Category: NSW Chapter President

NSW President says our construction industry needs nothing short of a revolution

20 July 2019

Kathlyn Loseby

The magnitude of the crisis currently facing Australia’s construction industry demands nothing short of a revolution, turning current building practice on its head to put quality and safety back on top where they belong.

As an architect with three decades’ experience working on all manner and complexity of projects in Australia, Europe, the Middle East and Asia, I can’t overstate how serious and urgent the situation has become. It is a worldwide issue with construction failures such as the ‘leaky condo’ crises in Canada in the 90s, the ‘wet building syndrome’ in New Zealand in the 90s – early 2000, the Latvian supermarket roof collapse in 2013, and Grenfell fire in the UK in 2017. We are not alone in our concerns.

The issues are systemic and reach right around this wide brown land of ours. However, the issues have managed to unite industry, and now hopefully governments, on the need for reform and a consistent national approach to fix the mess.

This week’s agreement by the nation’s building ministers is a welcome step towards implementing solutions that can both address the legacy of defective buildings and prevent history from repeating as we move forward.

It is good news for consumers and has also created a sense of cautious optimism among building professionals.

But this national approach, encouraging as it is, doesn’t mean anyone is off the hook. There is an enormous amount of urgent work yet to be done, starting with the rectification of buildings that have already been identified as posing a risk from flammable cladding and other defects. Victoria has stepped up to the plate with a package enabling this work to
commence. We call on NSW and every other state and territory to follow suit. The sooner the better.

The Commonwealth must also play its part, together with industry. The safety of our built environment is a collective responsibility that needs collective action. At the Institute of Architects we are actively engaging with all stakeholders from developers, designers, engineers and builders through to strata owner consumers to foster an holistic approach focussed on finding effective, lasting solutions.

These solutions must address the root cause of the problem, namely a culture and practice that has put time and cost (or greed and speed to put it bluntly) above quality. That equation has seen quality lose out, jeopardising both people’s safety and their economic security. It’s an equation that must now be reversed.

At the same time, continuous, truly independent oversight by a properly registered and qualified professional must be reintroduced; this is the only way quality will be maintained.

People’s homes are, in most cases, their greatest asset. They are also a sanctuary, the secure base from which we live our lives. They must be protected. Stronger regulation and greater compliance are essential but on their own they are not enough, especially for complex projects. The only way to achieve the level of lasting change required is to embed quality into the construction process from start to finish and at all points in between.

This is at the heart of the Australian Institute of Architects’ concerns with the reform proposals put forward by the NSW Government. While the Building Stronger Foundations discussion paper, for which submissions are due next week, includes many meritorious measures, it also has some glaring gaps.

We, together with much of industry, wholeheartedly support the creation of a Building Commissioner, the introduction of a new building practitioners registration scheme and legislating a duty of care to building owners.

What’s missing, though, is the mechanism to ensure that as buildings are being constructed corners aren’t being cut, the specified and approved materials aren’t being substituted out for inferior products and that the best interests of the owners (current and future) are being served.

As part of a profession whose members have been regulated for almost a century now, I can attest both to the importance of registration but also to the fact that, in isolation, it’s no silver bullet. That’s why the February 2018 Shergold-Weir Building Confidence report put forward a suite of 24 recommendations, including the penultimate one that said they were to be treated as ‘a coherent package’. The authors stipulated a three-year timeframe for implementation. The clock is ticking.

While there have been many contributing factors to the current crisis, a significant part of the problem has been the rise of a method of procuring building services called the design and construct (D&C) contract. Essentially, D&C contracts see the developer hand over decision-making powers to the builder. Whereas previously other building professionals, such as architects, would have maintained a direct relationship with the developer, today that is no longer the case.

The consequences are that it is much harder to override, challenge or even effectively communicate concerns about decisions that can have an adverse impact on quality. And quality is what it all comes down to. Because without it the government and industry will never win back the public confidence that has been shaken and cracked just as surely as the physical structures.

This op-ed was published in the Sydney Morning Herald Sat 20 July 2019

From the National President

Helen Lochhead

Change is in the air. At the very least, the urgent need for change is at the front and centre of many of the conversations taking place within the profession and more broadly in public discourse, where the public interest is back in focus

These conversations are not unique to Australia. They are happening all over the world in established and developing economies along with deliberative action ranging from the small to city-changing. While these conversations are vital for progressing and challenging our understanding of the world we live in, they also highlight the disconnect between our aspirations and our actions – as a profession and as individuals.

