Author: vthamm

From the SA Chapter President – August

26 August 2019

It’s fair to say it’s been a hectic overture of events for the first half of the year from the Architecture Awards to FAD 2019. Most of these events have been celebratory, inward looking, mostly social and promoting our collective.

It’s time to change the mode a little.

Outside of our bubble and following on from FAD 2019 and the focus on home, having resolved to join the conversation in contributing to the strategy and vision for housing, there are some serious issues affecting our society which I believe we are well-positioned to assist. Unfortunately, we are still seen as working in the privileged architectural world.

A few weeks ago, Homelessness Week tackled awareness of this social plight. Across Australia, homelessness, whether through affordability or social misfortune, has grown by 14% in the past five years. So while we keep talking, attending forums, another review, another report, another strategic plan, as a collective have we lost sight of the real urgency.

While I don’t pretend that I understand or have the social panacea for this, far from it, there are many brilliant and humble people who provide this service, I would like to think that we can add a very small contribution to assist in this, the basic provision of shelter.

The current South Australia Housing, Homelessness and Support Strategy taskforce instigated by the Government contains not one member from an architectural background.

Is this an oversight or acknowledgment that architects are not considered to be able to contribute to the strategy of this social issue? It is an indictment of where we stand as a profession that we are not recognised to be able to assist in the delivery of innovative models in a whole of State review.

We have seen in other parts of the world the value of design contributing to the provision of affordable and emergency housing invariably starting from a social value. As usual, we seem to be starting with an economic rather than a cultural value system.

Many have put forward ideas from adapting empty buildings, relaxing some of the guideline expectations in size and acknowledging differing requirements for the notion of the temporary and transitional which are not hindered by design guidelines as a way forward.

Many from our profession globally have significantly contributed and devoted their time as a philanthropic voice to the issues affecting some real issues that affect society. Rather than facilitating talkfests and forums and volumes of reports perhaps as a collective we may be able to instigate some practical solutions that look beyond bureaucratic screens.

We have begun advocating for a voice in the process and would welcome support for a response or contribution across all aspects of the design and construction process having regard to how we may contribute.

Tony Giannone
SA Chapter President
Director tectvs

From the SA Chapter President – July

ARCHITECTURE BY DESIGN PROTOCOLS …………………………………or algorithms

There was an interesting discussion coming out of the National Conference last month in regard to the stifling of design freedom resulting from design protocols affecting the vibrancy and life of the City, in particular to the ground and street realm.

As a profession, let’s consider:

Are design protocols:

stifling the quality of architecture….?
delivering better urban spaces….?
devoid of an emotional response, place, and that beautiful spontaneity of design….?
purely risk-averse….?

Have we lost that inherent freedom to conceptualise an idea by structuring design envelopes adhering to design protocols….?

How many design protocols are too many….

in conjuring economic realisation of projects and affordability in housing
to inhibit creativity….?

Are our design standards becoming “too high” and too restrictive to deliver affordable and social housing….?

Are there too many statutory and subjective planning overlays written by Planners and not enough referencing design by architects….?

Is the inherent token gesture to reference design an excuse to not formally acknowledge the profession… is “design” now so often used in design guidelines that it has lost much of its significance… designed by who….?… why is it that there is a reluctance to take the final step and acknowledge architects as part of the process… or are we just feeding our knowledge to others to design the built environment on our behalf….?

Are design protocols feeding the eventual delivery of design by algorithm….?

As we approach the release of the new Planning and Design Code in South Australia as the panacea for streamlining and offering clarity to the Development Approval Process, it is perhaps worthwhile to reflect on a few of these implications.

Just like we bemoan the takeover of many facets of the traditional architect procurement process to “managers”…………. then the last bastion we have is the concept and the idea, take that away, feed the design protocols into the programme, insert augmented reality, virtual reality, artificial intelligence, and presto…. approval by matrix…. without architects.

Farsighted, an over-reaction and bemoaning………………………………………. just asking?

From the SA Executive Director 190708

Advocacy and Agency are two buzz words that are currently in high circulation. What do they mean for architects and architecture? Why is it important for architects to be proactive rather than passive when it comes to proposing the future of our built environment? If we do not engage in this debate and suggest alternative opportunities, who will champion better outcomes?

