A
Urban housing: making the city WORDS
Philip Thalis and Laura Hard ing
Guest editors Philip Thalis and Laura Harding introduce this issue ofArchitecture Australia, which examines the architecture of urban housing.
From house to housing "If we want to raise the quality ofliving ... then the most effective way of all is to improve the quality of the house ... The physical state of the house reflects the economic state of the nation, directly and sensitively ... However ... its ability to uplift or depress: its design has practically no vested interests pushing from behind ..."• Robin Boyd emphasized the "house," whereas today we might talk about "urban housing" and its specific architectural form, the apartment building. The need to share urban, cultural and transport resources is reinforcing compact collective living. Apartment buildings are becoming the urban signifier of the societal change that is reshaping the ways we live. Along with the shift from suburban to urban densities, Australia has traded the innocent domesticity implicit in Boyd's "living" for the more glib construct of"lifestyle." Long understood to be the provision of necessary accommodation, today housing is seen through the narrow lens of "development" self-interest. As a fast track to profit via unearned income and asset inflation, housing is frequently conceived first as a market, with societal need a distant second. The public sector involvement that has historically diversified hottsing choices has been in sustained decline for decades. The pervasive commodification of housing has inflicted a paralysing timidity on its architecture: the typology, planning, expression and diversity of mass housing has stagnated while ignoring our best urban housing traditions. This commodification, as expressed in the lack of architectural quality and character in the majority of our collective housing, betrays a longstanding and deeply felt cultural resistance to urban forms of living.
Despite our perennial atftuence, Australian cities are not home to well-designed mass housing. Apart from singular exceptions that tend to miscategorize "architecture" as an indulgence reserved for the wealthy, most housing has scant architectural input. Furthermore, the architectural profession has shown limited engagement with crucial housing challenges. Valuing housing Housing as real estate has dramatically shifted the way we define housing's worth. The value of apartments has become widely understood by estate agents' reductive formula: How many bedrooms? How many bathrooms? How many car spaces? What brand of European kitchen appliances? Add to this their insistence on airconditioning, regardless of environmental design. In Livi11g in Australia, Boyd explored the character of housing through an examination of its surface, space, structure and spirit. Such qualitative and sophisticated readings of architecture's contribution to "living" are absent from today's public discourse about and understanding of mass housing. The marketing of the architecture of mass housing is stripped of any sense of the qualitative lived experience of space. Gene ric interior perspectives abound, where the surface gloss of furniture and the view are given more weight than the architecture. Exterior perspectives monumentalize and isolate new development -exploiting each building's independence and novelty rather than its connectedness to place and society. Boyd's detested "featurism" has either been writ large in mega buildings or bypassed by "featurelessness" across our cities: the brazen and the bland. MAYIJUN 201..
11
INTRODUCTION
The architecture of urban housing For centuries, architects have generated model projects that become generalized as housing types: the Adam brothers' Adelphi Terrace in London; Michie! Brinkman's Spangen Quarter in Rotterdam, stacked units with perhaps the first "street in the sky"; Le Corbusier's Unite d'Habitation, the monumental slab in Marseilles that presaged the deep floor plan; or Tadao Ando's inhabited, terraced hillsides in Rokko. There are numerous parties looking after housing quantities, but it is architects who have to imbue these quantities with qualitiesexploring social and spatial organization, providing generous access to light and air, calibrating privacy and outlook, crafting the project economically, providing release to and definition of garden spaces, form ing the block and defining public space. When allied with street life, apartment buildings become tl1e city's connective fabric - supporting an engaged community life of socia.l facilities, shopping and exchange, and multiple transport options. Aldo van Eyck considered that "Architecture needs no more, nor should it ever do less, than assist homecoming. "• Such a proposition can inform both typology and experience, describing the passage from the public street through the common areas to the feeling of welcome upon opening the front door. How does the architectural model tit and adapt to the confined dinlensions of the lot, intelligently occupying