At both the American Institute of Architects’ Convention in May and last month at our own National Conference, Collective Agency, there was an overwhelming focus on highly altruistic aspirations. Having articulated this, we now need to make conscious and collective choices to bridge the gap between our ambitions the profession can, and should make, and the actions we take to realise them.

Collective Agency co-curator Monique Woodward aptly welcomed delegates by saying ‘This is not a call to action, it is a response to a call that hasn’t been answered’.

Now is the time for us as architects, to take greater responsibility for our roles in creating the world we want to live in, for stepping up and being the leaders we say we are. For me, this is what these conferences were really about. Not about just talking idealistically of an environmentally, socially, culturally and economically just world, they challenge each of us to look to ourselves to make a meaningful difference in the here and now.

To do this we need to face our current reality and understand the complexities of the systems in which we work and the different perspectives of our collaborators and peers. While we could all picture working in a world with perfect procurement and construction processes, we need to be more cognisant of the, at times, harsh reality of our political and economic frameworks as well as the opportunities we have to press for their reform.

Building safety is a prime example. We have fronted up to the challenge of convincing governments that change is not only imperative but urgent. We are championing safety and quality, putting forward practical solutions to better protect the community that focus on regulatory reform and compliance. At the same time, we are also supporting our members to be better informed, with everything from practice advice to CPD. Other important actions to underpin this include research into risk allocation, procurement and novated contracts and the development of procurement guidelines. Our direct advocacy is being complemented by media commentary to keep up the pressure for change.

As conference keynote speaker Lesley Lokko said: ‘Change is possible, it is happening right here right now’. To affirm ourselves as leaders we must now walk the talk. We as individual members of the profession need to act, so let’s work collectively as agents of change. As we head into our workplaces we have a choice – do we maintain BAU or do we make change in what we do on a daily basis.

With so many participants in the built environment we may not dictate the conversation, but we need to start by advocating for what is fair, equitable and responsible, to achieve the best outcomes for the built environment and the communities we serve. There is no simple solution to fix the planet or our industry but, as architects we need to continue to earn respect, with not only our own priorities, but also higher order priorities, in order to grow our influence. Advocating for, and delivering a carbon positive, culturally inclusive, built environment should be as core a priority, as building industry reform.

Buildings and construction play a big part in our energy and resource consumption, environmental depletion and waste, accounting for nearly 40% of Greenhouse Gas (CO2) emissions.  We as architects can do something about this. Together with our clients, we can commission and design buildings, cities and infrastructure that resets the paradigm. We can strengthen our work practices to create architecture and urbanism that has a more positive impact on the world around us. And the Institute can play a role too, providing principles for all the profession to follow, to show our leadership and commitment to a high quality, more regenerative and sustainable built environment. 

We need to commit to upholding best-practice through engaged CPD, not just because it’s mandated but because as a profession we know an informed profession is not only more valued, but ahead of the curve. The Institute is working on developing consistent CPD programs for all our members, nationally and internationally. It shouldn’t matter where you are located, you will be able to access high-quality CPD programs to suit your needs.

Acknowledging our Indigenous communities in the work we do is long overdue and was another welcome theme from Collective Agency. At our last National Council meeting just prior to the conference, we unanimously voted for a national Reconciliation Action Plan. The RAP program provides a framework for practices to support the national reconciliation movement.

As the voice of the profession, we are committed to helping create a country in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians participate in opportunities and expectancies afforded to all Australians. We are working to help arrive at a day when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, histories and connection to Country are reflected in the built environment of all our cities, regions and towns. We add our efforts to an inclusive process of reconciliation for all Australians with positive benefits for everyone. We support the maintenance, respect, celebration and growth of one of the world’s oldest, richest, and most distinctive Indigenous cultures.

Finally, I would like to congratulate all the winners of the Chapter Architecture Awards. I know the National Jury have a challenging, yet exciting job ahead as they review all the winning projects. The Awards program provides an affirming moment of the work being done around the country. Exemplars that we should all aspire to, be they small projects, examples of ambitious regional and urban regeneration and everything in between. Architecture at all scales can have a positive impact on people and places. Collectively we can make a powerful difference when we put words into action. 