Collective Agency was the topic of this year’s national conference, which provided two days of thought provoking and, at times, confronting exploration of what role architects should play in advancing cultural, societal and environmental issues. The suggestion was that architects should be activists for the environment, community and equity and that we are uniquely placed to introduce different perspectives, discuss alternative outcomes and achieve change through our projects. The questions we ask, the way we engage with clients and our understanding of place are all part of the process by which we can achieve change.

Much of the discussion centred on recognition of first nations people and their ownership of the land that projects are constructed on. Respect for the environment, culture and community was explored. Speakers also shared powerful personal stories which demonstrated the importance of empathy, openness and respect and the need to recognise the individual as well as the collective.

Presentations from Sarah Lynn Rees, Elisapeta Heta and Jeremy McLeod provided strategies for improving engagement and suggested ways forward which were thoughtful, practical and hopeful of a better future. Poppy Taylor and Matt Hinds discussed their beautifully crafted projects, which are environmentally and culturally empathetic. These projects demonstrate how architects can add meaning and delight through their work while introducing people to alternative ways of engaging with and viewing place and people.

FAD19 will also consider how architects can influence thinking and disrupt current practice. The focus of FAD19 is Ideas of Home – what this means, how we create meaningful places, our relation to place and how we achieve more equitable access to housing. As we experience increasing density, changing planning regulations, housing affordability and equity issues, environmental change and increasing pressure on heritage, what are architects doing to respond and how can they provide leadership? Should architects simply respond to market forces and client directions or should they propose alternatives and challenge conventions to bring about societal change?

I am party to many conversations in which architects bemoan their lack of influence and the diminished respect for the profession. I appreciate that suggesting change and challenging a client to approach their project differently can seem risky and beyond our capacity. However, by having these conversations we can make incremental steps towards a different future. Not every conversation will result in immediate action, but it will plant a seed.

Forums such as the conference and FAD are one way to equip ourselves for these conversations. They expose us to new ideas, test our preconceptions and stretch our brains. They also provide an opportunity to celebrate and understand the work of our peers and share this knowledge with the community.

Are you going to participate in the conversation?

Nicolette Di Lernia
SA Chapter Executive Director

Before architecture there were trees

A few weeks ago I attended The City of Adelaide’s brand launch of: Adelaide. A City designed for life. In essence, it reflects on the focus of the Design of the City and how we live according to the virtues of Light’s vision, in particular, the Parklands. I must say it was refreshing to hear a presentation start by acknowledging the inherent value of storytelling and cultural heritage in our City, rather than getting caught in the advocacy of design protocols usually reserved as a prelude to the City Plan. The Adelaide City Council is to be applauded for this initiative. It should be embraced.

Having Light’s vision as the mainstay of this document is a welcome narrative that acknowledges and clearly articulates our design origins and informs the built environment.

Internationally recognised, the Adelaide Parklands are one of the greatest assets this City has. It is the most important element of Town Planning principles that we have inherited and has formed the groundwork for this City to evolve.

It is the founding design principle of our City.

Accordingly, it deserves the respect to ensure that we protect or repair the Adelaide Parklands for future generations.

The search for an evolving regional or city identity is often blurred by the promotion of the built environment. Perhaps the search for an Adelaide identity should be more vested in the landscape and cultural heritage of the Parklands rather than anything we can produce in the built form – it is our most unique identity.

But it is also so much more than this. Whether through design or by accident, the natural outer protective layer that the Parklands provide to this City is invaluable to our existence. If we allow it to, it will act as an immune system to the evolvement of the City.

Aside from their recreational values they provide a biophillic overlay that other Cities crave and retrospectively try to design for. We have ours (naturally) by design.

If some 70% of our population is projected to live in urban areas by 2050 and our cities consume 75% of our natural resources and output some 70% of CO₂ emissions and if science is correct in that trees and vegetation can absorb some 40% fossil fuel emissions then we are blessed to have the Parklands as part of our City.

