Info

on the periphery of architecture

This is my seemingly disparate list of noticeable trends:

They all, however, contribute to shaking the foundations of the practice of architecture.

These foundations are easily explained: client comes to architect with commission, architect accepts, designs, produces construction drawings, builder engaged, design built with the eagle eye of the architect, building finished, end commission.

But what happens when these foundations are shaken? A dissection of the list above demonstrates how assumptions are being turned on their head:

  • Pop up shops/restaurants – that architecture doesn’t have to be permanent
  • Wikihouses – that architects and builders do not need to be involved
  • Free design software online – that architects are redundant
  • Shopping for houses – that custom architecture is not required
  • GFC and fearful consumer sentiment – that building is expensive and investment is better elsewhere
  • Google and the ability to participate in a global economy – that Australia hasn’t got as cheap labour as global markets
  • The expense of building versus the significantly cheaper digital answer to the same problem – that local industries charge too much for their services
  • Co-working spaces – that the hierarchical nature of architecture is not wanted in an era of crowdsourcing and level playing fields
  • Cafes as meeting venues and work spaces (and the questionable sustainability of a continuous stream of new hospitality ventures) – that offices are a redundant typology and new spaces need to be welcomed
  • Businesses cashing in on the international online marketplace – that built space is not required to make a crust
  • Professional bloggers – that your office can be your home, or cafe, or co-working space (see above)
  • Rise of shareability and community focussed localism – that a grassroots approach is preferred over a top-down urban planning approach
  • Instagram and vintage clothing – that people reject the new in favour of the old craftsmanship
  • The Sartorialist – encapsulates working on the periphery of fashion, is independent, and is more influential than most magazines
  • Architectural journals lamenting the lack of critical analyses in writing – existing modes of reviewing architecture prevents actual criticism
  • Books like ‘Formations: The Plasticity of Practice’ and ‘Future Practice: Conversations on the Edge of Architecture’ - maybe there are new ways to problem solve the issues architects face?

 

I’m unsure what the solution is, but I’m happy to tread water in the spaces on the side of the profession – the periphery. I blog here about the practice of architecture, I run Melbourne Architours and blog/tweet/compose the mailing list via that medium, I’m a big proponent of Twittersphere and Instagram (use the #melarch hashtag to record your Melbourne architectural moments!), I write for some online journals, I create basic blogs for others, and I design gardens and small residential extensions. Through these channels, I hope to stay in touch with the general public and understand their concerns about the built environment, and provide a more engaging and current way to participate in the depth of field of architecture.

Existing conditions photo of hall

Here are some concept design drawings for a community hall extension in inner suburban Melbourne. The managers of this hall were putting together a grant application for the addition of a new toilet, a new disabled toilet and disabled access into the venue. The catch 22 is that the application needed some drawings in order to be approved, but the project is never guaranteed unless a grant is received. So what do you do as a client?

The solution was 2 hours of design work to arise at 3 possible concepts, of which the client selected their preferred option, based on costings from their in-house builder. Grant application sent; a few months later, they received funding for the project. Success!

Have a look at the options below. You will note that despite the same brief, the design options vary significantly in scale and extent, which obviously affects the cost. I encourage prospective clients to question their architect about the extent of new works that go into a built project, for two main reasons:

  • budget – more floor area means more money
  • sustainability – they say the most sustainable building is NO building! But in the event where that is unlikely, LESS building = LESS building materials = MORE sustainable, regardless of how many solar panels and water recycling initiatives you employ!

If you would like a short design exercise completed for your grant application, please do not hesitate to contact me esther@socialdesigner.com.au.

 

Integration of landscape into architecture is a matter of design choice. Below is the demonstration of this choice – one brief, three different schemes. Here, we will demonstrate the design process and weigh up the pros and cons.

This is for a residential extension project in the inner eastern suburbs of Melbourne – a new open plan living/kitchen/dining room, new laundry, rework the bedroom and add an ensuite. I workshopped the chosen scheme together with the client to prepare a town planning application and construction documentation. The project is currently under construction approaching lock up.

Sketch Design 1

This is the simplest design, where the heritage listed existing home was mimicked – the new extension had a dramatic roof form reminiscent of the off-centre gable roof form on the front elevation.

Pros:
  • old laundry structure retained – minimise demolition
  • sympathetic heritage mimicry = easy town planning process
Cons:
  • new footings adjoining old footing – may result in unknown engineering consequences
  • south facing living/kitchen/dining area and deck
  • large spans = large beams = greater cost in structure
Sketch design 2

This features a dual gable roofed structure over the open plan living area, creating a glazed skylight passage that informs the movement through the new addition, and divides the open plan space into implied zones of habitation and food preparation.

Pros:
  • using pitched roof forms to sympathetically reference the heritage built form of the area
  • lowers the overall height of the building
  • internal columns = smaller spans = smaller beams = cheaper construction
Cons:
  • internal box gutters – am personally not a fan as they are prone to leaking
  • living and deck areas still face south
  • same issue with footings as in sketch design 1
Sketch design 3

This design here integrates the two schemes above, plus introduces an internal landscaped courtyard and two garden beds into the scheme. This separates the existing building and the new pavilion with a low glazed passage. The overall form is a basic hipped roof.