Helen Lochhead
National President

After Opal Tower | NSW President asks: ‘Where is the Quality?’

Where is the Quality?  

Kathlyn Loseby NSW Chapter President, Australian Institute of Architects

The Opal Tower debacle is just the latest headline case of the construction process letting down our community. Why is this happening?

The failure of the construction process didn’t occur overnight. It has developed over a period of time and for various reasons. But it all starts with inappropriate building contracts and a lack of separation and independent assessment by properly regulated and trained professionals. It has been a train wreck waiting to happen, and there have been plenty of warning signs over time. Reports such as the Lambert Building Professionals Act Review (2015) and the Shergold Weir report (2018) are but the tip of the iceberg.

Given this the Australian Institute of Architects (the Institute) has congratulated the government on moves to implement the majority of recommendations ensuing from the Shergold-Weir report – recommendations we called on government to adopt – and we welcome the recommendatons of the NSW government’s independent Opal Tower report released today. Namely, we strongly support the creation of a government-registered engineers database, independent third-party checks of critical design elements throughout high-rise construction, and the creation of a new Building Structure Review Board to establish and publish the facts relating to major structural damage of buildings arising from structural design and construction, to investigate their causes and to recommend regulatory changes as needed.

Practitioner regulation is key to Quality

The Institute has repeatedly lobbied government, released media statements, and joined with allied groups in a bid to effect changes needed to address construction process issues, including imposing tighter regulation of building practitioners that bring them closer into line with the standards applicable to architects.

Architects spend five years at university training to improve our built environment for the whole community – for the person who will live in the house, work in the office, play sport in the hall, sit on the steps of the the town hall, walk their dog through the courtyard. We all use buildings and the spaces in between. We all need to feel safe and secure and receive value for money spent.

To become registered, an architect must complete further training and examination, and then undertake continuing professional development to maintain that status. The last thing architects want to see is the built environment we have trained hard to improve instead become diminished and ineffective. But the quality of outcomes that should result from our profession’s highly developed skill base has been undermined by a lack of regulation for other building practitioners.

The quality of constructed – as distinct from designed – outcomes has also been compromised by a culture hell bent on prioritising profit at quality’s expense.

How does that happen?

Procurement must begin prioritising Quality

Procurement predominantly involves a hierarchy of three crucial concerns: Time, Cost, and Quality. If time and cost predicate the majority of decisions, the scales will dip to their weight. Inevitably quality suffers.

For most major construction projects the design architect is lucky to get to document to 70% (60% or even 50% in some cases) before it goes to tender and the builder takes on all the risk. Only the design outline is certified by the architect and sub-contractors employed by the builder then self-certify their own work – or risk not getting paid.

An overwhelming emphasis on speed and minimising cost has driven this process.

Neither a one size fits all procurement approach or a simple ‘return to the old’ is the answer to this major issue, which impacts the entire community. We must put our collective brains together and devise a better process than we have now.

Yes, increasing quality will increase the construction costs and time. But throwing people out of an unsafe building costs substantially more and takes longer to fix – as will stakeholders’ confidence. What is the emotional cost to the residents and others directly impacted?  What is the financial cost to the financiers, to the original developer, the builder, the strata owners, and to the insurers?

Quality must become the top priority. We want a built environment where you can walk your children down the street, stop in a café for an ice cream, shop for your groceries, grab a book from the library, and return home all the while feeling safe and secure.

 

Kathlyn Loseby appointed NSW Chapter President of the Australian Institute of Architects

At the conclusion of his two-year term, Andrew Nimmo, partner at lahznimmo, has handed the NSW chapter presidency of the Australian Institute of Architects (the Institute) to the unanimously supported NSW council member Kathlyn Loseby.

Ms Loseby graduated from the University of Sydney with an honours degree in architecture and has worked in the UK and Sydney for a number of leading architectural firms. With an MBA(Exec) from the AGSM and a Graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, she is now the chief operating officer of Crone Architects, a major national firm.

Mr Nimmo congratulated Ms Loseby on taking the role. ‘Kathlyn has made a tremendous contribution to the Institute as a councillor, convening the large practices forum and serving on the awards and honours committee.

