23 July 2018

It’s always pleasing to see media articles promoting the mandated use of architects for building projects. As a registered architect, why would one not want a guaranteed piece of the pie?

But the topic is in fact a lot deeper than guaranteed work for architects, the concerns are significant and valid, and of course the solutions far more complex than a single legislative change.

The movement put to the City of Adelaide by Councillor Moran this past week to mandate the use of architects for projects in the CBD is timely in the context of change of state government and forthcoming local government elections, but it also continues a focus on the quality and contribution of buildings to our public realm.

This focus has been topical recently in Adelaide with media based aesthetic assessment of some recent contributions to our skyline but also globally, with concerns about quality of construction and substitutions of materials.

The recently published Shergold Weir report makes a series of recommendations which include the training and accreditation of a broad range of practitioners and contractors in the industry, greater powers of regulation and inspection and indeed greater responsibility for architects to ensure thorough and compliant documentation prior to and during construction.

Aligned with the ministerial focus on building quality is the progression of test case law in Victoria following the Lacrosse fire regarding the degree to which specifiers and designers may have responsibility for communicating and managing amendments and substitutions in a project to clients, authorities and even the broader public when they are in a novated contract arrangement.

This last point raises a key issue with regard to Councillor Moran’s motion which is that the architect’s services continue throughout the project. The expectation being of course that the expertise, knowledge and application of the architect continues during value management and construction to ensure that the original qualities of the design be they functional, safety or aesthetic are maintained. The issue is that in all (to my knowledge) of the buildings under discussion in these various forums, architects have in fact been involved all the way through the project, and yet the outcomes are challenged.

A turn of phrase appealed to me at a recent talk by Sean Godsell when speaking of an architect’s involvement in a project once novated to the builder. He noted that it is not an architect involved… but rather a builder involved who has employed an architect in their team.

The recognition here is that while training and experience and indeed a framework of professional registration do without question bring assurance of a greater level of skill and capacity to a role, it is also the contractual positioning of the role which affects the quality of outcome.

I don’t believe that the world will ever return to a full documents lump sum approach to all projects and nor to I personally believe that is necessary or even appropriate. I do however suggest that we as architects need to be able to speak in an informed fashion to our clients and through all our areas of influence about the nuances of different contract types.

If architects were mandated for use in all projects, but early novation contracts with poor PPR documents were not eliminated… then we could run the risk of equally flawed outcomes after the guaranteed ‘involvement’ of architects, and this would be a far worse position than we have now.

The solution to quality is threefold. A quality brief, a quality team and a quality focussed contract and regulatory environment.

I commend Councillor Moran’s recognition of the value and contribution of our profession and the unique quality proposition we bring through our registration system. I also assert that along with the work of architects must be a focus on quality through client aspiration, construction control and regulation. We must ensure that there is a voice of strength for quality in design both in compliance with Planning Approval and also in construction to the NCC. The role of the independent architect may achieve this end, but I suggest that greater powers and resourcing of authority inspections and audit are also required.

Mario Dreosti
SA Chapter President

As architects we are educated to consider complex problems with multiple parameters from a diverse range of perspectives.  The inventiveness with which architects approach these often wicked problems was amply demonstrated once again at the SA Awards presentations, which were held last Saturday.  Different perspectives and methodologies had been employed to arrive at unique and delightful outcomes that add value to the people who experience these buildings and enrich the environments in which they are located.

Once again, the awards provided a great opportunity to celebrate success in what can be a punishing profession.  Fee pressure and fast-tracked programs appear to be an inescapable reality for many practices, which in turn limits time to explore and innovate and drives a culture of long work hours and sustained stress.

It is not surprising therefore that people leave the profession in search of a more balanced lifestyle.  Evidence collected over many years shows us that the majority of the people making this decision are women.  While the gender balance for graduates has been a reality for at least a decade, the number of women remaining in the profession still diminishes significantly post-graduation.  The result is a lack of role models for female architects and minimal numbers of women in senior positions, especially at an equity level.

