Margot Giblin

Valentine was bemused by the low stakes betting description of those unable to wholeheartedly support the proposal. He was one of them. Happy with function — worried by form.

Hobart City Council
Open Meeting
Monday 23 April 2007
5pm

Aldermen
Present: Lord Mayor Rob Valentine, Deputy Lord Mayor Eva Ruzicka, Jeff Briscoe, Peter Sexton, Ron Christie, Philip Cocker, Helen Burnet, John Freeman, Eric Hayes, Marti Zucco, Lyn Archer
Leave of Absence: Darlene Haigh

HAVING chaired the last Development and Environmental Services Committee (DESC) in the absence of Haigh, Ruzicka now introduced its motion to approve, with conditions related to the façade, the University of Tasmania’s application for the co-location of the School of Medicine and the Menzies Research Centre on the corner of Liverpool and Campbell Streets, Hobart.
It will extend over much of the block on which it is sited.

Ruzicka was enthusiastic about the proposed building’s function but not about the container.
— I believe that wiggling grey lines are a mistake.

I was reminded of a singer friend who is invariably asked to include Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Old Oak Tree in her performance. This despite it being pretty obvious, by the time the request is made, that her preference is for anything but.

UTAS architect’s vision is expressed in fluid curves and a palette of black and off-white. Ruzicka made a wish for colour and vertical lines.
She also didn’t want to mimic the old, advising against ‘a twee pastiche’ of what is around the site.
The education/research function of the centre was, Ruzicka felt, vitally important in supporting a strong socio-economic future for Hobart.
Overall she felt the application should be approved for the future of the city.

There was universal support from those aldermen who spoke — and Archer was the only one who didn’t enter the debate — for the building’s function.
The difficulty for some aldermen was the building’s skin.

For Burnet this was not the only problem — she was concerned about the impact on the heritage values of surrounding buildings especially given the building’s size and its impact on this site. She intended to vote against approval.

Hayes, accepted that practical requirements dictated a building of this size supported the proposal.
Burnet was not alone in feeling that the building was not right for the site.
In another spot, with plenty of space around it, the deliberately arresting look of the building could have been a plus, rather than a worry.
Briscoe asked if any other designs had been presented.
There had been none.

Cocker, said that while he hadn’t anticipated there would be alternatives he did have concerns with the process to date.
How was it, he asked, that in 18 months of planning and negotiation no 3D mock up had been sighted.
This project, he said, worth $43 million, warranted such an approach, especially given the recent request for a model for a much less costly public art work proposed for Lower Sandy Bay.
Photos, he went on were clearly not enough.
Nor did Cocker believe in architecture by committee. He was concerned about the possibility of the façade being blanded down to a cardboard box.
He would, with that reservation, be supporting the motion.

Jim Ovens, Project Manager for the University of Tasmania later told Tasmanian Times that there was often difficulty for architects, who work in two dimensions, in presenting their ideas to those who do not at least have a background in the construction industry. However, he said it was expected that architects be able to do this as part of their stock in trade.
It was precisely for this reason that 3D models were sometimes presented.
Presumably one was not provided in this case because it wasn’t requested.
Mr Ovens also said that in future the University would work-shop and liase even more with Council, delaying formal application if necessary, if Council felt it needed more time and information before reaching a decision.

Some aldermen expressed surprise that they hadn’t seen the plans for the façade until very recently.
This, Ovens said, was because no-one knew about the façade until very recently. It was the last thing considered. By necessity it followed decisions on the building’s final form. There was no question of it having been kept under wraps. Council, he said, knew about the look of the building immediately it was designed.

Back in debate Sexton agreed with Cocker in relation to seeing a model, suggesting that the University had been done a disservice in the way that the process had been handled.
He felt disappointed that his first view of the façade had been in the media and he wished that all aldermen had been kept better informed.
Sexton’s preference was also that the building be left alone or that another equally interesting design be considered. Dumbing down was not the only alternative, he said.

Zucco opened with — Sometimes people are so precious — they want 50 cents each way. And I’m wondering why the Premier didn’t come out and fast track it. But anyway that’s enough about politics …

Burnet’s response was that if he cared so much it would have been a good idea to attend the DESC meeting at which the proposal was first discussed.

