The SA Chapter is a busy place, with activities including advocacy, member services, public programs, awards and social events organised throughout the year.  Our capacity and ability to deliver programs, resources and activities for the profession is dependent on member engagement and staff resources and expertise.  The SA Chapter has a small but highly capable staff and it is with considerable regret that I announce that Gillian Redman Lloyd resigned so that she can focus on family, including newly arrived grandson Teddy!

Gillian has been the SA Awards Manager and Special Projects Officer for the past five years, having transferred from the NSW Chapter where she performed a similar role.  In addition to coordinating and delivering a highly organised and enjoyable awards program, Gillian was also responsible for programs including Architecture on Show and Design Conversations, both of which engage a professional and public audience through discussion of topical design issues.  The Festival of Architecture and Design (FAD) was also managed by Gillian, and she worked with the national office to coordinate the SA leg of the Gold Medal Tour.  All these activities require sttong organisational and people skills, excellent time and risk management, a level head and a great deal of patience.

Gillian demonstrated all these qualities which, along with a keen sense of humour and a no-nonsense approach, made her a great person to work with.  She will be greatly missed by the SA team and the members who worked with her.  We wish her all the best with her future projects, which we feel certain will encompass family and much else besides.

Until Gillian’s position is filled we will be operating with a staff of three.  Zaf, Vanessa and I will endeavour to keep things going, but inevitably there will need to be some adjustment in response to the change in our staffing.  We appreciate your understanding during this time.

For those of you who are not familiar with the SA Staff and their roles here’s a summary.

Zaf’s focus is student and graduate programs including:

• The student mentor program
• The SA Awards student projects
• Archi Ed – resources to support presentations by architects in schools
• Practice of Architecture Learning Series (PALs)

She also supports delivery of SONA and EmAGN events and participates in delivery of significant programs such as the SA Awards and FAD.  In addition to these projects Zaf is responsible for membership queries and services and the administrative management of the office

Vanessa is responsible for communications and advocacy.  She provides invaluable support for the SA Chapter committees and task groups and is instrumental in the preparation of responses to discussion papers and topical issues.  Vanessa’s involvement with committees also extends to coordination and delivery of allied events for these groups, including Designers for Diversity and Co-opertition.

Vanessa manages the SA Chapter media and communications including:

• SA Chapter E-news, What’s on and social media
• Media releases and promotion for significant programs and issues
• Management of media enquiries
• Editorial support for production of the Awards booklet
• Relationships with media organisations

Last but not least Vanessa manages the SA Chapter trusts and the associated activities that these trust were established to deliver.

My role as Executive Director is also multifaceted.  I have responsibility for management of the Chapter including staff, budget and program.  I work with Chapter Council to develop the strategic plan for South Australia and support the Chapter President and committees in delivery of their advocacy and member program objectives.  I also provide secretariat services for the Honours Committee and coordinate the Distinguished Member events.  I am the primary point of contact for queries and complaints and manage referrals to the Senior Counsellor Service.  In addition, I participate in national coordination and planning activities, liaise with national business units and am responsible for national reporting.

So, as you can see, we cover a lot of ground.  The SA Chapter is fortunate to have a team that is multiskilled, flexible and self-motivated.  Architecture is a diverse profession with many areas of interest and involvement.  We enjoy working with members to provide a well-rounded, supportive and interesting program that assists the profession and improves public understanding.  We look forward to bringing a new member into the team and introducing them to you.

Nicolette Di Lernia, SA Chapter Executive Director

15 October 2018

It’s getting increasingly hard to write an article in the South Australian Institute context that does not involve procurement or planning reform.

Worthy topics both, and time consuming for those of our members who have been involved in reviewing and representing for us.

However, architecture is a lot more than planning and procurement.

So today I thought I’d avoid these two. I thought, perhaps controversially in a gaggle of architects, that I may be a little up beat.