While this issue has been discussed and analysed in multiple forums, there has been limited impact to date.  This is evidenced by the continuing lack of retention and limited visibility of women in the profession.  An example of this ongoing issue is provided in the letter from Sarah Paddick, which highlights her observations at the SA Awards presentations.

As a result, ongoing debate is increasingly being accompanied by programs that include action to effect real and sustained change.  In South Australia, this has resulted in the formation of the SA Designers for Diversity initiative.  With the support of Chapter Council, a committed and dynamic group of members; Sarah Paddick, Tracey Roughana, Kirstie Coultas, Saralee Aufdeheide, Jenna Holder, Catherine Startari and Sally Bolton have developed the program with the aim to:

• increase awareness of existing culture
• encourage and support behaviours that achieve diversity and equity within practice
• enable participants to benchmark and celebrate their progress

The objective is to foster the good things that are already happening within the profession, share successful initiatives, build awareness of bias – conscious and unconscious – and to challenge participants to excel in effecting real change at a personal and practice level. 

The initial focus is of SA Designers for Diversity is on gender equity.  However, there is a general consensus that many of the issues that exist for women apply within the context of the profession as a whole.  Our current work culture is equally punishing for men and places them in positions which limit their opportunities to engage with family, participate in activities outside work and live full, healthy lives.  In a profession which is enriched by diverse experience and perspectives, this narrowing of experience is surely limiting.

Twelve of the practices who were initially invited to participate in SA Designers for Diversity have already agreed to be involved.  This is a great place to start this important project.  If you would like to know more or to participate, please contact the SA Chapter.  

Nicolette Di Lernia
SA Chapter Executive Director

25 June 2018

In this role that I have, I spend a lot of time speaking with other architects and sitting on various committees, councils and working groups. I can say from these experiences that we are universally quite a complaining lot.

Perhaps it is the creative disposition which brings a propensity for venting negativity but when it comes to discussion about fees, programs, procurement and the value placed on design and our services… the conversations are consistent.

What is interesting having recently returned from a National Council meeting and the National Conference Edge, is that these themes are consistent not only nationally but in fact globally.

The direct commonality with other chapters facing, in particular, procurement and planning related challenges is quite remarkable, and from listening to some of the international speakers at Edge, themes of facing challenge in valuing architecture through these processes is globally consistent.

I’m old enough to know that such complaints are nothing new in South Australia and so by extrapolation I assume they are nothing new around the world either.

So maybe that is just the way it is. 

Maybe since we’ve changed little in the last few decades, we are never really going to change anything. Perhaps the fact that when we do call to arms only a fraction of our members rally with us means that no one actually cares as much as they whinge.

So maybe we could save the energy and the membership fees and go sit on the beach instead.

Except…. I’d suggest if you look around our State you will see that it has changed…. a lot.

And I’d propose that for those of us in the creative communities, we would say its changed for the better in many ways. And I’d posit that not all cities have changed for the better, so best we take change seriously and try and have an impact on it.

And so now I offer you three simple ways to have an impact. Three ways to stop whinging and do something for you, for the profession and indeed for the broader community who will benefit from better outcomes.

1 – ABIC Contracts Survey

Both the Institute and ACA have issued surveys about the use of ABIC contracts and issues of banks not wanting to fund against percentage progress claims in residential projects but rather housing industry style staged payments. This simplified approach is not appropriate for architectural projects and can leave either client or builder unreasonably exposed depending on where the staged payment falls in a project which is not built in simple stages. We are lobbying hard to change this trend but we need information.

So way number one to do something, is to fill out this survey if you’ve used these contracts.

2 – BBS Concept Survey

Shortly the SA Chapter will issue a survey regarding the actual hours taken to complete the fixed fee concept stage of the recent Building Better Schools program issued just prior to Christmas last year. 

We have a great deal of anecdotal commentary about the match between the fee set and the scope required, but a survey will provide a unique broad base of firm data to demonstrate the real hours taken across a range of practices to complete a matching scope of services. This will be invaluable in future negotiations regarding procurement approaches.