In these times of climate change and environmental awareness in all things of wellness and lifestyle, we need to be resilient and avoid the temptation to choke and infuse the Parklands. The City in the Park concept that Adelaide is based on offers an opportunity to future proof our City and act as a repair mechanism. The Parklands allows us this opportunity. It appears to be a recent trend that there seems to be more architecture in landscape architecture than landscape. If anything we should whenever possible strive to facilitate return and regeneration.

Accepting that our City will evolve and the Parklands need to evolve, they should be sponsoring activity, enjoyment and support well-being. Enclosures for inclusive cultural events, festivals, celebrations, sport and identity that espouse the life and celebration of our City should all be supported. They should not be sacrificed and prioritised for exclusive and commercial usage that restricts public access.

Gradually we are seeing more and more intrusion on our hallowed turf. Commercial development appendages challenging and overriding the governance of the Adelaide Park Lands Act are becoming more frequent.

Of late, a few seeds have been planted in the Parklands but they won’t be sprouting green shoots, they will be concrete shoots.

They will be exclusive patronage domains and like the heritage debate, its advocacy always reverts to economic stimulation, not cultural initiatives.

The Parklands don’t need to be activated by the built environment, the notion of the temporary enclosure can facilitate this; they need increased greenery, trees and foliage, some may say forestation, they need to breathe, and in turn, they will return the favour to let our City and People breathe.

Tony Giannone
Chapter President

From the SA Chapter ED June 2019

11 June 2019

I want to update members regarding three interrelated areas of change for Architects – Continuing professional development, the Accredited Professionals Scheme and Acumen. All relate to how architects access and apply the knowledge to practice as a registered architect.

Continuing professional development

You may have heard that the Architectural Practice Act is being amended to include compulsory professional development requirements. If so, you may be wondering what is happening and when this might come into effect.

The Act is currently being redrafted by DPTI, with a draft due to be released for review later this year. Once the review is concluded the final document needs to go to Cabinet for sign off.

As with any legislative process this is taking longer than anticipated! However, the Institute remains quietly hopeful that the amended Act will come into effect early in 2020. We will continue to liaise with the APBSA and will provide architects with information to assist them in understanding what this means in practical terms. The Practice Committee is reviewing the key information that architects need to know and how to effectively deliver this to the profession.

Accredited Professionals Scheme (APS)

The APS falls under another relatively new piece of legislation – the Planning Development and Infrastructure (PDI) Act. The APS provides a mechanism for determining who is suitably qualified to perform assessment tasks in relation to building and planning approvals.

So, what does this have to do with architects, I hear you ask?

The PDI Act includes provision for assessment of design quality. This is a first in Australia, and something that the Institute lobbied for over a number of years. For this to be a meaningful process that the community respects, the Institute advocates that architects need to be involved in assessment of design quality.

Architects who have been members of planning assessment panels or want to be involved in the new design review process will now need to be accredited. Currently architects need to undertake an assessment that provides similar information to that required to register as an architect, as well as paying an assessment fee of over $700.00.

The Institute is working with DPTI and the APBSA to have the registration process recognised as a substantially equivalent assessment. This will significantly reduce the cost and time required to become an accredited professional. We will keep you updated regarding progress and will provide suitable CPD to meet APS requirements.

ACUMEN

ACUMEN is the digital resource that replaced the printed practice notes. They are updated on an ongoing basis and the new format includes an improved search function as well as the ability to collect notes of interest for easy future reference. Importantly, there is a list of recently published information on the landing page plus a tab for providing feedback and proposing new material.

The SA Chapter staff receive regular queries regarding this valuable resource and are happy to assist members to find the information they seek. We will also be holding an information session later this year to assist members use ACUMEN more effectively.

While there will always be some members who prefer the hard copy format, I encourage you to give ACUMEN a go next time you want to check something. If you have a younger staff member who is recently registered or preparing for registration ask them to give you a quick tour. I know it will be different to using the Practice Notes, but it will become familiar with use.

If you have any queries or concerns regarding any of the above, please contact the SA Chapter and we will assist as best we can. Being an architect is a very responsible position to hold. The Institute is committed to supporting our members to meet this responsibility.