Pros:
  • separate structure means more predicatability and less surprising costs during construction
  • introduction of north light and an internal courtyard
  • also has a south facing deck when the northern courtyard is too hot in summer
  • retention of almost all of the contributory heritage aspect of the original house, and does not impact the existing footings
  • zoned living
  • simple massing and forms = easy to construct
  • extends to the neighbouring brick garage wall, which was not a great aspect to view

Cons:

  • extends beyond the original side setbacks of the existing house, making the addition visible from the street – more heritage issues

Conclusion

While the clients didn’t go for the final scheme, I believe this is the best scheme as it is a practical method of introducing light, landscaping via a courtyard into the centre of the house for a habitation within a garden, and will most likely end up cheaper than the scheme that was inevitably chosen.If you would like a similar concept design or feasibility done for your property, please do not hesitate to drop me an email at esther@socialarchitect.com.au. Your comments are most welcome.

The latest issue of Architecture Australia has an excellent article written by Ceridwen Owen about pro-bono architectural services. In the article, she interviews several architects who have donated their services to differing levels of engagement, and the cause and effect of the agreement between architect and client. There are obvious shortcomings, some of which are:

  • an overly expectant client who extends the scope of work beyond the original brief = frustrated architect
  • architect who pushes their own agenda beyond the budgetary limitations of the client
  • an architect originally engaged for initial stages of design, only to have their fees set beyond what the client can afford once the project goes live
  • misalignment of goals between architect and client (as in any project)

However, despite this, architects are able to provide a service, especially during the initial pitching stages, that may benefit a not-for-profit who previously may have been unable to engage an architect. The ability to synthesize a client brief to deliver a buildable design within budget is a skill invaluable to any not-for-profit organisation. Once funding for the project is achieved using the architect’s design, surely this is a winning strategy, regardless of the architect’s involvement after this stage.

The US has The 1% – see here for the link, which seeks to be a central portal – an agency – that connects architects registering their interest in contributing with potential projects needing architects on board. The theory is that a firm provides 1% of all of their staff’s man hours in a given year towards pro-bono services. An interesting concept, and one that Australia could adopt, or at least attempts to via Architects for Peace, amongst others. It’s not about getting a free ride, nor is it about gaining publicity or other extrinsic benefits, nor should it cheapen the profession. The cost-benefit analysis is not in favour of architects, but it’s an attitude shift towards gifting a valuable service of design for nothing in return. Reverse psychology.

I recently had the opportunity to travel to New Zealand for the first time, road tripping around the top half of the north island with another architect friend. Apart from sampling the coffee scene from Coffee Supreme and Barista Empire, here’s a snapshot of Auckland architecture.

Skyline as seen from Devonport. Auckland is a fairly undulating city, reminiscent of navigating through city. The seemingly small population of 1 million belies the feel of a big city – the traffic congestion and heavy ring of multi-level freeways attest to this. The skyline is relatively low scaled, with the spike of the tower being the most dominant building – many have a love-hate relationship to this 70s addition to the city.

Deco in the centre of town.

We had the privilege of having Bobby Shen, architecture student and head of Architecture for Humanity Auckland chapter, take us around a tour of the city. Starting in the city, we visited key landmarks around the university, including this tower of the Old Arts Building of University of Auckland by Roy Lippincott (who completed many residential houses in Melbourne around the era of the Griffins), demonstrating a blend of local landscape motifs into the clocktower decoration.

Kate Edgar Info. Commons on campus by Warren and Mahoney. Lots of alucobond.

FJMT and Archimedia’s Uni of Auckland Business School – looks every bit like the corporate monster that the photo below suggests. Lavishly expensive, over budget and devoid of life and activity in its poorly integrated landscaped forecourt – one of the more hated buildings on campus.

New Auckland Art City Gallery Extension by FJMT and Archimedia, which attempts to provide a permeable transition from public facility to adjacent park as well as the surrounding street context. Visually, this is wholly successful, however navigating around the building proved challenging, possibly due to the need to negotiate levels changes of the site’s slope. We ended up getting stuck in the kid’s room, the cafe and the gift shop. The gift shop is a winner, however, so all is not lost. Great detailing, however the use of kauri to the underside of the entry canopy has been questioned by many locals. Read more about it here.

The waterfront area has some fantastic street furniture – we sat here and people watched to see how user appropriated the seating arrangements. Single users, couples and groups all adapted their use in different ways – I think this is wholly successful and was a joy to play on. Nice detailing also.

The Cloud, by Jasmax, built initially for the Rugby World Cup, and located on Queen’s Wharf.

Some of the interesting issues that Bobby talked about RE: architecture in Auckland are the few number of firms who are able to complete larger urban scaled commissions resulting in the ‘usuals’ completing the city’s scape, the height restrictions to preserve view corridors and (to a lesser extent) deal with earthquake issues, and the consultative collaboration process of the Maori relationship to the land and place to new projects. The few projects I have dealt with in Melbourne whereby a recognition of Aboriginal culture was necessary due to an overlay on the site has been a token gesture only (no Aboriginal heritage consultant was deemed necessary on the scale of projects so far). Even reflecting on Melbourne Architours, we begin our Settlement to Marvellous Melbourne tour with a short synopsis of white settlement, referencing the Dutigalla tribe in passing only. Not too sure what the answer is, but it is clear that New Zealand and Australia incorporate Maori and Aboriginal culture to quite differing extents.

Thanks must go out to Auckland Architecture Association for their extensive maps (as tweeted to me in real time), and Bobby Shen for being a knowledgeable and expert tour guide, answering the many left-field queries we had (I’m recommending your services to any visitors – Auckland Architours???). Both are on Twitter – go follow them.