So way number two to do something is to fill out this survey as well if you took part in the BBS program.

3 – Planning Reform

The Institute is well involved in collaborating and contributing to the Planning Reform process which is underway. However the quantum of information being circulated for review and comment is significant and our ability as people with other non voluntary commitments to keep up is challenged. We could use more experienced architects who are willing to review documents and provide informed concise feedback that can directly form an Institute response.

So way number three if you are ready to do more than just a survey, is to call/email/ visit the Institute and volunteer.

Two out of three ain’t bad people and two of these don’t even require you to stand up!

It’s too cold to sit on the beach now anyway, so we may as well stop whinging and do something.

Mario Dreosti
SA Chapter President

One of the great privileges I enjoy as an architect working for the Institute is the ability to attend the National Conference.  This annual gathering of the profession provides a valuable opportunity to take time out from invariably high-pressure work environments to consider what we do from different perspectives and to connect professionally and personally with our peers.

This social interaction is a key component to our ability to learn at these events.   I heard neuroscientist Dr Fiona Kerr speak the week before, and her presentation was illuminating.  Humans retain the ability to bulk up our brains through exercise, learning new things, eating correctly, sleeping well and human connection.  All are vital to our ability to be creative, complex thinkers with mature social, emotional and task thinking capabilities.

So, what did I learn at the national conference?  The conference theme ‘Edge’, aimed to consider the social, cultural and physical factors shaping the rapidly growing cities, with a focus on coastal (edge) cities in the Asia Pacific region.  Issues of climate, local identity, population density and health were all explored.  The clear pressures experienced by many cities subject to explosive population growth and urbanisation, coupled with developer driven objectives were starkly contrasted against the more modestly scaled regional projects presented by both international and local speakers.  The importance of designing for people and place was a central message at all scales, although the opportunities to do so at the mega scale were constrained by the sheer size of the environments being created.

This caused me to consider the objectives of the Adelaide Contemporary (AC) competition and the opportunities this project creates for Adelaide.  The brief places importance on place, people, social interaction and cultural engagement from both indigenous and European perspectives.  It seeks to create a key attractor to Adelaide as well as a focus for local activity and a showcase for the important collection held by the Art Gallery of South Australia (AGSA). 

In the public presentations by four of the teams, a common theme was clear – that AC would be the centre of culture for the city, providing a venue that would bring together locals and visitors alike. There was exploration of the context within which AC would exist and how it would spatially and visually connect with the city in all presentations.  The proposals were bold, varied and highly resolved, and it was an important opportunity to gain an understanding of the underlying principles and thinking that informed the designs.

However, I was disappointed that none of the presentations discussed the way in which AC would connect with the city at an activation level; of how this major development would interact with places and people outside its perimeter. Would it give back or take away from the wider city?  How would it interface with the remaining ORAH site, Botanic Gardens, East End and the cultural precinct, including the AGSA which spawned it?  What prevents it from having the impact of a shopping mall on a local high street?  What will make AC a driver of broad activation and vibrancy within the city context?

With the winner of the competition announced, it will be interesting to track how this project develops. While it faces significant political and financial challenges, it is to be hoped that the significant investment of thought and skill made through the competition is not wasted.  I extend my congratulations to Diller Scofidio + Renfro and Woods Bagot for winning the competition and wish them all the best in addressing the challenges that lie ahead.

EDGE – A personal perspective

The conference theme ‘Edge’, aimed to consider the social, cultural and physical factors shaping the rapidly growing cities, with a focus on coastal (edge) cities in the Asia Pacific region.  Issues of climate, local identity, population density and health were all explored.