its site? What is the spatial sequence, the everyday promenade architecturale, the casual generosity of its social spaces? With in the unit, what promotes homecoming? Is it the relationship of rooms, the movement of sunlight, the flexible operation of modulated apertures, the opening to the terrace or balcony? Beyond the trifecta of view, finish and size, what is the spatial conception of the unit, its distinctive arrangement and sectional play? How are the selected unit types open to appropriation by successive inhabitants? What of the architecture's public face- the relationship of the building to the street? Questions of its scale and the relative urbanity of its street presence need to find a commensurate architectural register. What type of city does it anticipate? Whether urban or 14
AA
MAY/JUN 2014
suburban, how docs the site plan mould the building to form positive external spaces that can be appropriately and delightfully landscaped? Beyond the seemingly ubiquitous base palette of brick, aluminium louvres/ screens/ panels, tinted glazing and painted precast concrete, what durable and noble materials are available? These buildings will likely last a century, at least; how robust and flexible will they be? Architects have long championed weU-designed housing for all. This was one of Modernism's most deeply held tenets. In closing Living in Australia, Boyd proclaimed, "architecture in the end is a ftmdarnental requirement ofliving." Boyd's challenge should embolden us to redress the marginalized contributions of our profession, the quality of our dwellings and the state of Australian cities. The projects in this issue give cause for cautious optimism. Optimism, in that they are evidence that an informed architectural agenda can be pursued in the current housing climate. But also caution, because it is not until projects like these are tile rule, rather than the exception, tllat housing's role in the making of the city can be fully prosecuted. AA 1. Robin Boyd. l iving in Austrollo (Melbourne: Thames and Hudson, 2013), 22. 2. Herman Hert2berger, Addoe van Roijen-Wortmann and Francis Strauven {eds), Aldo van Eye/<: Huberrus Houso! Hubertushuis (Amsterdam: Stichting Wonen/Van Loghum Slawus. 1982), 65.
INTRODUCTION
A
The descriptions of new housing invariably list the riches that a particular new development will allow purchasers to leverage from the city- the proximity to a d iverse and rich cultural life, parks, open spaces, shopping, dining and views. Where is the quid pro quo? The question of what contribution these buildings make to the structure, quality and character of the city remains unanswered.
Scarcity and inequity A diminishing supply of housing and the vastly reduced investment in public housing has seen housing scarcity and equity become growing problems in Australia. A policy vacuum allied to crude financing and taxation practices has caused a housing atfordability crisis. Our taxation system rewards existing wealth. T he tax-free status of the family home combined with generous negative gearing and capital gain regimes are accelerating inequity, wedding the nation and its housing stock to the thrill of speculation rather than long-term investment in one of society's most fundamental needs. T he financial sector exacerbates this situation by imposing illconceived limitations on urban housing. The financial dictates that impose arbitrary ~fty-square-metre minimum apartment sizes, maximize pre-sale requirements, and limit forms of commissioning and title affect both housing providers and users. The combination of these blunt rules stymies genuine choice, dents atfordability and delivers mediocrity.
Politics and planning Planning controls often enforce suburban ideals and forms by stealth, stifling t he emergence of a positive urbanity. Ziggurat height and setback controls, the requirement for buildin~ to be "contextual" in areas where change is desirable, and the blartket zoning of variously termed "heritage conservation areas" or "neighbourhood residential zones" are all symptomatic of a culture predicated on the belief that any change should be feared implicitly. Today, the initial planning application for even a modestly sized apartment building typically requires input from perhaps a dozen
consultants. Appeals to court and independent planning tribunals are not uncommon. Canny applicants know better than to submit housing applications in the lead-up to local government elections, when their proposals risk becoming fodder for anti-development grandstanding -a trivial substitute for necessary and urgent policy debates about housing equity and change in our cities. The ever-increasing costs associated with the complexities of compliance and regulation are either being deducted from the construction budget or passed on to the purchaser- impacting the quality of our building stock or affordability. While economy is a noble aim in urban housing, the limited investment in the material quality and character of urban housing undermines its role in city making.