We’re busy. Most members I speak with are busy at the moment and there is a fair amount of work still entering the market. We are changing. The city is a different place to the CBD of my graduation. Look at our skyline, medical precinct, conventions, oval… its all quite different to the past decade. Even over the weekend listening to the news of the apartment fire at Munno Para (fortunately no human harm) it struck me that now there are actually apartments in a 3 storey building in Munno Para. Economic growth in itself is valuable to our profession but my belief is that there is an alignment between density, activity and land value which creates the petri dish for architectural growth.

We will always have a role in the tier 1 style projects and arguably never have a role at the opposite end of the mass housing spectrum. I believe it is when we need to embrace the complex, celebrate the challenging and when development value and scale justify, perhaps demand, the architectural skill set that we as a profession gain greater relevance in the broader community. Adelaide has for many years offered a limited pool of mid tier architectural projects, but this has and continues to change.

This Friday the Institute is hosting a breakfast which is themed ‘an Adelaide architecture ’. We will be exploring what we think it is that makes Adelaide unique and how we should respond with our built form. I suggest that we are now in the zone for making decisions which will define our city, suburbs and regions for the future. I suggest that we have tipped the critical mass to a point where our profession will have increasing relevance to our community. We will begin to host the urban projects of architectural merit in infill and multi residential and mixed use development. These are happening now and increased densification will see our services more and more relevant.

This work will provide the breeding ground for new practices and the practice ground for new ideas. It has started already and it will continue.

This is a positive message. Our time is here. Projects continue to rise from the ground in Bowden, in Norwood, in Munno Para and beyond… and they already utilise architects.

The challenge is for us to now deliver the quality. The community is looking to us and we are right now designing the products by which they will judge our contribution. Let us grab the opportunity and make sure that in the hurly burly of this evolving market, we hold on to the values we know make great architecture.

Mario Dreosti
SA Chapter President

2 October 2018

The architectural profession is generally travelling well at the current time.  The level of activity in the South Australian construction sector is solid, our housing prices are continuing to rise and Government is committed to significant programs in education, health and corrections.  This is all good news.

However, there is also a need for the profession to proceed with caution.  Architects are great problem solvers and innovators and thrive on the challenges presented by their projects.  However, there is also a tendency to agree to do more for less, while at the same time striving for highly resolved project outcomes.  Professional pride and the desire to positively impact end users and the wider public predispose architects to strive for excellence within increasingly constrained project parameters, with new technologies and alternative procurement methodologies promising more efficiency.  When asked if they can absorb program cuts or reduce fees, architects frequently answer yes and then work longer hours to make the project a success.

Over time, and particularly during lean periods, this has tended to drive fee benchmarks down and to reduce project programs.  Simultaneously, risk aversion and risk transfer have been increasing.  These trends can clearly be seen in government procurement as well as the private sector.

At a recent meeting with DPTI, it was made clear that the profession is responsible for setting fee benchmarks.  DPTI do not sit in a room and decide what a reasonable fee should be from some idealised set of first principles.  Benchmarks are generated from the fees tendered for recent projects.

It was also pointed out that the DPTI selections are not based solely on the lowest fee.  Fees are weighted at 30% of the selection criteria for most projects.  However, while this provides significant weighting to the lowest fee, the fees are also assessed against the fee benchmark established for the project.  This should exclude unrealistically low fees from consideration.  However, if consistently low fees are tendered then the benchmark itself is lowered, making this criterium increasingly meaningless.

At the same meeting it was noted that a decline in documentation standards had been observed, with variations arising from errors and omissions increasing.  While there has been no hard evidence provided to support this claim, DPTI have responded to this perceived risk through the proposed amendments to AS4122.  The intent of these amendments is to attribute risk away from government, including the attribution of variation costs arising from documentation errors and omissions to the author.  This includes the cost of the construction work in addition to the cost of documentation of a solution to address the documentation issue.

