For Better or For Worse

Disclaimer

Passionate advocates

I am all for rules, but I also like a little bit of give. Let’s call this a reinterpretation of constraints, pushing the boundaries where possible.

This issue of Architect Victoria, guest edited by Rosemary Burne, highlights the evolution and necessity associated with rule making. Rosemary’s thought provoking editorial touches on why and how rules and regulations have shaped our built environment and defined a civic responsibility and framework for operating within.

We all know too well that we have constantly evolving rules due to required responses to failed situations, or providing incremental improvements due to changed conditions. We know too well that the establishment and nurturing of a set of rules for society is essential for managing the myriad of variables that humans bring with them, testing the boundaries where they can. Providing a fair, equal and civil environment for all to be part of is therefore essential.

With the lead up to the election, the Government of Victoria has released their updated Fishermans Bend Framework and proposed amendments to Better Apartment Design Standards. The Institute along with other industry representatives have been liaising with government, voicing our collective concerns and providing guidance as to how to best support the establishment of rules and guidelines for an evolving built environment.

We have also made it clear to government that decisions need time and consideration to be effective and to produce better outcomes rather than adding to a list of unforeseen consequences. This involves rigorous consultation and supporting mechanisms for review processes and long term accountability.

Melbourne has recently learnt the unfortunate lesson that spontaneity is not the most effective approach for designing wellconsidered outcomes. Spontaneity is not going to assist with legacy. Being unafraid of developing a set of rules and guidelines will.

However, in all cases where rules and regulations are being introduced as a mechanism for making improvements, it is imperative that these are accompanied by a rigorous process for assessing the rules. This is where reinterpretations of rules can be critically assessed. We need to push the boundaries in order for evolution to occur; however, rules provide a base on which all can operate from.

Another set of rules/ guidelines/acknowledgement was the establishment of the Institute's Gender Equity Policy. This policy was adopted in 2013 and has recently been under review at a national level in order to best support and mandate equality within our industry, awards programs, conferences and industry associations.

With Parlour’s recent release of the Parlour Census Report it is evident that despite incremental improvements there is still a long way to go. I would like to cite these improvements are the result of a collective awareness instigated by the tireless efforts of Parlour and our Institute members coupled with the establishment of important policy documents that define a framework for operating within. Essential for effective evolution to occur.

I would like to thank the Victorian Chapter representatives and members who have significantly contributed to the above issues and programs. Their expertise and assistance is greatly appreciated and the reason we are able to advocate for much needed change on a broad range of issues.

I would also like to congratulate Rosemary Burne, the Editorial Committee and the many contributors for a compelling issue. Well done.

Victorian Chapter President Amy Muir

From the Executive Director

Ruth White

I trust you continue to enjoy the changes we are making to Architect Victoria (AV) magazine and thank all who contribute to ensure our Chapter magazine continues to deliver material of the highest calibre.

With the third self-published edition of AV magazine firmly under the belt, we are looking to replicate the patron model used successfully by the NSW Chapter’s Architecture Bulletin.

Student  organised network for architecture –SONA

Amarinda Bazeley

We have had a very busy semester to date! We kicked off the semester with the event, Ask an Architect, with great success. Students had the opportunity to sit down one-to-one with practicing architects to chat about careers, graduation and uni, and start building

By supporting the Vic Chapter as a patron, we can continue to deliver high quality content to more than 3000 subscribers quarterly, in hard copy and online. Should you or your practice choose to support the magazine as a patron, you demonstrate your support for the architectural profession and its voice and are provided the opportunity to contribute editorial content and showcase products.

The return to self-publishing also means our advertising rates are now more competitive. Ad placement in AV gives our partners direct exposure to our qualified audience of architects

and other allied professionals across Victoria.

To become a patron or to advertise in our official journal, get in touch with our Chapter staff or email vic@architecture.com.au. Thank you for your support.

Heritage report

Louise Honman

Two recent heritage-related topics have resonated strongly with their communities and sparked considerable media interest. The Federation Square redevelopment and the Sydney Opera House advertising are similar in that the underlying concern is about the erosion of cultural value.

Our public places and landmark buildings have multiple meanings that may only surface when a place is perceived to be under threat. The commercialisation of the Sydney

their professional networks.

Following this, with our 2018 focus on mental health, SONA ran simultaneous events at the University of Melbourne and Monash University for R U OK? day. These events provide a necessary breather for students, and aim to bring students together to check in with one another and start a conversation about mental health.

We have also been very busy in the lead-up to SONA’s annual national design competition, SuperStudio. This year, SuperStudio was held at Monash University from 22 to 23 September. We had some

Opera House and the redevelopment of part of Federation Square are seen by their communities and some experts as inappropriate, and there has been much media discussion around this issue.

The cultural heritage values of the Opera House are very well defined in its World Heritage listing, while those of Federation Square are yet to be formalised by any heritage process. However, in both cases there has been strident opposition from both the community and experts to the proposed changes, even if these are temporary. Some of this opposition is directed at the outcomes of change and some at due

incredible professionals attend over the weekend to tutor students and judge the resulting presentations. This is one of the most exciting events in the SONA calendar. We enjoyed meeting all the participating students, and congratulate this year’s state winners, Diana Ong, Daisy Zheng and Sebastian Tan.

process; however, both stem from the notion of the importance of public places connecting communities and strengthening a shared culture.

Cultural heritage is at the heart of the spirited debates around Federation Square and the Sydney Opera House and it has a resonance for both the community and those within the architectural and built environment professions.

Practice of architecture report

Matt Gibson

The committee's role is to identify current issues associated with practice, and to address, process and take action to continually promote and improve the standards of architectural practice. This is achieved by elevating issues and working closely with the Acumen Content Review Panel, and Victorian Chapter staff to aid members in awareness of issues associated with practice and ensure issues are progressed through the appropriate

Emerging architects graduate network –EmAGN

Camilla Tierney

The Personal Branding Forum, held in September, with Nic Granleese from BowerBird and Dave Sharp from Vanity Projects provided the group with valuable tips and insights specifically for emerging architects from any sized practice.

Medium practice forum

Matt Gibson

The forum emerged in Victoria in 2013 out of a need for like-minded practices to create a forum for members between small and large practice. Initially a self-managed group that utilised Institute facilities, the forum is now in its sixth year providing directors of practices of between 6—29 staff the opportunity to meet on a regular basis to share information on topics such as practice, technology, business and personal development. The success of the Victorian model has lead to similar models being

channels. Action can be in the form of: Acumen briefing notes; Practice odd spots; and • CPD event suggestions.

Recent topics that have been reviewed, workshopped and actioned include a new mental health policy, the Banking Survey, a national membership review, the progress of an office practice manual, the Time Cost Calculator Survey and the new Client Architect Agreement (CAA).

The committee is working closely with the practice forums (small, medium and large) to amplify current topics and disseminate information quickly via Chapter news.

A big thank you goes to Karen McWilliam for recently authoring briefing notes on Safety In Design and Mental Health and to Hayley Franklin for leading reviews on the National Membership profile and the new CAA.

Constantine Moschoyiannis (National Acumen Committee) was welcomed as a new permanent committee member in July, while earlier in the year Kim Irons handed on the baton of Chair. We’d like to thank Kim for her significant and long serving contribution to the practice committee.

In September part one of our BIM series – Getting Started with BIM saw a good turnout to discuss all the ways BIM can be used in the office from small practice to large practice, with varying levels of detail. Part two was delivered in October with a more focused group discussion.

October also saw our first Materiality event, where we visited the Brickworks factory in Wollert for a guided tour in the brick-making process, and all the different types of bricks that are made in their factory.

We were also excited to introduce the EmAGN collaboration with Indigenous Architecture and Design Victoria for twilight tours run by Koorie Heritage Trust. We thank everyone who attended and hope you enjoyed an introduction to Koorie culture.

taken up in other states and territories. This year the NSW Chapter started its own Medium Practice Forum of which the Victorian Chapter sometimes runs concurrent topics (a la novation in September).

The format is simple; typically two practices present their approach to a particular topic, drawing from their own experience and strategies, followed by an open discussion about the topic. Presenters are shared internally through the group throughout the year with topics decided at the start of the year. This year there has been a commitment toward a more extensive cross pollination with other forums and Institute committees. Forum

notes are being collated anonymously at each gathering, summarising best practice benchmarks and take-home items. This will form the basis of increased dissemination and real-time information through the chapters. The next topic is Financial Ratio Benchmarking, discussing this year’s annual in-house survey, which yielded results for the last financial year that medium practice directors paid themselves a salary of $110,680; their practices turned over revenue of $1.58 million, made 17.25 per cent profit and that their staff sweetspot, financially and managerially, is between 14 and 15 staff!

Regional practice report

Kim Irons

Over the winter break, Ballarat, Geelong and Macedon regional practice forums continued to meet, discussing issues including staff retention, consultants and the impact of the cladding investigation on building surveyors. At Ballarat, an insightful session was held sharing ‘greatest challenges and the lessons learned as a result’. Bendigo had its inaugural meeting 16 August at Bendigo Library, and will meet again 22 November 2018

Education report

Dominik Holzer

Coming into the spring season, the Education Committee has formed a dedicated working party to discuss potential improvements to the delivery of the Victorian Graduate Prize and the way it will be organised for its third installment in 2019.

The committee advanced conversations around the reorientation of the Australian Institute of Architects’ mission, now that

Sustainable architecture forum

Nadine Samaha

Jane Toner and Peter Malatt recently presented the Indigenous Ecosystem Corridors and Nodes project to the Sustainable Architecture Forum members. This is a joint project of the International Union of Architects and the International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA). Professor Allan Rodger and IFLA Europe President, Tony Williams, are the joint foundation conveners for a working group to promote resilient urban design, blue-green infrastructure, and restoration of ecosystem at all scales.

The regional forums provide greater potential to advocate the value of architecture, for the profession and members beyond Melbourne. With intimate knowledge of local context, forum members are uniquely placed to respond to the specific challenges and opportunities in their areas and pursue synergies with Victorian regional government policies and communities. This will be expanded upon at a meeting with all regional Chapters at an anticipated forum in early 2019. The meeting will also review current discussions with other regional practices to gain a better understanding of their operations and programs such as regional

the Institute’s role in assisting the Australia and New Zealand Architecture Program Accreditation Procedure has come to an end. Based on a direction put forward by the Institute's National Education Committee, and after the formation of local working parties, Victorian Chapter forum members are also advancing discussions about Continuing Professional Development programming and the nexus between design, research, and academia. Progress in these areas was

awards and conferences. We appreciate we are still yet to see further forums toward the north and east of the state. Should you wish to see a regional practice forum implemented in your area, or join any of those noted, please contact myself or our new CPD and regional coordinator, Renee van Trier, at the Victorian Chapter office.

shared with the National Education Committee at the last face-to-face workshop in Adelaide. The Victorian Chapter will coordinate their efforts jointly with national representatives over the coming months.

In other news, the committee is excited to work with Kate Moore, who started recently in her new role as National Education Manager.

Forum members are delighted to be part of this exciting project with monthly meetings scheduled and delegated small groups working more on the project.

Forum members are also currently working on a contribution to the Sustainable Living Festival (SLF) on the 8–10 February 2019. SLF want to challenge the existing sustainability movement to really step up the way we think about and respond to climate change. They want to challenge architects, not just the audience. The SLF theme for 2019 is the Decade of Disruption. Forum members will discuss beyond-zero emissions in housing followed by a speed-dating event where the public will have the

opportunity to ask an architect about reducing their energy emissions in their house.

We welcome new members who share the same passion for integrated sustainability in architecture. Our next meeting is at 5.30pm on 20 November 2018 at the Institute, on the second level.

Bruce Rickard: A Life in  Architecture

Review by Jennifer Preston

This beautifully produced book, generously and relevantly illustrated is a cohesive and well-curated celebration of Rickard’s life and work from a diverse collection of people who were influenced by the man and by his life in architecture. The essays are drawn from a multitude of perspectives that locate Rickard’s work among the architects of Sydney and contemporaneous architecture being undertaken more widely. Personal experiences of Rickard’s practice and private life are recounted by those who worked with him and by family members with intimate photographs from the family album. The book is wide-ranging covering both the specific and the general. There is a detailed discussion of Rickard House I, with an analysis of the building’s relationship with its site through views, terrain and

space usage. The discussions extend out from the built work of Rickard to encompass a discourse on perspective drawing, the photographer Max Dupain and a consideration of both domestic aspirations and ideas of hospitality, with all aspects tethered back to Rickard. The essays are accompanied by evidence of historic records –pages from magazines and journals of the era, letters and perhaps most gratifying, reproductions of architect’s drawings that have not been redrawn for presentation purposes and therefore also illustrate architectural process.

The extensive and rich archival material includes interviews, sketches, technical drawings, perspectives, letters and photographs both professional and personal. It is the only volume to date documenting Rickard’s life in architecture and

for this alone is significant. It also demonstrates the value of the architectural archive in telling the story of our lives more broadly and for this it is invaluable.