Nicolette Di Lernia
Executive Director
SA Chapter Australian Institute of Architects

From the SA Chapter President 27/05/2019

ARCHITECTURE, SHEDS & HERITAGE……… the loss of public space and buildings

On my first day of University, Professor David Saunders (whose name enshrines our coveted Institute Heritage Award) challenged us – during our careers, perhaps the quest for finding the holy grail in defining the meaning of architecture would be found in the opening sentence of Nikolaus Pevsner’s “An Outline of European History”:

“A bicycle shed is a building; Lincoln Cathedral is a piece of architecture. Nearly everything that encloses space on a scale sufficient for a human being to move in is a building; the term architecture applies only to buildings designed with a view to aesthetic appeal.”

Well, it seems to be a relevant discussion at the moment. We are passionately and emotionally embracing the call to rebuild & restore the Notre-Dame de Paris Cathedral and closer to home demolishing (or trying to save) Shed 26 at Port Adelaide.

We have over the last few months seen the re-ignition of the cyclical Heritage debate. In Adelaide like the Parklands it comes around every few years. I’m not sure how many iterations we require of what should be a simpler process offering certainty and clarity. A process that has become a continuous procession of listings, delistings, re-classification, dismantling, redefinition of items of significance, assessment criteria or simply creating confusion by interim retrospective listings.

As is the case for Shed 26 interim listing instigates confusion and uncertainty for both the community and the developer. Each has their own interest. In this case the selling of the land without protection, open to subjective interpretation of feasibility for retainment of the Shed and the feel good public consultation without any statutory adaptive re-use mandate, was always going to end in the way it has…………demolition approval. In the interim, it has had it all… protests, unions, arrests, Kevin McCloud of Grand Designs…….

The listing of buildings has been the responsibility of successive Government and Councils for many years. If after all this time we still require interim retrospective listings and cannot offer clarity and certainty then we have sadly failed.

The ever-changing is at it again, we have now resumed the sell off of State Significant Places. Edmund Wright House is back in private ownership. After being saved from demolition by Government in 1971 and framing a process that changed much of our mindset to protecting Heritage, owned thereafter by the State why are we privatising ownership of Significant Places again….?

Coupled with all of this is the significant loss of public urban space over the years. The Riverbank is becoming a prime example of how this erosion is gradually eating into our City’s fabric. I’m not sure why an exclusive expansion and additions of multi level commercial buildings adjacent and diminishing the status of Parliament House has come to be on public space that once housed inclusive public baths and green frontage onto the River. Private control of reinvested public spaces are borne out of decisions based on political and economic outcomes, not cultural benefits. And in the case of Port Adelaide we are hell bent on turning our backs on the Riverfront in this State rather than connecting with it.

And now we are off again with the review of Heritage & Character in the New Planning System. The Practitioner Overviews informing the proposed new Planning and Design Code proposes new “overlays” trying to realign consistency. My concern is that when we start using words like……. performance assessed, and in the case of Local Heritage Places demolition will be subject to review of…. economic viability, structurally unsound and then increasing the power of direct decision to the Minister we may just be adding another subjective layer on an already subjective topic and aesthetic. As with engaging lawyers there are always differing expert reports that will be friendly and responsive to both sides of the argument.

There is no point having multiple layers of statutory Acts, Authorities, Registers and Trusts, and then once a Place is deemed to be protected it can be overturned by a Minister. It is important to our community that once identified and listed they are not there to be exploited for commercial advantage, that argument needs to be had before listing, not in retrospect.

Governments are transitional, are here for a term or two, these Buildings and Places are here for generations, they require independent governance free of political and developer lobby groups, they should not require a defence lawyer.

It is probably time for an independent non-political Heritage Commissioner that is accountable for the governance and control to protect our Heritage. This will require realistic capital and maintenance expenditure not token grants.

Cultural Heritage is a new concept in this Country, we are one of the youngest developed countries in the World and it is our moral responsibility to protect our history for future generations. We are currently developing a disposable public space mentality.

We have international recognition in the guidance of Cultural Heritage conservation in this Country. Emerging out of the 1964 Venice Charter and the formation of ICOMOS (International Council of Monuments and Sites), each country was responsible for applying a non-governmental plan within the framework of its own culture and traditions. In 1979 the Burra Charter was born, adopted in the old mining town of Burra in our own backyard.