‘We have worked together very successfully on the chapter council and I look forward to Kathlyn’s seasoned leadership, her insight and the energy and determination she will bring to realising her vision for our members and the profession. I also want to thank Crone Architects for supporting Kathlyn in this voluntary role.’

Ms Loseby has worked on a number of major projects, including:

  • AI Faisaliah Complex – Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  • Daewoo  Headquarters – Seoul, Korea
  • Conrad Hilton Hotel – Cairo, Egypt
  • KLCC Apartment Towers – Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • British International Junior and Senior School – Tian Jin, China
  • Sydney West Letter Facility
  • Independent Living Wahroonga
  • RPA Hospital extension exterior wall
  • Yuhu One Circular Quay

She brings this deep professional experience to her role as leader and public face of the architectural profession in NSW.

Ms Loseby outlined three key objectives that her presidency will prioritise.

‘The first is procurement.  Repeatedly we see the emphasis on procurement practices that favour reduced time and cost at the expense of quality. The outcome being increased cost for maintenance, financiers, the insurance industry and ultimately the whole community. I would like to see the skill and expertise of the architectural profession at the forefront of improving the quality outcomes in this situation.

‘Secondly, we need to focus on advocacy.  Going forward, the Institute will continue Andrew’s important work with government and commercial organisations to improve their efficient engagement of architects as advisors, designers and administrators. We will strive to raise recognition of the breadth and depth of value that architects can bring clients and the community through good design in the places they live, work and relax.

‘Our third objective is equality. As president, I will also be leading the Institute in forging pathways to a rewarding and supported return to practice for architects who have taken a break, typically to start or raise a family. We want to ensure everyone has the opportunity to thrive and grow within the profession. As a special advisor to the NSW Champions of Change for Crone in 2018, I am especially proud of how this initiative has developed positive policy resources available for all architectural practices to utilise, in particular the Flexible Work Policy.’

On behalf of all NSW members and Institute staff, Ms Loseby thanked Mr Nimmo for his dedication and leadership over the past two years.

‘During his term Andrew has spearheaded a number of important advocacy campaigns around issues including the misuse of the Opera House sails for advertising and unfair procurement practices.

‘Andrew has also made an invaluable contribution to establishing a more robust and effective governance structure within the chapter while strengthening the voice of the profession among government and industry.’

Ms Loseby takes up her term of office Tuesday 4 February.

Download full size image

Follow Kathlyn Loseby on Twitter at https://twitter.com/NSWChapterPres

For media enquiries and interviews contact:

Kate Concannon
Advocacy & Communications, NSW
d: + 61 (2) 9246 4017
e: kate.concannon@architecture.com.au

From the NSW Chapter President

NSW Chapter President, Andrew Nimmo
26 November 2018

Procurement

One of the constant complaints that we receive from members is the onerous and unfair nature of the public procurement of architectural services. From poorly written briefs, to proxy competitions, to excessive deliverables; there are a range of recurring problems and the anecdotal evidence is that they are getting worse. Consequently, we are investigating these issues and pursuing action to help establish firm, fair and reasonable commercial conditions for the profession.

Some of the typical problems we hear about are these:

  • Tenders and EOI requiring design concepts without formalizing a recognized competition process, and for no fee;
  • Proponents seeking to recover tender costs by charging a fee to access the tender documents;
  • Discrepancies between proponents’ and architects’ understanding of key terms (eg design concept), leading to discrepancies in deliverables expectations
  • Inadequate or no budget guidance
  • No protection of participants’ Intellectual Property
  • Limited information regarding assessment criteria or the weighting of criteria
  • Excessive deliverables requested for open EOI or Tenders
  • Uninsurable contract conditions
  • Poorly written and/or vague project briefs
  • Risk shifting rather than risk reduction
  • Excessive list of sub-consultants to be briefed and engaged, including those traditionally engaged by the client
  • Conditions of engagement not suitable to consultant engagement, often poorly adapted from construction contracts
  • … and there are many more.

The Chapter has been proactive in these matters, last year establishing a NSW Procurement Taskforce. This now is joined by a national taskforce. Together, these groups of members are gathering data and considering the issues raised.

At the National level, a Procurement Policy is being formulated which will provide best practice guidelines for EOI and RFTs. Once completed, we will disseminate this policy to our membership so that you understand the Institute’s position, and will be equipped to carefully assess whether a particular procurement process is fair and reasonable.

