Form Follows Performance - Do we have a choice?

Extract from Design Talks interview with Bugatti’s Design Director:

Is the C shape a styling element or even a nod to Louis Chiron’s signature, one of the original Grand Prix greats?

It may seem that way, and yes you can be very romantic and see a resemblance to the Bugatti signature line to the Type 49 Royal, or even to Louis Chiron’s signature, but no. This is a performance element – here to to get more air into the complete engine compartment and get it out of it again afterwards.

What would be performance of architecture involve? What issues (if any) are we trying to solve with our designs? Can it be measured? Can we design and build high performance buildings? Is “She’ll Be Right” sufficient these days? Should consumers be satisfied with “It Complies, Mate”? Can we afford high performance buildings?

Do we really have a choice?

Back To The Future - Port Stephens City, 101 Years Later

North Arm Cove village of around 450 people lies 200kms north of Sydney on a northern shore of Port Stephens in the Mid North Coast area of NSW. The possibility of railway extension into the region mooted by the 1911 NSW Royal Commission as to Decentralisation in Railway Transit excited many observers including land developers (Fraser 2002:19). The area was considered as a possible site for the national capital before Canberra was chosen.

Figure 1: The plan was signed off by Walter Burley Griffin, Landscape Architect and H. Sheaffe, Surveyor and Architect. NSW Stroud Shire Council & Land Ltd (1918). Plan showing 10 feet contours, Land Ltd’s estate, Port Stephens. National Library of Australia

Although losing out to Canberra for the prestige of being a national capital, the site was still intended to be developed for another new major city and the New South Wales seaport – ‘the New York of Australia’. While still working on the Canberra design project, Walter Burley Griffin was commissioned by Austin Chapman’s company ‘Land Limited’ to prepare the masterplan for this site. The plan, centred on the area occupied by present day North Arm Cove village, was approved by resolution passed at a regular meeting of Stroud Shire Council held on 6th May 1918 (Figure 1). The new future urban settlement was given a name of Port Stephens City.

Marion Mahony Griffin credited her husband with the identification of the locality as one of only two ‘natural seaports’ in Australia. She wrote that ‘in his innocence he interested a client, who was carrying on a considerable real estate business, in the opportunity offered at Port Stephens … It was surveyed and staked out and the allotments rapidly sold’.[i]

In Marion’s opinion, the ultimate failure of Port Stephens City lay with the unimaginative foolishness of government bureaucracy in matters of regional and national development, as well as the limitation, in law, of the building and operation of railways by private enterprise: ‘If the railroads had not been nationally owned, the settlement of Port Stephens would have taken place long ago’.

Unlike the previously made plans for octagonally shaped Canberra or Griffith (1914), Port Stephen City was designed to fit into the narrow finger shaped bay peninsula. It provided for various urban city functions grouped into precincts or urban zones. The major railways and rail-water interchange (the port) was planned on the western side of the peninsula, towards the Carrington village, with nearby Custom House and Administration Centre occupying the land to the East of the rail and port links. Adjacent to the north of this governance district the land was reserved for Commercial Centre and Factory District forming an employment zone of the future city. Further North there was a retail district lining the main Boulevard with Markets square and a Wholesale district conveniently located to the east of the main railway station. A Residence District was planned to the North towards the old Pacific Highway. Within the residential zone Griffin had also reserved 3 large lots for two primary school and one high school, a church site, 2 theatre sites, library centre and public recreation reserve.

Resembling Griffin’s later urbanistic work at Castlecrag (Sydney) in 1921, the subdivision pattern of Port Stephens City reveals roads that follow the topographic contours of the peninsula. The main avenue (present day The Ridgway) runs north south, along the top of the ridge and ends at the intersection where a triangular traffic island was planned for (Figure 2). The black rectangular drawn in line with the avenue indicated the position of the landmark City Hall building. Knowing Griffin’s work at other locations in Australia, it can be assumed that the open space, green islands scattered around the settlement would be planted with native vegetation. 