Through my involvement at The University of Adelaide on International Design Workshops supported by the UNESCO Chair in Architectural Preservation and Planning in World Heritage Cities at the Politecnico di Milano, the conversation has always started with culture, and the buildings contribution to the community, history and the storytelling of society. It is devoid of era and economics. Against this backdrop it then examines architectural design in contemporary cities in relation to the value and identity of the historical built environment. It sequentially progresses to suggest analysis and management of territorial preservation policies. Uptake on the importance of this strategy has highlighted that the community and Government is passionate about the fabric of their City. The question here is are we passionate enough to have an ongoing commitment to Heritage in Adelaide… or do we join the disposable….?

Imagination and innovation is required to provide solutions that contribute to adaptive reuse of buildings and in the case of industrial buildings and precincts, there are many examples in our own backyard such as the Internationally awarded Tonsley and Plant 4 at Bowden. It is interesting to note that the Burra Charter is being heavily referenced by architects in Shanghai in their work on the adaptive reuse of waterfront industrial buildings.

The struggle to readapt these buildings to Building Code standard always raises the economic feasibility argument. The Rundle Street East experience in repositioning Local and State Heritage buildings through private development offers an interesting case study in regard to how this was achieved without wholesale demolition based on economic grounds. Instead the Developer recognised the true value and importance of Heritage and worked with it to create a long term vision based on contributing to the cultural fabric and value of the Precinct through individual incremental projects based on a Master Plan. Retention and readaptation of Heritage Places in this instance was the economic driver of an internationally awarded Mainstreet, not demolition.

Heritage Places should not be museum pieces, they are not defined purely by age, they are able to be repurposed and expanded to cater for our way of life.

The sublime of Heritage is often intangible, we know we feel good around it, it is often not imposing, and like everything in our lives that has an emotional connection we will never miss it until it is gone.

Heritage is like that, buildings have a heart and soul, we visit them, they are holiday destinations and economic tourism drivers, they capture emotion, define cities and local neighborhoods, and offer storytelling and memories.

As architects, we are the generational parents of these buildings and we need to be their custodians and voice.

So Prof. Saunders, it’s taken a few years…. my answer is…… Pevsner was wrong, he forgot about the inclusive emotion, and the heart and soul of a building, regardless of its exclusive grandeur.

Tony Giannone
SA Chapter President
Director, Tectvs

From the SA Executive Director 1905113

I’m not sure if this is the case for everyone, but I find that things often occur in clusters. For example, the SA Chapter has recently had a series of enquiries from clients wanting to know what level of service their architect should provide. In response we have discussed how services vary, the reason why there is no indicative fee scale, overarching copyright principles in relation to design and what distinguishes an architect from a building designer. These are all important conversations.

We also ask about what type of agreement they have with their architect. It doesn’t matter what form it takes, but having a written agreement is a requirement of the Architect’s Code of Conduct (Clause 4.4) and is essential for establishing a clear understanding regarding what services an architect will – and will not – provide and the fees for those services.

These details are important at all scales of practice. This is demonstrated in the findings of the Lacrosse Building case, where three of the consultants on the project were held responsible largely due to inadequate definition of what services were included and, more importantly, what services they would not provide. These consultants’ contract did not exclude services relating to monitoring compliance of construction that they could not reasonably be expected to inspect. The architect’s argument that they had acted within commonly expected parameters for a design construct project and that this type of service was excluded in the specification was not accepted by the court.

So, what can we take from these experiences?

· Always have a written agreement with your client. This can be a proforma Client Architect Agreement, a contract or a letter. If the agreement is one prepared by a third party always get it reviewed by your insurer and a lawyer prior to signing.

· Make sure that you are clear who your client is at each stage of a project and that the agreement is suitable for this procurement model.

· Don’t rely on standard construction industry practice – because it’s often not standard. Architects operate in a complex and varied context. Be clear about what you will and won’t do and definitions of technical language where interpretation may be possible. For example, the level of documentation provided at building rules consent varies between architects, so make sure the extent of documentation that you are going to provide is defined.

· Be specific about what happens if things go wrong. Be clear about what the dispute resolution procedure is. In the event of the contract being terminated specify what documentation you will provide, any additional costs for active files and how this will affect attribution for the project.