Jennifer Preston is an architect and director of the architecture practice JPA&D in Sydney. She holds a doctorate in the field of architecture from the University of Queensland and writes on the history of architecture and the built environment. Jennifer is also on the Heritage Committee of the NSW Chapter of the Institute of Architects.

Bruce Rickard: A Life in Architecture is edited by Julie Cracknell, Peter Lonergan and Sam Rickard and published by NewSouth Publishing.

For better or for worse

Building and planning rules and regulations, an uninspiring thought perhaps; however, rules and regulations are a fact of life. They surround us in every sphere of our daily endeavours – seen, unseen, conscious and unconscious. Regulations are designed to set and direct our minimum acceptable standards of operation, behaviours and interactions. And, just as our everyday lives are protected, shaped and ordered by rules and regulations, so too is the built environment. Our buildings, towns, cities and our natural environment are largely a product of rules and regulations enacted with the express purpose of keeping our environment safe, healthy and liveable for generations to come.

Ultimately, rules and regulations stand as hallmarks to the commitment and success of civilised and democratic societies.

The Hammurabi system of justice included the initial presentation of the law of retribution, which the Hebrew bible refers to as the concept of “an eye for an eye” and which the Romans often referred to using the Latin phrase “lex talionis”. Significantly Hammurabi’s code

For Better or For Worse

establishes the concept of civil damages, whereby one must pay compensation for defective work –a concept that has survived to this day 2

Throughout the ages, from King Hammurabi, some 4000 years ago, through Ancient Rome, the Middle Ages and into modern times, various codes have been applied to protect property, citizens, settlements and cities.

Rules and regulations can in fact offer a fascinating insight into our cultural landscape. They are constantly evolving as they are reviewed, updated and re-written, being part of a dynamic system that respond and react to shifting social values, changing economic and political climates, new technologies, and disasters.

The Great Fire of London in September 1666 was a disaster. It is the reaction to this disaster that signals the most significant turning point in the history of regulations. London at the time, was a walled medieval city, characterised by narrow winding streets, overcrowding, and organic in every sense – layout, growth, construction materials and

techniques. The Great Fire famously started in a bakery and went on to ravage the city for four days, destroying over 80 per cent of the city or 1.5 square kilometres.3

To prevent such a disaster happening again, the radical Rebuilding Act for the reconstruction of London was passed in parliament as soon as February 1667. Out of the Rebuilding Act came the concept of the modern city – a convergence of building rules and urban planning regulations designed to order and shape the new city according to a grand and ambitious vision. This vision, led by King Charles, the city and appointed commissioners (including Christopher Wren), was originally about Baroque elegance and splendour –civic pride and safer communities. While the full vision could not be realised for various political and economic reasons, what is important in the history of city making and building is that the reconstruction was undertaken in a more cohesive and considered way. This was in stark contrast to the traditional development of the city. Previously development of cities was uncoordinated because property was only in the hands of individual owners and groups with vested interests, such as guilds, corporations and parishes.

Even without the Baroque embellishments, Christopher Wren and his commissioners laid the foundations for a strategic framework or set of regulations and controls that systematically ordered, guided and defined the development of re-constructed London. While the Rebuilding Act and the history of building rules and planning regulations is largely a history of mitigating fire risk – Wren’s legacy is a built framework that went much further than fire. His framework, incorporating city systems and flows, has gone onto inform the construction of cities the world over –from Barcelona and Paris to Baltimore, New York and Chicago. Meanwhile, the King, the city and the commissioners, under the hand and eye of Wren created the majestic city of London, the impact of their innovations still

evident – 350 years on.

The framework understood the various aspects of urban life –religious activities, secular activities, trade and commerce, and street life. It gave permanence and safety mandating the use of only brick and stone building materials. It ensured safe and convenient access for all traffic by ordering the widening, paving and straightening of primary streets. It considered amenity by introducing dwelling typologies to control height, reduce overshadowing and to provide an overall sense of civic order and regularity. It reduced the risk and threat of catastrophic fires through the inclusion of fire safety infrastructure, such as greater access to water and the incorporation of street hydrants. Beyond the building rules and planning regulations, the Great Fire of London is also considered responsible for the birth and development of the modern insurance industry and fire brigades. Fire continues to be a major threat and risk – ask any fire engineer. As our buildings get bigger and more complex and population density increases the risk and devastating consequences of fire grow. Fire, however, is not just an urban threat. It is a constant threat to bushfireprone regional and rural populations, particularly in Australia where locally communities are still recovering from the most recent Black Saturday fires in 20094 and the Great Ocean Road bushfire in 2015.5

The history of dwellings, settlements and cities will also reveal a history of other disasters and catastrophes. Fires could destroy property, lives and livelihoods, but so too, disease has wreaked havoc, decimating populations – the extent and effect of the great bubonic plagues or black death, cholera and flu epidemics across the globe are well known and documented. Unregulated building and planning environments leave cities vulnerable. Immediately prior to the Great Fire, the Great Plague of London in 1665-6 had already been responsible for the death of 100,000 people or almost 25 per cent of the population.6 Living conditions were →

unhealthy and unsanitary – with poor indoor and outdoor environmental quality – air quality, natural light, ventilation and sanitation. However, even with innovations in health and technology, in the 21st century we are still not immune from the threat of pandemics.

Unfortunately, it was not until the Industrial Revolution and the great city building projects that building rules and planning regulations were introduced to address fundamental health and liveability criteria – setting minimum standards for natural light, room dimensions, open spaces, ventilation, water supply, sanitation, and ultimately with provisions for power supplies, parking and public transport. As recently as April 2017, the Better Apartment Design Standards and guidelines were introduced in Victoria to improve health and amenity within multi-residential building developments. The updated rules and regulations attempt to improve both the psychological and physical quality of spaces based on similar criteria, with additional guidelines governing landscape, acoustics and universal access to waste and water management.

We think of our built environment as a collection of inert and static objects – a collection of non-living objects. While it is in fact more accurate and now accepted that the built environment is a living environment – ecological in nature. It is part of a complex and dynamic interaction of systems which include the buildings, their occupants, the wider built environment, and the natural environment.

As recently as the 1980s, a medical condition referred to as ‘sick building syndrome’ (SBS) was identified. This condition is believed to have coincided with the oil crisis, which pushed energy prices to new highs. Building managers, in order to offset rising costs, frequently reduced fresh air entering buildings and recirculated as much as possible. SBS is a condition where occupants suffered unspecified ill-health, apparently linked to the time spent in buildings.

In 1984, the World Health Organisation reported that up to 30 per cent of new and remodelled buildings worldwide may be the subject of complaints related to SBS. The causes of SBS were attributed to poor indoor air quality based on poorly performing mechanical heating and ventilation systems as well as off-gassing from chemicals used in building materials and products.

The built environment is often a living and breathing testament to the politics, economics and technologies of the day – with variations readily visible and traceable from country to country, or even state to state and across different eras – from medieval to industrial, post-war reconstruction and now post-industrial, including large-scale urban renewal projects, and with the phenomenon of globalisation, densification and urbanisation. Under grandfathering provisions however, unless a building is being renovated, new and updated rules and regulations do not usually apply to existing buildings.

In the lead-up to the preparation of this Architect Victoria issue, there has been a lot of high profile and relevant activity around building rules and planning regulations. The list is by no means exhaustive, but includes:

• The Victorian Cladding Taskforce – in the wake of the Lacrosse (2014) and Grenfell (2017) fires and the unravelling of the fallout over combustible claddings – including the extent of non-compliant cladding, rectification of noncompliant cladding, changes to the regulatory system.

The Building Regulations 2018, administered by the Victorian Building Authority, and comprehensively reviewed every ten years, came into effect in June. These are separate to, but operate in conjunction with, the National Compliance Code (NCC) and the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

• The proposed Amendment C308 to the City of Melbourne Planning Scheme.

• The proposed Amendment GC81 to

the Fishermans Bend Framework.

• The Australian Institute of Architects is actively lobbying state and federal building ministers (Building Ministers Forum) to deliver a more energy efficient National Construction Code and to improve code compliance within the industry.

• And finally, the wilful disregard for rules and regulations by the developers for the 159-year-old Corkman Hotel in Carlton. The building was not only demolished without a planning or building permit but the subsequent removal and disposal of asbestos from the building was unsafe and illegal. In this case the ability for the regulators to enforce compliance across several fronts has been called into question.

For better or for worse, necessity (rules and regulations) is the mother of invention (or innovation). Exceptional buildings are not exempt from rules and regulations. Indeed they are likely to have offered creative and innovate solutions to meet regulatory demands; however, regulations by default ensure that our most prized buildings, and precincts, endure. In theory they will not fall over, blow away, burn down, get blown up, nor will they make people sick. By contrast they will enhance occupant health, community wellness and well-being and have contributed to reducing our carbon footprint and creating a cleaner and greener planet.

In the event of natural or manmade disasters striking, tighter rules and regulations apply for essential buildings and services. In preparation for disaster management and to increase our chances of survival, hospitals, police and fire stations particularly, but also, buildings with occupant numbers exceeding 5000 are designed to remain intact, safe and operational in the event of mass casualties.

Building rules and planning regulations are not just about technical compliance – they are about civic duty and civic responsibility. For better or for worse, building rules and

planning regulations acknowledge the constant negotiation in relationships between private and public, risk and safety, disaster and relief, temporary and permanent, 17th century and 21st century city ideals, heritage and new builds, speculative and deliberative developments, big complex buildings and small relatively simple buildings, the natural environment and the built environment. It is a constantly changing and evolving landscape. Thank you to the Editorial Committee and to all the contributors for their wide-ranging and thoughtprovoking content. Happy reading.

Rosemary Burne has been committed to both the discourse of architecture, and the practice of architecture for over 25 years. This committment underpins her ongoing pursuit of the highest quality design outcomes in all her projects. Rosemary has held key roles in the design and delivery of substantial works in the tertiary education, justice, health and commercial sectors.

A Victorian Chapter Councillor of the Australian Institute of Architects, Rosemary is also a member of the Institute's education and awards committees, a member of the Design Review Panel for the Office of the Victorian Government Architect and a member of the Interim National Capital Design Review Panel for the ACT Government Architect.

Notes

1 David Eisenberg, A Short History of Building Codes, in Mother Earth News, December 2006/January 2007

2 Ibid

3 City fabric and property losses are recorded as including 13,000 houses, 84 churches, numerous public buildings, and 57 halls

4 Recorded losses attributed the Black Saturday bushfire - 180 died, 414 injured, 3,500 buildings destroyed, loss of wildlife and 11,800 head of livestock – this fire is rrecorded as the ninth deadliest bushfire/wildfire event recorded in history – according to Wikipedia

5 Recorded losses attributed to the Great Ocean Road bushfire – 116 houses, 4700 head of livestock, and 4200 hectares of farmland

6 Official records show that less than 10 people perished in the Great Fire of London, however this is contested. Regardless of the true number – the fire did not decimate the population

Regulating a temporary pavilion

Words by Jana Perković with Sam Redston

Since the early 2000s, temporary buildings have gained traction in architectural discourse – and even more so in practice. From temporary or 'meanwhile' uses such as those pioneered in Berlin, Newcastle and Christchurch, via playful activations of public space, pop-up shops, largescale art installations, all the way to high-profile temporary buildings such as Serpentine Pavilion and, closer to home, MPavilion. Buildings, once conceived as solid brick and mortar, have been melting into an architecture of modular steel, pallets and air. Marking this shift are some key events or perhaps we should speak of building events, structures whose very substance is tethered to a notion of finite time. A practice of occupation (user-led), then activation (owner-led), of empty commercial and industrial buildings started with the East German industrial ruins in post-Wall Berlin and ended with the shopfronts of Newcastle in 2008, when Marcus Westbury founded Renew Newcastle to bring artists and creatives into the declining city centre. That same year, Jan Gehl led a temporary closure of Times Square to traffic, replacing it with movable

chairs, pot plants and bike baths, a pilot which sparked a thousand pop-up parks around the world. In 2010, the earthquake in Christchurch led to the formation of Gap Filler, a pop-up collective that would use temporary buildings and art installations to maintain activity in a rebuilding city. Berlin has since pioneered the use of temporary projects as the 'seeding' stage of large-scale urban renewal, a practice picked up in the Netherlands and the UK, where entire agencies now coordinate hundreds of small creative practices that occupy (and hopefully improve) city neighbourhoods.

From these low-key experiments, a more refined temporary building has followed. Architectural practices such as Raumlabor or Office of Mobile Design today specialise in agile, temporary buildings, including inflatable rooms, container shopping centres and cardboard clouds.

Serpentine Pavilion and MPavilion are key cultural events in their respective cities of London and Melbourne, as is MoMA PS1’s Young Architects Program. Temporary architecture sits equally comfortably in an art festival and in an urban renewal strategy, often elegantly bridging both.