— Don’t play politics with me, or I’ll play politics with you.

Zucco went on to say that Council needed to find common ground, that Briscoe could shake his head all he liked and that if height was going to be argued well it was 17.6 metres maximum. If you want to argue height —

At which the journalist beside me, apparently new to council meetings, thought she’d missed something. Who mentioned height? she asked.

Zucco then said that as the motion entailed the façade still having to meet Council approval he was able to support it. Which was apparently different to having 50 cents each way.

Briscoe’s concern with the process was that the University had come to Council with a design which didn’t please the community. The University’s attitude, he said, was that while it was happy to change the façade, they wouldn’t consider changing anything else.
A workshop on the previous Thursday, which had provided an opportunity for the University to present the plans to all aldermen had also revealed that Council was in fact looking at only 2/3 of the final proposal, he said.
Use was not an issue, said Briscoe, but the process to date had ignored Council’s heritage scheme.
The applicant states that this iconic building is needed to do important work, said Briscoe, adding that he found the University’s attitude arrogant.
He felt the building would look great — with space around it. The University had failed to make sure the building fitted in to the proposed site. It was, to him, a design from The Matrix, but the issue should not be whether individual aldermen liked it or not but whether it complied with planning requirements.
His suggestion that the upper two storeys be set back a minimum of 9 metres revealed the benefits of aldermen attending DESC meetings, a considerable amount of time having been taken up there on precisely this issue.

Freeman, who had strongly supported the proposal at DESC re-stated the advice given there — that to reduce the area of the top floor would destroy the whole purpose of the building. The wet lab needed to be at the top, secure from ‘prying little medical students snooping’.
— Council heritage officers have overstated their case. To call this an area of heritage importance is nonsense. Hollydene’s front is important but will in fact be improved by the removal of the non-heritage verandah which now obscures it.
Freeman went on to advise against such overstating generally. — Anyone who does this digs a pit for themselves to fall into. Never exaggerate for some-one will catch up with you.
He agreed that a maquette should have been requested, comparing the situation to the advice he gives medical students.
— Don’t read the doctor’s letter first or you’ll make up your mind before you see the patient.
Freeman said he thought it was already Council policy to request models in similar application processes. Jim Ovens (UTAS) later said this was not the case.

Burnet queried whether, in the event of Council approving with conditions, the whole building could be refused in the future, or only the façade. Only the façade, was the answer.

Christie’s view was that in the light of the $43 million involved Hobart needs the project, to which he added his awareness of its usefulness for students. These added up to him being in support of the proposal.
He referred to what he saw as Ruzicka’s 50 cents each way and asked the question — What does ‘iconic’ mean? This word has punctuated all discussion of this project by Council — used by applicant and aldermen alike.
— Is the TSO tank iconic? — asked Christie. The answer to this was silence.
Christie’s concern was that another 1/3 of the building was yet to come, in 5 — 10 years. Despite this he supported to proposal.

Valentine was bemused by the low stakes betting description of those unable to wholeheartedly support the proposal. He was one of them. Happy with function — worried by form.
In the light of re-reading the heritage report Valentine was concerned that he was faced with a major development that lacked officer support, which he found unusual. He felt that if the Planning Scheme, particularly the Burra Charter process, had been followed rigorously by the applicant it would have achieved such support.
(This process includes analyzing a site’s significance and retaining this in the design response.)
Valentine agreed with Freeman that some of the buildings in the area referred to as ‘iconic’ may not fit the bill if compared, for instance, to St Mary’s Cathedral, but in terms of early industrial buildings he felt they rated.
The point is, he said, we have a decision to make. This building on this site — is it appropriate for Hobart?
The first problem for Valentine had been the process. Beyond that he felt that in another place the building could be very exciting. Given his view that it wouldn’t fit in with its surroundings he wouldn’t be supporting the application.

Ruzicka closed debate with a pat on the back for herself and colleagues for conducting an excellent debate.
She added her support to Cocker’s suggestion that 3D models be part of similar applications in future.