There were stark contrasts between the work presented by global practices Safdie Architects and Steven Holl Architects and local practitioners Sue Dugdale and Lindy Atkins.  Safdie and Roberto Bannura from Holl’s Beijing office, showed billion-dollar mega developments, predominantly in China, and spent much of their presentations explaining how they created public space, often 50 floors above ground level, to provide social connection for those working and living in these massive, city within the city agglomerations. There was discussion around how these developments connected back into the surrounding urban form, but the opportunity for them to become self-contained, exclusive compounds was clear.  I couldn’t help reflecting on how far Moshe Safdie had come from his exploration of inclusive, welcoming mass housing through the Habitat project. 

What conclusions will archaeologists in a 1000 years’ time, reach regarding the society that created these developments, one of which had 18 basement levels of manufacturing topped by tens of thousands of square meters of floor area in a cluster of interconnected towers, the bridges home to sky gardens, pools and other leisure facilities?  Will those employed in the basement ever feel welcomed in the pleasure gardens above?

In contrast, Dougdale presented work from her Alice Springs practice.  Thoughtful, people centred projects that aim to connect people and place at a very different scale.  She discussed the dual indigenous and migrant communities that create the edge condition specific to Alice Springs and how she works to provide value and quality in these potentially challenging conditions.  Her connection to, understanding of and respect for end users and location were powerful and provided a sense of place and respect for occupants that was hard to envisage in the mega city projects, with their significant issues of density, scale and lack of cultural connection.

Likewise, Atkins’ work is highly personal and specific to place.  She interspersed discussion of predominantly residential projects on the Sunshine Coast with explorations of the collaborative installations Bark Architects undertakes with architecture students, using prefabricated, modular systems to encourage examination of coastal environments.  Again, the scale of this work provides the opportunity to create deep and personal connections to place and people.

In between the mega scale and the regional was Borja Ferrater from Office of Architecture Barcelona (OAB), whose work is both international and highly specific to local culture and conditions.  Ferrater articulated the concern that OAB have in working outside their native Catalonia and demonstrated how they apply knowledge gained in one context within different environments and cultures.  The resulting projects are both engaging and engaged, challenging conventional developer driven typologies and enriching the communities in which they are located.

The discussion was also informed by presentations from epidemiologist Mark Stevenson and wayfinding specialist Sarah Manning from Space Agency.  The key message from these contributions for me was that connected urban environments provide better health outcomes that sprawling, low density development.  Access to green space also has demonstrated benefit.  Medium density, mixed use development with considered public spaces would appear to be the ultimate urban environments for liveability and wellbeing given these findings.

The conference concluded with a highly entertaining and personal presentation by ‘Lek’ Mathar Bunnag.  His pride in his cultural heritage, his engaging persona and his passion for beautiful environments were infectious.  Even if I never have the opportunity to stay in the luxury resorts he designs, I came away refreshed and enlivened by this uplifting exposition of his carefully curated and executed work.

So, what do I take away from the conference?  That we are privileged in Adelaide to be able to develop our city without the unyielding pressures of density and population growth that define mega cities.  That we need to build our understanding of what is unique and valued in our context as a community so that we collectively own this vision and can clearly communicate it to those who are responsible for development into the future.  As a small city we have the opportunity to preserve and develop our own unique cultural identity. 

Nicolette Di Lernia
SA Chapter Executive Director
12/06/2018

28 May 2018

The Adelaide hills are truly beautiful.

I spent last Friday and Saturday staying at the Stirling hotel for work and broke up the second morning with an enchanting walk around Stirling and through to Aldgate. In fact I was so beguiled by the experience that we drove back the following day to Woodside and a relaxing afternoon at Bird in Hand; watching the kids make friends on the lawns with a glass of ‘cellar door only’ Pinot Grigio quenching the thirst.  

As I said the day before to my business partner and Mount George resident…they are so accessible… you could almost live there!

And living there would mean a short commute. But not a traffic snarled, six lane, jammed up, big city commute. I’m imagining a free flowing winding road with idyllic scenery, and for those who know the ‘car person’ that I am… that’s pretty attractive in itself.

Which brings me to cars. 

If it were your thing too and you were able or willing to make the investment you could enjoy that drive in something remarkable like a Bugatti. Once in a lifetime kind of stuff, so maybe we should pitch a little more realistically at say a Porsche or an Audi, or maybe the Italian flavour of a Lamborghini – still pretty amazing.