But laws are slow to change, targeted processes and guidelines are desirable, but rarely in place. Instead, temporary buildings happen in a regulatory framework that presupposes permanence, which can pose problems even in the most benevolent context. Even the definition varies. In some countries, 'temporariness' is the building’s duration in time; in others, it is its demountability. In Victoria, temporary buildings are those built for the purpose of public entertainment –usually tents, marquees and stages.

For MPavilion, a construction that can be removed without a trace is the precondition of its existence. The City of Melbourne, which supports the project, tabled a request to the state government to grant a licence to work on the heritage-protected site of the Royal Botanic Gardens. Upon the conclusion of the program, whenever that may take place, there is an obligation to restore the site to exactly how it was before.

While there is no typical problem with such a variety of projects, the fundamental challenge revolves around designing, planning and constructing a fully compliant

building within a very reduced timeframe, while also accounting for intense public use over the building’s short lifespan. There are some advantages to building a temporary building. It does not need to be signed off by a registered architect or builder (an engineer can do it), which has made it possible for the Naomi Milgrom Foundation to pair up high-profile international architects with the innovative local engineers at Arup, Perrett Simpson and others to create tailor-made solutions for each design. Some safety issues are less stringent for an events-based building. For instance, the open design of a pavilion is advantageous for fire regulations, as in case of fire the evacuation procedure essentially results in the users simply walking away.

MPavilion is attended during the summer season and provides a four-month multidisciplinary program of free events for all. The pavilion then finds a permanent home after the

closing of the season to be utilised as an enduring cultural resource by the community. Complications arising during relocation have taught the managing team that at the opening of each MPavilion, the building should be ready-made for permanent relocation. MPavilion is a temporary building, often constructed lightly, with imminent relocation in mind, but designed according to the same regulations that would apply to any permanent building.

So how do you create experimental architecture in Australia, with some of the most stringent building regulations in the world? MPavilion works closely with the regulators, as well as its own local team of engineers, builders and consultants, to ensure that the designs, which have ranged from ancient technologies of wattle and daub to a concrete and aluminium amphitheatre, all meet the same regulations. Instead of antagonism, continuous processes of →

Above MPavilion 2018 by Estudio Carme Pinós opened on 8 October and will remain open until 3 February 2019 before relocating to a permanent location for the people of Victoria. Photo by John Gollings

consensus-building have been cultivated between the many parties that support the project. The risk of not doing so are too great. MPavilion is built in a flash, from concept designs at Christmas, to detailed design by March, to opening in October and demounting in March. Over the years, the project timeline has incrementally increased, but by building industry standards, it is still at lightning speed. Working with a stream of international collaborators requires bridging cultures when it comes to Australian safety regulations. In that regard, Sean Godsell’s first MPavilion in 2014 was the easiest partly because Godsell is a local architect, and partly because of his meticulous, detailed design. Godsell’s design also led to some enduring solutions, such as the modular grid foundations underneath

the site, that have been reused for subsequent pavilions and the landscaping in the area around the site.

The contrast between Amanda Levete’s and Bijoy Jain’s pavilions was a lesson in how different the role of architectural drawings can be in experimental processes. Levete’s pavilion was a product of an iterative, collaborative design process, involving many people on both sides. For each iteration, Amanda Levete Architects generated beautiful drawings, 3D models and full renders, but it was during the engineering process that the design had to be finessed to achieve buildability. Levete’s concept for soft, translucent petals on long stems, moving gently in the wind was realised using emerging composite material technologies while still

Above The first MPavilion 2014 by Sean Godsell. Photo by Earl Carter MPavilion is made possible through the support of the Naomi Milgrom Foundation, State Government of Victoria, City of Melbourne and ANZ

creating a protective canopy overhead with shingled interlocking petals of resin and carbon-fibre thread.

In contrast, Studio Mumbai produced books with hundreds of photographs and sketches that informed the thinking behind the structure, clearly articulating design intent and detail, but unconstrained by drawings. MPavilion riggers went to India to learn traditional bamboo construction. They prototyped solutions and resolved details ahead of time – but the construction process was deliberately organic, with the final design emerging through the hand-crafting process on site. Unable to put in a conventional engineering solution, the Arup engineers instead put together a methodology of incrementally signing off the design, piece by piece.

OMA’s pavilion, an amphitheatre with a rotating tribune (business-as-usual for the stage designers that built it, not so much for building regulators), needed a 1:1 model to truly explain its purpose and mechanics. Even when all the documentation was finalised, it required an on-site visit to collectively assess the functionality and understand the experimental architecture.

Moving to the design by esteemed Catalonian architect Carme Pinós, MPavilion engaged a local architect as a liaison. Dr Leanne Zilka, professor at RMIT University and a close friend and colleague of Pinós, had a key role in resolving regulatory issues that arose around the 2018 MPavilion. In Spain, like elsewhere in Europe, safety regulations do not assume that people will do unreasonable or life-endangering activities. Australian regulations, on the other hand, have to account for the most unreasonable user. The measure is the decision making of a small child. Pinós’ pavilion ran into a typical sort of safety regulation that would not be a problem in Spain, the need for handrails and barriers. This sort of discrepancy is very difficult to communicate, and even harder to solve in a tight timeframe while respecting the integrity of the design. Having a practising architect, particularly one that has a close relationship to the architect of the

pavilion, translate the regulatory constraints into a shared architectural language allowed for a solution. Pinós’ design additions are elegant, subtle to the eye, and comply with safety regulations without losing sight of what the building is trying to achieve.

Wherever they take place, temporary buildings are deliberately conceived as experiments. Light and quick, they are a form of rapid prototyping, and they open up the space for design imagination to soar. If they are not pushing the boundary, they are not being done right. The challenge with building experimental designs on a short timeline is in diligently considering all details, envisaging some, and resolving many more along the way. This is often tricky, sometimes frustrating, but it is part and parcel of working to discover new forms, techniques, ways of thinking and building.

Jana Perković is the editor of Assemble Papers, a magazine about small footprint living. A Masters of Philosophy candidate at Melbourne School of Design, where she has long worked as a researcher in urban geography and design. Jana also works in the performing arts as critic and dramaturg, writes a column on theatre for The Lifted Brow, and makes Audiostage with Bethany Atkinson-Quinton – a podcast of conversations with creatives.

Sam Redston has over 20 years eventproduction experience across many varied and diverse projects including White Night, Creative Production Services and the 2006 Commonwealth Games. He is Executive Director of MPavilion and has worked with each edition since it commenced in 2014.

Right Immersive sensory aesthetic experience Olafur Eliasson's Smoke Room.

Words by Peter Malatt

I am a big fan of strong building regulations. From the Vitruvian Firmatis, Utilitas, Venustatis to the original Roman (64AD) and London (1666) building codes, both of which followed intense city fires, I like the old ones better than the new ones – they are short, direct, and easy to understand. Like a good mentor, they provide a stabilising influence on the industry and basic standard of public safety by embodying hundreds of years of accumulated empirical and scientific knowledge. They are not always right, but they are far more seldom wrong. The vast bulk of our retained heritage structures are testament to the strength of these regulatory regimes.

Our modern performance

regulations have in my view introduced an element of interpretation which can result in confusion, or worse, a complete misunderstanding of the code intent – to protect human life and property.

Juhani Pallasmaa in The Eyes of the Skin makes a compelling argument for an architecture of all the senses, not just sight or the visual. Historic buildings and places provide a setting for this exploration –architecture with a sense of tactility, time and authenticity.

Adaptive reuse is the best way to return heritage buildings to active use and to the community. Six Degrees have repurposed a score of heritage buildings over 25 years, enjoying every project. There

The path of the righteous

Above RMIT Capitol Theatre foyer ceiling restoration and new LED lighting Photo by Six Degrees

is something particularly satisfying in breathing new life into strong old bones and our intent has always been to maintain the integrity and authenticity of the heritage structures.

The social and environmental sustainability is compelling, although poorly rewarded in many common green building assessment tools. Often the proportions, sense of craft and preserved lost technologies are unrepeatable using modern construction methods. Architects and builders are the keepers of these skills.

However, the reuse of buildings has a litany of complex regulatory traps for the unwary. Classification

Classes 2—9 buildings in particular are very prone to regulatory conformity issues, due to the higher performance required of these classes.

Be particularly cautious when a building reuse involves a change of classification, this may well have significant regulatory requirements such as floor loadings and width of exits. This is particularly the case when reclassifying to Class 9A or 9B

Exercise caution if the building exceeds 25 metres or four storeys, as the fire regulations will be intensely scrutinised by both the building surveyor and Melbourne Fire Brigade (MFB).

Exercise extreme caution if the proposed use is a theatre or similar high-use public space, as these have very specific fire protection and egress requirements.

Structural capacity of historic buildings

Old buildings, particularly solid brick buildings, do not meet current structural codes, particularly those for earthquake resistance. Stability measures may be required.

In many cases the integrity of the building has already been compromised by previous renovations and removal of walls – beware of this as the cellular design of traditional structures will not tolerate too much wall removal before complex stability

structures such as portal frames have to be introduced.

Floor loading is a key aspect in public buildings, particularly education and library buildings. Existing floors are unlikely to have this level of safety and will require strengthening.

Footing capacity is seldom up to modern standards and underpinning is often required at immense cost.

Beware of creating differential movement between old structures which move and new structures which do not.

Beware, also of the deterioration of brick ties in post World War II cavity brick buildings. We have encountered cases where these have completely rusted away, leaving the external skin of brick unrestrained.

Fire resistance

Old buildings, particularly solid brick buildings, commonly have unprotected steel and timber floor members. These need protection or justification under current codes, as they do not meet the requirements of types A and B construction common in multistorey class 2—9 buildings

Old brickwork is seldom as solid as it looks, and is very likely to have less than the current required integrity in a fire.

Sprinkler protection is an excellent way to ensure compliance, but is sometimes frowned upon by heritage officers.

Universal access and egress – fire safety

In our view, deemed-to-satisfy solutions with two fire isolated or protected escapes are always the preferred solution.

Beware heavily fireengineered solutions, which can cause problems with future works or additions.

Take care, particularly in Class 9 buildings, that aggregate exit widths are sufficient for escape.

Lift installations in heritage buildings can be very difficult due to projecting footings from brick walls. →

Consider external lift cores.

Existing lifts often require button and indicator upgrades as a minimum for compliance.

Services and equipment

Fire safety commonly requires a full upgrade of firefighting systems to 100-millimetre mains, hydrants, hose reels, fire detection and all emergency and exit lighting.

Sprinklers, although often difficult to integrate, provide a great deal of flexibility in dealing with fire safety issues.

Smoke control in larger buildings can be a significant issue, and require complex retrofitting of systems.

Exit and emergency lighting can be difficult to integrate aesthetically.

Health and amenity

This includes damp and weatherproofing, sanitary facilities, room heights, light/ventilation, sound transmission and insulation. Brick buildings are damp, so beware of sensitive uses such as books or gallery exhibits.

All health and amenityregulated areas are usually substandard and will require upgrading unless heritage importance can justify retention.

Many of the minor requirements such as insulation and sound can be dispensated, but take care if more than 50 per cent of the building is being upgraded or extended, as this can trigger full compliance.

Ancillary items

Minor structures, including fireplaces and atriums can be dispensated provided they do not compromise occupant safety. Bushfire-zone requirements are more difficult, especially with change of use.

Special uses

Theatres, stages, public halls, public transport have critical occupant safety issues in a fire or other emergency. Key issues such as early warning,

egress, firefighting equipment and fire rating of critical areas will be intensely scrutinised by the building surveyor and MFB, as these are key life safety issues.

Energy efficiency

Some upgrades can be minimised, particularly if the use is pre-existing and the upgrade is less than 50 per cent of area. New heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) can trigger full compliance of insulation of the building fabric. Lighting upgrades to light-emitting diode (LED) are a good compromise if colour control can be managed.

Hazardous Materials

These can be so significant as to kill project feasibility. It is not unknown for a heritage project to cost 20 to 30 per cent of the construction cost in Hazmat removal. The cost of Hazmat removal is threefold: safe removal cost;

• time for removal (beware delays); and,

• cost for safe disposal.

In our experience, Hazmat costs are far lower at tender than as variations, so early identification and accuracy of scope is critical to reducing cost risk. Common issues include: Site contamination, which is typically old rubbish, contaminated fill, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, fuel tanks, septic tanks, and/or buried asbestos. It can be extremely expensive to remove, stockpile and dispose of. It is literally a money pit, particularly if not identified prior to tender. Scary amounts of money.

• Asbestos, typically used for roofing, linings, insulation or fire protections, pipe lagging, switchboards, electrical devices, gas flues, cement sheeting, fire doors, tile underlays, vinyl tiles, window mastic, window gaskets (particularly steel windows with wired glass), tile glue (blackjack),

and some fire resistant materials such as textured paints. The quality of the Part 6 report is crucial to the management of costs.

• Synthetic mineral fibres (SMF) or glass fibre insulation, are generally low cost to remove unless you miss it in documentation.

• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), generally in old light fittings, are low cost to remove unless you miss it in documentation.