The Institute has recently re-released the Client Architect Agreement to support architects in this important area of their practice. These are now available in a long and short form as editable, digital documents and are free to members. Even if you have developed your own in-house agreement, we recommend that you review these documents to assist you in having a clear and effective relationship with your client.

Nicolette Di Lernia
SA Chapter Executive Director

From the SA Chapter President 29/4/2019

29 April 2019

Following on from our last E-news the upcoming Festival of Architecture and Design / FAD 2019 in July is exploring the theme of ‘IDEAS OF HOME’. It will consider issues including patterns of living, evolving housing typologies, future directions and importantly, what it means to call Adelaide HOME.

Underlying this is the focus on Adelaide, South Australia, OUR unique City Plan, climate, geography, social structure and culture, it is where WE live and call HOME.

As Nicolette points out, housing is always at the forefront of public, political, planning, policy and architectural debate; be it social, affordable, urban / suburban, brownfield / greenfield or simply “not in my back yard”. It is also predominately the single element that determines, defines and influences the make up and character of OUR City. More importantly, it encapsulates our choice and aspirations of lifestyle that we value and protect.

To put all of this in perspective, having worked on the first Common Ground Project in Adelaide and the redevelopment of the St Vincent de Paul Shelter, for those less fortunate it offers refuge, shelter and should foster inclusiveness and transition during difficult times. Unfortunately, it also offers another social derivative, the “not in my street” mentality.

At the sake of being too retrospective The South Australian Housing Trust during the 1970’s – 80’s led the nation in addressing the social impact of affordable and social housing in this State. It allowed housing to be dispersed across central Adelaide and suburbs without distinguishing social demographic. The work of Newell Platten as the Principal Architect and Planner and the academic research and socially inclusive philosophy of Hugh Stretton as the Deputy Chairman was exemplar in defining well designed, environmentally sustainable, socially responsive and economic housing that still stands the test of time today, and at the time copied by the other States.

FAD 2019 also informs an appropriate backdrop to convene a public inclusive conversation and an appropriate time to prod, debate, review and question policies. It should stimulate local thought about what we value, what we develop and what we should protect about calling Adelaide HOME…….

….. in my conversations with my overseas friend who wants to relocate to Adelaide, I tell him about the new Adelaide, continuously ranked as one of the most livable cities in the world. I tell him we are moving the City forward to meet expectations… our city is to densify, build higher, live in apartments to revitalise the City.… why do you want to copy the mistakes of the Cities I have tried to escape, he questions…….. that is exactly why I want to return to Adelaide : to escape the high-rise, where the sky is blue, the air is pure, the birds chirp, the travel is easy…..

Nothing new I suppose, but it poses the questions that our 30 Year Plan (and upgrade) has tried to address in regard to diversity of housing typologies. We like our burbs, our sheds, we like to drive cars, are we able to formulate an innovative, sustainable approach to this model rather than borrow from overseas in converting to high rise?

We agree that it is not sustainable to continue the urban sprawl, but could we not argue that a more ‘metropolitan’ and mainstreet burb model may be more sustainable in our State if a more innovative infrastructure and environmental model was developed that allows us space (albeit reduced) to live in what has been the urban backbone of lifestyle in this country – the backyard – not the balcony.

The reality is we have a population of approx. 1.38 million, growing by under 1%, and one of the emerging oldest populations by numbers in this State. Are our Development Plan Policies perhaps fragmenting the City and suburban form in respect to the landscape and amenity by a vision that says we will grow by 560,000 (since revised to 545,000 by 2045) in 30 years?

…..How can we grow 560,000 in thirty years…? he asks, statistics show that our current rate is 0.8%…. in 1963 it was 1 million, when I left in 2010 our population was 1.28 million, you’re now in 2019 at 1.38 million….?…..

…..Why do we have to go to high rise living…. why can’t we start at 3 & 4 levels and maybe 5, I reckon we could infill that projected population of Inner and Greater Adelaide…… over thirty years in that height…..why do they want to go higher, he asks… you don’t understand I say, they saw this interstate and overseas… so did I, he says, that’s why I want to come home…… why do you want to throw all of this away he asks…. why do you want to be like the rest of the world and live up in the air….? You tried that, he says, in the 1960’s, inserted the three storey cream bricker flats into the leafy burbs, copied social housing towers from other countries, why are you going there again…….?

