<html><body>
In January a review by former police commissioner Neil Comrie found that the Melbourne Youth Justice Centre (MYJC) in Parkville was no longer fit for purpose. The facility which first opened at the site in 1955 has now reached the end of its useful life as a juvenile detention centre. With the Victorian government now planning a new purpose built facility in Werribee, the future use of the site has become uncertain.

For those unfamiliar with the area, the centre is located on the corner of Park and Manningham Street’s in Parkville West. This land was originally part of Royal Park when it was set aside by Governor Charles La Trobe in 1854. To the North of the site is the now largely residential suburb of West Brunswick, which is undergoing rapid residential development.

To the East and South of the site are health &amp; technology facilities (CSL) and the Royal Park branch of the Royal Melbourne Hospital.  To the West sits the residential area created for the 2006 Commonwealth Games Village.

So what could be done with this sizable piece of government owned land, roughly the size of the flagstaff gardens and less than 4 kilometres from the CBD?  Here are four different scenarios to consider.

Scenario one – Commonwealth Games atonement

Making amends for past transgressions against the public realm, the government decides for the site to have a permanent return to public parklands. A design competition is run by the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA) to attract the best ideas for the site. This might include the provision of new grassed ovals or active recreation spaces, which could then allow for equivalent facilities in Royal Park to be reclaimed for urban forest.

This scenario also supports the mitigation of climate change impacts by enhancing our vegetation infrastructure in the inner city. As Brunswick and Parkville continue to densify, the provision of green open space nearby gives these places nearby public open space, in lieu of private backyards.

Ultimately a good outcome would be to replicate the quality of space achieved at the opposite corner of Royal Park in the project ‘Return to Royal Park’. This is not to say that we should replicate the design, just that this is the quality benchmark we should aim for. Given the child friendly nature of ‘Return to Royal Park’, perhaps the new intervention could be targeted towards a different demographic such as teenagers.

Opportunities to create or expand public parkland are few and far between. For the State to acquire land and turn it into parkland is rarely done due to the expense. Serious consideration should be given to this option as component of future proofing the city live-ability of the inner North.

Scenario two – The strategic long game

Whilst the juvenile detention centre is nearby to the existing Royal Park boundaries, it is also in close proximity to our high-tech medical research precinct. Under the State Governments big picture planning document Plan Melbourne, this is defined as a National employment and innovation cluster (NEIC). This city cluster is rapidly pushing ahead with recent new buildings such as the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre. Central to the success of this precinct is the dense grouping of research labs, university facilities, hospitals and other medical technology facilities.

“Each cluster needs to be investment-ready for knowledge-intensive firms and jobs. To support the development of clusters, effective governance arrangements—including key stakeholders and landowners—are required.” Plan Melbourne

So the question becomes, how could the MYJC site support the continued growth of this precinct?

One such method would be to execute a long term strategy to guarantee available land to upgrade medical technology facilities within the precinct. Under this strategy the MYJC site would be returned to basic parkland in the short term, but set aside for a medical research facility recycling program.

Before existing facilities become obsolete, organisations such as CSL or the Royal Melbourne Hospital, could have a new purpose built facility placed on the MYJC site. Once the new facility is constructed they would then decommission their existing site and return it to parkland. New facilities can be designed and built whilst the existing facilities are still operating. This avoids the need to relocate outside the precinct once their facility has come to the end of its useful lifespan. It also would limit the temptation to take further parkland from Royal Park in the future.

Scenario three – Homes of the future.

Politicians at all levels have woken up to the fact that we are currently experiencing a housing affordability crisis. The temptation will be great for the State to move quickly to sell off the MYJC site under the guise of providing more housing (see option 4 real estate rampage below). However this site, although it is large, will not make a substantial difference to housing affordability on its own. For meaningful impact, the site needs to be leveraged into a roadmap for best practice medium density housing on many other sites.

To achieve this, the State Government could look to forge a partnership with Nightingale Housing to create an ambitious, design led, inner city housing precinct. The Government would use its buying power to support the latest innovations in sustainable building technologies, such as structurally insulated panels, cross laminated timber and prefabrication.

Importantly it would be an opportunity for the government to turbocharge the innovations that Nightingale Housing have developed, enabling them to deliver substantial change in the provision of homes for the 21st century. Given the size of the project and the investment of public funds, the project could also have the benefit of design review from the Office of the Victorian Government Architect.

This approach would also unlock funds from the site upon the sale of the apartments. It would also offer an investment opportunity for the government to borrow funds with a low interest rate and reap the 15% profits offered to Nightingale ethical investors. Given the very high demand for Nightingale apartments (they currently have a waiting list of 2360) and the lower than usual planning risks this might even be the most financially lucrative of the options.

With the right level of ambition and forethought this site could be everything that the Commonwealth Games Village lacked.

Scenario four – Real Estate rampage.

Sold to the highest bidder, no strings attached! No ambition, no strategy, just show us the money. Turn this prime piece of land into a line on a spreadsheet.

Under this scenario the public interest is limited the benefit of a financial transaction. A single once off payment that will have virtually zero longer term public benefits. If this scenario eventuates watch for the political spin doctoring. “A $100 Million dollar economic bonanza!”, “Five hundred (temporary) jobs will be created”.

Once the land is sold and subdivided into hundreds of owners, the opportunities for this site are rapidly expunged. To reverse this process and return it to a single parcel of land is politically impossible. This is precisely why, the future of this site must be thoroughly considered now. It is a currently a public asset, let’s make sure the public gets the greatest benefit.

Architecture is for everyone.

 

Michael Smith is a principal at Ateiler Red+Black. This article originally appeared on the <a href="http://www.theredandblackarchitect.com/unlocking-the-public-interest/">Red and Black website</a>.
</body></html>

redblackarchitect

Unlocking the public interest

<html><body>
John Wardle Architects has cemented itself as a significant cultural force in Melbourne’s architecture scene. In this the second half of the discussion with John Wardle and Stefan Mee, the conversation turns to the bigger picture issues facing our city and the architecture profession.

To start from the beginning of the discussion <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/coincidences-and-curiosity-qa-with-john-wardle-and-stefan-mee-part-1">click here</a>

MS – As a Melbourne-based architecture practice, how do you critique the trajectory of our city? What are we doing well, and what do we need to be doing better?

JW – Well, I think we have to be aware of the responsibility we have as agents of change. As architects, we serve those with ambition and capital to substantially change the fabric of the city.

<blockquote>
We must always be prepared to have our own set of principles by which we engage with the projects we take on.
</blockquote>

It’s important that we are both acutely aware of that power and slightly self-conscious as we perform our tasks. We’re often encouraged to do things that may well be, at times, beyond our better judgement. I think it’s good that both State Government and the City of Melbourne is now looking very critically at many aspects of high-rise residential development in the heart of the city. I think that the latest state government changes to planning, to both plot ratio and boundary setbacks, will draw more oxygen back into the city centre.

SM – I would add that, as a city, there is a strong appreciation of the value of design and the value of architecture in Melbourne, which is important. When new parts of the city are being built and being commissioned, I think the role of the <a href="http://www.ovga.vic.gov.au/">OVGA</a> (Office of the Victorian Government Architect) has been very effective in terms of encouraging good design outcomes across a range of different project types.

More generally, with high density apartment buildings, there have been some planning decisions that have happened in the city, where the quality of the outcomes at street-level and in terms of the public realm of the city, aren’t as good as they could have been. The issue with those building types is that they will be here for a very long time and so too will the impacts.

On the bright side, in terms of the quality of the urban realm, many very good architects in Melbourne contribute a diversity of design thinking to university campuses in the city, to public competitions, and to urban design that together really add to and improve the public realm. So, I think the city’s in pretty good shape from that point of view.

MS – On the topic of competitions, one of the ongoing questions of our profession is the role of the architectural competition. Whilst it does typically produce excellent outcomes for the client and the public, it consumes a great deal of resources from sometimes hundreds of projects missions. What is your view on the use of the architectural competition?

SM –  It is a vexed question, as there are definite benefits from design competitions in terms of the quality of the built environment. As architects, we do invest a huge amount of time and resources into them, and as a practice, we’ve been lucky enough to win competitions, which has allowed us into new types of work, and larger types of work as well. But, we’ve also lost competitions, and we know what that’s like too – it can be very dispiriting. So, I would say that we support the idea of design competitions, but a competition needs to be quite carefully organised for it to strike a balance between the investment of ideas by the profession and the public benefit.

Generally speaking, it is good to set a limit on the amount of work that each architectural practice needs to commit to at the competition phase, before a selection process occurs. I think you can convey ideas and a concept for a project without necessarily having to provide a huge amount of detail. The hard thing for the profession is that we are still giving away the kernel of our creative work, our intellectual property, often for little recompense at an early stage. So, I think it’s still a very vexed question, there are definitely advantages, and good ideas come out of some competitions, but there are a lot of challenges, particularly if they’re run poorly.