But maybe cars are not your thing and instead you need three child seats in the back of a station wagon with diesel efficiency, or a ute to carry your work gear. In which case perhaps a Skoda wagon or a VW Amarok would tick the box.

The thing is, it wouldn’t worry Volkswagen which you chose….because they own them all.

And Fiat wouldn’t mind if you chose their base model diesel Punto, or styled it up in an Alfa Romeo, or 4 wheel drove in a Jeep, or jumped in the big hairy V8 Chrysler, or a Dodge or a Lancia….because FCA (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles) own all of them too.

The car manufacturing industry learned some time ago how to agglomerate for efficiency but target market segments with completely convincing separation.

I’m sure you’ve seen my parallel. 

Car companies offer us the chance to engage with them at many levels and accepting of many different price points. 

I suggest however that we tend to promise and expect of architecture to try and do it all. To be innovative, to be cost effective, to be sustainable, flexible and so on all in one.

A standard architectural practice simply can’t offer every model, and a multitude of separate practices just race to the bottom through competition. Maybe the whole notion of how we structure our businesses could change. Maybe we could connect and specialise rather than compete at all levels. We are seeing more and more JV relationships; will some of us start to take the next step and cure the demise of the mid size architectural practice.

Mario Dreosti
SA Chapter President

As some of you may be aware, both South Australian architecture programs have new leadership this year.  UniSA has a new Head of School, Jane Lawrence, and a new head of Program, Chris Brisbin.  Both are appointments from within the UniSA School of Art Architecture and Design.  Adelaide has appointed Alan Peters as their Head of School.  He has come to Adelaide from the University of NSW, where he was also Head of School. 

I note that the former incumbents, Jo Cys, Stephen Ward and George Zillante, have moved to other roles within their respective Universities and will continue to be engaged with the education of architecture students in South Australia.  I take this opportunity to acknowledge the significant contribution that they, along with Mads Gaardboe, who preceded Jo as UniSA Head of School, have all made, and continue to make, to the education of design professionals and the future of the profession.

I recently met with Alan and Chris to discuss their aspirations and the ways in which the Institute can work with the architecture programs to build value.   Both have interesting agendas which respond to the changing landscape of tertiary education, including structural change within the university and regulatory environments.  Both are clearly passionate about delivering quality architectural education.

Improving connection with the profession was also identified as beneficial by both.  The Academic Practice Forum series, an initiative of David Homburg’s Presidency which has been championed and developed by Tony Giannone, will provide an ideal opportunity to do just that. 

The initial forums, which were held during 2016 and 2017, explored the relationship between academia and practice and the ways in which research could be applied and developed through interaction and improved networks. 

This year the series will focus on topical subjects and showcase the work being done by academics and practicing architects in these areas.  The forums will provide an opportunity to share knowledge, build connections and explore future collaborations.  The aim is to foster industry linkages, which are increasingly important in gaining research funding, to identify where research needs to be focused and to build the capacity and evidence base for practice. 

This program also supports the Institute’s Strategic plan objectives, which include building research capacity which in turn will enhance the effectiveness of our advocacy and strategic political interaction.  All these things will contribute to the standing and relevance of the architecture profession and grow our ability to meaningfully and effectively influence change. 

Nicolette Di Lernia
SA Chapter Executive Director

Expert Panel on Planning Reform – Update to Members

Most of you would be familiar with the SA Government’s initiative around the Expert Panel on Planning Review called Think Design Deliver. You may not be aware however of how your Institute has been engaged with this process. The five member panel was appointed in February 2013 and subsequently appointed a stakeholder Reference Group. Our Institute was invited to have a representative on the group and Mario Dreosti of Brown Falconer accepted the role.

