The most recent round of photomontages leaves us wondering just how much we’re paying these consultants to seemingly laugh in our faces?
The photomontages submitted to the TPC as Annexure D SLR Viewpoint locations information 17/2/25, show that SLR consulting either aren’t getting the message – that we want realistic renderings of the visual impact this behemoth will have on our experience of the waterfront and stadium surrounds – or they’re deliberately trying to obfuscate and diminish that impact, perhaps at the behest of the MPDC.
While they have rendered the stadium more truthfully in terms of colour – it being a timber-clad structure with timber roof members, so previous renditions of a misty grey dome bleeding into the sky were misleading – they are still using other visual trickery like wide-angle views that distort the edges of the image, or cropped views that remove structures in the vicinity that would allow for a height comparison, for example this image from Viewpoint 14.
Fig.1: Viewpoint 14 – UTAS Castray Esplanade (Annexure D SLR Viewpoint locations information 17/2/25, p.32)
In comparing Fig.1 (above) and Fig.2 (below) it’s possible to discern the reduction in the height of the dome enabled in Fig.1 by cropping the Gasworks stack out of the edge of the image. The Gasworks Chimney is 16 metres lower than the peak of the dome to which it sits due west, on the same latitude.
Fig. 2: Height datum overlay on photo taken from UTAS wharf 28/2/25 – similar vantage point as Viewpoint 14.
When a photomontage does show the Gasworks Chimney, as in Fig.3, it appears to be the same height as the dome, as Fig 4 shows.
Fig.3: Viewpoint 12 – Victoria Dock outside Mures (Annexure D SLR Viewpoint locations information 17/2/25, p.30)
In Fig.4 (below) the Gasworks stack is due west of the centre of the dome. This is shown on Cox Architecture Elevations (Annexure B: Consolidated Plans 1, 17 Feb ‘25, p.7). When Australian Height Data (AHD) are laid over the image in Fig.3 (above) the evidence of the distortion becomes apparent.
Fig.4: AHD Overlay – the Gasworks stack is a fixed survey monument.
Some of this distortion is caused by the angle of view, which depends on:
- The eye-level of the photographer – tall people see the world differently from a child in a pram (or, indeed, worms).
- The distance from which the shot is taken – the closer the distance, the more the curvature of the dome comes into play, the greater the distance, the ‘flatter’ is the perspective. In other words, the shorter you are, or the closer you stand, the harder it is to see over the curvature of the dome to its peak.
- The lens used can distort this curvature, causing the image to ‘bulge’ in the centre, and the edges of the image to distort. This was the defence SLR offered when the TPC questioned a previous photomontage from the Remembrance Bridge that appeared to show the Grand Chancellor (42m high) as substantially taller than the stadium, at 54m (Annexure L – SLR Consulting clarification regarding visualisation 31/1/25).
Cropping has also been done for Viewpoints 17 and 18. In Fig. 3 (below) the view down Evans Street has been focussed to the left so that the UTAS Art School is the dominant structure, while the stadium on the right has been cropped so that its full height is not visible. There’s a 32m difference in the height of these structures, and nearly 200m difference in girth. This image is yet another manipulation that denies what would be the lived experience of pedestrians as they move around this part of the waterfront – many of whom will be tourists disembarking from cruise ships.
Fig.5 Viewpoint 17 – from the eastern end of Evans Street
The image from Viewpoint 17 (Fig.5, above) should be retaken to angle it towards the stadium site so that a more realistic impression is given of what will confront walkers in this vicinity – one that doesn’t seek to obscure the scale of this enormous imposition on the urban landscape.
Similar manipulation has occurred in Fig. 6, Viewpoint 20, where the photographer has chosen to stand on the narrow RHS footpath where trees and a tall building crop out more than half the stadium.
There is an element of choice in all these images. Choice of lens to determine breadth and depth of field. Relative altitude and distance from the subject, as well as the angle of the shot, are all choices. The photographer can choose to pan left or right to cut elements out of the image, or to focus away from unwanted visuals.