JW – For that reason, our preference is to engage with competitions that judge conceptual ideas, and an expression of methodology that you propose if engaged rather than those that require complete development of a proposal into an exhaustive amount of documented detail.  Work that is well beyond what you really need to make that assessment. We have to be careful in stating this as a mature practice because competitions have been very much a part of our success in both growth and diversity of projects that we now engage with, but at the same time we have to look very critically at them.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/1415_00_n58_sml.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The recently opened Tanderrum Bridge by JWA + NADAAA (Photo: Kristoffer Paulsen)"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="377" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/1415_00_n58_sml.jpg?itok=CGCaL4so" title="The recently opened Tanderrum Bridge by JWA + NADAAA (Photo: Kristoffer Paulsen)" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The recently opened Tanderrum Bridge by JWA + NADAAA (Photo: Kristoffer Paulsen)</figcaption></figure>SM – I was going to say, a really interesting, positive recent example was the Tanderrum bridge design competition run by Major Projects Victoria. It started as an open competition so that it allowed for a diversity of ideas, and then progressed to a limited stage two competition. As the winner of the competition, we have been able to work on a project that is embedded in the public realm and perhaps that we may not have otherwise had an opportunity to work on.  It was also an opportunity for us to reprise our collaborative relationship with NADAAA.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/1415_00_n113_sml.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The recently opened Tanderrum Bridge by JWA + NADAAA (Photo: Kristoffer Paulsen)"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="773" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/1415_00_n113_sml.jpg?itok=lHBfG69e" title="The recently opened Tanderrum Bridge by JWA + NADAAA (Photo: Kristoffer Paulsen)" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The recently opened Tanderrum Bridge by JWA + NADAAA (Photo: Kristoffer Paulsen)</figcaption></figure>MS – 2017 feels like an extraordinary time of political upheaval, from the international forces of Trump and Brexit to the national questions of housing affordability and public access to the federal parliament. How do you see the relationship between politics and architecture? Do you think this climate of political upheaval is going to influence our architecture going forward?

SM- Architecture is intertwined with politics and commerce. That’s one of the differences between architecture and art, I guess, is that we are producing buildings and spaces that have to fit into those contexts. Politically, the world seems to be taking a turn towards isolationism, which is a pity. I think architecture does offer a small way of perhaps resisting some of that, by being more open, in the way that architecture responds to the urban realm, the city, and the way that people interact with it. There are always opportunities to think about the context you work within, and perhaps to either support it or to resist it. You try to hold on to the values that are important to you as an architect and, collectively, as a practice.

JW – I believe this climate of political upheaval will certainly influence our architecture. It will be a primary driver of our economy and these forces will, to a large degree, be instrumental in affecting social change. Do these forces that you’ve mentioned, particularly Trump and Brexit, value cultural investment as much as we have been able to over the last decade or two? I would suggest possibly not. There’s a brutally simplistic viewpoint that the issue of jobs and unemployment, in the global economy, is paramount. This shifts the balance away from many good things that are seen as ancillary to the immediacy of those issues.

<blockquote>
I firmly believe that complex problems require complex solutions.
</blockquote>

There seems to be a politics of reducing complexity down to three-word, ‘stop the boats’ sort of responses. Generally architecture at its best, deals with complexity and expresses its values.

MS – Having practised architecture over a long time frame, what have been the more surprising changes and developments you’ve seen in respect to the architectural practice, or architectural culture?

SM – When I first started working, after graduating, a forum like the Halftime Club was a place of pretty fierce criticism and critique. That type of forum doesn’t really exist anymore. It has been replaced by a sea of information, globally channelled through technology without a critical filter.

Critique is far less prevalent. There’s less of it out there, compared to the amount of information about projects that is available. So when you read a really constructive, fair and in-depth critique of a project these days, it is interesting because you can learn so much from it. So, from a cultural point of view, I think the role of the critic has shifted quite a lot.

JW – On an optimistic note, I think the means of engagement of architectural practice has opened up to more players. When this practice started, there was a much more rigid approach to selection, based on sort of past performance which generally was the fore. This created limited pools of practices associated with different project types.

The opportunities nowadays for practices to be invited into new areas of endeavour based on other aspects of their performance has increased markedly.

MS – Having achieved so much, where to next for JWA?

JW – Well, we’re constantly in a state of change, responding to constantly changing circumstances. I think we said somewhere in the book that sometimes we feel that the operation manual of how to work here needs continual revision. We are investing enormously in the skills of communication and empowerment within the practice.  As well, we’re constantly looking at our methodology and devoting interest to the practice itself as well as the projects that we produce.

We’re right in the midst of a very engaging process of workshops and areas of research into change within the profession. So for me, starting this year, this is the latest fascination.

MS – Thank you both for your time.

​​​​​​

Michael Smith is a principal at Ateiler Red+Black. This article originally appeared on the <a href="http://www.theredandblackarchitect.com/coincidences-and-curiosity-qa-with-john-wardle-and-stefan-mee-part-2/">Red and Black website</a>.
</body></html>

Coincidences and curiosity - Q+A with John Wardle and Stefan Mee (Part 2)

<html><body>
The architecture of John Wardle Architects (JWA) is quite literally world class. Rich and contextual, their work is a strong contributor to architecture both in Melbourne and beyond.

Last year JWA released their second book ‘This Building Likes Me’ which was quickly followed up with an exhibition entitled ‘Coincidences’. Recently I caught up with John Wardle and Stefan Mee, to discuss their practice, their projects and where they see architecture heading.

Michael Smith – JWA is a unique practice in many different ways in Melbourne. Evolving from a small practice, there are now more than 70 employees. Despite the size, you still regularly tackle small projects, such as single homes, whilst other comparative sized practices struggle to make those small projects worthwhile. Is it a strategy to deliberately continue those kinds of projects and commissions?

John Wardle – Well, it is a characteristic, but I’m not sure I can describe it as a considered strategy. It’s a passion as much as anything. We believe that it’s important to look at the possibilities of a project’s likely outcome when evaluating it’s potential at commencement. If we are attracted to the client or the site, or particular aspects of the brief, the scale of the project doesn’t come into the equation. We do however pass on many smaller projects to younger practices, particularly those established by some of our past staff members.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image78_0.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Shearers Quarters by JWA won the 2012 Robin Boyd Award for Residential Architecture in the AIA National Awards. (Photo: Trevor Mein)"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="260" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image78_0.jpg?itok=JwpSl-WY" title="Shearers Quarters by JWA won the 2012 Robin Boyd Award for Residential Architecture in the AIA National Awards. (Photo: Trevor Mein)" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Shearers Quarters by JWA won the 2012 Robin Boyd Award for Residential Architecture in the AIA National Awards. (Photo: Trevor Mein)</figcaption></figure>MS –  One of the most remarkable things, in my view, is that despite the size there’s fantastic consistency in the quality of the work. While there’s diversity in scale, topology, materials and context there’s an almost universal elegance to the design solution. What do you attribute that down to? Is it part of the process that you find, or is it the structure?

JW – Well, we probably resource all projects to an equal status in the practice. We don’t have any B-type projects. We rigorously consider our design processes as something that’s constantly evolving over projects of all types.

I think what’s evident is the nature of design conversations within the office. These often include our client group. We involve our clients in some fairly rigorous and often intimate discussions and these often have an aesthetic aspect to them. Our work is generally not immediately resolved conceptually. It’s resolution part of a lengthier iterative process that drives toward the sorts of things that you’ve observed across the many types of projects we undertake.

MS – Last year you released the new book, This Building Likes Me, which is the second book that you’ve done as a practice. What were the motivations behind undertaking such a laborious task to create this book. What drove you to do it?

JW – Firstly, a great belief in the book as both a means of expressing current practice and as a record of history. It both transcends time and exposes life within the practice. It’s a good way of communicating who we are, our character, and our means of operation to a broad audience. It is also particularly important reference within the practice. There are many contributors and it is important that they see the book as a record of their input and this is conveyed to the outside world. It’s a large window into the operation of the practice.

MS – In both the book and the recent exhibition, Coincidences, you engaged people outside the practice to analyse and critique your work through photography and writing. Was part of the rationale behind these projects to achieve a better understanding of how your work is perceived by others?

JW – Yes it was, exactly that. I think it’s also an indication of our confidence to provide our work to others to express their creative approach. It really started with a very simple instruction as we gave each of the twelve photographers two projects to shoot. We did sort of orchestrate the variants and make sure that the two projects were generally of a dissimilar type and asked them to draw their own comparisons and commonality. Yes, there were some conversations but there wasn’t a tight script.

What’s interesting for us is to see how they responded to the one instruction of finding, through their photography, something that was common to both projects. It could be a serendipitous thing or something that was manifestly common to both.  For us it was great to then take a step back and observe their work and their observations of ours. This linked to the book itself and the coincidences of pairings that was central to the arrangement of the major projects within the book.

MS – One of the photographic pairings that really stood out for me in the Coincidences Exhibition was Brett Boardman’s photographs of the Melbourne School of Design and Westfield City in Sydney. What was so unusual about these photographs was the focus on the people who use the space, and in this case the people who actually are the cleaners and maintain the building. What was your reaction to these photographs?