In NSW our aim is to educate local councils about what fair procurement looks like, how it will bring better outcomes and why it is in our mutual interest. In this respect we will work with the GANSW, who we believe share our desire to encourage government agencies to be better clients. We also plan to begin a process of informing members about specific tenders and competitions that do not conform to our policies via a ‘Procurement Alert’. And of course, we want to recognise and promote clients who do procurement well.

However for all this to have impact, we also need members to use their voice. Let clients know when you think their procurement practices are unfair, and explain why, with the backing of the Institute’s written policy. Sometimes to choose to not participate in unfair, unreasonable tenders will be money well saved.


New Executive Director, NSW

We have a new Chapter Executive Director: David Green.

David comes from a senior executive role in the NSW Public Service with responsibility for funding and performance of disability NGOs. His main area of focus was accommodation services and in that role acted as project and program director for a number of large facility projects. He brings significant stakeholder management experience bolstered by previous public service roles in construction contracting, contract dispute management and procurement.

Prior to his work in the public service he had extensive architectural and project management experience, having worked as an architect in both private and public sectors and in firms from medium sized to multi-national. He also has worked in marketing.

I’m sure you will get to know David over the coming months and with me welcome him to the Institute.

David takes the place of Joshua Morrin, who after nearly four years with the Institute is returning to architectural practice with ARM Architecture in their new Sydney office. Joshua has been in the role since the end of 2016 and his time as the ED has mirrored my own as NSW President. During this time Joshua and I have had an extremely close and productive working relationship and I have appreciated his professionalism and commitment to the role. In addition to his time in NSW, Joshua has also managed both the Northern Territory and International Chapters, been acting Project Manager for the Institute’s pavilion at the 2016 Venice Biennale, and Tour Leader of this year’s Dulux Study Tour. We take this opportunity to wish him well and look forward to seeing more of him on this side of the profession.

 

From the NSW Chapter President

NSW Chapter President, Andrew Nimmo
5 February 2018

Welcome back to the year. I trust that like myself you are finding that with February’s arrival the year is now in full swing. With this in mind this message is brief, but I would like to encourage your attention in three areas: participate, reset and enter.
 
1. Participate. Now is the time to work out how you can participate in your profession through the range of opportunities that are available. In particular these include putting your name forward for consideration in either the Government Architect’s State Design Review Panels (open until 9 February), or on one of the Chapter’s advisory committees (open until 16 February). There are many ways to either contribute or expand your expertise. This profession will only be as strong as those who are involved in these key representative areas.
 
On this note I would like to also welcome our newly elected Chapter Councillors, including Kathlyn Loseby (re-elected), Elizabeth Carpenter, Liz Westgarth, Gemma Savio and David Tickle. As a Chapter Council we now have for the first time a majority of elected female representatives – a good sign for a healthy profession.
 
2. Reset. As we all reset for the year, it is important not forget to renew your membership and keep an eye on the program of activities available. There are some great offerings coming up that will support your professional development, as well as keep you part of our vibrant architectural community in NSW.
 
3. Enter. Entries for the 2018 NSW Architecture Awards close on 2 March. Don’t miss out.
 
Best wishes for the year ahead, and as always, don’t hesitate to get in touch with either myself or the Chapter.

From the NSW Chapter President

NSW Chapter President, Andrew Nimmo
18 December 2017

Advocacy: Sydney Modern and the Greater Sydney Commission

Last week we made public submissions on two key projects in NSW. The first was in relation to the DA Submission for the Sydney Modern. I am sure you will all agree with me in saying that we hope for an exceptional building. In our submission we once again committed our support for the process which led to the appointment of the design team. You can read our submission here.

We have also been reviewing the work of the Greater Sydney Commission, who in October released the Draft Greater Sydney Region Plan and Draft District Plans for comment. These are weighty documents which chart a promising future for Our Greater Sydney – if we deliver them. In our joint submission with AILA, we made a number of recommendations, which you can read here.

My thanks to the Built Environment Committee and the staff for their work in pulling these submissions together. Advocacy is a key plank of the new strategic direction for the Institute, and we need the contributions of both members and staff if we are to succeed in our objective.

