in necessary gaps in that documentation.

This invaluable research revealed that the study period of 1945 to 1995—while encapsulating a neat 50-year block—should, as a more complete piece of research, encompass the entire history of the awards programme in Victoria—from the first award of the RVIA Street Architecture Medal in 1929.

In July 1995, I gave a paper in Sydney at the annual conference of the Society of Architectural Historians as a way of testing my findings amongst colleagues. The next step is to seek funding (perhaps from the RAIA) for publication, the final collection of photographs and the completion of further essays to accompany the description of all medal winners since 1929. The project is clearly proceeding … and this would be crystal clear if Mr Holland had bothered to ask.

Time is required to produce a substantial and authoritative work. Academic legitimacy and accessibility should be essential attributes of any published work. The research that I began with alacrity will indeed find a satisfactory conclusion. The only difference will be that, instead of 50 years, the book will, more than likely, cover 1929-1999—perhaps a more fitting and salutary target for recording the profession’s best works of the 20th century.
—From Dr Philip Goad, University of Melbourne.

A Launceston Student Answers Back

I am very disappointed by the comments attributed to Keith Drew in Radar Headlines (AA. Sept./Oct. 1996).

Just one week after I read them, Keith, when asked, publicly distanced himself from them; saying that they were taken out of context and were out of date.

It was a specious comment as just one year ago the course was accredited for five years, with two-thirds of the students enrolled at the Launceston campus, and despite the fact that more architects are based in Hobart. A transfer of students from one campus to another does not necessarily equate to a drop in standards.

Post-restructuring accreditation cannot be considered yet. We have no detailed proposed course changes because at this stage the University of Tasmania is still evaluating broad organisational options. The university council, on advice from the vice-chancellor, Professor Don McNicol, will decide in the next two months whether to accept or reject department budgets (and therefore department restructuring).

The vice-chancellor wishes to save five percent of budget, plus offset five percent of staff pay rises, over the next four years. He also wishes to transfer 700 student places from Hobart to Launceston. He is the university’s general manager and we should take our cues from him.

The Department of Urban Design is based in Hobart. It delivers teaching to 85 Bachelor of Environmental Design (1st to 3rd year) students and to students undertaking the Master of Town Planning (MTP) course. The Department of Architecture in Launceston delivers teaching to 120 Bachelor of Environmental Design students and to 60 Bachelor of Architecture (4th and 5th years) students. Funding for the masters course is to be withdrawn due to the federal budget ceasing to fund masters by coursework programs.

Initial argument and debate between the involved parties seemed to indicate a resurfacing of long-held grudges, with little forward-looking, constructive planning taking place. Communications between Launceston (Dept. Architecture) and Hobart (Dept. Urban Design and RAIA) have not been as smooth as we students would wish.

However at the time of writing, (October 10) it seems that forward planning now is occurring, with real options for preserving and enhancing architectural education in Tasmania being explored by the relevant parties.

The RAIA Tasmania Chapter has also indicated that it will start to take a more pro-active role in establishing links with the Launceston students than it has in the past. The Hobart students have closer contact to the RAIA, due to more staff involvement.

I hope that at the end of the day architectural education will benefit from whatever outcome eventuates.
—From Rob Haakmeester, 3rd year B. EnvDes student, Launceston

Credit Revise

AA’s recent ‘Radar’ item on a Sydney first prize in the international VR Une Architecture CAD concepts competition regrettably did not mention Paul Peng’s collaborator, Sam Guo, or the supervision of these students’ work by Dr James Rutherford of the University of Sydney. Our apologies–Ed.

Source

Archive

Published online: 1 Nov 1996

Issue

Architecture Australia, November 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