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/cleaners-768x576.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Brett Boardman’s photographs for the Coincidences exhibition"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="435" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/cleaners-768x576.jpg?itok=pKt3tsGY" title="Brett Boardman’s photographs for the Coincidences exhibition" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Brett Boardman’s photographs for the Coincidences exhibition</figcaption></figure>JW – Laughter. This was a complete surprise and it evoked real humour, but it’s the kind of humour that is underpinned by really serious forethought. It was actually the backdrop to both the use of timber of the interior of the stairs that run through the MSD building and the lining of the lift core in the Westfield building. He found moments of spatial and material commonality, then he created a cast of people that would have experience common to both buildings, of course the cleaners. He wrote a nice bit of writing also about these observations and the knowledge that cleaners have of the buildings that they operate within.

Stefan Mee –  Brett’s idea about connecting it with the people who allow buildings to work and function was fantastic and brought those usually in the background to the foreground. It was a different way of thinking about our brief, and we enjoyed seeing that diversity amongst all the pairings, seeing all of the different ways of connecting the projects was really joyful for us.

MS – I think it also says something about architecture having a pragmatic purpose as well, and that it actually needs these people in order for a building to work, and so forth.

JW – It certainly does, and in doing so we are reminded of the reliance that our buildings have on the many performances of those that operate within them.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image79_4.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Melbourne School of Design by JWA and NADAAA (Photo: Nils Koenning)"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="551" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image79_4.jpg?itok=kECnBxre" title="Melbourne School of Design by JWA and NADAAA (Photo: Nils Koenning)" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Melbourne School of Design by JWA and NADAAA (Photo: Nils Koenning)</figcaption></figure>MS – Perhaps your most significant recent contribution to architecture, has been through the design of the Melbourne School of Design. This commission is not only significant because it’s a significant building at Melbourne University, but it’s now also the learning space for a substantial percentage of Melbourne’s future architects. Does the significance of this commission set the project apart from others, in your view?

JW – It certainly demanded that status by the way Melbourne University went about the procurement of architects for the project. The very well-considered international competition, commenced with a registration process that required the entrant to describe a project specific methodology.  We were assessed on that as much as past performance and experience. A very telling start to the project. From there it led to a short list, and the design competition. This caused us to think very carefully about the way we provide our services and the benefit of co-authoring a building with another firm. In this case the reach across to the Northern Hemisphere, and NADAAA’s link to the American tertiary education system broadened our perspective.

The next part of its status is its remarkable center-of-campus location.  A very precious place to build upon.  The care with which one would have to design a building that faces a series of important places on all four sides set in train an extensive process of research into the history of the campus.

MS – Having achieved a significant pivot from the single residential projects into large commercial institutional and urban projects. What advice would you give to small practices attempting the same leap?

JW – Believe in good fortune, and make the most of it when it occurs. The story of our rise through various project scales into this territory that we now inhabit is a story of relationships with people, that had the confidence to engage with us.  They may have taken perceived risks as they saw the potential in us, as a younger firm, short on specific experience. These people weren’t overwhelmed by the need for precedents, or the convention that in order to be selected for a project, one must have done that very project, many times before. In every case, there were individuals, some of who were part of large organisations, that supported our engagement for projects that opened new territories for us.

As we’ve grown, we have looked very carefully at inviting others into the practice that have had particular skills that could be added to these within the practice, always broadening our range. One bit of advice I often give to other smaller practices is to actually take on a range of staff and employ as many as you can afford to employ early, starting with some young students, but also some more mature staff members. It will allow you to do other things, as a practice principal, and very quickly draw in the benefits of the collaborative experience that is an essential platform for creative practice.

MS – Diversity is key to that as well, isn’t it? Getting a range of viewpoints.

JW – I think there’s actually a curiosity that’s driven much of our practice direction. The thing that gives me the most pleasure is the diversity of the work we undertake, from very small projects, coastal and urban family housing, up to major projects that take their place in the centre of the city, as well as everything in between.  This includes research buildings, educational facilities, commercial and private institutions, galleries, infrastructure projects and so forth. That range is something that goes beyond any early ambitions that I had for the practice, and certainly provides great opportunities for expressing the many skills combined within the practice.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/0913_00_n7415_-sml-768x512.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Melbourne School of Design by JWA and NADAAA (Photo: Peter Bennetts)"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="387" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/0913_00_n7415_-sml-768x512.jpg?itok=1T4TRAAy" title="Melbourne School of Design by JWA and NADAAA (Photo: Peter Bennetts)" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Melbourne School of Design by JWA and NADAAA (Photo: Peter Bennetts)</figcaption></figure>Michael Smith is a principal at Ateiler Red+Black. This article originally appeared on the Red and Black <a href="http://www.theredandblackarchitect.com/coincidences-and-curiosity-qa-with-john-wardle-and-stefan-mee-part-1/">website</a>.
</body></html>

Coincidences and curiosity – Q+A with John Wardle and Stefan Mee (Part 1)

<html><body>
Once again Melbourne has turned it on for the spectacular cultural juggernaut that is White Night. A crowd of around 600,000 took part in the all night festival of projections, performances, artworks and installations.

Stealing the show again this year was the extraordinary projections upon the Royal Exhibition Building.  The Light show entitled ‘Rhythms Of The Night’ by White Night &amp; Artists In Motion, depicted the four stages of sleep. These fantastical scenes were at times like that of a Halloween nightmare, with spiders and skeletons. The dream would them move on by disintegrating into vibrant black and white patterns reminiscent of MC Escher.

Supporting this main event, were a number of excellent installations throughout the Carlton Gardens Precinct. Sailing in between the Melbourne Museum and the Royal Exhibition Building was ‘The Pyrophone Juggernaut’. Part steel pirate ship, part musical performance, part pyrotechnic show this collaboration between Hubbub Music and Strut &amp; Fret was a real crowd favorite.

Nearby, the Sonic Light Bubble by Eness and Pixel Fruit by Tim Newman both created valuable support pieces to this precinct, which as a whole was a significant improvement from previous years.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/cg1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Nebulous by Alex Sanson"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="556" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/cg1.jpg?itok=srpjr3ix" title="Nebulous by Alex Sanson" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Nebulous by Alex Sanson</figcaption></figure>In Flinders Street, the ‘usual suspects’ between St Pauls Cathedral and the Forum Theatre were lit up with vibrant animations. This year the theme was ‘Fractured Fairytales’ which gave some traditional fairytales a Pop Art feel.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/flinders2.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Fractured Fairytales by White Night with The Electric Canvas"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="488" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/flinders2.jpg?itok=997HxiOi" title="Fractured Fairytales by White Night with The Electric Canvas" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Fractured Fairytales by White Night with The Electric Canvas</figcaption></figure>In the southern gardens, participants were greeted with any number of unusual sights and experiences. The White Knight Messenger, a superb piece by Blanck Canvas, patrolled St Kilda Road, moving majestically between the Elm trees.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/sculpture1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The Bouquet Toss, Mitch Gow and Eloise Kent"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="611" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/sculpture1.jpg?itok=GNhrohCj" title="The Bouquet Toss, Mitch Gow and Eloise Kent" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The Bouquet Toss, Mitch Gow and Eloise Kent</figcaption></figure>Another White Night favorite is the State Library of Victoria which was illuminated both outside and from within the reading room. This year punters were taken on a trip beneath the waves, to view the seascapes of Port Phillip Bay. Seals, Seahorses and a swarm of crabs all made for a surreal library experience in the middle of the night.

Outside the library a group of protesters took the opportunity to make their views known on the City of Melbourne’s homeless ban. Their protest was peaceful and undertaken with great respect.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/library1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Seadragon’s Lair by Sheree Marris, Lisa Greenaway and John Power, in the State Library of Victoria"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="398" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/library1.jpg?itok=1SvAsYvR" title="Seadragon’s Lair by Sheree Marris, Lisa Greenaway and John Power, in the State Library of Victoria" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Seadragon’s Lair by Sheree Marris, Lisa Greenaway and John Power, in the State Library of Victoria</figcaption></figure>Perhaps no building is more suitable for dramatic projection than the National Gallery of Victoria. The smooth bluestone facade beyond the rippling water fountain could make any moving image sing. This year the fashion designs of Victor and Rolf were chosen to bring the colour and style. Whilst it probably didn’t live up to the highs of last year, it remained a spectacular contributor to the evening.

Not all parts of the program were brilliant successes. The illumination of the Coops Shot Tower at Melbourne Central was quite underwhelming and the limited scope of the Flinders Street Station projections (although high in quality) would have disappointed some.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/ngv2.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="VIKTOR&amp;ROLF – INSIDE OUT by White Night with the Electirc Canvas"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="435" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ngv2.jpg?itok=B47eETnf" title="VIKTOR&amp;ROLF – INSIDE OUT by White Night with the Electirc Canvas" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>VIKTOR&amp;ROLF – INSIDE OUT by White Night with the Electirc Canvas</figcaption></figure>Overall White Night 2017 was another shining success for the arts and urban culture in Melbourne. Yet despite the 600,000 strong crowds and the crowding issues having largely been resolved, there is a determined force that is working to undermine this event.

Some sections of conservative politics are attempting to politicize the event as a law and order issue. This is being readily facilitated by some sections of the media who are continually pushing fear. If you were to read the Herald Sun at the moment, you might think Melbournians shouldn’t leave their homes for fear of certain death. The reality at White Night however that there were ample police available to respond to the slightest issue.