Awards 2018

The awards season is upon us again. The Awards committee recently reviewed the EOIs received from members and I believe that we have assembled an excellent cross section of jurors with the skills and qualifications to fulfil this important role of peer review. It is worth remembering that the Australian Institute of Architects Awards continue to be the benchmark awards procedure in Australia. The calendar is crowded with a range of architecture, urban design and interior design awards programs – but not all are equal. The Institute’s Awards format remains the benchmark because it represents the most rigorous program of them all. It is one of the few programs where every project that receives an award has been physically inspected by the jury. We all know that beautiful photographs, graphics and a polished presentation can convince many that a project is worthy. But architectural space and its cultural contribution can only ever be truly appreciated and evaluated when it is actually visited. Good luck with your entries, and if you win an award, or are even shortlisted, then you should be proud of your achievement and tell everyone about it.

NSW State Design Review Panels

I would like as many members as possible to apply to become members of the pilot NSW State Design Review Panels (SDRP). Following on from the launch of the state policy document ‘Better Placed’, and the inclusion of ‘Good Design’ as an object within the amended EP&A Act – this is our chance to help design excellence to become a central consideration in the planning process in NSW. The SDRP will comprise 25 independent members who will be called upon to form panels with expertise in different types of development, and I have no doubt our members can provide the diversity of experience and professional insight required. A briefing for prospective applicants will be held at Tusculum on Thursday morning, with a video of the event also available shortly afterwards via the GANSW website.

From the NSW Chapter President

NSW Chapter President, Andrew Nimmo
25 September 2017

Last week I chaired a Tuesdays at Tusculum session – The Green Bans – 40 years on: where does the profession stand today?

The speakers were:

  • Jim Colman (architect, planner and author of The House That Jack Built – Jack Mundey: Green Bans Hero);
  • Sharon Veale (Partner and Chief Executive, GML Heritage);
  • James Weirick (Professor of Landscape Architecture & Director, Urban Development & Design Program, University of New South Wales;
  • Jocelyn Jackson (Practice Director, TKD Architects and recipient of the 2017 Marion Mahony Griffin Award); and
  • Kurt Iveson (Associate Professor of Urban Geography, University of Sydney).

The answer to the question posed by the session depends on where you stand on the heritage – development spectrum.

There has been substantial progress on the regulatory front. Over 1,650 items are listed on the State Heritage Register and 20,000 at the local government level. The Heritage Act provides a process for managing changes to State items through the referral of development applications to the Heritage Council or its delegates; a similar process applies to local items through the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act.

But are we really that much better off keeping and protecting the things that really matter to us as a community? Do the professions help or hinder the process? James Weirick gave a passionate critique of professionally prepared heritage impact statements that smooth the path to the inevitable loss of our collective heritage instead of making bold statements to defend and protect heritage significance. Usually the interests of the development project win in the end, particularly if it is being promoted by the NSW Government.

In this column, I have previously berated the State Government for its signal to ‘the rest of the community, particularly the private sector, that heritage protection is of no value if it prevents the owner from reaping a financial windfall from the sale of the site’. This was my response to the then Heritage Minister’s refusal to consider the listing of the Sirius building on the State Heritage Register.

This criticism applies equally to the heavy-handed approvals process for State significant development and infrastructure. How did we lose a substantial proportion of the unique Federation estate of Haberfield to the WestConnex, an out of date 60s expressway that is being made up as the project ‘moves forward’? What does this say about our values as a society?

Jim Colman reminded us that the notion of the public interest is now so discredited that opposing parties in a dispute will claim it as their guiding principle while cheerfully converting the public domain into private space. But the public interest should be of supreme importance to us as we adjust to the pressures of an increasing population and higher density in the built environment.

Where should the Institute stand in this debate? Public advocacy is fundamental to our role as a professional organisation. The objective in our submissions is to address the process through which the proposal has been put forward, to advocate for good design and to strongly defend the public interest and the public domain. And whilst we must never unfairly criticise the work of our fellow members, it is reasonable at times to question the drivers and outcomes of specific projects. This requires sensitivity and respect for our fellow professionals, along with honest and transparent communication.

This was how we have approached major heritage and development issues during my term as President – Sirius, North Parramatta Urban Transformation, the proposed move of the Powerhouse Museum to Parramatta and the Metro Martin Place unsolicited proposal.