• Lead, contained in most paint up to the 1970s, is generally able to be retained, patched and painted over. In very high concentrations, common in 1880–1900 it is too dangerous to retain and must be fully removed, costs are eyewatering. Reference AS-4361.22017 removal of hazardous paint.

Authenticity and risk

'See, now I’m thinking, maybe it means you’re the evil man. And I’m the righteous man. And Mr. 9 millimetre here … he’s the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness' (Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction).

All projects have risks and costs, but these are escalated in adaptive reuse because of the difficulty in meeting more prescriptive modern regulations. This is the dark cloak of cost and time, and the building surveyor is your shepherd. Our key aim should always be to retain the authenticity of the place or building.

Peter Malatt is an architect and one of the founding directors of Six Degrees. With over 25 years experience in the construction industry, he has been project lead for many of the large institutional projects completed by Six Degrees. In 2013, Peter was elected Victorian Chapter President of the Australian Institute of Architects.

Right Found wallpaper, Newmarket Hotel

Photo by Greg Elms

Our key aim should always be to retain the authenticity of the place or building – this is what gives it character and stimulates all of our senses, including touch, smell, acoustics and even taste. Just don’t lick the paint.

Adapt and recovery design

Words by Robert Stent

It is not news that the world is facing unprecedented challenges. Climate change with the now irreversible sea-level rise and frequency of extreme-weather events, is creating more frequent disasters. With the rapid increase in urbanisation, disasters will put more people and the places where they live at risk. This conjunction of ubanisation and climate change proposes that the current regulatory framework and planning of urban environments will be inadequate. Historically, architects have led changes in the course of urban development. Recently however, this has been an area where architects and design thinking, have been largely absent. The planning of our urban environment will require research strategies as to how built and natural environment systems will support communities. The economy and infrastructure can shift towards being resilient, adapt for it, or if necessary relocate or retreat from risks generated by climate change.

Architects understand the vital links between cities and urban and natural environments, community, buildings and economy. They have different ways of viewing the world and manage processes to measure and analyse context through collaboration with other disciplines. When design processes are applied within the right setting, these are essential tools to realise solutions. Architecture in the future will also need to adapt and be an agent for reducing risks from disasters, while seeking to assist ways to provide multiple environmental, social and economic benefits that do not currently exist. An architecture that uses skill for identifying problems and problem solving via design thinking will be crucial in achieving outcomes for resilience and adaption. Architects are generally not positively viewed in disaster recovery and humanitarian fields. This is partly due to cultural baggage. They are perceived to cause more harm than good by self-serving project

Above Marysville recovery continues to struggle. Photo by Robert Stent

interventions. It is also due to the advent of other built-environment professions, such as town planners and project managers restraining architects' roles. More locally, the structure of government in Victoria is also a factor, created in the era of horse and buggy. The everyday government processes are not well equipped to deliver coordinated solutions across its number of departmental silos. This led to the creation of Emergency Management Victoria (EMV), the state authority provided with the extensive remit of making ‘safer and more resilient communities.’ Its role in disaster recovery is ‘assisting people and communities to achieve a proper and effective level of functioning and restoration of emotional, social economic and physical wellbeing’ (EMV Strategic Plan 2020). It is an appropriately highly structured organisation around systems-based coordinated command processes created to direct and co-ordinate myriad resources in response to disaster events as they occur. An important consideration, is the way in which problems are identified and solutions derived through analysis. Design would be assumed to be a required role in advocacy and creative problem solving for response to recovery, yet design appears absent within EMV’s literature.

In the recovery phase following the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, design as recovery tool was ineffectively used, if at all. This major disaster consisted of a series of individual bushfires that burnt across Victoria killing 173 people, destroying 2133 dwellings and leaving 7500 people homeless. In one of the worst affected communities, Marysville, the recovery response was directed, by then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, to rebuild ’brick by brick’. Consequently, the process was rushed without any consideration of understanding the character and cause of the problem. The recovery plan was initiated by the EMV’s predecessor, the Victoria Bushfire Recovery Reconstruction and Recovery Authority, with efforts

hard-wired to restore what was there previously, sidelining the community in the process. Possible alternative avenues of development and economic models that sought resilience were not investigated. The recovery process lacked critical analysis of the context and to identify the interconnected issues compounding the problem. The recovery failed to consider the implications of ecotourism to the Marysville economy. Tourists were previously attracted to its natural environment, which the bushfire devastated. Business activity dwindled, less people were employed, and many less inclined to move to the town. Micro-businesses and employment opportunities dissipated. Many of the Marysville residents would not return due to trauma. Rebuilding was made difficult due to a lack of insurance, or gaps in insurance with increased rebuilding costs imposed by new regulations and approval procedures. The recovery and reconstruction of Marysville overlooked the need to recast Marysville with a viable economic future or acknowledgement of future bushfires. No data was collected, no research was undertaken, and no analysis provided for initiating creative thinking for re-imagining development and economic viability. Marysville’s future remains challenged because it took the route to rebuild what was there, reinforcing the gap between vulnerability and resilience.

Top-down processes are prone to limit outcomes to known parameters. The meeting of standards via procedural compliance typically restricts innovation. For example, on the urban fringes, the planning scheme in Victoria supports the package house-and-land-development model. The problems of services, employment and social isolation, reliance on the car, obesity and more recently, the risk of bushfire in these areas are well documented, yet its development continues. The Marysville recovery was a top-down process demonstrating a lack of investigative design and problem-solving processes. Design is problem solving, especially

appropriate for complex situations where values and preferences are involved. Design can be ambiguous and require a high level of tolerance and time to explore a range of aspects to arrive at a potential direction. This presents a challenge to EMV to accept that design (by architects) can be employed within a systems-based management of disaster risk and processes of recovery.

Can design thinking play a role in strategising better solutions for EMV in the future?

Architects need to resist the temptation to preempt solutions in this field and listen respectfully to the communities. This is not architecture imposing singular buildings as aesthetic objects. It highlights the gap between the perception of architects and what they are skilled and capable of doing. The inherent reflect-inaction tools within an architect’s skill set of being a facilitator, analyst and spatial curator can be vital. A systems-based design process will be additionally productive when part of a diagnostic, transdisciplinary team, with community members, indepth knowledge of the problem by fieldwork and research of mapping risks and context. From there, new development solutions can emerge, be communicated and accepted, funded and implemented.

Robert Stent is currently undertaking a Masters degree in disaster design and development at RMIT University. He is researching ways in which architects can contribute to humanitarian and disaster recovery efforts. He is a practicing architect and former founding Director at Hayball Architects. He is also a former Victorian Chapter President of the Australian Institute of Architects.

Regulations and compliance

Words by John Bahoric

The challenges presented to 21st century society are numerous. Industrialisation, development of infrastructure, and the associated rise of cities and urban centres, present themselves as challenges, which arguably are disruptors to societal norms. Population growth, resource management, global warming, digital disruption and the organisation of labour are all having an impact on how we live and how our cities are shaped, and change is occurring at a rapid rate.

A key mechanism society uses to manage, moderate and officiate over the built environment are our requirements to comply with rules, regulations and the law.

These are the rules of engagement, which ideally democratise access to the planning and approvals processes and provide a common playing field for those in a position to shape our built environment.

The requirement for compliance in the built environment has historically gone hand-in-hand with the most fundamental tenets of our city and societal institutions.

‘Then came the churches, then came the schools

Then came the lawyers, then came the rules

Then came the trains and the trucks with their loads

And the dirty old track was the telegraph road.’

The levers of regulation and compliance allow us to shape the sort of society that we want and, most significantly, how we respond to 21st century drivers of change. According to Stan Krpan, CEO at Sustainability Victoria and CEO of the Victorian Cladding Taskforce, good regulations are underpinned by a sound ethical basis that drive appropriate outcomes: ‘It’s a human right that people may be able to interact with safe buildings – design quality and excellence are important, but safety is paramount.’

Krpan also firmly believes appropriate regulation is vital in underpinning a first world economy:

‘It is absolutely critical to a developed economy like Australia’s, where the built construction sector contributes to approximately 25 per cent of the economy, that the construction sector be built on best practice and good regulation – and this is critical to enable a transition to a low carbon economy.’ →

Left Melbourne city and suburbs consisting mainly of single-home dwellings, Photo by Getty images

‘Good regulations, which are smart and agile, are required to best respond to the situation in order to ensure that standards are maintained and improved as appropriate.’

– Stan Krpan

Melbourne recently reached a population figure of five million in the month of September 2018. Much has been said about the urban sprawl at the suburban fringes, which accounts for over 50 per cent of the population growth. The sprawl has often preceded the construction of adequate infrastructure, such as public transport, schools and hospitals, and is considerably distant from where most employment opportunities exist. This then adds to the already high congestion observed on much of the road network.

Krpan is concerned that much of the current development of residential housing may not conform to the notion of low-carbon development. Further compounding this is the move to a three-year amendment cycle, commenced in 2016, by the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) in order to ease what has been an annual need for the industry to keep up with changes. Krpan notes that ‘with a backlog of changes to the code in motion and already set for the scheduled 2019 update, residential standards won’t be updated again until 2022 during which time a further 500,000 houses will be built’ Urbanisation around the world has expanded at a rapid rate and has been driven largely by fossil-fuel technologies and the mechanisation of agriculture, often resulting in the degradation of the rural and natural environment.

Today, 55 per cent of the world’s population lives in urban areas, a proportion that is expected to increase to 68 per cent by 2050. Projections show that urbanisation, the gradual shift in residence of the human population from rural to urban areas, combined with the overall growth of the world’s population could add another 2.5 billion people to urban areas by 2050.

To ensure that the benefits of urbanisation are fully shared and inclusive, policies to manage urban growth need to ensure access to infrastructure and social services for all, focusing on the needs of the urban poor and other vulnerable groups

for housing, education, health care, decent work and a safe environment. Krpan believes that we are well placed to deal with these challenges, but that there is much work to do yet:

‘We are highly regarded around the world as we have national standards that provide for a good level of amenity, but there is room to grow in terms of design excellence. There is a far too broad gulf between our best buildings and our worst – while there are many amazing buildings, there are far too many poorly designed buildings with poor outcomes.’

It is a team effort to drive the requirements for good design outcomes, and regulatory outcomes play a key role in enabling this both today and into the future. Krpan believes that good design outcomes are driven by people with the right skill set and supported by fostering the right culture. Government, developers, authorities, practitioners and the community all have a shared responsibility, and regulation alone won’t achieve this.

‘Leading companies are moving beyond what regulations require. There are companies who will only invest in zero net carbon building portfolios, and who are actively divesting of poor quality assets. This is driving the higher end of the market. The question is how do you scale this up across the market?’

Of the less satisfactory outcomes, Krpan notes with introspection that ‘there are regulations, and the enforcement of the regulations and the cultural aspects which come with that.’

For its part, the ABCB has been actively seeking to reshape our regulations in response to the changing landscape.

Daniel Soussan, Principal Town Planner at Tract Consultants, notes that ‘there have been more changes in the past few years in terms of planning controls and policies in Victoria than there have in the past 30 years. From the introduction of mandatory provisions in the residential zones regarding building height and garden area, new performance-based

provisions for apartment design, all the way through to sweeping changes to the central city built-form controls.’ Given the relative infancy of these controls, it is fair to say that the effect on the built form of our city and suburbs probably hasn’t yet manifested.’

Soussan also notes that there is a tilt away from the historically performance-based approach set out in the Victorian Planning Provisions and a shift to mandatory controls (ie mandatory heights, mandatory garden area requirements, etc). On the trend, Soussan notes that ‘this in my view, in some cases, is stifling innovation and the opportunity for a contextual response.’

Krpan agrees, ‘performancebased approaches don’t always drive good outcomes due to the definitions around them … performance-based approaches should encourage innovation and definitions of compliance could and should be tailored to drive appropriate outcomes.’

And perhaps the last word should be reserved for post-occupancy performance – after all, this is the key indicator as to whether the best design intentions and aspirations are physically manifest in the final built form. ‘We don’t do enough on postoccupancy research’, reflects Krpan, ‘though it is hard to regulate ... There is still much work to be done in achieving the triple bottom line (achieving social, environmental and profit driven goals) – but the community want it.’

John Bahoric is a structural engineer and director with over 25 years experience in the delivery of complex projects. He has a wide range of experience in team leadership, advisory, project management and design management, across multi-disciplinary projects. John complements this work with teaching activity in the schools of engineering and architecture across many tertiary institutions as well as supporting a number of key industry and social enterprise initiatives.

The FK + BIG Beulah Southbank experience

Words by Jessica Lee

Beulah International challenged six architectural teams to design a building that would accommodate over ten building programs (totaling over 220,000 square metres of area) within a site of approximately 6000 square metres. Fender Katsalidis (FK) teamed up with Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) while five other local firms partnered with renowned international practices to develop schemes for the BMW Southbank site in Melbourne.