The White Night crowd size of 600,000 punters is roughly equivalent to the size of 6 Melbourne Cup crowds. Despite this huge number, there were just 21 police arrests. By comparison there were 9 arrests at the Melbourne Cup in 2016, well over double the arrest rate per patron.

There are always going to be incidents when there are large crowds at events, but to push fear for political gain, is petty and irresponsible. White Night is a celebration of our diverse society together, enjoying the vibrancy of our city, contesting ideas, experiencing culture and participating in urban life.

“Night the beloved.

Night when words fade and things come alive”

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image9_11.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="White Night"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="270" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image9_11.jpg?itok=UUnt1e0z" title="White Night" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>White Night</figcaption></figure>To see the original article and additional images, visit Michael Smith's blog - <a href="https://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/">The Red and Black Architect</a>
</body></html>

Melbourne’s White Night 2017

<html><body>
Recently Michael Smith and Sonia Sarangi sat down for an in depth conversation with Kerstin Thompson, one of Melbourne’s most highly respected architects, to discuss the built environment, form making and the relentless negotiation required to create excellent architecture.

This continues from the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/negotiating-form-qa-with-kerstin-thompson">first part of the interview</a>.

<hr>
Michael Smith: Previously you’ve spoken about your architecture as being a gradient architecture. Is this a conscious benchmark or is it a result of the process?

Kerstin Thompson: I wrote about gradients a long time ago – the thinking came from a classic late 80s training in architecture where all oppositions were being challenged. Anything that was black or white I was always looking for the grey. You think about things on a spectrum rather than one or the other. The article reflected on the kinds of formal outcomes a gradient architecture might offer. I think that idea still permeates through a lot of our projects where the situation presented is not an either or it’s an in-between and you need to formulate a response to that.

In relation to our Deakin School of Architecture and Built Environment / A+B this idea of gradients relates to different kinds of spaces and how they relate to each other. The school’s existing floorplan was highly cellular and comprised of discrete spaces. We shifted this to a more fluid arrangement, rethinking the formal binaries of public vs private spaces, smaller spaces to bigger spaces, intimate space/open space, quiet space/loud space. Exploring the space between these two ends is often an important driver our projects. You offer a range of spaces and it makes available different sorts of positions; people find their preference and make their choices within that.

MS: So it is a deliberate strategy to put that in?

KT: Yes I think it is. It came from when I was teaching in the early 90s at RMIT. I was doing my Masters and I became interested in all the figure grounds we used to do in black and white. I thought about what it might look like if you thought about a grey rather than black or white; what are these confused in-between things? Whether it’s the public/private conundrum of the shopping mall; what is that, that’s not a black or a white. Much later when KTA began working in heritage contexts we found ourselves needing to respond to neighbourhood character but we didn’t want to do this through direct imitation. There’s a way of transforming but also having some continuity with where you are. That’s an in-between. They were early examples in the practice and I think that’s something we’ve tried to build on.

Sonia Sarangi: That is a very rich approach and I can connect to that, but I wonder whether sometimes if that approach takes a bit more convincing. Our human nature is to look at black and white, you are picking the harder route.

KT: True. I remember years ago when we were working on the <a href="http://kerstinthompson.com/index.php?id=24">Upside Down House</a> in Middle Park – that project was exactly that. There was a heritage listing on an existing house on the site but the house was in a very poor state structurally. Even though it had a listing on it the council said a case could be made to pull it down. However, we had to demonstrate that what replaced it would be a better outcome. We spent 2 years proposing various iterations but still had to go to VCAT because we couldn’t get council support. My argument was that while this building didn’t mimic the form of its neighbours, its holistic approach to site was entirely appropriate for the pattern of the neighbourhood. Form isn’t the only key.

<figure><a href="https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/upside-down-house-sketch.png"><img alt="Upside Down House section, Kerstin Thompson Architects" height="180" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" src="https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/upside-down-house-sketch.png?w=640&amp;h=180" srcset="https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/upside-down-house-sketch.png?w=640&amp;h=180 640w, https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/upside-down-house-sketch.png?w=1280&amp;h=360 1280w, https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/upside-down-house-sketch.png?w=150&amp;h=42 150w, https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/upside-down-house-sketch.png?w=300&amp;h=84 300w, https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/upside-down-house-sketch.png?w=768&amp;h=216 768w, https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/upside-down-house-sketch.png?w=1024&amp;h=288 1024w" style="border:none;vertical-align:baseline;height:auto;" width="640"></a>

<figcaption>Upside Down House section, Kerstin Thompson Architects</figcaption></figure>So much heritage discussion then revolved around whether you are either exactly like your neighbours or you’re a juxtaposition attempting to slam dunk the suburb. I explained it would be a subtle building that didn’t look like its neighbours but still had a quietness to it. But they didn’t believe me. Council wondered why would any architect be advocating for that? Well, because we’ve always maintained that a good building doesn’t have to stand out. Anyway, when the project was eventually built it ended up winning the City of Port Phillip’s local design awards for new house.

SS: It is a rich irony that Port Phillip obviously loved the finished building.

KT: They did. The reason they gave for blocking it was: “Kerstin we know you’ll do a reasonable job but this will set a precedent and then we could get bad versions of it.” Point being, I see it as council’s problem to stop the bad versions not the good ones. Anyway, when the jury came they drove past the house twice because they missed it. I said: “See I told you it was low key”.

MS: Do you see your architecture as being particularly Australian, or is this perception a by-product of integrating your architecture so successfully with Australian landscapes?

KT: That’s a really good question. I think we probably understand our work both within a local repertoire and a global one. Yes you have your local reference points and whether that’s contemporary peers or older peers. For example, Boyd and Grounds, Baracco + Wright and all that mob from when I grew up. More recently current peers I’d say NMBW’s interests, some of Michael Markham’s work for example. There are peers I have a great respect for and there are interests common to us. I think there’s the bigger global discipline and you’re always trying to situate your work within that but also draw from it too. There’s also the idea of acting locally with a building. Not so much in the formal sense of what an Australian building looks like but more that it does something to help place-make in its situation, and help reinforce valued aspects of the local condition.

It can also be more explicit than that. For our design for <a href="http://kerstinthompson.com/index.php?id=20">Ivanhoe House</a>, for example, it felt important to draw on the incredible architectural heritage of the suburb. Neighbourhood character is one of the planning requirements but I don’t have a lot of time for that generic contemporary. Instead we looked to Harold Desbrowe Annear as a reference point knowing that he had a body of work in that suburb and also because it fitted with the client’s preference for a slightly arts and crafts type building. We thought let’s look to a local precedent with that being part of what we interpret for the building.

One of the other things I’ve noticed is that a lot of our buildings are very long and low. Sometimes, I think, this has stemmed from a desire to make sense of the vastness of the site. When you don’t have a defined site, you have to use the built form to define the territory. It started with the <a href="http://kerstinthompson.com/index.php?id=27">Lake Connewarre House </a>but you can also see it with <a href="http://kerstinthompson.com/index.php?id=38">Marysville Police Station</a> and <a href="http://kerstinthompson.com/index.php?id=18">Hanging Rock House</a>. It’s where we’ve attenuated the buildings into length to help define the space around it.

It’s almost turning the building into a wall of sorts, and you use that to make it less about a figure and more about trying to harness a territory adjacent to it. Sometimes I think that might be a response to our bigness of horizon, our wideness and our flatness. It’s something I’d like to give a bit more thought to.

MS: You have done a few police station projects. What I find interesting about that building type is that despite the substantial functional requirements and a consistent client, the finished buildings are diverse.

KT: That’s true. I have tried to write a bit about this because it goes back to that question around making an architecture of a situation. The police stations are a nice example of that because the brief is the same. Often people justify built forms through program, whereas if the program is consistent across, say four projects, then what varies the outcome? That’s been really fascinating to wrestle with. That’s where we thought interestingly form was one of those devices. Same program but how we arrange it has a really big impact on how it operates on its site.

With Marysville it gets dragged out. It’s a long building along the edge of a park and that’s because we wanted to create more interface with interiors of the station looking out to the green space rather than just a tiny little shop front and then a long deep plan. By contrast with Warrandyte and Hurstbridge, which were done together, they are both in green belt suburbs in Melbourne. To camouflage them in their landscapes, we took an approach to brick detailing that was friendly and endearing: to reflect the greenness of the communities we used green bricks. With Marysville, we used timber instead. Through formal differences, the arrangement of program, and material choices those buildings fit more appropriately to their situations. The situation is what changes in the brief. The program is the same.