Standards and legislation The portents of bad housing continue to reappear, irrespective of budget or market pretensions: the deep plan, internal rooms, low ceilings, inadequate light and air, miserable outlook, mean c.o mmon spaces, residual open spaces, token landscape, substandard construction, perfunctory character and a deadening presence on the street. Enforceable minimum amenity standards are as essential as ever, which makes legislation to improve architectural quality in apartment building design all the more imperative. New South Wales's State Environment Planning Policy no. 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65), introduced in 2002, was a noble attempt to require better practice through legislation. However, one of its primary mechanisms, the design review panel, has only "advisory" status and patchy coverage. Design quality must have real legislative weight and followthrough. It is not sufficient for architectural quality to be assessed only at the planning stage- it remains at the mercy of the market following design approval, as is evident in the marginalized role th"at many architects find themselves serving during documentation and construction. Independent review during the construction process by a design review panel would do much to ensure the carry-through of the design in tent and improve the quality of the built environment. MAY/JUN 2014
AA
13
URBAN HOUSING: DATA
04
03
05
06
01
GOODWOOD RESIDENCE
BRIDGE POINT APARTMENTS
HABITAT
IGLU CENTRAL
NORTH MELBOURNE TOWNHOUSES
CONSTANCE STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Architect
WOHA Architects
Colin Stewart Architects
Rothelowman
Bates Smart
Fread man White
Cox Rayner Architects
Location
Singapore
Kingston, ACT
Southbank, Vic
Chippendale, NSW
North Melbourne, Vic
Fortitude Valley, Qld
Site area (sqm)
24844.7 sqm
3681sqm
532 sqm
390sqm
185 sqm
1242 sqm
Urban typology
Slab
Courtyard/slab
Tower
Perimeter block
Row housing
Courtyard/ perime$er
Apartment typology
Market
Market
Market
Student
Market
Affordable
95% flatfloor
82% flatfloor
100% flat floor
100% flat floor
100% maisonette
100% fl at floor
5% maisonette
18% maisonette
3.5:1
3.8:1
95%
78%
Plot ratio
1.6:1
1.2:1
16:1
5:1
Ground footprint{%)
32%
84%
97%
65%
Upper footprint(%)
13%
40%
75%
65%
100%
52%
Commercial/ mixed
N
N
Y - 1%ofGFA
N
Y- 17% ofGFA
Y - 30% ofGFA 79
Number of apartments
210
44
145
98 {Student)
4
Split/mix
12.4%2 bed
15.9%1 bed
60.0%1 bed
16.3% studio
100.0%3 bed
26.2%3 bed
29.5%2bed
40.0%2bed
83.7% 4+ bed
56.7%4 bed
54.6% 3bed
70.0% studio 30.0%1 bed
~.7 %other
Apa rtments served per core (ty pical floor)
2:1
3:1
6:1
4:1
n/a
10:1
Building depth (min/ max)
9.5m/ 15.2m
5.8m/19.5m
4.5m/ 9m
9.5m/ 12.5m
4.6m/ 6.8m
7.5m/7.5m
Split/orientation
100%dual
19% single
21% single 79% dual
15%single 85% dual
50% single
70%single
81% dual
50% dual
30% dual
Court appeal
N
N
N
N
N
N
Full documentation
Y/ Y
Y/ Y
Y/ Y
Y/ Y
Y/ Y
Y/ Y
Full
Partial
Partial
Full
Full
Partial
12 months
18 months
15 months
AU$2820
AU$2900
AU$2300
n/a
unknown
n/a
(envelope/interiors ) Architect's site role Construction period
48 months
18 months
20months
Construction cost/sqm
SGD$4561 {AU$3914)
nfp
AU$2925
nfp
unknown
AU$8750
Highest sale pric e/s qm
22
AA
MAY/JUN 2014
URBAN HOUSING: DATA 01 Goodwood Residence, p. 92 02 Bridge Point Apartment s, p. 88 03 Habitat, p. 31 041glu Central, p. 35 05 North Melbourne Townhouses, p. 48 06 Constance Street Affordable Housing, p. 24