The message to the profession is clear.  Submitting a low fee and agreeing to a compressed program does not reduce client expectations regarding the service to be provided.  In addition, it does not absolve an architect’s obligations under the registration act.  What it does do is drive unrealistic expectations of the profession and increases the risk that architects will experience extreme financial stress or, ultimately, bankruptcy.

I would add that doing the ‘impossible’ time and again has not increased the respect for architects or improved client or public perception of the value provided by architects.   There are no ‘wow’ moments where people exclaim about the marvels achieved for so little investment.  Rather, low fees are seen as evidence that architects provide minimal value.  This is compounded when mistakes occur on projects, with architects frequently perceived as the cause, regardless of the actual circumstances, which are invariably more complex.  As you are no doubt aware, this Catch 22 – of architects being at once of little real value while simultaneously responsible for all project decisions – is difficult to avoid and deeply rooted.

So what can be done to address this situation?

The SA Chapter of the Institute engages regularly with DPTI and other arms of government to advocate for best practice procurement and provide an architects’ perspective in relation to key issues.  Last week we wrote a joint letter with the ACA to voice concerns regarding the Whyalla Secondary School EOI.  We are continuing to review and comment on amendments to AS4122.  We will be supporting practices engaged in the projects formerly known as Building Better Schools (now relabelled the Department for Education Capital Works Program).  And while this is government focused, it does translate to and have relevance within the private sector.

We will also continue to make the profession aware of relevant factors that should be considered when submitting for government projects.  Architects have the ability to influence the marketplace and culture they work within.  Valuing what you do objectively and commercially is a professional responsibility, to both your own practice and the profession.  Communicating that value effectively is also the sole responsibility of the profession.  Continuing to blame ‘market forces’ for declining fees is, to some extent, disingenuous.

Changing public perception and the status of architects is a long term project.  The Institute is committed to supporting its members to achieve this goal.

Nicolette Di Lernia
SA Chapter Executive Director

Terms & Conditions

1. You must be a member of the Institute.
2. You must be a Graduate in Architecture from the University of South Australia or University of Adelaide of up to six years standing (for 2019 Fellowship only). For the 2019 Fellowship, this means people who completed their architecture degree at the end of 2013 or later.
3. You do not need to be currently resident in South Australia, but if short listed, may be required to be interviewed by teleconference – and be prepared to detail your interest in architectural design in South Australia and how you might ultimately engage in future practice in the State.
4. You must be an Australian citizen.
5. You are to propose a program of study with estimated total expenses and amount of support requested from the Fund up to the value of the Fellowship as determined each year.
6. You are to nominate a Mentor for the period of the Fellowship.
7. The Fellowship will be awarded by the Committee. The Committee will short list applicants and may choose to interview short listed candidates. The decision of the Committee is final.
8. Following the awarding of the Fellowship, you will prepare a firm timetable and apply to the Committee for release of portions of the funds to cover expenses, understanding that part of the Fellowship funds will be withheld until all obligations have been fulfilled.
9. On completion of the Fellowship you will be expected to discuss outcomes of travel through a method approved by the Committee.

APPLICATION PROCEDURES

Please submit the following:

Application form (via online process)

The following documents to be submitted to the SA Chapter by 3 Dec 2018:

1. CV – expand on any community work or leadership roles you have undertaken – describe your aspirations as an architect.
2. Portfolio – submit an indication of the best work you completed- enough to show the committee the work you’re most proud of.
3. Budget –Include estimates of airfares and local travel, subsistence and any tuition fees. Indicate a value of the Fellowship (up to $15,000) that you are applying for, a proposed schedule of payments from the Fund and how any shortfall may be met.
4. Indicative Timetable and Itinerary –Give a general indication of the proposed timing – commencement, duration and anticipated completion of your reporting to us.  The Fellowship is normally expected to commence within six months following the announcement of the winner.