I am continually amazed at how we sometimes fail to see the fine grain of our City. When we learn that the sum of many small ventures with a sense of ownership by our own, will do more than the single imported large vision craved by some, in a City with a population of only some 1.4 million, then just maybe we may start to reassess our approach to Development Policies.

We may live in a multicultural country but we do not live in a multicultural terrain; this is Adelaide, South Australia.

Once we understand that we don’t need to be like everybody else we may understand that local knowledge is more valuable than any other imported idea that we bring to the table.

Without question we can and must, learn from other parts of the world, in fact, it is the essential ingredient of a knowledge based system, it is part of learning, educating, researching and innovation, but we need to understand, relate and apply that research to ourselves and the local context.

There is nothing wrong with being parochial, we don’t have to aspire to making a point of referencing other states or countries ideas to copy them here, in the majority of cases, they don’t translate very well; different lifestyles, different cultures, different climates – you can’t impose romantic notions of what we are not on people.

….. I read about your Transit Corridors and TOD’s the other day…… What is a TOD he says……. It is a Transit Orientated Development I say…. does that mean it is somewhere where I can walk down the street and catch a bus… I say, yeah, you got it… so why don’t the buses run very often, he says, I say because we cant afford them to run that often and the people like to get in their cars….. well, why do we need TODS…… I like to go in my car, pick up the kids, get my groceries…….. I remember the MFP he says – it turned into Mawson Lakes…

I tell him that we’ve been on study tours to London, Europe, and the USA… We had a Thinker in Residence who said that was the way to go….. they think that we should learn from these ideas…… but he asks…. why do they need to go there, should they not understand their own City first……… why do you need other people to inform you of your livability in your City…. don’t you have your own thinkers in residence……… what do they see….. that you don’t…?

One of the most sensible housing studies over the last few years has been the Missing Middle Ground study instigated in this State as part of the revised, updated 30 Year Plan, to inform densification policies at a sensible urban scale, form and height which contributes to a sustainable model that gives us choice and diversity in housing types.

…. I drove along the main roads (now urban corridors) and into the burbs to see the folks the other day….. where are the trees, where are the spaces for visitors…I saw fragmented and dispersed 3 – 4 level townhouses and apartments overlooking my inheritance, the bedrooms are two metres from the main road, where do the children play…..?

… It will be ok… we will soon have design guidelines and codes that prohibits that………. They will probably say that a 3 bedroom apartment should have a 15 square metre balcony……. how did they get to that figure – research?… I said…… You can go to the park across the road if you need more…… but this is Adelaide, the driest city on the driest continent and we have a desalination plant, we often have water restrictions and the park is barren……. and it’s not safe… not a problem I say, we have passive surveillance from the apartment balconies…. I haven’t seen anyone on the balconies yet….

In fairness, much of the above is a satirical take on our protective aspirations and is being addressed by Planning Reform…. but let’s keep the conversation going from the ground level urban realm and the interactive frontage of the street, lets forget about heights for a while – lets plant some trees, discuss biophilic overlay policies that protect us (and the birds) from climate change and get our neighborhoods active again.

Let’s talk plain – no mumbo TODS, something that the public understands before we build on their boundaries. Let’s talk about what OUR home and city should look like, what we need to preserve and frame policy against reality, local research and the aspirations of our people, and ask the question would I live in / here myself…?

….. where do you live, he asks…. in a two level house with a backyard, a shed, two cars ……then you’re a hypocrite, you agree with me, but you still design these high rise apartments but you won’t go and live in one…. hey, I have grandkids you know …it’s not safe on the balconies and my kids won’t come to visit me because they can’t get a carpark….. plus I don’t make the policies, I only design to them….

I don’t know if I want to move here anymore………he says.

I’m going to leave all of this here before I get into too much trouble, please join the conversation at FAD this year.