<figure><a href="https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/marysville-police-station.jpg"><img alt="Marysville Police Station by Kerstin Thompson Architects. (Photo credit: Trevor Mein) " height="437" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" src="https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/marysville-police-station.jpg?w=640&amp;h=437" srcset="https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/marysville-police-station.jpg?w=640&amp;h=437 640w, https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/marysville-police-station.jpg?w=1280&amp;h=874 1280w, https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/marysville-police-station.jpg?w=150&amp;h=102 150w, https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/marysville-police-station.jpg?w=300&amp;h=205 300w, https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/marysville-police-station.jpg?w=768&amp;h=524 768w, https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/marysville-police-station.jpg?w=1024&amp;h=699 1024w" style="border:none;vertical-align:baseline;height:auto;" width="640"></a>

<figcaption>Marysville Police Station by Kerstin Thompson Architects. Photo credit: Trevor Mein</figcaption></figure><figure><a href="https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/marysville-elevation.png"><img alt="Marysville Police Station elevation. Kerstin Thompson Architects" height="396" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" src="https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/marysville-elevation.png?w=640&amp;h=396" srcset="https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/marysville-elevation.png?w=640&amp;h=396 640w, https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/marysville-elevation.png?w=150&amp;h=93 150w, https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/marysville-elevation.png?w=300&amp;h=186 300w, https://theredandblackarchitect.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/marysville-elevation.png 750w" style="border:none;vertical-align:baseline;height:auto;" width="640"></a>

<figcaption>Marysville Police Station elevation. Kerstin Thompson Architects</figcaption></figure>MS: In addition to running a highly successful architecture practice you are also involved in architecture education both here in Melbourne and New Zealand. It seems that for the longest time the mantra of architects looking at the current education system is one of concern that it’s not what it used to be. How do you think our institutions are preparing the next generation of architects? Are they on track or do we need to shake it up?

KT: One thing I touched on earlier is the strange resistance to housing as an agenda for architecture schools. Some academics consider it too difficult, others that it’s got no speculative potential. But I think it’s strange in education for us to be resisting a major and important endeavour. Another issue is the enduring emphasis on the single author project in schools. I would still say that most studios run with about 20 students working in parallel, maybe on the same brief but individually. Something I’ve tried to do in my own teaching programs is set up opportunities for familiarizing students with a much more negotiated practice that I think architecture is and which I think has enormous design opportunity too. Studios where for instance there’s a very high level of interfacing of other student’s work in the outcome.

An example is a studio I did I think it was about 2004 at RMIT, I’ve since run different versions of it. There were 3 different projects. The first was about building a piece of infill. That’s simple interface, you just have to interface your site with the adjoining ones first thing. Then we bumped it up where it was a row housing project and if there was 20 students in the class they each did one of the houses in the row. They had two neighbours, they had a live, contingent interface that could change outside and they had to respond to that. That was the row house. Then the third part was when instead of just having 2 moving edges you had them in every possible interface on the QV site and they all worked out how they would Masterplan and organize the whole site now overlapping and moving through each other.

The point of all of that was to teach an appreciation for non-static context, which I think is in every way what practice is like every day. It’s contingent, you’re constantly getting thrown curve balls, and it’s how you negotiate and manage that and what you can extract out of it. I think that’s how good buildings come about. That’s a very valuable skill to have. The tragedy of architectural culture, and even the recent talk with Darren Anderson covered this, is how students do their final project at school and it’s as if it’s the greatest moment in their thinking and then they get into practice and it’s all depressing and downhill. That’s the exact opposite of what I think an architect should be thinking. I actually think you’ll get out of school and you’ll be so glad to have these real conditions to try and extract good architecture out of. I think it’s teaching an appreciation for the messiness as the potential and if you’ve got the tools to channel that then that’s where good architecture happens. I’d like more of that in education.

SS: I don’t think I ever heard the word negotiation once in my 5 years of education. That’s the sad thing and that’s every day now. That word just never comes up in school.

KT: It’s relentless. All you do is negotiate.

MS: Thank you very much for your time.

This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/2016/11/13/negotiating-form-qa-with-kerstin-thompson-part-2/">The Red &amp; Black Architect blog</a>.
</body></html>

Negotiating Form: Q+A with Kerstin Thompson (Part 2)

<html><body>
Kerstin Thompson is one of Australia’s most respect architects. Her practice Kerstin Thompson Architects was established in 1994 and has delivered architectural excellence across a broad spectrum of project types from education projects, police stations and commercial fit outs, as well as multi-residential and single bespoke homes.

Recently Michael Smith and Sonia Sarangi sat down for an in depth conversation with Kerstin to discuss the built environment, form making and the relentless negotiation required to create excellent architecture.

Michael Smith: As one of Melbourne’s leading architects, how do you evaluate the development of our city? What do you think we’re doing well and where do we need to lift our game?

Kerstin Thompson: I often bang on about how housing matters because most construction activity is housing. If you get housing wrong you’re buggering up your city. In my teaching in Wellington, but also in my practice here, I often lead research around higher density forms of housing.

Recently one of my thesis students did an interim presentation to an academic from Newcastle University on the topic and his comment was “it’s so unusual seeing thesis projects on housing. In Newcastle we think it’s too hard so we don’t encourage students to tackle it.” I thought what a failure not to ask students to think about a substantial part of the city’s formation.

MS: It’s an extraordinary approach.

KT: It is. I’m always surprised that housing is seen as a prosaic topic in universities, that it’s not viewed as a place for innovation and good thinking. I think we’re realizing that Melbourne, despite priding itself on its architectural cultural, is missing the mark in terms of housing quality. This crisis is reflected in the design of minimum standards but it’s 10 years too late. That said, any turnaround is something.

MS: That leads directly into my second question, which is exactly on those draft apartment standards. Are they a good result or a missed opportunity?

KT: They’re a good start. Minimum size always alarms me because I do think there are cases where size is not the determinant of a living space’s quality or public realm benefit. When I brought a group of students over from Wellington earlier this year we went on a housing tour that took in Cairo Apartments – a classic case of where very small spaces can have an incredibly high level of amenity because of their relationship to garden or to outside.

I know that’s a low density version compared to high rise but there are many cases to be made for small that’s well designed and meets a whole lot of other liveability criteria.

What I’m not sure about is how much needs to be discretionary or mandatory. I think you’ve always got to allow for alternatives and exceptions. By way of example, we’re currently doing a project in a suburb in the inner north that’s involved an interesting negotiation around the relationship of the development to a boundary setback.

The local council has been ahead of the curve in developing its own apartment design code. The challenge for us was a section of the code pertaining to varied setbacks depending on a spatial use (bedroom, living room) and the height of the building (how many storeys). Essentially if you had blank walls and relied on borrowed light from other rooms it was a lot easier to meet the code than incorporating windows and having to adjust your setback.

It was a classic case where you know potential quality is being lost if the code is followed. We thought it was more generous to have a 3-metre setback because every apartment in the scheme has a double aspect and maximum cross flow ventilation. That was a fundamental principle that directed all of the massing across the site. We weren’t reliant on this rear setback, it’s only secondary, but we know it’s better for those apartments and we also think it had some benefits for the future development of the adjoining side.

Council has obviously adopted the code for a reason but then you begin to see its unintended consequences. So begins a larger discussion around discretionary aspects and being able to espouse the merits of an alternative. That’s probably one of our big hurdles, that a level of expertise and resourcing is required within council to review individual designs. You can see why it doesn’t happen, but it’s only through challenging these codes that we find new ways of doing things.

We had a case, again I’m trying to be concrete, a few years ago with a site in Fitzroy which has a 2-storey heritage base. We felt that if we put the new building in line above that the development – compared to the usual wedding cake setbacks – would be more appropriate to the morphology of Fitzroy. Also, that a perimeter block development provided better internal amenity for the development because you could do dual aspect. Even though it defied all the usual heritage defaults of setbacks from the historic façade, we pushed really hard and eventually got council support.

So it becomes a question of constantly challenging the default and approaching projects from first principles, which sometimes means high risk because you are saying to your client I actually think questioning this will get a better outcome but it’s a less predictable process that we might have to go through. That’s the scary part because it’s on your head if it doesn’t work.

MS: So to summarize your position, the apartment standards are good but they can’t be definitive. We need to have people who understand the issues to be able to provide exceptions to the rules, where appropriate.

KT: That’s right, and the intelligence to recognize when a diversion from a default is a much better outcome. How you would measure a better outcome is you would always assess it within the development, but around the development too.

“Housing always has to have a level of mutual benefit for its situation.”

That’s another little test you apply. Yes it’s good for the development but as long as it’s not jeopardizing or offsetting a problem from your site onto someone else’s site.

MS: One of the biggest changes globally that we have seen in the last few years in architecture is the rise of parametric design. Do you see this as a style in itself similar to say art deco, or is it more simply a tool that some architects will use to explore complex forms?

KT: I think it’s really interesting. Recently I went to the talk at the Boyd Foundation by Darren Anderson, who wrote the book Imaginary Cities. His talk was about future visions and they necessarily tell you more about the present out of which they came. Also that future visions tend towards this idea of tabula rasa.

That they’re often presented without any understanding or concession to the existing layer of stuff that will be there. They’re strangely outside of time. Anyway, the point in relation to your question was he showed many future visions for Melbourne and he dug up all of these extraordinary schemes. Some of which I’d seen before but others were really new to me.

One of them was from the 70s that was a scheme done on the Jolimont Railway.

Sonia Sarangi: Yes, those are some really crazy schemes.

KT: The wildest form making. Except for the fact that it was rendered through hand, it was a hand drawing. It looked like the sorts of projects I’ve seen recently coming out of RMIT’s parametric studios. I found it fascinating. Partly because there were these direct formal parallels using an old technology and a new technology.

It’s interesting in that it tells you it’s not necessarily the tool that’s determining the forms. He also showed Mendelsohn’s Einstein Tower and you see this formal interest from early in the 20th century through to this one in the 70s in Melbourne. It’s interesting where there’s a formal intent and you just pick your tool to get to that.