Against Melbourne’s backdrop of the recently adopted C270 planning guidelines, apartment design guidelines in Victoria and other hotly debated building regulation requirements, the client’s brief was viewed as aspirational, ambitious and ultimately, inspiring. Although there was a

strong commercial intent to the project, Beulah aspired to deliver a development that offered immense public benefit to the local and wider community. The site was envisaged to become a local facility to live, work and play, offering a wide selection of amenities for a diverse range of users. Moreover, the project was to be a landmark destination that would attract visitors from near and far. The vision was for a precinct to programmatically integrate into its urban context yet stand as a visual beacon within Melbourne’s city skyline.

The maximum building envelope was defined as a combination of the site boundary plan, setback requirements, and the maximum height of 360 metres due →

Above Laneways in the sky. Photo by James Park, Render by BIG

PROGRESSIVE SETBACKS

FIRE EGRESS + REFUGE FLOORS

to air-traffic-control restrictions.

Schedule 10 of the Design Development Overlay, which affects the site, prescribes that street wall heights (in our case the podium for a tower) are limited to 40 metres and for the towers above to be setback by a minimum of five metres or six per cent of the total building height, whichever is greater.

There is additional flexibility for towers above 80 metres in terms of the location and/or shape of the floor plates. The overall intention for the planning process was for discretion to be awarded subject to exceptional design. The tower design evolved through a series of progressive setbacks, whereby the building volume steps back incrementally by six per cent of the height to meet regulatory intentions and yield a more slender tower overall. The tower stood with a tapered top that created less mass in the skyline, and less overshadowing at ground level.

As a result of the setbacks, a series of terraces were created. The tower steps back respectfully from Southbank Boulevard so that the green terraces to the east become a visual extension of the boulevard with larger terraces to the west receiving evening sun and views out to the bay. The terraces would also provide a buffer to Hanover House in the event it

was sold and developed separately.

The high aspect ratio of the site boundary, at 6191 square metres, suggested the use of two cores allowing for more efficient layouts while optimising walking and egress distances at upper levels. The two cores presented the opportunity to split what would have otherwise been a traditional monolithic podium into two blocks, one larger and one smaller, enabling generous spaces around the base, between, and fronting Southbank Boulevard.

The stacked blocks between the cores extend upwards and interlock to provide connectivity and structural rigidity, appearing as a zipper of diverse functions. The tower tapering inwards, negotiates the spaces between surrounding buildings, avoiding direct views on to other towers and minimises overshadowing.

The building programs, which range from residential, seniors living, hotel, commercial, cultural, retail, entertainment zone, childcare and showroom, were arranged according to value proposition, views, functional relationships, and efficient floor depths. In some cases, different program types were placed side by side where it made sense to have shared amenities. This allowed for tenants, guests, and the public

to avoid the traditional horizontal stratification of towers and benefit from increased amenity and potentially new economic, social and creative opportunities through interaction.

Amenity provisions were distributed throughout the tower at the base of each block and at points where use changes, so that they are always connected to the laneways in the sky. Each with its own identity and expression, connected to a specific place and providing a human-scale, ground-level experience.

These communal levels were strategically placed to double-up as evacuation floors. Due to highoccupant loads and potentially long evacuation times, the tower proposed refuge floors as a performance solution for fire egress and to supplement fire-exit stairs. In the lower podium blocks, escalators were used to supplement fire stairs for retail in addition to smoke curtains and smoke exhausts on each floor.

The Southbank by Beulah competition produced six highly unique design responses to the site. While the rules of engagement were consistent between all parties, the varied design approaches brought

to light that remarkable outcomes are achievable within planning and building guidelines and regulations. The evolution of the FK+BIG lanescraper went beyond the proverbial village in the sky to something uniquely Melburnian. The final proposal was born from a series of pragmatic responses and constraints of context and rules and regulations. However, the process unveiled opportunities that gave form to an iconic building design.

Jessica Lee is Associate Director at Fender Katsalidis, and has been with the practice since 2004. She has been involved in many award-winning projects such as the NewActon Precinct in Canberra and Jacques in Richmond.

From top left fire egress and refuge floors, middle progressive setbacks and below maximum height envelope

Bushfires and regulating safety

Words by Kim Irons

While bushfires occur every year in Victoria, some have devastating impact on communities and landscapes. These have included Black Thursday (1851), Black Monday (1865), Black Sunday 1926, Red Tuesday (1898), Black Friday (1939), Ash Wednesday (1983), Alpine Fire (2003), Grampians fire (2006), Great Divide (2006/07), Black Saturday (2009), Christmas Day (2015).1

Each time we learn, and on occasion a response is triggered from authorities and government to better regulate, especially when it causes damage to property and lives.

In Victoria following the 1939 bushfires, sawmills were to located away from extreme forested environments and into settlements. Victoria's first bushfire specific planning tool was introduced after the 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires. However, it was the devastating fires of Black Saturday in 2009 that have had the greatest regulatory impact on

built form. The role that the land-use planning system plays in bushfire resilience was reinforced resulting in a revised series of Bushfire Management Overlays (BMO) with updates to the State Planning Policy Framework in 2011 that required local planning schemes to apply consistent bushfire management strategies and principles to strengthen community resilience to bushfire.

Black Saturday also triggered the expedited implementation of the revisions to AS3959 (based on studies of the earlier Canberra fires), introducing Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) ratings. Prior to these revisions, AS3959 responded to attack from ground-level fire, usually grass, focused on a lower level of ember attack. The new regulations changed to include impact of higher radiant heat and extreme winds, assessing principal factors such as locality fire danger index, site topography, vegetation type and density. →

Above Two Halves House by Moloney Architects. Photo by Christine Francis Right Turramurra House, Noxon Giffen, BAL FZ with integrated roller shutters to windows and solid masonry base. Photo by Katherine Lu

Bushfire Management Overlay

The Bushfire Management Overlay tool in the planning scheme is based on strategies and principles including:

• Prioritising the protection of human life over other policy considerations in planning and decision making in areas at risk from bushfire.2

Ensuring that development is only permitted if the risk to life, property and community infrastructure can be reduced to an acceptable level.3

But does this tool truly prioritise human life when approvals for rezoning of rural and highly vegetated landscapes continues, and has this really had any impact on the approach to planning?

Further changes to the planning scheme occurred in late 2017, applying more Bushfire Management Overlays with applicable Bushfire Attack Levels. Provided in an effort

to identify areas of potential threat, generally these trigger siting issues associated with fire vehicle access, static water storage on site, tree removal and the need to submit a BAL assessment as part of the process, for referral to the Country Fire Authority. The overlays are applied retrospectively to existing properties and townships. However, the most recent application has seen dramatic increases in the suggested BAL rating such as BAL 29 used on adjacent properties with no applicable BMO. Are residents aware of the changes and associated issues?

A high BAL rating tends to go hand in hand with steep sites with erosion control issues and vegetation protection. The application of BMOs comes with a heavy-handed approach to vegetation protection, often allowing removal of trees within ten metres of a house and used as a tool to lower the applicable BAL. But is this the correct approach?

The removal of trees can certainly reduce impact but does it compromise the quality of those places? If trees are removed the erosion impacts can be exacerbated and a deterrent in approval of erosion management. It remains confusing to some, that if no BMO is applicable, how a site is vulnerable to bushfire requirements? The following may provide some guidance:

1. Check planning schemes for any applicable BMO. If applicable, obtain a BAL assessment which will confirm a rating and/or potential for tree removal.

2. If not in a BMO area check with the building surveyor if a BAL is required.

3. Obtain a BAL assessment by an independent consultant. If directly next to a BMO, recommend one.

4. If no BAL is applicable, provide evidence. The building surveyor will ultimately require it.

Above Ramp House, Irons McDuff Architecture, BAL 29 designed to integrate optional future roller shutters. Photo by Nic Granleese

Bushfire Attack Level

While the planning regulations focus on site and access issues, the Bushfire Attack Level is predominantly focused on construction.

BAL 12.5 conditions are reminiscent of the previous AS 3959 conditions protecting structure and openable windows from ember attack. The more extreme flame zone endeavours to address radiant heat and large ember attack. Its requirements substantially more onerous than we consider standard construction.

Some may argue the BAL assessment method is a blunt instrument and must be revised to allow greater scope for expert consultants to offer the relevant consent. However, it is subject to interpretation especially in the assessment of the type of bush or vegetation. We rely on experts for this advice, and so it should be. But how is it a site with 12 degree fall and woodland in Aireys Inlet can have the same BAL 12.5 as the outer edge of a suburb facing flat grasslands? In practice, there is capacity for assessments to be made in consultation with the CFA. However, this referral is only required when triggered by a planning scheme BMO. There is also some discretionary risk where alterations to existing buildings allow building surveyor’s approval with only partial compliance. Based on an argument of financial hardship, it is possible for a new building to comply, while leaving the existing fabric to remain vulnerable. As a result of these conflicts, is recommending higher performance too prohibitive at BAL 40 and FZ levels? It should be a client choice, informed by the best advice. This may marginally increase costs, but with an early integrated design approach and the innovation in window manufacturing and cladding, it may not be as onerous as we think; however, it may be inevitable that insurance will have the greatest influence on this choice. Our landscape is meant to burn, and fire was a tool used delicately, regularly

and with great intelligence to farm the land by the first Australians, resulting in very low risk of large wildfires. Is it the landscape that should be compromised or our approach to building within that landscape – or even sometimes not building in the landscape at all?

As climate is becoming more vulnerable and more people are living closer to bushland and peri-urban fringes of cities and towns, fire will continue to impact our lives and shape our built environment. Ultimately the regulations provide a framework for us to build more resilience, but they are no guarantee of safety. It is our duty to comply with regulations and provide safe environments. None of us want that compromised. Can architects protect life under the most extreme situations if the cost is life? Perhaps any architect’s best advice should be to leave – leave early.

Kim Irons is a regionally-based architect with additional experience in government design advice and a former Country Fire Authority member. Irons McDuff Architecture has designed a number of dwellings in BAL 12.5—29 conditions and is currently working on two BAL 40/FZ areas.

Notes

1 https://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/articles/3029

2 Clause 13.02

3 Clause 52.47

4 Dick Clarke, Building in bushfire-prone areas: it’s a question of balance, The Fifth Estate, 15 May 2013

Between flexibility and control

Words by Katherine Sundermann and Clare Easterbrook-Lamb

Rules are an essential element of balancing the private and public interests that are an inevitable part of development, and when best formulated they can ensure design quality. To be effective urban designers we must come to know the tools we have available to guide the market. The key challenge then is determining the right ‘rules’; that is, determining what rules, and in what combination, can best achieve a rich, well-considered, flexible and sustainable development that can work both with the affecting market, contextual and social forces, as well as with the governance structure that may apply them.

Traditionally, this would come in the form of a set of planning controls that prescribe minimum requirements for the built outcome either in terms of form or performance. These would be described as ‘deemed to satisfy’ rules, such as minimum setback requirements, or performance-based rules, such as minimum requirements for solar access. We can add to this another kind of 'rule' logic; one which controls the methodology of development itself by creating requirements of the

process. These requirements may apply to the financial model, client group, staging or governance structure of a project.

This article looks at two case studies where rules have been creatively used to create a socially, programmatically and architecturally diverse neighbourhoods that appear to have been built over time. Both of these projects attempt to recreate the urban complexity of older inner city neighbourhoods in new developments. The first is a new community on a former school site in suburban Melbourne by MGS Architects, and the second is a model for development called ‘Cityplot’ by Amsterdam-based architectural office Studioninedots.

Bellfield Masterplan (MGS Architects)

In the context of investor-led housing, many new residential neighbourhoods in Australian cities are delivered all in one go with one developer, to maximise yields and efficient construction. This has led to low quality and highly standardised projects delivered more as financial instruments than as homes, with little of the diversity and flexibility of

‘The enterprise of urban design – that is to say, the linking together of various design visions via the negotiation of a diversity of private and public interests – consists more of the conscious positing of rules than the drawing up of plans’ – Alex Lehnerer (2009) Grand Urban Rules

some of Melbourne’s oldest and most successful suburbs. In the middle suburb of Bellfield in Melbourne, MGS Architects worked together with the City of Banyule, on a new masterplan and urban design guidelines. The three-hectare site began with the vision of creating a rich neighbourhood that would encourage greater diversity and flexibility:

‘Rather than a field of townhouses delivered at one time, the Bellfield neighbourhood will stitch into its surrounding context. It will welcome a diversity of residents through a range of dwelling types and an anchoring community centre and extend the landscape character of nearby parklands.’

A series of rules were put forward. These included the use of a framework plan, guidelines and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements, as well as tender criteria biasing a consortia of land owners over a single developer to balance control and flexibility.