The motion for approval with conditions relating to Council’s satisfaction with modifications to the façade, was passed with Briscoe, Burnet and Valentine voting against it.

Some Other Decisions.

250 Elizabeth St. Hobart.
An outdoor dining area (on Council land), awning and alterations to the coffee shop were approved.
Burnet expressed concern that part of a green area now available to many would be converted to a commercial area available to few. Christie opined that while Burnet might lay claim to careful thought it couldn’t be called logical as there would in fact now be more seating made available.
Burnet let the logic of that response speak for itself.
Freeman clarified that the question of whether seating would be for patrons only would be debated by the Finance Committee and that he would keep Burnet’s related concerns in mind.

Smoking issues were aired as new laws often turn outside dining areas into smoking zones. This was seen as especially relevant given the applicant’s close proximity to Elizabeth College at which 59% of students are under 18.
Briscoe made the point that as Council was considering giving a license only this could also be taken away if problems developed.
Zucco compared the application to the license given to the Lark Distillery on the docks, saying he thought the proposal would bring character to the Elizabeth St park.

Council and Housing Diversity

Council has received a petition requesting it to adopt policies supporting the diversity of housing aims of the Planning Scheme thereby alleviating housing stress on Tasmanians and ensuring an inclusive community.
The agenda item relating to this petition was a move to
1. … advise its signatories that The Council fully supports the concept of housing diversity where it is consistent with sound planning outcomes for the city and it will continue to facilitate meaningful initiatives to reduce housing stress within its sphere of influence.

and that

2. A further report be prepared on possible incentives that the Council can offer for developers to ensure that housing is provided for low income and disadvantaged people.

This brought Zucco out spitting mad.
He flourished a flyer.
— This contains defamatory statements such as ‘your local aldermen are noted as acting to protect property prices’.

Disseminated by POSH (People Opposed to Selfish Housing) Zucco said they would be better named People Outside Help.
— What are its origins. Who wrote this? ? Zucco demanded.
He railed against ‘anyone who puts out garbage like this, or knows, or is associated with them.’
He referred to his particular disgust for anonymity.
— I hate and I loathe people who are faceless. I have actually made this comment on Tasmanian Times to this faceless person and I challenge this faceless person to say these things to me face to face.
Given his vehement views of anonymity it would be a brave person who changed their mind at this point and revealed themselves.

In relation to TT this writer has the view that while some may feel the need to protect their jobs or their noses by maintaining anonymity it doesn’t evoke a desire to respond to them.

Zucco went on to suggest that there was some-one in the chamber who advocates one thing outside it — to the media for instance — and another when it comes to the vote. This transpired to be in relation to the proposed development of council property in Liverpool St (presently a car park) for affordable housing.
Burnet stood to say she thought Zucco might be referring to her.
He hadn’t named her, he said, but yes, it was her. She had said to the media that Council had other plans for the site in question yet voted against the proposal in Council.
Zucco should check his facts replied Burnet. She had voted against an amendment but in favour of the overall motion.

Zucco maintained his position that Burnet had misquoted Council’s intentions and now asked the General Manager, Brent Armstrong, if Council had plans for the Liverpool St site, other than for affordable housing.
The reply would have done the Delphic Oracle proud.
— Not at this time.

Valentine re-iterated his concerns, as expressed at DESC, for careful language in distinguishing between affordable housing and the present proposal in support of housing for the disadvantaged.
The motions were passed unanimously.

Archer, who had left the chamber after the UTAS co-location project debate, returned in time for that on Zero Net Carbon Emissions, the last item on the agenda.

The proposal from Alderman Cocker read:
That the Hobart City Council prepare a report on having Zero net carbon emissions by the year 2020.
That the Council use the City of Melbourne Zero Net Strategy as the starting point and include the goals of that program in adapting a program for the use of Hobart City.

Some argey bargey over what this meant followed — Briscoe asking whether everyone should stop breathing.
It was agreed to reconvene the Greenhouse Gas Committee — which Briscoe chairs and which hasn’t been over-busy lately — to consider the proposal as a first step towards considering Council’s position on carbon emissions.