Mario has invested many hours through his contribution to the panel for which we are very grateful. Through his involvement we have had the opportunity to have several direct meetings with the Panel Members; hosted a number of Reference Group workshops; and contributed both feedback through letters and a formal submission. Our final letter, conveying our response to the recommendations, included input from AILA and the ACA. The public report from the Expert Panel, released in August, and which included their recommendations is available here.

To read our feedback to the panel please look at the following:

May 2014 – Initial AIA Formal Submission to the Expert Panel
June 2014 – Letter to the Expert Panel (after one of several AIA/Panel meetings)
September 2014 – Combined letter of response to the Panel’s Public Report and Recommendations

This Panel’s consultation process is now closed and we await the State Government’s formal response to their report. Your Institute will continue to be involved in this process, advocating for suitable outcomes for the profession. To gain a better understanding of our position on the recommendations please read item 3 above.

Today the Institute and the ACA will jointly send a letter to an organisation requesting an architectural tender which requires a significant amount of design work to be completed as part of the tender submission.

I always recall sitting in a meeting with a charismatic property developer who liked to go surfing. The ‘deal’ was getting more and more difficult until he declared..

“I can go for a surf and earn nothing, so why would I sit here and do it?”.

I’m not sure if ACCC allows me to tell people that working for nothing does not make sense, but I think I can probably express a personal view, that surfing for nothing seems like a lot more fun.

When we talk about working for nothing I assume we are not talking about pro bono work where we, as a respected profession, may choose to contribute voluntarily with our time and expertise to a worthy cause. Rather, we are talking about working for nothing in a more commercial sense, in the same sense as low fees and over servicing.

The truth is that setting fees or determining reasonable scope of production are commercial decisions that individual architects and practices will make every day. To use some fad phrases, the globalisation of service and the democratisation of data means that our practice is very different to the past and the ways in which we may undertake, resource, or be remunerated for our service are more varied than ever before.

The Institute already had a past letter on the topic of free work in submissions – yes, apparently this has happened before – so it was interesting to read it in an editorial capacity. I particularly liked it.

I liked it because it didn’t actually make a case for payment based on architects receiving fair reward for their work. Rather, it made a case for the right process. 

We as architects often speak of architecture being a process not a product, and yet the propensity to provide visualisation almost at inception, to effect design solutions before thorough briefing and to take a kit of parts approach to spatial resolution are all significant contributors to the commoditisation of of our work. 

It’s a relatively short step then for clients to begin to believe that different architects will have a different product solution to their project and they should window shop until they choose one.

The letter composed by the Institute makes a case for the need to engage in a design process with thorough briefing, interaction and mutual understanding which will lead, through an iterative process, to a bespoke solution. A solution best resolved for that client and delivering them the benefits which a compromised path will not.

Whatever fee you choose to set is your own business. 

How we as a profession deliver the design process is something which involves us all. 

If you engage in a collaborative, iterative, exploratory architectural journey with your client then the process is right. You may do this pro bono and that’s your choice.

It may be that you are supporting people in need through your expertise and time, it may be that someone else is getting wealthier through your expertise and time… that’s your call.

What isn’t a choice for us as a profession, is whether we do the job properly. Paid or not, the architectural journey and the design process are paramount. We should only be engaging in processes where the solution is an outcome and not an initial offering.

Mario Dreosti
SA Chapter President

Hosted by the China Australia Centre for Sustainable Urban Development, University of South Australia, Adelaide, September 20-23, 2018

[Conference website will be live from November 30, 2017]

CALL FOR PAPERS

Over the last two decades, much effort has gone into developing strategies to reduce waste and emissions in products, systems and the urban environment. Accelerating rates of consumption and discard, however, continue to undermine many of these larger efforts. It is clear that we need new systems-based approaches to reduce rising levels of resource consumption and energy use in order to implement a more equitable and environmentally sustainable society and economy. Building upon the experience of our first conference, Unmaking Waste: Transforming Production and Consumption in Time and Place (May 2015), Unmaking Waste 2018 will address the following themes from a similarly multidisciplinary perspective:

1.Eco-Design and Development:

Designing and managing objects, buildings, precincts and systems to reduce resource and energy use, and increase environmental and human wellbeing.