Tony Giannone
SA Chapter President

Day 5 – Vitra Campus

April 5, 2019

Weil am Rhein, Germany

–

To my surprise Basel is located in a really unique corner of the Switzerland border. Maybe I should have looked closer at a map before I arrived but it led to the nice surprise that France or Germany is only a short walk away from the city. That worked out perfectly for my Friday plans of a quick bus trip to Vitra Campus; the production site for renowned Vitra furniture company in Germany.

It was a day of starchitect immersion. The campus boasts a handful of buildings, some public and some industrial, by Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Tadao Ando, SANAA, Herzog de Meuron, and even Buckminster Fuller.

As I eaves-dropped on a guided tour of Zaha Hadid’s first built work, I discovered that the private fire station was staffed not by local emergency workers but instead the factory labourers. Cool fact? I thought so!

So hey, check it out. Eaves drop on a tour yourself. Or join one for the full experience. It’s a great place to spend the day, and if you’re feeling up for it, watch your very own Eames Lounge Chair made to order.

Day 4 – Herzog & de Meuron

April 4, 2019

Basel, Switzerland

Michael Bekker | Associate

Steffen Riegas | Head of Digital Technologies

–

I’m in Basel! Home of renowned architectural practice Herzog & de Meuron, and city to their wide-spread implementation of cross-typological architecture. With the help of my legendary JHMTF mentor (and inaugural recipient) Anthony Balsamo, I’ve arranged a meeting with two of HdM’s leading team members to discuss the company’s process to architectural design and delivery.

We covered many interesting topics, such as the company structure – which houses 400+ employees across continents – and how technology is fostering an international approach to good design. Collaborating across offices can prove challenging, and controlling design iterations and changes has really yet to be solved within architectural practice. Herzog de Meuron’s digital technologies team, whilst not software engineers, have picked up and capitalised on platforms from software engineering disciplines during the pursuit of custom-coded tools that aid their process. Platforms like Git. The challenge is that Git is great for text-based change-registers, but more difficult for drawings and 3D modelling edits, so the ability to collaborate seamlessly is still being investigated, tested, and tried.

What the digital technologies team is able to tap in to with these platforms are the interfaces between computational design and fabrication. A 15-minute drive from the main headquarters to the concrete bunker facility KABINETT showcases this in action.

The workshop houses HdM’s own 5-axis milling machine- a robotic arm except without hands it has a circular saw blade. HdM’s interrogation of this machine’s capabilities are proving how exploration into the output-end of design can cater to the designers process and ability to rapidly prototype building components. Whether it be the exploration of custom joinery, furniture, and timber connection detailing, the in-house fabrication facility operates as a collaborative-confidence-building mechanism. It takes the conceptual and tests its constructive feasibility, de-complexifying the difficulties of untried and untested drawings the subcontractor/fabricator would normally be faced with.

With that said, the HdM integration of these advances in digital manufacturing is not to merely move away from local trades and subcontractors. Just as the computational tools aid the designers’ iterative process, so do the digital fabricator tools enhance the abilities and execution of the craftmen’s work.

For the team at Herzog de Meuron it is all about identifying when the application of the digital is required in order to benefit the process of architectural creation. The accuracy and capability of physical models produced via machine production – whether that be 3D printer or CNC mill – doesn’t mean it is the appropriate approach. Likewise the deployment of computational and parametric-modelling varies to which stage it plugs in to a project’s needs.

The hand crafted physical model is still key to the process, as a method of learning, discovering challenges, and solving physical limitations of material properties. I was privileged to see this first hand with a tour of level one of the two stories of Herzog de Meuron’s catalogue – an internal archive of iterative process models each depicting the evolution of the practice’s most profound architectural statements – Tokyo Prada, Tate Modern, Beijing Birds Nest to name a few. It is compared to the line-drawn by hand versus the straight line drawn by a computer. The line by hand raises questions: is it slightly curved, is it straight – which in turn open possibilities for accidental discovery and intentional optimising of design decisions.

This approach aligns quite well with a quote I scrolled past on Instagram today, and I think I’ll close with it as a reminder to where we’ve come from and what is still to be learnt from traditional methods of design:

“When you are stuck, walk away from the computer and draw. It will teach you how to see.”
– Gerard Huerta