Fig.6: Viewpoint 20 – south down the Brooker Highway
In Fig. 6, the photographer has chosen to focus Viewpoint 20 down the narrow RHS pathway rather than taking it from the intersection, or the median strip, or the LHS of the road – three locations that would have opened up the view to the stadium and shown its overwhelming scale.
When it comes to choice, however, the final few images in this set submitted to the TPC on 17 February leaves one asking, “What were they thinking?” Viewpoints 21 and 22 are just laughable. They seem to be so deliberately fatuous as to be insulting. What is the point of submitting images from locations where the stadium is not visible? There are thousands of such locations around Tasmania! Yet, that is exactly what they have done here.
Fig.7: Viewpoint 21: The Engineer’s Institute from cnr Davey & Macquarie Streets looking SE.
In Figures 7 & 8, the stadium is completely obscured by vegetation in the foreground.
Fig.8: Viewpoint 22 – from the Soldiers’ Memorial Walk in the Domain, looking west across the Gasworks site.
The problem with still photographs is that they can’t replicate the experience of walking down a path and looking around. In Fig.8, the background to the conifers centre-left would be moving and changing continually so that the brain constructs reality as the eye moves over the scene. The trees which are blocking out the stadium in the still image, would only intermittently block the view and the full scale of the structure would become very apparent – remember it’s nearly half as tall again as the Gasworks chimney which is visible in the distance down the path. Even moving further down the path, to an opening between the trees would afford a better view, but they chose not to do so. So what’s the point?
The point here is there is no point in presenting these last two images. They are just a waste of time and money.
They do indicate yet another choice. The consultant chooses the Viewpoint to focus on what they want or away from what they don’t want to show. The consultant chooses where to insert the graphic to create whatever illusion they wish to promote. And the consultant can choose to include and charge the proponent for completely pointless images.
Afterword:
In case you need more convincing, the recent submission from Cox Architects shows two elevations (titled ‘sections’ on the plan sheet) which include the surrounding structures, albethey rendered very faintly, to show their relative heights. These data were used to create Fig.2 and Fig.4 above.
Fig. 9 Elevations by Cox Architecture – Annexure B – Consolidated Plans 1 17 Feb 25 – p.7.
There appears to be a mismatch in the height data between SLR’s GPS coordinates for the height of the base of the Cenotaph, shown as 22.3m for Viewpoint 3 from the Remembrance Bridge (‘Viewpoints Schedule’ – Annexure D SLR Viewpoint locations information 17/2/25, p.3) yet it is shown on the same height datum as ‘Level 4’ on the Cox Drawings at 24.4m FFL. Two metres may seem minor given the scale of this thing, but it means the difference for a person standing at the foot of the Cenotaph, looking across at the wall below the lip or ‘cuff’ of the dome if the SLR GPS datum is correct, or looking at the edge of that cuff and over the roof if Cox is correct. Either way, one of these consultants has it wrong.
Which brings us back to where we started. How much have we paid for all these pages of reports – the initial submission (September 2024) comprised 40 Appendices containing 1.67gigabytes of data including: Appendix A & B (153.101Mb) being the Architectural Drawings & Design Description by Cox Architecture, and Appendix JJ (43.8Mb) being the Mac Point Precinct Plan from MPDC itself?
After the TPC processed the initial submission it wrote to the proponents, MPDC, seeking further information regarding a 12-page list of 75 items it found had received inadequate attention or been omitted from the first submission.
The MPDC has now furnished these via three data drops – 31 January, 14 February and 17 February – adding another 550Meg of corrections, amendments, or additional information making over 2 Gigabytes of data for the TPC to wade through and respond before it can make its final recommendation. There’s no guarantee that the MPDC have thus far provided all that the TPC might need to inform that decision. So, more data drops, more annexures may be yet to come. We ask again, at what cost?
All Reports, Appendices and Annexures can be found on the TPC website at:
Our Place Hobart is a community group with a vision for a genuine multi-use precinct at Macquarie Point.