Figure 2: The north, undeveloped part of The Ridgeway. Photographed by T. Djuric-Simovic, June 2019

The plan aimed to provide spatial connectedness between various city zones with parks and bushland reserves peppered throughout the settlement. The foreshore is kept as public open space, accessible to all residents, while the most southern tip of the peninsula is marked as Oversea Gate. It was probably a passenger vessels access to the City, encircled on the original plan and linked to the rail interchange connecting other commercial wharves (Sea Gate and Harbour Gate) along the waterfront. Recognisable in this plan are also Griffin’s attention to walkable neighbourhoods with irregularly shaped green public walkthrough running at the back of two row of houses in residential blocks.

The subdivision and sale of lots commenced in 1918, the outline of which can still be seen from the air today (Port Stephens Council 2019)(Figure 3).

Figure 3: Google Satellite view of todays’ North Arm Cove (former Port Stephen City)

In early 1919 ‘Land Limited’ went into liquidation and ownership of the subdivision passed to Henry Ferdinand Halloran (1869-1953), land developer and surveyor. Halloran known as the ‘builder of dreams’ was successful in “interlinking the worlds of planning and private land development and achieving such thorough vertical integration of the design, development and promotion of his estates” (Freestone & Nichols 2010:05.2). Halloran amended the original plan, by adding an area at least as large to its north. He also converted some open public space from the waterfront into more private lots which increased the number of parcels to more than 4000(Figure 4).

Figure 4: Henry F. Halloran & Co amended plans for Port Stephens City subdivision, National Library of Australia, accessed May 2019, http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-231550750/view

Peter Harrison, Australian town planner and a champion of the Griffin Plan for Canberra, described the Griffin section as ‘one of his most elegant essays in site planning’(Harrison 1995:58). Halloran’s extension expressed his dramatic wheel-spoke style rather than the more sensuous Griffin mix of grid and curvilinear planning (Freestone & Nichols 2010: 05.11).

The city never eventuated. In 1924, the State Government decided that only Newcastle was to be developed as a port and not Port Stephens, ending all speculation in the area (Russell 2016:25).

In 1963, the then Great Lakes Council closed most of the roads planned in Griffin’s subdivision, setting aside a small area for residential development, while the rest of the area was proclaimed to be non-urban.

Figure 5: The old signs indicating streets that have never been built (photographed by T.Djuric-Simovic, June 2019)

Today, most of the land planned for Port Stephen City by Griffin is zoned RU2 Rural Landscape without dwelling entitlements (landowners have no rights to build a house on their land – Figure 6). Within the existing NSW planning system, the land is classified as ‘paper subdivisions’ which means that it consists of lots that have recognition only on paper, have no built roads nor other urban infrastructure.

Figure 6: Council's board with 'buyers beware' warning (photographed by T.Djuric-Simovic, June 2019)

Castlecrag neighbourhood in Sydney with its urbanistic uniqueness and beauty is a garden suburb of world significance. At the time it was “a new vision of suburbia – one that celebrated the natural Australian environment rather than being embarrassed by its non-Europeanness” (Watson 2015: vi). Hundred- and one-year old Griffin’s plan for Port Stephen City has not lost any of its relevance for modern sustainable living in harmony with nature. Long forgotten and disregarded plans can be modified to resurrect another wonder of the modern urbanism. A village can be built with tucked away houses orientated towards views rather than aligned with street frontages, no fencing among the reserves and kerbless street. Griffin’s ‘poetry’ of the gum trees and architecture that appeal directly to the soul can be brought to life with the adoption of proper development standards and heritage conservation controls for the village.

The Gooreenggai on Baromee Hill, in the middle of North Arm Cove peninsula has been registered as an item in the State Heritage Inventory. In pre-1788 times, Gooreenggai was used for male initiation ceremonies. Today, it covers approximately 5.35ha and remains an important place for local Aboriginal people. Griffin plan reserved the area for the government administrative centre with 2 free standing buildings within the kidney shape open space. Halloran’s plan marked the same area as ‘site for park’ which makes existing subdivision pattern suitable for protection of this important heritage site.  

