Creations that stand test of time
There is a way people can have their say and enduring architecture can be encouraged, says Peter Partridge
AMID debate over development in Hobart, a reader compared the “Hobart Supreme Court building which sits harmoniously in the Salamanca area” to the Kangaroo Bay proposal.
The letter-writer considered the Kangaroo Bay designs “arrogant in that they will make a statement with no heed to the surrounding area”.
To produce any proposal, an architect has to be arrogant, that is, display self-belief, however the Kangaroo Bay designs may be judged arrogant due to a perceived lack of respect or reference to their surroundings. Some will disagree, certainly their designers have produced sensitive architecture elsewhere.
The Kangaroo Bay Urban Design Strategy and Concept Plan was published by Clarence City Council nearly 10 years ago, but by the time we, the public, can participate, the applicant has invested heavily in a proposal.
It’s hard to understand the planners’ reasoning, or the councillors’ values, giving away some of Bellerive’s last remaining foreshore, overflowing with potential public recreational use, for use as a hotel, etc. A proposal that to me looks a little more urban and larger than I imagined looking at the original strategy and concept plan. By all means a hotel and training establishment in Bellerive, but surely as a community we can find a site that will not cost us so dear in the future.
Of late, politicians seem to have determined that the quicker proposals can be dealt with, that is, approved, the better it is for society. Statutes appear to create rules that reduce freedoms for planners and elected representatives to determine what they consider to be most appropriate, consideration that seems to dwell on minutiae while taking a tick-box approach to matters of substance. Rules that if not followed expose the councils to fighting costly appeals. Rules that devalue the concept that every city site and development deserves to be considered individually. Planning has been reduced to a control and appeal function.
Perhaps better outcomes may be achieved if the process started with the applicant publishing a simple statement of intent, inviting public and council response, creating dialogue before spending time and money on a detailed application. It would empower society to have input without labelling comment as negative, that would not require every application to be slavishly considered against endless rules that do little to promote respect and reference to their surroundings, let alone encourage quality enduring design solutions creating memorable precincts.
There are many cities and neighbourhoods around the world that have retained individual scale and character that no one could label backward. They have shown intelligence, forward thinking, planning and competence. These cities do not stop tall buildings or hotels but they do ensure they do not diminish their heritage, historic or unique humble traditional buildings, precincts, townscapes and views, the ingredients that differentiate their city, the ingredients that attract discerning tourists.
I’d been in Tasmania a little over two years when in 1971 I was handed my brief for the Supreme Court Buildings in Salamanca Place. My introduction to the courts was a meeting involving the client, users and protesters to a previous multi-storey proposal. This meeting redefined a basic parameter of the brief, a low sandstone building. Having that huge decision made for me meant my task was simply to design a complex that created the dignity the courts deserved, yet made them inviting and not overpowering to the public. The location was perfect, St David’s Park and Parliament House adjacent, with wharves and sandstone warehouses close by. It demanded a development that would become a lasting member of the precinct.
I was lucky. This required an architecture that had been all around me as an impressionable student and young practitioner in the late 50s and early 60s in England. A time when there was fine architecture being built, particularly in the university towns; new universities; new colleges; importantly, buildings and extensions that had to fit into existing precincts; places where tourists look in awe, where any new work had to be of its time and as elegant as its surroundings, usually relying on sensitively detailed concrete, glass and lead, sometimes stone, always simple, often brutal, but always melding in perfectly with both site and neighbours.
Like the Kangaroo Bay development the courts included the landscaping and street works and both were key to the concept.
My first design principle was to let the park flow through the site. This was essential in retaining a human scale; allowing the landscaping to soften the perception, create informality, minimise the institutional character, yet allow the buildings to retain a classicism associated with courts. The second important principle was randomness, the key to de-institutionalised development.
The third was to create a showpiece for local materials and craftsmanship. The palette of sandstone, slate, copper, with white sand-blasted concrete over entrances and generous use of lead reinforced reference to the surroundings and added familiarity. The commission included furnishings, down to cutlery, crockery, even ashtrays. The total design philosophy was rewarded in October, 2010, when the architectural profession awarded the courts their inaugural state and national awards for Enduring Architecture. On October 29, then premier David Bartlett put out a media release that said “our designers help to produce an attractive and sustainable lifestyle for Tasmanians, and a dynamic, authentic image for our island … It is particularly pleasing to see the Tasmanian award winners recognised for their innovation, and the sustainability and authenticity of their creations. Those qualities are at the heart of the Government’s vision … Here is
Perhaps better outcomes may be achieved if the process started with the applicant publishing a simple statement of intent, creating dialogue before spending time and money on a detailed application
a reminder that investment in … architecture has a lasting effect on the city.”
It would be a shame and a loss for Hobart and Tasmania if the media release becomes just another opportunistic piece of spin. I am sure that in an urban environment such as Hobart enduring architecture cannot be created in isolation. Timeless development owes much to its neighbours, and fundamental is an informed, caring society who with city fathers believe championing worthy developments and precincts is worthwhile.
I am pleased the courts continue to be appreciated. Let’s hope Bellerive, and the whole of Hobart, continues to get the enduring architecture that society deserves. New buildings have a habit of remaining for generations but they don’t just arrive, they are the product of a brief. While the owner should determine functional requirements, why shouldn’t the community have a say on the impact on the surroundings. It certainly paid off with the Supreme Courts.