But what about more overt advocacy? Kurt Iveson assured us that, while the weakening of union power means that a Green Bans protest strategy is unlikely to return, it is still possible to create coalitions of interest groups around a particular issue. Social media also has an unrivalled capacity for quick responses from a diverse range of people sharing similar values. The brilliant crowdfunding campaign for the Sirius court case shows how that can work.

Sirius itself is a beacon, demonstrating through its continuing imperilled existence both the similarities and the differences between the 1970s and now. From its design and construction as custom-built housing for local residents who would otherwise have been thrown on to the streets, the building has become a celebration in physical form of the Green Bans campaigns and their beneficial impact on the physical fabric of the city.

Then this year the Sirius non-decision was the reason why the Land & Environment Court made its judgment that the Heritage Act had been misused by the government that administers it.

Forty years after the period of public activism that led to the Heritage Act and the construction of Sirius, they were intertwined in a symbolic confirmation of the Act and the public interest it defends. 

But symbols take us only so far. When State Treasurers become architectural and cultural critics, as Dominic Perrottet did in the Daily Telegraph following the court decision, you know that the struggle to save Sirius and our 20th century architectural legacy is far from over. The culture wars are alive and well in 2017.

For those of you who are too young to understand the significance of the Green Bans, I encourage you to read Jim Colman’s book, The House That Jack Built – Jack Mundey: Green Bans Hero.  It is an excellent primer on urban activism that actually made a difference.

The September 2016 march in support of Sirius.                                                                                       
Photo: Craig Hayman

 

Finally, I would like to confirm that the NSW Chapter Council have overwhemingly agreed to express their support for marriage equality. I leave you with the words of our very own GET:

“Equal opportunity is a core value of the Gender Equity Taskforce. Diversity enriches our lives, the profession and society at large. In solidarity with the LGBTQ community, vote yes and join us in building a more inclusive future.

GET:behind marriage equality”

… and get voting!

From the NSW Chapter President

NSW Chapter President, Andrew Nimmo
25 September 2017

Last week I chaired a Tuesdays at Tusculum session – The Green Bans – 40 years on: where does the profession stand today?

The speakers were:

  • Jim Colman (architect, planner and author of The House That Jack Built – Jack Mundey: Green Bans Hero);
  • Sharon Veale (Partner and Chief Executive, GML Heritage);
  • James Weirick (Professor of Landscape Architecture & Director, Urban Development & Design Program, University of New South Wales;
  • Jocelyn Jackson (Practice Director, TKD Architects and recipient of the 2017 Marion Mahony Griffin Award); and
  • Kurt Iveson (Associate Professor of Urban Geography, University of Sydney).

The answer to the question posed by the session depends on where you stand on the heritage – development spectrum.

There has been substantial progress on the regulatory front. Over 1,650 items are listed on the State Heritage Register and 20,000 at the local government level. The Heritage Act provides a process for managing changes to State items through the referral of development applications to the Heritage Council or its delegates; a similar process applies to local items through the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act.

But are we really that much better off keeping and protecting the things that really matter to us as a community? Do the professions help or hinder the process? James Weirick gave a passionate critique of professionally prepared heritage impact statements that smooth the path to the inevitable loss of our collective heritage instead of making bold statements to defend and protect heritage significance. Usually the interests of the development project win in the end, particularly if it is being promoted by the NSW Government.

In this column, I have previously berated the State Government for its signal to ‘the rest of the community, particularly the private sector, that heritage protection is of no value if it prevents the owner from reaping a financial windfall from the sale of the site’. This was my response to the then Heritage Minister’s refusal to consider the listing of the Sirius building on the State Heritage Register.

This criticism applies equally to the heavy-handed approvals process for State significant development and infrastructure. How did we lose a substantial proportion of the unique Federation estate of Haberfield to the WestConnex, an out of date 60s expressway that is being made up as the project ‘moves forward’? What does this say about our values as a society?

Jim Colman reminded us that the notion of the public interest is now so discredited that opposing parties in a dispute will claim it as their guiding principle while cheerfully converting the public domain into private space. But the public interest should be of supreme importance to us as we adjust to the pressures of an increasing population and higher density in the built environment.