The guidelines seek to restrict the standardising influence of market forces on the designer and encourage diversity of development by delivering a mix of plot sizes and requiring that no more than five dwellings in

a row have the same plot width or appearance. Similarly, larger plots are required to break up buildings into 25-metre lengths and create visual separation through light wells, difference in height and materiality. In order to encourage a diversity of functions within a primarily residential area, MGS Architects proposed integrated home offices, the extension of a neighbouring local retail strip and adaptable rear garages fitted with upper level studios, high ceilings and glass garage doors. This will encourage flexible use and enable greater opportunities for subleasing and tenant diversity. In recognising that a variety of housing models are required to address housing affordability and the needs of different kinds of residents, co-housing, social housing, aged care, market housing and models like Nightingale and Property Collectives were all strongly encouraged within the development through tender criteria.

Cityplot model (Studioninedots) Studioninedots’ Cityplot model similarly seeks to encourage greater diversity within a very different →

development and planning context. While Australia’s housing is focused upon investment and home ownership with a lassez-faire approach to planning, the Dutch context is tightly controlled, with strong rental and social housing components. This broader context, combined with the 2008 financial crisis, provided the ideal conditions to experiment with methodologies of development. A new way of thinking emphasised diversity of ownership and use to mitigate financial risk, while providing affordable and flexible pathways for home ownership. This saw the Cityplot model giving market forces free reign through a framework that provided a set of rules for the process of development, rather than for a built outcome. In order to better understand this project, MGS

Architects spoke with Karlijn de Jong of Studioninedots.

Clare Easterbrook-Lamb (CEL) You’ve mentioned in your explanation of Cityplot that the 2008 economic crisis demonstrated that there was a need to reconsider conventional urban planning strategies to open up more flexible models of development. You seem to see this as part of a larger challenge about how urban strategies can be more receptive to change through coherent incremental development, instead of being readymade from the beginning and delivered all in one go. Can you tell us some of the background that led to Cityplot?

Karlijn de Jong (KdJ) Cities are constantly evolving. This means that as a designer, you always have to look for ways to respond to this continuous

change. We search for flexible models. When the economic crisis began in 2008, this furthered our interest in making spaces for human interaction. It’s not only about top down but also about bottom up. Involving local entrepreneurs and utilising the local character is essential here.

CEL The idea seems to draw upon the qualities of existing cities like Buenos Aires, Barcelona and our own city of Melbourne. Can you tell us why you were drawn to these cities and the particular qualities that inspired you to develop Cityplot?

KdJ Yes, we’re not only interested in the city of Amsterdam, but we love to look at the world around us! Every city has its own distinguishing traits and urban design. The places that interest us share similarities in the spontaneous way they were created.

Right Studioninedots Cityplot representing a diversity of interests for a vibrant and active neighbourhood Below Varying plot widths create diverse building typologies and uses

They have a hybrid, as opposed to a homogenous structure, and are community driven instead of top down. If we look at the structure of an average historic city in the Netherlands, it’s the result of a fusion of different individual structures and very diverse building and housing types, functions and uses, residents and users. We think that this is a model that works well and has proven itself.

CEL How do you use rules, which can be seen as quite rigid things, to ensure flexibility and diversity within dynamic urban environments?

KdJ I think it sounds a bit strict to call it ‘The Cityplot Rules’ that dictate everything. I would prefer to describe it as a plan whereby everyone involved in the development process strives for similar ambitions and embraces the intended quality of the plan. In our urban plans, we aim to establish as few rules as possible to retain maximum flexibility. In the Buiksloterham project, for example, the municipality has adopted a very relaxed framework plan; only the building heights and maximum FSI (also known as FAR or Floor Area Ratio) have been defined. This enables a lot of flexibility in the design process.

I think it’s fair to say that, traditionally, governments have been searching for fixed and specific framework plans, urban planning conditions and the desired aesthetic of a place. At the moment, the government in Amsterdam, as well as in the rest of the Netherlands, takes more of a backseat in the realisation of plans than it had previously. They leave more to private companies, and that ensures that we, together with the developer, have more freedom in realising these plans.

We also think that it’s important to find coherence within the Cityplot model, which is diverse and full of contrasts. We have very diverse users, functions, housing types and structures. So we try, of course in consultation, to draft the overall rules instead of specific rules for the framework plan. To create calm and

consistency, we define certain colour and material palettes and outline the desired architecture. The latter is often contemporary, and connects to or contrasts with, for example, the existing buildings in the area.

CEL So once you’ve come up with the plan and the strategies that create this coherence, how do you ensure that everyone sticks to it?

KdJ We form a team where we realise the plans together with people that fit the team and/or the future community. For example, to find the right selection of architects, we organise orientation meetings where we try to inspire people and get them enthusiastic about the plan. Then we want to remain involved throughout the architecture stage in a supervisory role. We check in at different phases of the design process, and guide the plans to a design that connects with the overall vision.

CEL How important is this element of collaboration to the success of a built Cityplot?

KdJ To us, Cityplot’s success isn’t just measured by it being built, it is measured by the process that leads to development. It’s the making of a city area for a specific place, with a specific group of people in mind, with the goal of creating a lively urban district. To create a sense of liveliness, it’s not only the built environment that is important. Social factors are integral. The local community ensures that a place is used, has a sense of ownership and functions as it was intended. From the moment that a new development is initiated until the point that the urban design is actually completed, there’s a phase in between that fascinates us. This is a phase in which a city area is being collectively developed. The starting point can be a so-called ‘urban activator.’ This is, for example, a cafe run by a local entrepreneur that attracts the first users to the area. Subsequently, the community may become interested in, for example, collectively commissioning a housing block (in Dutch, a CPO or Collectief Particulier Opdrachtgeverschap) or developing →

an individual plot (in Dutch, ‘zelfbouw’ or self build). Gradually, a vacant area is transformed into a lively neighbourhood.

CEL So how do you encourage future residents to take ownership of a development and how do you make room for its future growth?

KdJ We think it’s very important that future residents are involved in the realisation of plans and the development process. We try to engage them in the conversation as early as possible. This is why we like to create space for collective commissioning and plots for selfbuild. The future residents are involved early in the process and, in this way, define the identity of the area. As mentioned earlier, we also want to make room for other future users, such as local entrepreneurs.

CEL So is the Cityplot ever complete or is it more about embracing a constant evolution?

KdJ: We view Cityplot as a model that will never be complete. A city is continuously evolving and therefore will always be receptive to future change. The Cityplot starts by encouraging temporary use at the very start. In this way, the use is immediately applicable and appropriate for the surrounding area, as well as for future users. It lends identity to the place. We need to consider this identity carefully because we prefer to begin from the outset with a target group and a use that can be enhanced and expanded later on as the project progresses.

CEL You’ve applied the Cityplot strategies across a number of sites within the Netherlands, including former industrial sites, fragmented neighbourhoods, narrow islands and even a food centre. Can you tell us how Cityplot responds to such diverse contexts?

KdJ Yes, we’ve been invited to implement the Cityplot model for different types of sites. To create a lively city block, regardless of its location, we always implement diverse

urban units, housing types and uses. Of course, site-specific factors are always taken into account. As such, the size and scale of a neighbourhood in Amsterdam is different than, for example, in Utrecht or Arnhem, and the connection of laneways and streets is always site-specific. Many areas already have their own character which we want to enhance. In this way, a railway workshop in Utrecht defines the identity of a neighbourhood, while in Arnhem it is an old dairy factory. These places have their own characteristics, which, in turn, determine the surrounding urban design.

CEL This idea of adapting to context does seem to be an important one. On that note, I want to take this idea and apply it to the difference in market context between Australia and the Netherlands. In Australia, almost all designed housing development is commissioned either by developers or by individual families who have the money to employ an architect or a builder (what the Netherlands calls ‘zelfbouw’). There is also a lot of investor housing stock. While there are housing associations that commision work, this kind of procurement model is actually quite rare within an Australian context. By contrast, more that half of housing stock in the Netherlands is owner-occupied and another third is rented out and managed by housing associations.

Your Cityplot projects tend to be commissioned by both housing associations and developers and I wonder how these two different client types affect the outcome in a Dutch context. To what extent do you think different types of commission drive the way a development might look and feel?

KdJ A very good question. In our Cityplot projects, we always try to stimulate mixed commissioning models. So besides housing associations and developers, there are also CPO groups and zelfbouw models. They all affect the outcome in their own ways. At Buiksloterham, this mixed commissioning model has been

successfully implemented but the real results are still to come. This is highly dependent on market forces. We’re now in a period of transition whereby the land prices and construction costs are increasing, and we don’t exactly know yet how this will affect the future residents. Construction has already begun on the social housing apartments. The decision to build social housing first was a very conscious one.

In the Netherlands, the role of housing associations has changed dramatically. In the past, the associations developed the projects themselves, but nowadays funding cuts from the government have restricted their role. A housing association had bought a plot in Buiksloterham, but then sold it to a developer. This earned them the funds to build social housing elsewhere. The housing quotas are strictly defined: 40 per cent of housing in new developments must be dedicated to the social sector.

CEL So what is the role of government in helping to deliver this model? In the Buiksloterham project, for example, did you receive any support for the sustainability infrastructure you proposed?

KdJ The municipality greatly helped to start this experiment in Buiksloterham. They signed the Buiksloterham circular vision, so they’re very much in favour of the project. Currently, we’re still in the making process so it’s too early to evaluate. We can say, though, that the Cityplot model arose from the crisis, and there was space to rethink the development process at the time. This opened up discussions about themes such as parking, energy, water and green space. So, for example, while the basic infrastructure of the Buiksloterham project is not off grid (the municipality is still responsible for sewerage and electricity), a sewerage plant is now being installed on-site to recycle wastewater. This is managed by the municipality’s water management organisation and is a new way of doing things.

The upcoming developments

in Buiksloterham will be almost energy neutral and mostly self sustaining. The municipality has recently tightened its rules concerning this and that’s a positive development. The municipality is also responsible for managing the public space and wanted a large say in it. The homeowners’ association does the courtyards, laneways and back lanes, which we’re designing now. All in all, we hope that the Buiksloterham process will be exemplary for followup developments in the city and in the rest of the Netherlands.

In an industry often characterised by fear-based planning controls and relatively unconstrained urban development, both the Bellfield and Cityplot projects demonstrate how different contexts warrant different rules to effectively deliver rich, well-considered and sustainable development. Urban strategies need not only comprise conventional rules but also extend to procurement through bias towards quality and collective development models. In all these cases, rules derived from their relationship with context are a critical tool to balancing the private and public interests. They secure viable investment proposition and ensure people-centred development. The ultimate goal is to ensure the design of sustainable, liveable and high quality

environments. The key question should never be ‘why’ rules but ‘what’ combination of rules is best suited to delivering the intended quality of environment.

Katherine Sundermann is an Associate Director at MGS Architects, leading masterplanning and strategic studies for university campuses, community infrastructure and urban regeneration precincts across Melbourne, Sydney and regional areas. She is also a studio leader at the University of Melbourne, running an annual study trip to the Netherlands in collaboration with TU Delft and Deltametropolis Association. Entitled ‘Opportunistic Urbanism’, this studio aims to engage architecture and urban design students with the ‘Dutch approach’ to urbanism, seeking to integrate the often segregated fields of architecture, urban design and planning.

Clare Easterbrook-Lamb is an urban designer at MGS Architects, having worked in Sydney, Melbourne and Rotterdam. She has worked on a number of masterplans for universities, developers and government in Australia, the Netherlands, Singapore and South Korea and has an interest in strategically focused and socially oriented design.

Right Immersive sensory aesthetic experience Olafur Eliasson's Smoke Room.

Above Buiksloterham proposal by Studioninedots

Reasoning with regulations

Words by Nigel Bertram

Increasingly, it seems that decisions over what is and isn’t permissible in a building are governed more by specific risk assessments and less by generalised fixed codes such as the National Construction Code (NCC). Within the complex web of regulatory compliance issues that permeated the entire New Academic Street project at RMIT University – a large campus renovation project sited across multiple previous building titles including subterranean levels and ‘false ground’ – two relatively simple examples illustrate the role that architects and consultant teams play in negotiating non-standard outcomes that meet multiple criteria.

1. Fire rating

The Garden Building is an independent three-storey pavilion facing Bowen Street, held up by a structure of solid glue-laminated hardwood timber (Victorian Ash) columns and beams. The fact that a range of other multistorey commercial structures have been successfully built in other parts of the world using mass timber structural systems did not alter the need to prove to the local fire brigade, and in turn the building surveyor, that such a structure was viable and could meet our local codes. The key issue to overcome was that of fire rating, and the performance of the timber structure in fire conditions. The NCC does not mention timber in its standard definitions for Type A construction so its suitability had to be developed and proven by the project team from first principles.

