Above The ARM/Peck winning scheme, involving a bridge across the lake and diverse, random geometries ordered by a “wandering ribbon”. |
After many false steps, a dynamic scheme emerges
from Canberra’s competition.
THE POLITICS
By Davina Jackson
Attempts to build in Canberra a National Museum of Australia and two centres of Aboriginal culture amount to a saga of political prevarication, changed sites and fruitless competitions. The latest two-stage exercise—won by Melbourne architects Ashton Raggatt McDougall and Robert Peck von Hartel Trethowan from four other finalists—also has been roundly criticised. The organisers were the Department for Communications and the Arts in liaision with the Construction Coordination Committee (charged with judging and then building the works) and the National Capital Authority (responsible for concept guidelines). This triumvirate has been critiqued for imposing unreasonable deadlines and copyright controls, for postponing dates and escalating budgets, for appointing a jury with only one architect and for delivering an “impossibly detailed” brief.
The bureaucrats seem to have been responding to a Prime Ministerial dictate that the museum will open on 1 January 2001. And observers of the politics allude to a familiar public projects trajectory of hasty early decisions arising from concerns more to do with ‘efficient’ project management processes than effective outcomes. After checking complaints from members, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects declined to endorse the contest and put out press releases denouncing its management. To try to resolve its concerns, the government appointed two Institute representatives as advisers: Michael Keniger of Brisbane and John Davidson from Melbourne. Despite their negotiated advances, the RAIA issued another statement of criticism (not more specific) on the day the winners were announced. This competition follows two earlier architect-selection programs aborted by the former Labor government. Both were widely rumoured to favour Greg Burgess; a Melbourne architect with awards for Aboriginal cultural centres in elaborately organic designs. He submitted again but did not reach the finals.
Seventy six entries arrived for the first stage. Overseas candidates are thought to have included Americans Michael Graves and Robert Stern, and Australian Geoff Baker, who is New York City’s chief planner. From this group, the Construction Coordination Committee jury—Jim Service (chair), Cathy Santamaria, Moira Ford, Dr Gaye Sculthorpe and architect Michael Ratcliffe as head of the National Capital Authority—shortlisted five teams (not three as first announced). They were John Brand with Eggleston Macdonald, Giles Tribe with Cox Richardson, Wilkinson Candalepas with Peddle Thorp & Walker and Forbes Fitzhardinge Woodland with Woods Bagot. Each team was paid $50,000 in fees.
Overturning previous preferences for a museum at Yarralumla, the brief confirmed the museum site as Acton Peninsula, in the west basin of Lake Burley Griffin. This locally controversial location was formerly occupied by the recently dynamited Canberra Hospital. The new development will include three facilities set within landscaped grounds: the National Museum of Australia, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (both federally funded) and the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre (costed at around $2 million of territory funds). The two federal facilities were budgeted at $68 million in the brief but as Labor senators have been declaiming to a parliamentary inquiry (standard for large public works commissions), the winning scheme is so far estimated to cost much more: between $85 and $133 million. This range does not seem excessive in relation to the extent of works … because all competitors are said to have exceeded the budget, it could be assumed that the initial estimate might have been hopeful.
Davina Jackson is the editor of Architecture Australia. THE FINAL SCHEMES
By Michael Keniger
Since first mooted some years ago, the museum concept has changed radically from a taxonomic arrangement with chronological displays to a more theatrical presentation of ideas linked to the collection. The current intention that the museum must be a lively, interactive and popular location rather than an imposing sanctuary for conserved artefacts has its detractors.
The five finalists offered strongly contrasting ideas to resolve the brief.
In my view, the jury’s selection of the ARM-Peck scheme was an adventurous decision and a positive outcome from what had been an unnecessarily contentious process.
Winners: Ashton Raggatt McDougall with Robert Peck von Hartel Trethowan
This proposal clearly evolves from ARM’s shortlisted entry into the Federation Square competition. Its springboard is a series of ideas concerning the perception and structure of landscape, which frame a deliberate challenge to the expectation that national public buildings should be isolated in Arcadian settings. Instead the concept celebrates the vitality of urban Australia: in particular the many overlays and interactions between ancient and new and indigenous and colonial cultures. In an anti-monumental strategy, the whole of Acton Peninsula is orchestrated by a wandering yellow ribbon which organises a sequence of apparently random spaces, events and experiences weaving between and through the buildings. The building forms and elevations are eclectic but combine to represent the diversity of expectations, backgrounds, experiences and ambitions of Australia’s past, present and future. This approach supports the history of the site and its environs.
The landscape treatment, involving Tom Sitta and Richard Weller, is dynamic and vigorous and captures the peninsula’s essential topography. It would immediately provide an appropriate setting for the buildings and would enrich with time. The Garden of Australian Dreaming promises to be a major attraction in its own right. Providing a low background to this garden, the single-storey museum orders galleries in a crescent plan which gives a long, animated edge to the lake and an intimate scale to the open areas at the heart of the peninsula. A deep zone along the lake side of the museum enables flexibility and should be developed to permit better views from this vantage point. Similarly, the shore promenade requires further detail to fully harness its possibilities as a constructed edge to the water. 
Above left John Brank/Eggleston Macdonald’s propostion: a zig zagging journey between pavilions scattered around an oval. Above right The Giles Tribe/Cox Richardson scheme, with the museum on axis in the foreground and the Aboriginal cultural buildings angled at the rear.
Overall, this proposal promises to create a lively and engaging destination that would be both memorable and enjoyable. The design’s strength and vitality registers even at the scale of a postcard image and will fire the imagination of many who otherwise find museums alienating and uninviting. A key strength of the concept is that it is not dependent on any one image or idea, and could be developed through dialogue with user groups. The priority is to ensure that it receives full support so that Australia can have, at last, a museum dedicated to its culture, people and place.
Notes on the other four finalists:
John Brand with Eggleston Macdonald
The key idea is to create cohesion through diversity. The brief is answered by a scatter of pavilions of separate and distinctive form. These are linked by a two-storey promenade and central oval. The museum experience is conceived as a meandering journey offering many possibilities. Ticketing, entry and way-finding would be assisted by a smart card.
Giles Tribe with Cox Richardson
This design associates with an Australian character drawn from references to landscape, rural buildings, country town streets and aboriginal structures. The three facilities are ordered by strong spine walls or armatures which summon analogies with gorges, canyons and cliffs. The museum spaces are caught between these blades or contained by lightweight structures that lean against them.
Wilkinson Candalepas with Peddle Thorp & Walker
This project was one of the few submissions intended to create a dialogue with the immediate and wider landscape. There are promising ideas on organisation and structure in the museum design. Simple, repetitive structural blades combine with a largely single-storey mat of galleries and courtyards to suggest a relaxed and easy progression of spaces. Placing all the galleries on a single level offers flexibility and good access for setting up exhibitions.
Forbes & Fitzhardinge Woodland with Woods Bagot
This scheme is governed by a geometry that radiates from a circular central plaza, while large, tilting roof planes hover above the landscape. A strong proposal is the north-east-facing terrace which would reinforce the urbanity of placing the museum close to the water. The plan would provide good visitor access and facilitate movement of exhibits.
Michael Keniger, Head of Architecture at the University of Queensland, was an RAIA adviser to the competition organisers |