North Arm Cove will not rival Canberra, rather, if built, it will be an opportunity to preserve Griffin’s legacy and prove that ingenious urban plans do not lose their value and human dimensions over time. Griffin’s ideas of a habitat with specific environmental, spiritual and social qualities reflect aspirations of contemporary Australia.

“As the world grapples today with the problems of climate change, unsustainable urban growth, social alienation and the despoilment of nature, the Griffins’ visionary convictions and their expression through the legacy of the Griffin heritage, are of even greater consequence than in their own time” (Watson, 2015: 18).

---

ENDNOTES

[1] Griffin, Marion Mahony. Magic Of America. Unpublished manuscript. Vol. II, Microfilm 5449, Matheson Library, Monash University: 376 (top right-hand numbering).

REFERENCES

• Fraser, Yvonne. 2002. Henry F. Halloran in Port Stephens: The Legacy. Tanilba Bay, New South Wales: Port Stephens Family History Society.

• Freestone, Robert; Nichols, David. 2010. Town planning and private enterprise in early twentieth century Australia: Henry F Halloran, ‘builder of dreams’. History Australia 7(1): pp.5.1 to 5.24.

• Harrison, Peter (Freestone, Robert, editor). 1995. Walter Burley Griffin: Landscape Architect Canberra:National Library of Australia.

• Kohlhoff, Doug. compiler (2017) North Arm Cove: celebrating 50 years of community achievement. North Arm cove Residents Association.

• Port Stephens Council. Landmark and villages. accessed May 2019. https://www.portstephens.nsw.gov.au/play/culture-and-history/landmarks-and-village

• Russell, Kevin. 2016. Port Stephens Narrative. Port Stephens Historical Society Inc.

• Watson, Anne. editor. 2015. Visionaries in Suburbia, Griffin houses in the Sydney Landscape, Walter Burley Griffin Society Inc

First Twenty Years (in Australia) - Part one - The New Beginning

August 13th, 1999 was a Friday. Sunny but chilly day and second interview for a job that week. Just two months after arriving to Australia and a year to go to Olympics. Interview was postponed two times, first because Telstra technician was coming to install phone line in our apartment and second time because interviewer was not available. Job advertised was CAD Draftsman, step down for Registered Architect coming from South Africa, but pay advertised was good. In two months of job hunting I discovered that “local experience” is crucial, even for filling shelves in Franklin’s in night shift. First interview earlier in the week with multi-disciplinary but mainly architectural firm went quite well, so I was optimistic there.

At the interview I find out that Alan, Head of Department, was still away and couldn’t interview me, so it would be John who will talk to me. Years later Alan told me that I was lucky that he was not available since he wouldn’t have employed me if he was interviewing me since I was way overqualified for the role. Part of the interview would be test on AutoCAD - Mark who tested me was satisfied. Luckily I was an expert in AutoCAD, winning their Design Award five years earlier in Johannesburg. John explained that company is big apartment developer and builder with lot of work in the pipeline for internal design and documentation team - secure employment would be important for fresh immigrant with young family of four.Also, another piece of luck - my reference from South Africa, form first employer there, was checked and confirmed since Floris is now in Sydney and collaborating with John on a project.

I presented my portfolio and experience, almost ten years since graduation, and various projects and employers - from studying Housing at post-graduate course for two years, working on artificial intelligence at government owned building research establishment in Belgrade, Serbia, then some of most prominent architectural practices and largest projects in Southern Africa (including two reserve banks) to individually designed residences in very high end residential developments in Jo-burg suburbs. Less than half an hour and John walks away from the room, leaving me wondering what did I say or do wrong. He comes back in few minutes, he spoke to Peter, General Manager, and there was a last question:

“When can you start”

“Well, it is quite late and it is Friday, so perhaps next week.”

“See you at 9am on Monday”

Not bad for Friday 13th. I stayed in Meriton for more than fifteen years.