The general fire rating requirement for Type A structural elements and floors is two hours. This is achieved automatically in concrete while steel can be wrapped in layers of plasterboard or other technical claddings. However, in this building our aim was for the structural timber to remain visible and tangible in the finished building, so the fire rating was built into the thickness of the timber itself. A calculation was done specifically for this type of eucalypt hardwood, and it was established that 50 millimetres per hour, or 100

millimetres per two hours, was the charring rate, or amount of timber that lost its strength by turning to charcoal in a fire. This thickness was required to be added to all surfaces that were to be left exposed, providing a kind of structural redundancy. At the same time, our fire engineer was analysing the fire-rating requirement from another angle. Through a series of meetings with the fire brigade a hypothetical fire scenario was modelled: including the raising of an alarm; the actual time taken for trucks to reach the site from the nearest station; where fire trucks would park; access points into the building; and, how long it would take firefighters to evacuate the building and put out the fire. This analysis showed, to the satisfaction of the Melbourne Fire Brigade that all this could comfortably take place in less than one hour. This was partially due to the free-standing and highly accessible nature of the building and its small footprint. Thus, our fire-rating requirements were reduced by half. What was interesting to us as architects about this process was that our perception of the regulation shifted from an abstract number that had to be met, into a tangible, rational principle based on the actions of people within a realworld situation. This also shifted the question of fire protection from being a requirement imposed upon a design to becoming part of the design idea itself. The final structure with its 50 millimetres redundancy in all directions (and its requirement to support a live load of five kilopascals) has a massive quality and unusual proportion that gives this building its specific character. →

Right Full-height mesh balustrade with crowd loading rail at 1000mm high. Photo by Peter Bennetts Overleaf Glue-lam Vic Ash timber structure with 50mm charring zone 1-hour fire rating. (Inside face of primary beams are clad in 10mm fire-rated board in lieu). Photo by Lucinda McLean/ NMBW

2. Balustrades

The required height for balustrades in Australia is 1000 millimetres, raised from 900 millimetres in around 2002 due to a series of falls and perhaps the fact that a 900-millimetre rail for many people is almost possible to sit on. From the very start of this project the design team knew, however, that meeting the NCC requirement of 1000 millimetres was never going to be enough, due to experiences of risk perception on other public projects, but the required height was more difficult to determine and argue a case for. The provision of generous outdoor terraces and balconies was fundamental to the design idea for the whole of New Academic Street, as a way of opening up the campus buildings. Even though the simplest method of dealing with perceived accidental (or intentional) fall risk would be to raise barriers to 2100 millimetres high or more, as had been done on other projects, this was in direct conflict with the aim for transparency and openness, to create a feeling of spatial connection with the city and the outside world. Numerous meetings were held with both the client and builders where scenarios were posited such as students moving furniture up to balustrades, or stacking chairs on top of tables to get more height, or intentionally climbing up parts of the building, and our balustrades and handrails had to meet all of these, or at least reduce the risk to a reasonable level. After many months of discussions, two minimum heights were agreed on and signed off by both RMIT and Lyons: 1600 millimetres high for external terraces or large gathering spaces where risk of crowding and party-type behaviour was likely and 1250 millimetres high for internal voids, stairs and smaller incidental spaces.

Unfortunately, these two heights have other consequences from the point of view of experience, as compared to what most people are used to they still feel high and somewhat enclosing, which was the opposite of our intention for the

balconies and terraces. A rail height of 1250 millimetres is around eye height when sitting at a table and can block views. For many people 1600 millimetres is around eye height when standing, so both these rail heights become distracting. For the Garden Building and birdcage balcony by NMBW Architecture Studio, and the Building 12 eastern extension by Harrison & White, an alternative solution was found. Using thin laced, stainless-steel wire mesh extended to full height across the facade in some ways feels less enclosing than a standard balustrade. This mesh was selected to be as fine and delicate as possible using an aperture of 40 millimetres, and wire of 1.5 millimetres. It was able to become lighter by including a horizontal rail, at 1000 millimetres high where possible, to take horizontal crowd force. The mesh was designed to take the load of a 100-kilogram person climbing up on the inside. It has the added benefit in the library spaces over Swanston Street of preventing books (and other items) being thrown off and birds coming in.

We had a great building surveyor on this project (PLP), who was always able to see the principle that needed to be met in each case rather than blindly applying the rule. However, it is interesting to note that in these two examples, the role of the building surveyor (and that of the NCC) were quite mute. The consultant team’s considerable work was to convince in the first instance the fire brigade and in the second instance the client that the risk scenarios were reasonable and could meet their requirements, using evidence, reason and design from first principles.

Nigel Bertram is a director of NMBW Architecture Studio, and Practice Professor of Architecture at Monash University.

RMIT New Academic Street is a collaboration between Lyons, MvS Architects, NMBW Architecture Studio, Harrison & White, and Maddison Architects. It is embedded within previous campus work undertaken sequentially by Percy Everett, Bates Smart and McCutcheon, John Andrews, Edmond & Corrigan and Peter Elliott Architecture.

Part one –taskforce update

Words by Vanessa Bird, Adrian Stanic and Tom Jordan

The Australian Institute of Architects has communicated two clear messages to the Victorian Cladding Taskforce (VCT), based on information it has compiled from members.

Firstly, our members need clear and unambiguous guidance on material compliance and regulation, so they can specify with confidence. The wide variety of product data from suppliers, testing certificates and labelling on materials coupled with a new reliance on imported materials has, and still makes compliance less than straight forward. We support permanent label marking on materials.

Secondly, on the topic of regulation, we have proposed a number of contractual and regulatory changes required to prevent similar life-threatening recurrences. It’s this second set of changes that will be unpacked in further detail here. We have advocated for the compulsory use of architects on all buildings over four storeys and any building greater than 800 square metres in gross area; compulsory whistle blower clauses in all novated agreements; and that the role of the superintendent under a building contract be regulated.

The Institute understands the VCT has an immediate task tackling potentially unsafe cladding across Victoria; however, we have asked them to reflect upon the conditions that have created the situation we find ourselves in and consider changes that will protect the consumer in the future. The Institute is committed to working with the taskforce to ensure that this scenario is not repeated.

Unsafe building practice can extend beyond cladding to the vast number of components and systems that comprise every single building – many of these constituting critical building

performance criteria of which fire protection is one.

Cultural and structural problems in the building industry have undermined an understanding of the value and integrity of a complete set of building design documents as the proper way to produce buildings. This evolving and endemic practice raises significant consumer protection issues affecting building occupants and the general public. Latent problems impacting on building safety, quality and long-term sustainability are created by a lack of proper design and construction documents.

Every building is different through site, scale, use and complexity and each building is a bespoke composition of many different systems and elements. Accordingly, it requires the work of highly trained professionals to properly coordinate the design of these systems and elements through drawings and specifications that clearly communicate an integrated, compliant design to a builder/ contractor. Architects are the only profession trained, practised, regulated and registered under an Act of Parliament to undertake this task, providing building design integrity through a service that covers both the drawing and construction phases of a project, from its inception through to completion and occupation.

Tom Jordan, Director of Hayball, represented the Victorian Chapter on the Stakeholder Reference Group to the Victorian Cladding Taskforce in 2017. Adrian Stanic, Director of Lyons, has assumed the role in 2018. Both Tom and Adrian bring large practice experience and significant understanding of the architect’s role under novated contracts to the reference group.

They bring broad technical knowledge, including understanding of product substitution, understanding of fire engineering, product labelling and value management to the reference group to enable the group to better understand the architect’s role under novation and the improvements required by the profession. Tom,

Adrian and Vanessa Bird have held explanatory and advocacy meetings with Stan Krpan, Rob Spence CEO Municipal Association of Victoria and taskforce member, and John Merritt, taskforce member, Special Advisor to the Minister for Planning, and have provided written advice to the cochairs.

Architects report that they are regularly and forcibly disconnected from the decisions and outcomes that shape the design integrity of final constructed buildings through a range of construction/delivery practices and this has been communicated to the taskforce. The critical issues include: Partial architectural services, such as an architect engaged for the town planning phase documentation completed by drafting services or the builder.

• Novated contracts, whereby the builder takes full charge of instructing the detailed design and the architect.

• The majority of major building contracts are now administered by non-architects leaving the critical role of superintendent in the hands a range of players who are unregulated, often unqualified and uninsured and who may be conflicted in this role.

• Project managers who are unregulated and often unqualified directing the detailed design. Building systems and elements being substituted by the building contractor during construction without appropriate design or regulatory review and then concealed within the construction works and without notification to the architect or building surveyor or fire engineer.

• Complex systems that are incorporated into buildings, including facades that are being fabricated overseas to lesser standards than those that are accepted in Australia / Victoria.

• Building products that are not regulated and or certified for specific uses in construction being inappropriately or unsuitably used. →

In response to this situation the Institute proposes that regulations are established to create robust protection for the design integrity of buildings through mandatory use of registered architects and engineers through all stages of the drawing and construction phases for any building four storeys and greater and any building less than four storeys that is more than 800 square metres in gross area. (In NSW SEPP65 requires the use of an architect on all apartment buildings over three storeys.) Mandating that the design architect is retained for all stages of delivery is also critical to ensure continuity of design intent so that fundamental objectives, including safety in design, are not compromised.

In addition, the role of the superintendent should be regulated in a similar way to architectural registration. This would be consistent with the emerging professionalisation of project managers which is occurring through new degree courses offered within architecture schools at universities.

We also recommend that regulations be established to ensure that an architect or engineer novated to a builder cannot be contracted out of decisions that change the design integrity of a building, particularly where life safety, building quality or sustainability are concerned. Under novated consultant agreements, notification of non-compliance clauses should be mandatory in order to protect the interests and safety of the client, building occupiers and the public.

For architects, professional indemnity (PI) insurance is the most important protection when it comes to cladding claims. This is the policy the architect would look to for cover if the building owners made a legal claim, for example alleging the architect had negligently specified or approved a non-compliant cladding product.

A key feature of PI insurance is that these are claims-made policies. This means that if someone makes a claim for compensation, then it is the PI policy in place at the time that claim is made and notified to the insurer that must cover the claim. The PI policy you had in place at the time the project was designed and built will not provide cover.

The cladding issue has highlighted another implication of claims-made insurance. Over the last two years, professional indemnity insurers have started to tighten their policies and exclude cover for claims arising from non-compliant cladding, due to the perceived scale of risk.

Because of the claims-made nature of PI policies, if insurers add such an exclusion to your policy, the effect is not limited to your new projects. These exclusions can also leave you uninsured for new claims arising out of your past projects. (However, the good news is that there is no effect on claims that are already underway, ie that you have notified to your insurer before the exclusion was added to your policy.)

exclusions have emerged, and some architects may even have policies with no cladding exclusions. It is a good sign that the Insurance Council of Australia’s Aluminium Composite Panels (ACP) Hazard Identification/ Reporting Protocol recognises that all ACPs are not high risk and differentiates between high risk (over 35 per cent polyethylene) and those with limited or no combustibility risk (under seven per cent polyethylene).

Architect's should also protect themselves by staying up-to-date with regulatory changes in Victoria, including these:

Amendments to Vol 1, Building Code of Australia 2016

• Closes the attachment-loophole. All components of a wall, including facade covering, must be noncombustible

• Introduces new verification method CV3 allowing use of panels tested under AS5113-2016 so long as certain additional safety features (such as sprinklers and cavity barriers) are included

Ministerial Guideline MG-14

• Requires approval from the Building Appeals Board to use cladding with more than 29 per cent polyethylene, or expanded polystyrene in any quantity, in Type A or B construction

Building Regulations (Vic) 2018

Part two –insurance claims

Words by Wendy Poulton

In the early 2000s, after some large class actions, most insurers excluded cover for all claims arising out of asbestos, and the exclusions applied to past work as well as future. A small number of architects did have to manage uninsured asbestos claims over the next decade, but the lack of cover did not cause mass insolvencies, and we are now starting to see insurers offer limited amounts of cover for asbestos. Some sectors of the insurance market approached cladding with the same aversion and added extremely broad policy exclusions that applied to any non-conforming building products. However, as insurers' knowledge of the risk has grown, more moderate

Requires the Relevant Building Surveyor to get approval from a fire engineer (or other qualified sources listed in reg 121) for any performance solution on a fire safety matter (see VBA Practice note 37-2018)

Before specifying or approving a cladding product, call for written evidence under Part A2.2 of the Building Code (preferably Codemark certification or NATA testing) showing either that it meets the deemed to satisfy requirement (effectively being non-combustible under AS1530.1) or forms part of a properly documented performance solution. In both cases, obtain written approval from the building surveyor and fire engineer.

New projects

Words by Laura Held

Project 1 Cathi Colla Architects

Five square metres addition

This modest single-room extension adds a light filled, open-plan arrangement to a previously dark and compact home. The existing double-fronted house is squeezed onto a narrow site of just seven metres. The site is eastwest facing, with a two-storey house on the northern side. New construction adds five square metres with the new footprint being 91 square metres and the old 86 square metres. The construction budget was extremely modest. The addition is limited to the living area, deck and outdoor store. All other areas of the extension adapt the existing dark, cellular arrangement to become a liberated layout improving functionality and outlook. The delight of this transformation is the extent of northern light now entering the living space and the connection between the living areas and outdoors, including the functionality of the kitchen, bathroom and laundry, and the flow of circulation through the spaces.