Closing Date & Announcement of Winner

Applications close 3 December – Recipient announced end February 2019

Throughout his outstanding career, and his significant contribution to the architectural profession as Australian Institute of Architects National President in 1968-69, as a Life Fellow, and as an Institute Gold Medalist in 1970, Jack McConnell had a remarkable capacity to lead and inspire others, with a number of Australia’s most prominent architects still acknowledging him today as their mentor.

He was born on 5 June 1913, and attended Haileybury School, Victoria, where he was awarded the McCaughay Scholarship to study architecture at the University of Melbourne, where he graduated with distinction at the age of 21.

In 1937, aged 26, as a leading modernist from the Melbourne offices of Harold Desbrowe Annear, Leighton Irwin, Marcus Martin and Edward F Bilson, he joined the architectural practice in Adelaide that became Claridge Hassell and McConnell, as the design architect for the new Bank of New South Wales, on the corner of North Terrace and King William Street.

From 1937 to 1970 he designed many outstanding buildings for both state and national clients and was particularly recognized for his prize-winning designs as one of the leading industrial architects in Australia.

Jack McConnell was the original lateral thinker –before the term had been invented. He always drummed into students and staff that design grew out of analysis – “first analyse, analyse, analyse!”

He said on many occasions that the Heinz Factory in Dandenong was the best job he ever did. He explained the ‘analyse’ principle as applied to this project:

• He knew nothing about canned food processing;
• He undertook what research he could;
• He prepared 10 pages of questions and presented them to Heinz in Melbourne;
• Heinz said we haven’t got a clue but we’ll send the questions to the United States;
• They sent them back, and said we don’t know the answers either. Send the young architect overseas to wherever he wants to go to find the answers.
• (It appears that Jack’s “research and analyse” technique was suggesting by the questions he asked, not only a new architectural approach, but new and innovative factory planning and processing techniques. This was new and foreign to them).

McConnell visited the US and Canada, the UK and Spain, did extensive research and analysis, returned and wrote his report – including his own answers to his own questions – and presented it to Heinz. They took one look and said you’re the architect and now the expert, go for it!

It subsequently won the Australian Architects and Arts Award in 1955.

He joined Stephenson and Turner Architects as a Partner in 1970 and continued to carry out major projects in that capacity. He retired from that partnership in 1980, but continued to undertake individual consulting work. He continued his involvement with the Institute as a member of various committees until 1992.

Jack McConnell had a great influence on post-World War II architecture in Australia, and left his mark in the form of architectural excellence in many of his prestigious buildings both in South Australia and in other states.

More importantly, he influenced and inspired many students and architects to produce better architecture, not only in terms of design, but also of function.

‘Jack McConnell’s influence in shaping the architects and the architecture of Australia was considerable. He pioneered modern architecture in South Australia and was without doubt the first serious modernist to build modern buildings in Adelaide’
Warren Kerr
National President of the Institute at the time of Jack’s death in April 2005

* Biographical notes by Keith Neighbour, LFRAIA

17 September 2018

So you’ve done your BER and cruised comfortably into STEM.

A little dalliance with some BBS and then…. wham…

You get DECWPed.

Yes, the roll out formally known as BBS is now the Department for Education Capital Works Program. Wouldn’t a love symbol have been so much easier?

We do know however that 91 schools with a budget of $692.2m will receive works over the next 6 years with round one of 34 schools being released over the course of this year, and rounds 2 and 3 in 2019.

Projects range from under $5m to $30m with the majority sitting in the $6-10m range.

This roll out will again have a big impact on the construction industry and directly on our members.

This program has a stated focus on value and like the programs before it, will likely be delivered through a range of contract types including traditional and novated style arrangements for architectural services.

The scopes delivered by the BBS engagements are likely to significantly change and there is now the year 7 transition to consider. Benchmarking of costs against STEM works and Victorian schools projects will be used to seek value.

Now is the time to learn from the past.