The extent to which the tool can enable a new formal intent, that is something I’ve seen in the more innovative parametric studies, and again at RMIT, the thesis work there with Roland Snooks and his students. I think the possibility of these self-proliferating formal processes is really interesting. Revit, for example, which is more for the purposes of documentation and procurement benefits is not necessarily for a formal end. Why is that? Possibly because formally it doesn’t help our language or our architecture.

I will say that a long, long time ago, ’97 when we did an early project for RMIT, it was a technology estate project. It was a twisted form we were attempting to develop, which was to do with solar orientation on this curve site, et cetera. I remember having to go and find one of my old students to help me model it because with my auto CAD skills it was never going to happen.

That was a nice moment where I completely understood this need for another tool to generate a 3D model.

SS: Do you ever worry that it might plant the seed for a certain kind of … I don’t want to use the world laziness.

KT: Absolutely. But it’s a complex one because on the one hand a lot of discussion in architecture is not necessarily to do with form making, and I do think that there are high risks when it’s the number 1 priority because it can result in an excess and wilfulness that I associate with problematic buildings. I know that on the one hand we fight form as a key driver or manifestation of architectural thinking.

On the other I also realize that if we think of what we do as architects it is about making a physical space out of matter, and inevitably that is a creation of form.

I also recognize that some of our buildings have been identified for a clarity of form making. It’s not that they’re anti-form either, which I know some people will try to argue. I still think we always have this problem with form, but it is that extent to which it is a square peg/round hole problem. I think that’s when I question it, and how you find a form. I tried to describe this in a recent talk on ethics at the Robin Boyd Foundation in relation to the idea of accommodation.

To accommodate sounds like whatever comes in as a force within the making of a project you just take on board unquestioningly. It’s not saying that. It’s saying that all projects have various forces on them and our job, I think, is to accommodate those but through an intent of sorts.

You are still doing something with these forces that is directed somehow. It’s not just whatever. I think that’s where bad architecture has an intent that is divorced from the forces it has to navigate and it just has determination to apply those regardless of whether it’s the right thing or not. That was partly where I was getting into an ethics of architecture that you have to wrestle with these considerations, it’s our duty to do that.

Also for a disciplinary contribution you’re trying to wrestle and doing something with those that achieves something of integrity especially.

Continued in the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/negotiating-form-qa-with-kerstin-thompson-part-2">second part of this interview</a>.

This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/negotiating-form-qa-with-kerstin-thompson-part-1/">The Red &amp; Architect Blog</a>.
</body></html>

Negotiating Form: Q+A with Kerstin Thompson

<html><body>
Whilst there has been substantial publicity and commentary around Victoria’s proposed apartment standards, the Central City Planning Provisions, Melbourne Amendment C270 have been quietly progressing. Recently Vanessa Bird, the Victorian President of the Australian Institute of Architects, took some time to answer a few questions about this proposed planning amendment  as well as the institutes wider advocacy agenda.

Red+Black Architect – For those who haven’t been following this process, what is the Central City Planning Provisions amendment about, and what is at stake?

Vanessa Bird – Amendment C270 proposes changes to existing provisions within the Hoddle Grid and <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/southbank-vic">Southbank</a>. The stated aim is to protect the liveability of the city by ensuring the provision of space around tall buildings, protect important public spaces from overshadowing, including the Yarra River, and establish floor area ratios for new developments.

Developments which exceed the base floor area ratio will be matched by public benefits such as on-site public open space and laneways, or social housing within the development. No maximum height limit is proposed except for identified special character areas. A floor area ratio of 18:1 Is proposed with uplift bonuses available for the provision of public benefits.

R+BA – As Victorian President you have been leading the AIA’s response to this process. What outcomes are you hoping to achieve?

VB – The AIA aims to shift the discussion towards mechanisms that reward design excellence. We have a role to play as the ‘critical friend’ to government – as NSW President Shaun Carter put it – advocating for good planning and excellent design outcomes. This means we can be supportive but ask provocative questions as an advocate for the success of C270.

In August the Institute presented on C270 at a Planning Panel hearing. The presentation focused on 2 key points. The first being that design excellence is a key pillar of any good planning outcome and should be rewarded. A well designed city needs both good built form outcomes and good design outcomes, and the two are not mutually inclusive.

The current C270 does not place any weight on design excellence. We argued that good design is critical to good city outcomes and should not be separated from planning. To achieve this end, we have proposed a Design Review Panel for any project over 18:1 or to provide significant Floor Area Uplift for projects that gain permits through a DRP process.

We acknowledge that a DRP process by its very nature will be a more time consuming process, which is critical in achieving a good design outcome. Lack of time is not the friend of good design. Given this, the developer should be rewarded with significant uplift benefits for embarking on this process as it will cost more money, and may result in a more expensive building, while producing greater long-term benefits to society.

In addition, an independent architect should be mandatory on all projects over 18:1. Any project over 18:1 is of significance and as such design should be considered paramount.

The second part of the presentation focused on expanding the definition and scope of Floor Area Uplift for Public Benefits. We support Public Benefits which improve the quality of the public realm and architecture, of the diversity and accessibility of the city, and which allow architects to design innovatively to create a memorable and sustainable built environment.

The definition of Public Benefits should be expanded to include, Sustainable Design, works to Heritage Buildings, Innovation, Social Use / Mixed Use. Precinct-based benefits were proposed – meaning off site benefits – and point to the need for Precinct Masterplans. Several Chapter Councillors and members of the Large Practice Forum contributed to the content and presentation including Tim Leslie, Matthew Smith, Adam Pustola, Ingrid Bakker, Craig Baudin, Jesse Judd and Alison Cleary.

R+BA – The recently released draft apartment standards proscribe minimum building set-backs for apartments, is there any potential overlap between these policies?

VB – Under the proposed C270 amendment 5 metre setbacks are mandatory. Overlays will continue to operate, so the requirements of the Apartment Standards sit below the requirements of an overlay. The AIA proposed that controls be mandatory unless you go through DRP where say an average setback calculation could be considered.

This would allow for a variety of built forms rather than a strict vertical face to the boundary, such as a curved facade which reduces the setback in the middle of the site but increases it towards the street frontage. These variations would need approval by the DRP to ensure they meet the planning objectives and delivering design excellence.

R+BA – With a renewed focus on advocacy, will the Institute be looking to provide input on the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel or the recently released vision for the Arden urban renewal precinct?

VB – Yes, just last month I MC’d at an ‘industry networking event’ for members of PIA, AILA and AIA where a group of cross-disciplinary speakers spoke about transport options for cities, which apart from public transport included bikes, walking, and autonomous shared vehicles. Rob Moore, City of Melbourne Project Executive for Melbourne Metro Rail, gave a fascinating talk on maintaining design quality on what is extensively a civil engineering project.

Interestingly he used a WA Government Architect diagram to guide the design review and decision making process. As the AIA becomes a more active advocacy voice, we are asked to provide feedback more often on moretopics.

Our work and that of the office of government architect are increasingly informing the debate on cities.

To answer the second part of your question – a group of Chapter Councillors and the Urban Design Forum are working on an AIA position on Arden-Macauley. Architects of course contribute to the debate through the quality of their design work but also need to stand up for the precinct and the public interest.

R+BA –  Do you think that the VCAT system for appealing planning decisions is working as well as it could? Some recent decisions such as the now infamous <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/buildings/nightingale-apartments-6-florence-street-brunswick">Nightingale</a> refusal, give the perception that some outcomes can vary depending on the member hearing the case. Should cases be heard by a panel of members rather than an individual in order to dispel this perception?

VB – The member question is a VCAT matter, although they do have 2 or 3 members on larger cases. VCAT is a transparent process. The AIA supports the maintenance of community consultation and the right for third party appeal. That said, we would like to see a Design Review Process that carries weight at VCAT incorporated into the assessment process in the Apartment Standards Guidelines.

The VCAT pathway adds to the cost of housing through delays and representation costs, so certainty in the Decision Guidelines and their assessment is crucial. Design experts are needed to assess design objectives, not planners or lawyers – again highlighting the need for DRPs with authority.

R+BA – How would you rate the current State Government’s performance on built environment issues?

VB – The AIA can’t rate a sitting government whose projects haven’t yet been delivered. It’s at the end of the term when they can be evaluated. As mentioned earlier we work with government to achieve the best outcome and advocate for the public interest. We do though welcome the initiative of the Apartment Design Guidelines, C270 is a positive step as is the long overdue Melbourne Metro Rail Project.

R+BA – Thank you for your time

 

Michael Smith is a principal at <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/industry/atelier-red-black">Atelier Red+Black</a>. This article originally appeared on the <a href="https://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/">Red and Black architect blog</a>
</body></html>

Q+A with Vanessa Bird, Victorian President of the Australian Institute of Architects

<html><body>
Now in it’s ninth year, Melbourne Open House once again pushes the discovery and appreciation of architecture and the built environment into the mainstream.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image22_6.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Medibank offices in Docklands by Hassell"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="435" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image22_6.jpg?itok=gD_TsHyX" title="Medibank offices in Docklands by Hassell" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Medibank offices in Docklands by Hassell</figcaption></figure>With well over 100 different buildings to experience across the weekend, those wishing to indulge their curiosity were spoilt for choice. From the historic to the contemporary, from very public buildings to very special private residences, the program delivered in spades. As always it is impossible to see everything, but with Open House a solid fixture in Melbourne’s busy events schedule, it is possible to build up a collection of experiences year on year.