Where should the Institute stand in this debate? Public advocacy is fundamental to our role as a professional organisation. The objective in our submissions is to address the process through which the proposal has been put forward, to advocate for good design and to strongly defend the public interest and the public domain. And we must never publicly criticise the work of our members, though at times we must question the drivers and outcomes for specific projects. This requires sensitivity and respect for our fellow professionals, along with honest and transparent communication.

This was how we have approached major heritage and development issues during my term as President – Sirius, North Parramatta Urban Transformation, the proposed move of the Powerhouse Museum to Parramatta and the Metro Martin Place unsolicited proposal.

But what about more overt advocacy? Kurt Iveson assured us that, while the weakening of union power means that a Green Bans protest strategy is unlikely to return, it is still possible to create coalitions of interest groups around a particular issue. Social media also has an unrivalled capacity for quick responses from a diverse range of people sharing similar values. The brilliant crowdfunding campaign for the Sirius court case shows how that can work.

Sirius itself is a beacon, demonstrating through its continuing imperilled existence both the similarities and the differences between the 1970s and now. From its design and construction as custom-built housing for local residents who would otherwise have been thrown on to the streets, the building has become a celebration in physical form of the Green Bans campaigns and their beneficial impact on the physical fabric of the city.

Then this year the Sirius non-decision was the reason why the Land & Environment Court made its judgment that the Heritage Act had been misused by the government that administers it.

Forty years after the period of public activism that led to the Heritage Act and the construction of Sirius, they were intertwined in a symbolic confirmation of the Act and the public interest it defends. 

But symbols take us only so far. When State Treasurers become architectural and cultural critics, as Dominic Perrottet did in the Daily Telegraph following the court decision, you know that the struggle to save Sirius and our 20th century architectural legacy is far from over. The culture wars are alive and well in 2017.

For those of you who are too young to understand the significance of the Green Bans, I encourage you to read Jim Colman’s book, The House That Jack Built – Jack Mundey: Green Bans Hero.  It is an excellent primer on urban activism that actually made a difference.

The September 2016 march in support of Sirius.                                                               Photo: Craig Hayman

From the NSW Chapter President

NSW Chapter President, Andrew Nimmo

July 2017

I’m sure you will join me in congratulating Shaun Carter (Immediate Past NSW Chapter President and Chairman of Save Our Sirius) and Millers Point Community Assoc. Incorporated on the successful legal action against the former Minister for Heritage over his failure to respond to the Heritage Council’s recommendation to list the Sirius building on the State Heritage Register.

This was the first time the Heritage Act has been the subject of an action in the Land & Environment Court. The judgment found that the Minister had failed to address the State heritage significance of the brutalist social housing building and that the loss of revenue to the NSW Government from the sale of its site was not a valid reason to refuse the listing.

It was a wonderful example of crowd funded community activism which the Australian Institute of Architects was proud to support.  It has raised the profile of architecture, architects and the Institute and that can only be good for our profession.

This decision is a testament to Shaun’s leadership of the strong campaign to save a major building, but the fight is not over yet. Sirius is still vulnerable because the government is determined to get rid of it.

Better Procurement – but how?
NSW procurement processes are in a parlous state. It’s a subject that features in just about every conversation I have with members, with a common litany of complaints:

  • requiring excessive amounts of information at EOI stage;
  • limiting the architect’s ability to negotiate by requiring acceptance of conditions of agreement at the time an EOI is submitted;
  • unloading unreasonable levels of uninsurable risk on to architects;
  • requiring the submission of design ideas without reimbursement and a formal competition process;
  • asking for lump sum tenders with insufficient information to define a scope of works; and
  • expecting architects to directly engage all sub-consultants.

The list goes on. There is something wrong with procurement in this state, particularly in the public sector. Despite a lot of hard work put in over recent years by the Chapter with Consult Australia and the Association of Consulting Architects, examples of poor procurement seem to be growing and getting worse.

Chapter Council has therefore agreed to set up a Procurement Taskforce to collate examples of poor procurement and engage directly with client bodies on what are the benefits of better procurement. The first Procurement Taskforce meeting was held last week and we intend to invite members in the near future to inform us about current and upcoming tenders or EOIs that are examples of poor procurement. Once we have gathered sufficient data, we will then be in a position to better articulate our grievances, supported by evidence.

Andrew Nimmo
NSW Chapter President