2. Sustainable Consumption:

Transforming consumption and service provision, including marketing, to better suit a resource-constrained, environmentally challenged world.

3. Waste Minimization:

Reducing waste and pollution at all scales, in all domains and activities, and transforming waste and pollution into states of greater value for reuse.

4. Circular Economy:

Optimizing social, material and economic relations to further the goals of the Circular Economy, including product and environment life-extension, reuse and repair.

 Call for Abstracts (Deadline: December 15, 2017)

Abstracts should be no more than 300 words, and address the purpose, methods, and implications of the work to be presented. They should include a proposed title, and nominate one or more of the above themes that seem most relevant to the subject. All abstracts, conference presentations and full papers must be in English. Abstracts must be received no later than 5pm, December 15, 2017. All abstracts will be peer-reviewed and all submissions will receive a written response with feedback from the Conference Organising Committee by February 2^nd, 2018. The authors of successful abstracts will then be invited to submit their full papers for review by May 4^th, 2018.

Full papers will be double-blind peer reviewed, and returned to their authors for revision before June 8^th, 2018. Papers that are accepted, or accepted pending revision, will have until July 30^th 2018, for completion. The full accepted, corrected papers will be published online in time for the conference. It is anticipated that a selection of these papers will be published in an edited book or special issue of a journal. More details on this will be available on the conference website when they come to hand.

Please send titles, abstracts, with nominated theme(s) and a separate short author bio in a word file to Robert.Crocker@unisa.edu.au no later than December 15^th, 2017.

My lovely wife also works in our industry, so being South Australian its quite likely that you know her.

If you do, you’d appreciate that I’m not necessarily driven to pursue ‘over height’.

I may not be, but most of my clients are – and why wouldn’t they seek to get the most from their development parcel? 

As Architects we generally work very hard to help our clients achieve the most effective outcome they can within the system, and if this means pursuing over height we will certainly run that through the process – the process of course, in the CBD in particular, is set up with provisions to enable support for over height approvals.

As Architects, we also have a wider accountability. We’ve spoken before about our role to support, progress and foster community, engagement, equality, opportunity, sustainability, and all the multitude of good that comes from a positive built environment.

So as an Architect, I ponder why it is that we would have height restrictions in the first place?

….. I can see you all pointing to the sky at those giant jet fuelled metal birds that so often skim past the north of Adelaide to land at the airport, and so we’ll acknowledge the airport limitations.

But these aviation restrictions aside, I contemplate that we have height restrictions for a range of reasons:

• To limit/manage development opportunity/ economic growth through policy
• To guide the urban form and hierarchy
• To manage context which may include the need for adjacent solar access, or heritage interface etc
• To effect a lower rise community
• To reflect a commitment made to the local community

I’m sure I could come up with many others, as I imagine you have already.

But I ask you… in all of the possible reasons at the tip of your tongue, are they fundamentally focussed on managing the height itself? Because the height itself is what generates the scale, and casts the shadow, and creates the urban form.

…. I bet they are.

So I wonder, why does adding some plants on the wall and the roof (or indeed any other more sophisticated contributions) mean you can exceed the height? 

I don’t think it does. 

I think a height limit is actually about the height. We have large areas of the Adelaide CBD that have unlimited height in the planning policy, so if we put a limit on it somewhere else, there must have been a reason.

We so often talk about the importance of certainty in development opportunities to foster economic growth, yet a maybe or maybe not height policy seems to run at odds.

I say keep the rules simple and equitable and stick to them.

There is always room for the one in a thousand special case or the unique scenario were the policy doesn’t quite work, but for the vast majority we should be clear that 43 actually means 43.

I’m going to put it to the authorities that its positive to manage urban form and height for good reasons. I’m going to add that if they are good reasons, then they don’t go away as a result of bolt on design features.

Must go now. I’m off to look at a Tesla – I imagine they are allowed to go faster than the normal speed limit.