<h2>Medibank Offices</h2>

How can a large corporate organisation provide a healthy 21st century work environment for its staff? This was the challenge that faced the architects Hassell when conceiving the new offices in Docklands for Medibank. This fluid form tower represents some of the latest thinking on office environments.

Boasting an outdoor sports court, edible garden, flexible work spaces and even an indoor fireplace, the building is a generous investment in the people who occupy the building.

From a visitor’s perspective the wow factor is all in the atrium. Crisp white ribbons provide a rich layering effect which is emphasized further through brightly coloured floor and ceiling surfaces. The result is a vibrant, energetic building, which must surely be a delight to work within.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image27_5.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Medibank offices in Docklands by Hassell"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="1726" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image27_5.jpg?itok=eReIsU6B" title="Medibank offices in Docklands by Hassell" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Medibank offices in Docklands by Hassell</figcaption></figure><h2>The Argus Building</h2>

The Argus newspaper was a highly innovative and respected newspaper that was published between 1846 and 1957. The building on the corner of Elizabeth and Latrobe Streets in Melbourne was built as the headquarters for all aspects of the publication between 1924 and 1926. The newspaper was abruptly discontinued in 1957 and at some point after that fell into disrepair.

In 2014 the building was reopened as an education facility for the Melbourne Institute of Technology. Since that time it has been a particularly popular attraction on Melbourne Open House weekend for curious visitors.

The interior fit out and alterations were undertaken by Design inc. Whilst there is some of the remaining original fabric exposed, it is unfortunate to report that within the vast majority of the interior, the old has been completely covered with the new. This raises interesting questions about the preservation of our built heritage.

On the one hand the ability for an otherwise derelict building to be given a new use will ensure its survival into the future. On the other hand, to cover up the internal building fabric with white plasterboard and commercial flooring seems like an opportunity lost. No doubt the design team and client had their reasons. The building was in a perilously poor state and there are always limitations on what a client can spend to realize a project.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image21_7.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The Argus building on the corner of Elizabeth and Latrobe Streets"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="383" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image21_7.jpg?itok=KocBFl53" title="The Argus building on the corner of Elizabeth and Latrobe Streets" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The Argus building on the corner of Elizabeth and Latrobe Streets</figcaption></figure><figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image20_6.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The Argus Building is now used by the Melbourne Institute of Technology. Fitouts by Design Inc."><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="213" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image20_6.jpg?itok=E_FM4IjR" title="The Argus Building is now used by the Melbourne Institute of Technology. Fitouts by Design Inc." width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The Argus Building is now used by the Melbourne Institute of Technology. Fitouts by Design Inc.</figcaption></figure><h2>The Supreme Court of Victoria</h2>

Perhaps one of the most surprising and interesting experiences available, was the visit to the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Supreme Court is actually a collection of buildings originally designed by A.L. Smith and built between 1857-1884. The classical stone facade that graces the street conceals a large courtyard within.

This external space is the setting for the glorious Supreme Court Library, the dome of which can be seen from the streets beyond. From within, the library feels like a relative of the much loved State Library of Victoria although it is actually older than the Joseph Reed building. Despite the grandeur of the detailing and decoration, the space itself is surprisingly intimate. As well as the architecture the library holds a fascinating collection of books and historical documents.

In a glass case, an Argus newspaper from exactly 100 years earlier is on display, reporting losses from the ‘Great War’ and complaints about the Hoyts theater prices.

The other notable spaces within this complex are, of course, the courts themselves. These spaces are some of the most serious that you will experience in Victoria. Court 4, otherwise known as the Banco Court, is the oldest and most elaborate of the court rooms. The finely detailed ceiling is both extraordinary and unexpected. The fixed timber seating, which was carefully thought out well over 100 years prior, still operates in the way originally intended.

There are only a few minor additions to the space, such as a couple of large monitors for the jury to observe video evidence.

Unfortunately photographs are not permitted to be taken within the court, so really you have to go an experience it for yourself.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image19_10.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Exterior images of the Supreme Court of Victoria"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="533" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image19_10.jpg?itok=xYlcYnun" title="Exterior images of the Supreme Court of Victoria" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Exterior images of the Supreme Court of Victoria</figcaption></figure>With tens of thousands of visitors to buildings across the city, Melbourne Open House continues to prove that architecture is for everyone.

Michael Smith is a principal at Ateiler Red+Black. This article originally appeared on the <a href="https://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/">Red and Black architect blog</a>.
</body></html>

Melbourne Open House 2016

<html><body>
Melbourne’s most important building to be completed in 2016 sits proudly at the top of Elizabeth Street as a beacon of hope to all Victorians fighting cancer.

One of the great success stories in the development of the city of Melbourne is the creation of the flourishing Parkville medical precinct in the early twenty first century. Just to the North of the CBD, with the University of Melbourne as an anchor point, a collection of world class research facilities have sprung up at an astonishing rate.

Bio21 Molecular Science and Biotechnology Institute, the Peter Doherty Institute, the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and the Melbourne Brain Centre are all now located within the precinct which also boasts the new Royal Children’s Hospital, the Royal Women’s Hospital and the Royal Melbourne Hospital. The crown jewel in this impressive collection is the new home for the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre which stands proudly as the flagship and gateway to this precinct.

The genesis of this building was from a tender bidding process which was won by the Plenary Health consortium. Embedded within this consortium were STHDI, a joint venture between architects Silver Thomas Hanley and Design Inc, who provided design expertise in laboratory and clinical design. Architects McBride Charles Ryan (MCR) were brought into the consortium to provide their design expertise on the external form and the public areas within the building.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image14_7.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Exterior images"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="1213" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image14_7.jpg?itok=m1OWqObU" title="Exterior images" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Varying exterior profiles</figcaption></figure>This bidding process set a clear vision for what the project was to be from the very start. A world class clinical treatment, research and education facility all in one building.

<blockquote>
The promise that you have made to the State has to be delivered.
<cite>Debbie Ryan, McBride Charles Ryan</cite>
</blockquote>

From the viewpoint of the architects, there can hardly be a more challenging project. A massive site, a $1 billion budget, a huge number of stake holders from multiple organisations and multiple government bodies and the requirement to facilitate cutting edge technology. Yet despite these challenges, a brilliant piece of architecture has been produced.

The first thing you notice about this building, from whichever direction you approach, is the seductive organic expression which willfully sweeps across the facade. The crisp white lines that branch and spread across the glazed envelope intentionally reference the research collaboration and networking ambitions of the centre. Fittingly they also mimic the wiry winter branches of the elm trees surrounding the site.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/vccc-7.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre by McBride Charles Ryan in partnership with STHDI"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="741" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/vccc-7.jpg?itok=cj5wGIGD" title="The Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre by McBride Charles Ryan in partnership with STHDI" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre by McBride Charles Ryan in partnership with STHDI</figcaption></figure>Along the north edge of the building the facade expression takes on a more sculptural form to present an entry colonnade to Grattan Street. Utilizing finely finished and detailed concrete and fibre reinforced polymer, the building successfully integrates with the busy pedestrian thoroughfare of the street.

Soaring above the observer are two bridge connections between the VCCC and the Royal Melbourne Hospital. These enable the two hospitals to share operating theaters, if the need arises, providing the benefit of additional resilience and efficiency to both hospitals.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image15_6.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Bridges over Grattan Street"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="252" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image15_6.jpg?itok=kK8CnKh_" title="Bridges over Grattan Street" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Bridges over Grattan Street</figcaption></figure>Entering the main lobby, or ‘welcome hall’ as it is known, it is clear that the organic theme expressed externally has made it’s way to the interior. The bright and well-proportioned space is generous without overwhelming and disorientating the visitor. Despite being a largely white space, the design successfully navigates the danger of becoming visually sterile. Texture, pattern, and slight splashes of colour are all used with precision.

Moving deeper within the building, the grand central atrium reveals itself, providing an abundant source of natural light throughout the centre of the plan. Vaguely reminiscent of Frank Lloyd Wright’s famous Guggenheim in New York, white ribbons dance around the void to spectacular effect.

Directly below, where one might have expected a staircase or lobby, an open amphitheater space reminds the visitor of the educational role of the building.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image16_6.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="VCCC's impressive interiors on show"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="1171" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image16_6.jpg?itok=jGPopfrL" title="VCCC's impressive interiors on show" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>VCCC's impressive interiors on show</figcaption></figure>Hospitals and laboratories have to meet some of the most stringent design regulations of any building type. With the very specific requirements of Australian and international standards, it might have been expected to notice a convergence in design. Clearly the VCCC has avoided this anonymity. For MCR it was also of substantial importance that the building have a particularly Australian identity. The use of spotted gum timber as an orientating surface within the public spaces subtly makes this differentiation.

As with other major hospitals across the globe, a significant problem is attracting and retaining the best staff. Even though it has only just opened, the VCCC has already lured several world class Australian researchers back to Australia from prestigious international positions. From a research perspective, the building is also a symbol that our State and Federal Governments are taking cancer research seriously.