07 29-35 Prince Street, Cronulla, p. 77 08 387 Tamaki Drive, p. 100 09 Brisbane Street Housing, p. 84 10 One Central Park, p. 38 11 Stella, p. 53 12 Monash Student Housing, p. 104
/'
07
08
11
10
09
29-35 PRINCE STREET CRONULLA
387 TAMAKI DRIVE
BRISBANE STREET HOUSING
ONE CENTRAL PARK
STELLA
MONASH STUDENT HOUSING
Architect
Candalepas Associates
Ian Moore Architect s
Morrison and Breytenbach Architects
Ateliers Jean Nouvel I PTW Architects
Tzannes Associates
BVN Donovan Hill
Location
Cronulla, NSW
St Heliers, Auckland, NZ
Hobart, Tas
Chippendale, NSW
Victoria Park, NSW
Clayton, Vic
Site area (sqm)
2398sqm
1214sqm
1975sqm
6060 sqm
1914sqm
17000 sqm
Urban typology
Row apart ments
Perimeter courtyard
Courtyard/adaptation
Tower
Perimeter block
Courtyard/slab
Apartment typology
M arket
Market
Affordable
Market
Market
Student
100% flat floor
100% flat floor
100% flat f loor
100% flat floor
48% flat floor
100% flat floor
48% cross-over 2% maisonette
"' Plot ratio
1:1
1.9:1
1.4:1
11:1
4:1
1.3:1
Ground footprint(%)
33%
93%
61%
72%
64%
35%
Upper footprint(%)
33%
83%
59%
44%
64%
35%
Commercial/mixed
N
Y- 48%ofGFA
N
Y- 24%of GFA
Y- 2.6% of GFA
N
Number of apartments
12
5
35
623
70
604 (student)
Split/mix
100%3 bed
20.0% 1 bed
20.0%1 bed
15.9% studio
51.4%1 bed
99.3% studio
40.0%2 bed
80.0%2 bed
42.4%1 bed
45.7%2 bed
0.3%2 bed
37.2%2 bed
2.9%3 bed
0.3%3 bed
40.0%3 bed
4.5%3 bed 2:1
3:1
3.3:1
9/20:1
8/16/22:1
20:1
Building depth (min/max)
10m/28m
11.5m/21.8m
9.8m/12m
25m/32m
2m/18m
9m/15.4m
Split/orientation
100o/odual
100%dual
100% dual
35%single
100%dual
96o/osingle
Apartments served
per core (typical floor)
4o/odual
65%dual Court appeal
N
y
N
N
N
N
Full documentation
Y/N
Y/Y
Y/Y
Y/Y
N/N
Y/Y
Full
Partial
Full
Partial
Partial
Partial
12 months
18 months
20 months
30 months
18 months
18 months
(envelope/ interiors) Architect's site role Construction period
Construction cost/sqm
nfp
NZ$4830(AU$4515)
AU$2466
n/a
nfp
AU$2954
Highest sale price/sqm
nfp
NZ$11790 (AU$11020)
n/a
n/a
unknown
n/a
n/a not applicable
nfp not for print
Currency conversions calculated in March 2014.
MAY/JUN 2014
AA
23
LOCATION
Chippendale, NSW SITE AREA
PLOT RATIO
390sqm '
5:1
HUMBER OF APARTMENTS
APARTMENT TYP!
98
Student
FIRST FLOOR P1.AN 1:500
GROUND FLOOR PlAN
1:500
012
5
10m
~
01 lglu Centraloo a student ~builc!>ng
located en a compact site in Chippendale, Sydney.
02 Tile L·shape<l plan pn>onde students w.th • Shelt<!te<l oounyan:l on tho ground Ill
03 Perlofmo<f Corten panels allow light into the commu spaces end bedrooms, white maintaining pc"ivacy.
04 Tile etght•storoy builcfong is buitt to the •treet tdge. with a Conen !'Jkin that lellf it a strong vlsuol identity.
36
AA
MAYAAJN 2014
IGLUCENTRAL ARCHITECT
Bates Smart Project team: Guy Lake, Natalie Lane-Rose. Sylvia Vasak. Bianca Heinemann, Tonie Maclennan, Nikolay Pechovski. Basil Richardson. Justin Cawley. Tereza Goyarrola FACADE CONTRACTOR Ounsteel BUILDER
Grindley Construction LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Aspect Studios ELECTRICAL, HYDRAULIC AND MECHANICAL CONSULTANT
EMF Griffiths BCA CONSULTANT
Steve Watson and Partners QUANTITY SURVEYOR
WT Partnership ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT
Acoustic logic Consultancy MODEL MAKER
Architectural Images TOWN PLANNER
JBA LIGHTING CONSULTANT
Point of View STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Taylor Thomson Whitting P ROJECT MANAGER
Pyramid Pacific
SECTION 1:500
EASTELEVATION 1:500
012
5
10m MAY/JUN 2014
AA
37