Meriton’s award winning team with Dame Marie Bashir, AD

Better prevention than tretment

Bolje spreciti nego leciti. – Serbian proverb

Rough translation of above proverb is the title of this article. The system that our construction industry is based on relies on insurances and legal remedies – the cure for whatever mistakes happen during design and construction.

Latest resulting debacle is another residential block which residents had to be evacuated in the rush and appartment’s owners will suffer plummeting value of their properties – Mascot Towers:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/mascot-towers-peak-industry-bodies-call-for-building-sector-crackdown-20190616-p51y9f.html

It is not difficult to understand that the cost of treatment is far higher than the cost of prevention – doing the job properly in the first place.

What would prevent these outcomes? Buildings must be designed properly, constructed properly and certified properly.

Simple!

Or is it?

What is the Australian experience with residential flat buildings? Until the end of last century apartments were built for people who had no other choice but to live in them – social housing and low-end investment stock. Relatively simple designs, mostly walk-ups, with minimum amenity standards prescribed by Building Code, simple structures and basic building services. Built, equally simply, with basic construction methods.

About two decades ago things started changing, lead by new wave of immigrants from Europe and Asia who have apartment living as a their choice. They brought a different culture of living and different requirements for standards of amenities, appearance and location of apartment developments.

Demand for apartments skyrocketed in short period of time. However, industry didn’t have the expertise nor capacity to satisfy such demand. It takes time to educate architects, engineers, project managers, certifiers, foremen, plumbers, electricians, aircon specialist, and such … about finer points and challenges of solving increasingly sophisticated problems in apartment living. But there was no time. The pressure was on for grabbing as big a share of the market as quickly as possible.

High demand dictates speed of design and delivery. This, combined with lack of expertise, usually equals lower quality. With a poor prevention system we now must rely on the insurance and legal system to deliver remedies.

Exception might be those few with the longer history in the apartment market and with integrated design and delivery procedures. Their expertise might prove very valuable for implementing preventative methods in our construction industry - good design, solid documentation, experienced builders.

And care. Beyond duty.

Opal Tower: Debacle we had to have

Mid this year will be 20 years since I started working in local, Sydney, high density residential industry. At the time, not many Australians were living in apartments. Therefore, not many apartments were being built, and those that were, were designed and built for investment market - aimed at providing just enough for residents and maximizing return for investor owners. Largest developer on the market was Meriton. It had internal team of planners, architects, engineers, project managers, construction managers, builders and sales and marketing team ... integrated project team. And high level of quality control - Harry Triguboff. Quality, at the time, was considered building something to last, not only to look shiny. And it took place at all levels - from planning, design to execution on site.

Other developers of high density residential projects like Mirvac, Walker, Australand, LandLease ... also had their own design and project management teams as well as construction arms. Developments were done in close collaboration of designers and builders.

Fast forward ten years, apartments have become more and more residence of choice for many, not only renters but owners are well - in line with the rest of the world. At the same time, Australian cities, and Sydney in particular, have developed shortage of accommodation for its growing population. Whole industry was building 10-15000 dwellings when over 30000 was needed. Supply side is identified as the solution for "affordability crisis".

I've got scared.

Knowing the industry from inside, its capacity in all aspects - planning, design. management, construction, certification ... but also education, contracting relationships, financing, insurances, quality control ... I didn't see that it can deliver required quantities (and densities) in such short period of time. Not without quality suffering.

There is simply not enough experienced, planners, designers, engineers, contractors, sub-contractors, suppliers, managers ... to deliver quality product. Add to that outdated/inadequate regulations, standards, education system for professionals and legal/contracting and management framework, combined with greed of new-baked "developers" (get a quick buck and disappear) and we are where we are - having to deal with Opal Towers.

Project Team Integration led by experienced professionals in the field (residential towers are immensely more complex than office towers) is needed. Legal/contractual framework has to be modified to enable it. And education of professionals has to be changed - directing them towards actual end product - physical building rather than electronic generated visual effects. Professionals need to be equipped to take responsibility but also protected from frivolities of legal system.