Project 2 DKO Architecture University Square

University Square student accommodation rises 13 levels above the restored 1920s heritage facade with the new tower split in two to reduce visual bulk. Punctuated by blackened-steel hoods, the accommodation levels take advantage of expansive views to the north, across University Square Park to the University of Melbourne on Grattan Street, while the existing brick warehouse has been retained and transformed into a dedicated communal social space for residents.

DKO Architecture's design includes a mixture of dwelling typologies, including a loft option with living space and a hybrid cross-over duplex, both with shared kitchen and living spaces. High quality appliances and fittings firmly place University Square into a superior realm of student accommodation.

Photographer Tatjana Plitt

Photographer Derek Swalwell

Project 3 Bild Architecture

Panopticon house

This project is a hybrid of modernist and classical rural villa ideals that explore the house as figured object versus disappearing enclosure. Located in rural Victoria, on a prominent hilltop with panoramic and uniteruppted views across the surrounding landscape, the Great Southern Ocean, Bass Strait and the Tasman Ocean, the house doesn't try to blend with the site. It presents as a device for seeing out – a Panopticon, whose primary function is observation.

The site's history as a patrol lease led to extensive deforestation. In partnership with the local Landcare group, Bild Architecture planted over 20,000 Manna Gum and Messmate trees, providing an expanded range for vulnerable fauna.

The planting connects to remnant stands of original forest, enabling wildlife corridors across the site. The stitching together of these wildlife corridors leverages the benefits of the project beyond its immediate site and into the surrounding district.

Project 4 Kennedy Nolan Architects

Liverpool house

This new house in the rich urban environment of North Fitzroy was designed to be built by the builder owner for his young family.

The efficient plan offers great amenity and seclusion to all rooms, and yet this house also contributes so much to the streetscape.

The garden, (by Amanda Oliver Gardens) blurs the threshold with the street, and the garden walls and clerestory windows offer glimpses of life inside the house, without compromising the privacy of those within.

Building materials for the house were selected to reflect the personality of the family and will age beautifully over time. Simple construction and robust honest materiality ensure the emphasis is on this project’s strong architectural form, which continues to be of great interest for the practice.

Photographer TM Photo

Photographer Derek Swalwell

Sally Holbrook Northbourne Architecture + Design

Words by Elizabeth Campbell

Sally Holbrook is primarily interested in the relationships between people. Anyone who has had a drink at Bad Frankie will understand this concept. The way the space is articulated gently promotes intimate discussion, persuading focus between people –and with the drinks or food on the small tables dotted throughout the interior – rather than on the design of the space.

Sally is the Director and founder of Northbourne Architecture + Design. I met Sally (and her lovely rescue-dog, Squid) at her home office in Coburg for a chat, indulging in quite possibly the finest baking in the suburb.

As a high-school student, Sally was creative yet practical and believed architecture might be the perfect profession for such tendencies. However, after receiving some ill-fated career advice, she commenced her university studies in economics and IT. Upon completion of her second year, she transitioned to architecture, which felt like a far more natural career choice.

Her professional experience is an interesting mix. Sally completed a Bachelor degree in architecture at The University of Canberra and Masters at The University of Melbourne. During this time, she began working at a large

practice and as a university tutor. Upon finishing her studies, she continued tutoring and began working full-time at Wood Marsh, where she remained for five years. At Wood Marsh, Sally’s main focus was on high-end single residences, medium density housing, and hotel design. Following this, she worked as an architectural consultant for a large developer – a role that was ‘challenging, rewarding and highly educational’. As architects, one of the most invaluable aspects of the profession is learning on site from different industries – especially the contractors that build our projects. Aspiring to one day open her own studio, Sally began work with an inspiring and supportive all-female practice. Working at Studiofour was the final piece in the puzzle, enabling the foundation of Northbourne Architecture + Design. To pay it forward, Sally introduced a mentorship program for young female graduates to her practice. Her ambition is to provide opportunities for women not only within architecture but also construction and related service industries. Sally is currently working on several residential projects, one in particular is set to have an allfemale team involved: architecture, engineering, construction and services.

For Sally, working closely with clients and colleagues is the biggest joy in her work. When working with clients, she spends a lot of time at the beginning of a project –developing a deep understanding of how they live, what they are interested in, and the aspects of their daily life they truly value. This insight allows Sally to take her clients on a journey during the development of a project, not only to assist them in understanding what architecture and interior design can be, but also to introduce new spatial experiences through design that enrich her clients’ daily routines. Additionally, she notes that having her clients so involved in the design process results in ‘... a lot of ownership from them [the client] over the direction of the project. I find then, that I don’t really need to sell the idea – because it belongs to them.’

Looking to the future, Sally is excited about continuing to work with clients, diversifying her portfolio and growing her business. Currently, ‘residential work is the flavour’. However, she looks forward to working on some larger-scale projects to help Melbourne move sustainably into a denser city, starting with subdividing and building in her own backyard.

Above Interior, Aitch House by Northbourne Architecture + Design

Photo by Stella Rae Zelnik Perfpad facade (right) and courtyard on preceding page by Northbourne Architecture + Design. Photos by Tatjana Plitt

Taking stock

Words by Stefan Preuss

Over the past two years, we have seen a significant increase in the number and scale of government projects and demand for advice, advocacy and involvement. These have ranged from multi-billion dollar rail projects to small regional facilities. It is timely that we share our reflections on our work, and vision for the OVGA as we embark on the development of our next three-year strategy.

Our team has grown in recent years, responding to increased demand and support by broader government departments. We remain nimble however, thanks to the support and commitment from the Department of Premier and Cabinet. A key to our relevance and ability to influence remains the breadth and depth of expertise of our Victorian Design Review Panel. It is through our joint combination of professional design skills that we have been able to influence an extensive range, scale and complexity of projects.

These two years were geared towards advice to government as client simply because so much public investment and planning is underway across Victoria. That said, we have been able to advocate for a number of important causes, contribute to several public design events and

influence policy such as the Better Apartment Design Standards and guidelines. We have also conducted a desktop study ‘The value of good design’ that will help us, architects and related professions make a better case for good design across different sectors. More on this shortly.

What we have done

To better understand the OVGA’s effectiveness and the value we bring to our stakeholders and their projects, we had our work reviewed independently by SGS Economics and Planning. This review highlighted that:

• We have provided advice on $91 billion worth of projects. Projects range from the review of a small cluster of transitional aboriginal housing units in Braybrook to the $10.9 billion Melbourne Metro Tunnel with dedicated staff and continuous involvement.

• We have been involved in over 342 engagements across 238 unique projects, including providing over 175 pieces of advice

• 17 per cent of projects have been located in regional Victoria.

A survey of our stakeholders has helped us to understand the difference the OVGA has made

and gain insights into what we can improve, with 88 per cent of respondents stating that the OVGA moderately or greatly improved the design quality of their project; 78 per cent believed the OVGA’s input either moderately or greatly helped progress their projects.

• 86 per cent were satisfied or very satisfied with the OVGA’s services; and

• 96 per cent were either likely or very likely to use OVGA services again in future.

Our government clients highlighted a key benefit of OVGA’s involvement as helping to improve →

Right Immersive sensory aesthetic experience Olafur Eliasson's Smoke Room.

and ensure quality and thereby derisk projects. SGS broadly estimated that project risk margins would only need to reduce by 0.08 per cent for the OVGA’s benefits to outweigh its cost, which was described as highly likely. On the designers’ side our involvement was seen as critical to ensure appropriate aspiration, briefs, merit-based selection and to protect design intent and quality throughout the different design phases and construction.

'A testament to the OVGA is their ability to stay in the same space and keep working with a difficult client to achieve a hugely positive outcome' (Robert McBride, McBride Charles Ryan Architects).

The next three years

Beyond the re-assuring numbers and stakeholder feedback we also

heard good suggestions of how to become more effective and influential as an organisation. These included publishing more case studies, developing more specific guidance for delivery agencies, increasing the public profile of the OVGA and more advocacy to local government.

From our own reflection we need to strive for a more consistent seat at the table where major projects are conceived and key decisions made. We will also explore how to have a stronger voice in solving complex issues such as accommodating urban growth, affordable housing, improving liveability and maximising the opportunity from major infrastructure projects. Together with industry we believe we need to become better at collecting evidence and building the case for good design in language that is meaningful to our key audiences and decision makers. This includes better understanding how buildings

and places perform once occupied and feeding back to clients and architects. As we are developing our next three-year strategy we are working with our stakeholders, such as the Australian Institute of Architects to understand key issues that we can and should influence as an office within government. Underpinning our work will be the firm belief and increasing evidence that good design thinking and practice can and must be applied to meet Victoria’s future challenges and realise opportunities that only a truly interdisciplinary approach can identify.

Stefan Preuss is Associate Government Architect, Office of the Victorian Government Architect.

Above

Sale Cultural Hub by FJMT Architects. Photos by John Gollings OVGA involvement: procurement advice, design competition jury, ongoing design review at key project milestones through the Victorian Design Review Panel Opposite Tanderrum Bridge by John Wardle Architects. Photo by Peter Bennetts OVGA involvement: design competition chair, advice and ongoing design review at key project milestones through the Design Quality Team

From Tania Davidge

I write in response to Donald Bates’ article ‘The public and the professional’ (Architect Victoria autumn 2018). I feel a response is required as the article raises concerns that need to be answered regarding the Apple proposal and place of the community in the decision-making process.

At the public debate (hosted by Open House Melbourne, on 13 Februrary 2018) Jonathan Tribe, the CEO of Federation Square, quoted the opening sentence of the square's Civic and Cultural Charter. He argued that an Apple store in Federation Square ‘recognises Melbourne’s preeminence as a centre for creativity and innovation', noting that this did not appear in my slides. Donald reiterated this in his article writing that this section was ‘not highlighted by Tania’. At the debate I clearly presented the objectives of the charter, which all things considered, was a fair representation of the charter's intentions.

My rebuttal of the idea that Apple contributes to the charter’s cultural and civic objectives was clearly stated during the debate. So, let’s address innovation. Jonathan’s argument rests heavily on the fact that Apple is innovative because it is a successful technology company.

The arguments put forward to advance the proposal for an Apple store in Federation Square show little vision for what true innovation might look like in the context of Federation Square. Not innovation in the context of Apple’s business model (the innovation of a singular multinational corporation), but innovation that draws on and supports creativity and the collaborative capacity of people. This is really what we need to be thinking about to truly address innovation at Federation Square. Whatever innovation Apple is selling, you can buy in any Apple store but Federation

Square’s innovative model of public space is not so easily replicable.

The charter mentions many objectives and innovation is only one of these objectives. Federation Square is not governed by an innovation charter but by a civic and cultural charter. Innovation, therefore, needs to be assessed against cultural and civic aims, which are unachievable without people. To propose an Apple store at Federation Square places an emphasis on product over people that will not only dramatically change the square’s form and nature but also set a precedent for public space across Melbourne and Victoria.

My affection for Federation Square is well versed in its flaws and its strengths. It is not that Federation Square should not change, rather that changes should be considered, made openly without subterfuge, and follow due process (not announced three working days before Christmas as a done deal), with all recourse to open exhibition and public comment; the model that the planning process typically provides, which was removed.

I have the utmost respect for Donald Bates’ expertise as an architect and a thinker. I do not dispute his right to his professional position; although I confess it is difficult to understand in this instance. However, his professional position in respect to an Apple store at Federation Square is only one of many diverse professional positions in a complex debate.

And when it comes down to it, architecture is only one element in a complex range of elements that enable Federation Square to function as a public space.

What the Apple proposal has highlighted are the complexities that surround Federation Square. That the square has no Masterplan or Design Management Plan is remiss on a site that is nationally and internationally recognised for its architecture and as a benchmark for public space.

Jonathan Tribe mentioned during the debate that Federation Square cannot take any state government operating grants and

that the square’s operating costs are required to be covered from their own operations. Why is this issue not being addressed by the state government?

The Grand Prix takes over $60 million in state funds every year and the state funds our parks, aquatic centres and cultural institutions – that is its job. Why is the funding model for Federation Square different? If anything, its funding model should be exemplary, not actively working against its success.

An Apple store at Federation Square is a symptom of the issues facing the square and real solutions require more thought and vision for what the future of public space in Melbourne should look like.

Public space is socially produced. What makes a space cultural and civic are the people who occupy it. The ways in which people participate in public life and cultural and civic activity breathes life into the places that make our city and the communities that connect with it.

Architecture can only ever provide a stage for public life and civic and cultural activity. How we bring people together in Federation Square is just as important as its physical form. If we are bringing people together in the square to buy Apple products, this shifts the square’s emphasis on cultural and civic activity – as a place for social and community gathering. It dilutes its purpose and its significance as a public place where retail is allowed for but held accountable to higher civic and cultural objectives.

Tania Davidge is an architect and a director of OpenHAUS.

Architect Victoria invites you to become a PATRON. As a patron, your practice demonstrates its support for the voice of the

architectural profession. Be part of Architect Victoria’s emerging history and form its future. Contact us at vic@architecture.com.au for info.