I have a personal view that any contract type can deliver good outcomes and the corollary is that any contract can also deliver bad. As a profession we get concerned about the term ‘partial documentation’, but it is never actually partial documentation : it’s full documentation just delivered in different phases and engaged to different people. Transfer of risk is really what underpins novation style contracts and aligned with that transfer is also the shifting of control, so what work happens either side of the novation date is important. The PPR happens before novation, complete documents happen after, but a well constructed PPR can manage some of the quality control which comes from completed documents.

If we learn from the past it is clear that many of our members did not read the tender documents for STEM and were surprised to be engaged under D+C.

This time lets read and expect different contract types.

Think about the time, cost and risk implications of different contract types. We believe it is likely that the smaller projects may be delivered with more traditional methodologies and the large with D+C style but this is not certain.

You as individual practitioners should think about your commercial risk valuation of who you may be working for. You should think about how you scope partial documentation and how much time and effort there should be in developing a a PPR. You should think about realistic programs for your services because quality and value (two stated objectives of the program) come from clarity in documents and that takes time. You should be part of the cost discussion and contribute to the establishment of benchmarking rates which focus on value and not just cost. You should think about how you scope and bill for services post novation so that what is meant by a ‘site visit’ is not a debate at every bill.

This is an exciting new program under a new government. We have had two practice runs with BER and STEM so third time round is the time for us to get it right. Understand what contract arrangements will underpin your submission, be clear on scope and program to achieve quality outcomes and use your past data on STEM and BER to inform your decisions. Read some Acumen notes if you are not clear on different roles in different contracts.

As a local profession we have nearly 100 opportunities on the table to start with sound expectations and deliver the value we can offer as architects to the homes of our education system. Let us make this one count.

The Institute is here to help.

Mario Dreosti
SA Chapter President

You are invited to be part of the SA Designers for Diversity initiative being implemented by the SA Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects

The Australian Research Council funded project Equity and Diversity in the Australian Architecture Profession: Women, Work and Leadership, published on the Parlour website [http://archiparlour.org/research/] shone a spotlight on our industry and highlighted some surprising and disturbing realities. It is naïve to think the situation in South Australia is substantially different to the picture painted in this report.

The SA Designers for Diversity program is an initiative aimed at those people in positions of influence, who are best placed to initiate change. It acknowledges the benefits of aiming for diversity within our industry and support those who choose to participate.

Our program is modelled on the successful Male Champions of Change program but is tailored to the SA context and promotes a less directed and more self-managed approach. http://malechampionsofchange.com/architects/

This program will give you the opportunity to measure progress and benchmark best practice within your firm, and to assess how equitable and inclusive your policies, both formal and informal, are. It will highlight those firms who are already adopting inclusive practices and hopefully inspire those who are not to implement changes.

The aim is to create a group that works together in a collaborative manner to effect change in our Industry. It will not be an overnight fix, and for it to happen will require the leadership of those in the position to influence sustainable change.

We thank those practices who have signed up already:
Swanbury Penglase
Brown Falconer
GHD Woodhead
Studio 9
Hames Sharley
Hardy Milazzo
Hodgkison
Cox
DASH Architects
DesignWell
Oxigen
Wax
TCL

To sign up or seek more information please email sa@architecture.com.au

20 August 2018

This week our insurer circulated an advice regarding the use of composite cladding products.

Very topical at the moment of course, and the advice was sufficiently alarming to probably generate a knee jerk response of a decade of buildings to come clad only in masonry and cement based products.

In considering the matter I did reflect on how we in concert, with our clients and other collaborators, go through the process of design and selection. While I suspect that all of us rile against the notion of endless regulation, I would argue that the great skill and effort we apply to often making the nonsensical comply means that we really do need the regulation to at least set a base.

I reflected on the array of products we happily specify into buildings which I think we would know with common sense may resemble a firefighter if touched with a flame.

