2004 Roma Street
ROMA-ALBERT TOWER phil Tilotson
“…the topography of Brisbane, broken up as it is by hills and by the endless switching back and forth upon the river, offers no clear map for the mind to move in…” (Malouf 1990, 264) Brisbane as a place offers a complex interplay of infrastructure, landscape and topography, building types, historical artifacts, scales and programmes, and as a consequence, spatial orientation becomes difficult for the pedestrian. Key Australian essayist, David Malouf also has commented on the inherent problem of orientating oneself in and around Brisbane city. In Malouf’s essay “The First Place: The Mapping of a World,” he points out that: “The first thing you notice about this city is the unevenness of the ground. Brisbane is hilly. Walk two hundred meters in almost any direction outside the central city (which has been leveled) and you get a view – a new view.” (Malouf 1990, 263) Unlike a flat city like Melbourne or Adelaide, Brisbane does not have long vistas down a street. Moreover the eye learns restlessness, variety and possibility and one would only have to walk 200m outside of the CBD to gain new unexpected vistas. Brisbane does not seem to be a place where the mind can wander off and be lost in space: “…the topography of Brisbane, broken up as it is by hills and by the endless switching back and forth upon the river, offers no clear map for the mind to move in…” (Malouf 1990, 264) Abstract This study attempts to investigate the ways in which pedestrians orientate themselves within Brisbane city, and in particular, a complex urban realm. The nominated site for development is situated on the corner of Roma Street and Upper Albert Street, CBD and has been selected due to its topographic complexity, multiple spatial references to key public spaces beyond the territory of the site, trajectories into Roma Street and proximity to the nearby rail station. Proposal The 40 storey ‘Roma-Albert Tower’ is a complex programmatic exercise which attempts to plug multiple spatial operations and briefing requirements into a challenging and multifaceted site. Comprising not only of a new headquarters for Queensland Rail (QR), 27,000 square meters of office space, a boutique Hotel for use by the general
OpERATIVE URbANISM ON INFRASTRUCTURAL LANdS Ward Verbakel “The time has come to approach architecture urbanistically and urbanism architecturally.””1” Although infrastructure nowadays is often seen as contradictory to public space or valuable landscapes, the relation between land and infrastructure hasn’t always been problematic. Examples of difficult juxtapositions, scarred urban fabrics, and disconnected ecological systems are manifold; nevertheless, infrastructure is a ubiquitous part of the contemporary city and has been so in previous times. This text examines how mobility and hydraulic infrastructures can perform as an agent for new urbanity and landscape through the concept of operative urbanism. Integrated Infrastructural Operations The design of infrastructure is being ever more dictated by the concerns of structural engineering, hydrodynamics, traffic simulations, etc. This technical problemsolving approach can easily be criticized for its narrow interpretation of space, urbanity, and landscape. Infrastructure due to its scale has a strong effect on the spatial quality of its surroundings, if not becoming a landscape in and of itself. How many streets have disappeared under elevated railroads and overpasses hovering above, deprived of sunlight and silence? In an attempt to retroactively stitch and weave fragmented landscapes and disconnected neighborhoods, numerous urban design and landscape architecture projects have been commissioned for reclaimed rail yards and redeveloped waterfronts. Bridge ramps and tunnel entrances remain blind spots in the nonvehicular use of the city. The question is where we lost the integrated approach to infrastructure that was able to combine spatial qualities, engineering demands, real estate logics, and social constructs. The notion of functional infrastructure, with only secondary aesthetic or symbolic aims to fulfill, is a fairly recent one.
PROPOSAL UQ 135
The Medieval city defended itself through an infrastructure of ramparts and moats. This defense infrastructure however, also delineates the cultural divisions between free man and the ruling nobility, or the economic separation between free trade and feudal dependence. City wall–building is an act of self-declaration and identity creation. Not only built as fortification, the ramparts and gates served as symbols of power and social status. The mere architecture of these walls transcends functional defense needs, not to mention the elaborate designs for