As well as being a success story for the MCR and STHDI design team, the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre is also a parable for the State Government, on the importance of a strong Government Architect. In procurement models where architecture teams are embedded within an overall project consortium, there is every risk that design quality can be sacrificed for other objectives.

The best protection for the public against these sub standard outcomes is for the State Government client to be provided expert advice. If the government will not accept a reduction in design quality, then the consortium will be forced to deliver on what was promised.

For researchers, the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre is a solid commitment to Australian medical science, in the form of a world class facility. For students and young professionals this building is about supporting the future of cancer treatment. However perhaps most importantly, for patients and their families, this is a building that exudes optimism and hope in a way that only the best architecture can.

Michael Smith is a principal at Ateiler Red+Black. This article originally appeared on the <a href="https://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/">Red and Black architect blog</a>.
</body></html>

Red+Black review: The VCCC - the new home of Peter Mac

<html><body>
Michel Masson is the CEO of Infrastructure Victoria, the government body charged with formulating a 30 year strategy for Victoria’s infrastructure. This is the second part of the two part Red+Black Architect interview.

If you missed part 1, click <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/red-black-interviews-the-ceo-of-infrastructure-victoria-part-1">here</a>.

Red+Black Architect – While selecting the right piece of infrastructure to build at the right time is critical, it’s equally critical to the liveability of the state to ensure that the design quality of the proposed infrastructure is of a very high standard? How is Infrastructure Victoria addressing this complex issue of the design quality?

Michel Masson – Let’s be clear as to what Infrastructure Victoria stands for. We are responsible for the strategic planning only. We’re not touching on the procurement. We’re not touching on the delivery. Clearly, we’re not here to revisit designs and look at those when we identify projects. That’s at a later stage. Having said that, we do acknowledge the importance of design in getting the right outcome. We are very focused on being outcome oriented, rather than focused on an output.

With that in mind, we’ve looked at a couple of ideas that are about improving design standards.

We are looking at universal design principles to provide accessibility for people with mobility challenges, and how we can push that further.  We’ve looked also at active design as a way to promote more active lifestyles using infrastructure, such as putting cycling and pedestrian pathways into new developments.

We’re looking at design in relation to social housing.  We’re also looking at design around cyber security. Infrastructure will have more and more technology embedded into it so that needs to be taken into account.

R+BA – Have you been consulting with the Office of the Victorian Government Architect on how to achieve design quality in the process of delivering infrastructure?

MM – You’ll be pleased to know that I’ve had already exchanges with Victorian Government Architect Jill Garner in order to have exactly that discussion. We’ve highlighted a couple of areas where indeed our role and their involvement into the strategy could actually be reinforced to ensure design is considered.

R+BA – From the projects that made it into the options paper, are there any that you found particularly surprising either in perhaps because they initially sounded far-fetched but have since shown promise or perhaps a project that was assumed to be a very important part that actually is not particularly viable?

MM – It won’t come as a surprise that when you table 236 options in a very agnostic way, of course, some catch the attention of the public more than some others. Infrastructure Victoria is an evidence-based organisation. We are totally agnostic. We tabled those and we’re very interested to get the feedback from the public.

Of course, when the public cast their eyes on recycling water for drinking purposes, or the mobile police stations for instance, this is very good news for us because we certainly don’t want to shy away from controversial ideas.

Our process is not a popularity contest. We clearly want to engage with the community and say, “We’re here to plan for the next 30 years. Clearly the next 30 years won’t be anything like the past 30 years. Let’s think outside of the box.”

Business-as-usual won’t cut it when it comes to planning for the next 30 years when you’ve got so many new people coming and settling in Melbourne and you’ve got technology changing so rapidly. We need to think differently when it comes to water, when it comes to education, when it comes to transport. Of course, there are some far-fetched ideas but we’re talking about the future so let’s unleash our imaginations and also look at what worked in the rest of the world.

R+BA – How does Infrastructure Victoria assess projects that cross state borders, for example, the high-speed rail on the Eastern Seaboard?

MM – There is a close collaboration between Infrastructure Australia, Building Queensland, Infrastructure New South Wales, Infrastructure Victoria and Infrastructure Tasmania.

We meet on a regular basis in order to exchange information on who is working on what. We’re not here to reinvent the wheel in our silos, far from it. The more we collaborate, the more we share what we are working on, the better we cross-pollinate our ideas.

Of course, in the process of exchanging ideas and cross-pollinating, we discuss national projects like high-speed rail or inland rail in order to confirm our thinking and come up with a consistent approach.

R+BA – With the way technology is advancing rapidly, is the 30-year goal a realistic goal or will it be virtually obsolete within a decade? How do you deal with that rapidly changing technology?

MM – I think that the beauty of having a 30-year plan is that it’s sufficiently far off in order to be able to make some good assumptions as to how we see the future. Clearly we don’t have a crystal ball. Ten years ago, nobody knew that we would have these mobile phones in our pockets and how much it would revolutionise our lives.

Having said that just because we haven’t got a crystal ball doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t plan. This is the whole essence of planning.

It is important to keep in mind that we’re going to refresh our strategy every 3-5 years. This is not a one-off exercise and then we’ve got to live with it. If that were the case, you would be absolutely right, it would be a pointless exercise.

Two things to keep in mind: one, we’re very mindful that technological advances will make a big impact in how we build, how we operate and how we maintain infrastructure. That’s why we got technology at the forefront what we are looking at. We’ve secured the help of the former chief innovation officer from Google to help us think about the “known unknowns” but also the “unknown unknowns”.

We also need to be very clear in identifying what are the potential disruptors that we need to monitor the impact of. It’s very clear that we can already see the impact of big data and the internet on things. We can see how sensors are already revolutionising water use, for instance, or the energy sector.

I’ll finish off by saying that the last big elephant in the room that we are working on in terms of modernisation is driverless cars. Is this a blessing or is this a curse? What are the changes of the paradigm that we should be looking at in order to leverage upon this and all of the implications that this will have.

R+BA – Yes. It’s very hard to get your head around exactly how that will play out. It could go two ways, in terms of rapidly increasing the amount of cars on the roads because we’ve got all of these cars driving themselves and running errands for people or perhaps it could reduce the numbers of cars, particularly households currently with two cars.

MM – Even if you’ve got less cars overall, you will have more kilometres being driven. It comes back to that question of what is the outcome we want to achieve. Driverless cars also cast a light also on the concept of ownership. With driverless cars, if we stick to the concept of ownership of a car, it will bring different outcomes than if we look at the driverless cars in a new paradigm of non-ownership.

R+BA – Barcelona recently wired a lot of their streets to prepare themselves for an innovation of these driverless cars. Is that something that’s in the draft options report, the idea of WiFi on the street everywhere, facilitating that sort of future outcome?

MM – We certainly are in the process of identifying what are the technology changes that we need to facilitate in order to enable the driverless cars to flourish in the future.

What do we need to start looking at in order to ensure that Victoria is ready for what is to come. It’s not a question of if that’s going to come. It’s a question of how fast and how prepared we are. A lot has got to do with policies and regulations currently in place that need to be looked at in order to ensure that Victoria is ready for it.

R+BA – Absolutely. I can imagine the law would be one of the areas that would need to change, who’s responsible for accidents and so forth.

Are there any aspects of Infrastructure Victoria’s work that have been overlooked or under reported in the media … Is there a message that you would like to put out there that sometimes gets lost amongst the East West Link and other controversial topics?

MM – Well, one of the key characteristics of the 30-year strategy is to cover the whole state, meaning that regional Victoria is equally as important as metropolitan Melbourne. We are very eager to have regional Victorians express their views throughout the consultation so that we are sure that what we table to Parliament reflects their views and their contribution, not just what is best for Melbourne.

The other thing which has probably been overlooked is our guiding principle of land use planning being integrated with the infrastructure planning. We’re very keen to look at ways of bridging that gap. Of course, we are working in close collaboration with the Melbourne Planning Authority. The refreshed Plan Melbourne will be an input into our strategy together with the regional growth plans. Looking at the next 30 years, I think one of the most fundamental changes that we can bring is better integration between infrastructure and land use planning.

The last thing that I’ll say is that we are very ambitious in the final strategy we plan to table at year end, because strategy without execution is nothing. We’re very keen to not only provide a pipeline of strategic recommendations, but for the final strategy to be workable. It needs to be an input to the community, to business, to the local and state governments.

We’re very keen to identify in parallel to our strategic recommendations, what are the tactical next steps? What is the first actionable item that we should be starting to do in order to see a recommendation being implemented?

It may be as an example that we plan for significant capital expenditure, say for a road for instance in 10 or 15 years. Even though you won’t need to build it for 10 or 15 years, we would recommend to pass the relevant legislation in the first 18 months to preserve the corridors. That I think will reposition the true essence of planning into the state of Victoria.

R+BA – Thank you very much for your time

Michael Smith is a director of Atelier Red + Black.  This article was originally published on the Red + Black architect <a href="https://theredandblackarchitect.wordpress.com/2016/07/13/redblack-interview-with-michel-masson-ceo-of-infrastructure-victoria-part-2/">blog</a>.
</body></html>

Michael Smith

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News