I considered the great efforts we go to in the performance engineering of facades so that we work around the common sense solution of actually just shading the windows. I thought of the machinations and manipulations we pursue to avoid triggering a lift or a new disabled access, or more amenities… and so forth.

I know that a number of these things cost money.

I know that often we are encouraged even directed to pursue the alternate solution.

But aren’t they usually better? Do we apply the effort to think about things in a common sense way? In a way that contemplates the notion of legacy.

I walked down two different sets of stairs in two different very large public buildings recently. I felt uncomfortable on both of them on account of maximum rise and minimum step in compliance with the NCC. I’m sure they are ‘legal’… but given the purpose of the building, the potential volumes of movement and the expectation of a broad range of ages and abilities, I don’t think they were good design.

Not capital A architecture I know, but just common sense.

Mariano De Duonni challenged me at breakfast the other day when I asked a group of larger practices ‘what is one thing the Institute could do for you?’

He noted it was a curious question because in fact the Institute ‘is’ them… it’s a membership organisation. A guild. Since the whole thing only exists because we are members and it has no other independent purpose, common sense defines that it is actually us doing things for ourselves.

I like this repositioning. The Institute is a collective and a framework for us to work together, for ourselves and with a single voice, but ultimately it will only champion what we as a profession champion, value what we value, and do what we do.

That’s empowering when you think of it that way.

Mario Dreosti
SA Chapter President

6 August 2018

Last Thursday I participated in the Lord Mayor’s Cultural Think Tank, which is an initiative designed to explore the opportunities to develop Adelaide’s cultural potential and activity.  The objective is to generate a diverse, inclusive and dynamic community that supports innovation and creative enterprise, encourages people to remain in SA, provides an attractor for tourists and sustains economic growth.

Using the City of Adelaide Cultural Strategy and the outcomes from the previous think tank as a spring board, nine participants proposed an idea to make this strategy a reality.  Ideas ranged from mechanisms to increases the visibility of existing activity, to creation of maker districts and activation of the parklands to support creative activities.

The presentation by the Chair of Rundle Mall Management Authority, Peter Joy, focused on branding.  He shared data gained over a range of studies that defined Adelaide’s brand as liveable, smart, sustainable and creative and noted that a brand is defined by what an organisation/entity does as opposed to what it says.

He went on to say that, while people saw liveability as Adelaide’s key strength and a powerful attractor, it was not enough in itself to retain people, especially younger people, in SA.  Smart, sustainable and creative were weaker parts of the Adelaide brand, that need to be fostered if we are to thrive and reach our full potential.

As architects we are in a unique position to support and realise the Adelaide brand as presented by Peter.  Every project that an architect undertakes involves informed synthesis of complex parameters (smart) and innovative expression of context, brief and culture (creative) to produce an environment that is fit for purpose, environmentally responsive (sustainable) and provides value and delight to users and the wider public (liveability).

In addition, architects have the capacity to support the local economy through design and documentation that preferences the locally made over the imported and embeds local artisans and trades.  We can design places that provide engaging public spaces that foster community and wellbeing.  Our education and experience enable architects to see opportunities to do things differently and move beyond conventional, business as usual outcomes to create new ways of doing, thinking and living.  We create environments that foster and enable creative enterprise undertaken by others.

In short, architects embody the Adelaide brand through doing.  The Institute is working on a number of fronts to engage with policy and decision makers to improve their awareness of the huge potential inherent in the profession.  We are striving to increase the understanding that to fully realise this potential requires increased engagement with architects and a willingness to accept the inherent risks involved in architectural projects, especially those that embrace innovation.  We are also working to educate clients and policy makers that these risks can be more effectively managed when an architect is involved in a way that provides them with agency and independence.

We realise that this is a long-term project in our cautious and frequently unforgiving political climate.  However, if SA is to better realise its latent potential, we firmly believe that architects are part of the solution, and will continue to work towards this outcome.

Nicolette Di Lernia
SA Chapter Executive Director