Peter Brenner
We don’t hear about energy and resource efficiency, natural heating and cooling, greening of roofs and façades, vitality, interaction between the building’s openings with public space, water sensitive urban design. In short, we once again hear and see nothing about liveability. Once again a developer driven blot with no regard to any modern requirements for landmark architecture lands before a befuddled Council.
WE hear of heritage, futuristic look, iconic landmark, colour schemes, bold architectural statements. We read about Council bashing and developer whinging. We see a fancy concrete skin covering a boring office block. We are confronted with a hard-edge, out-of-step theme interpretation gimmick.
We don’t hear about energy and resource efficiency, natural heating and cooling, greening of roofs and façades, vitality, interaction between the building’s openings with public space, water sensitive urban design. In short, we once again hear and see nothing about liveability. Once again a developer driven blot with no regard to any modern requirements for landmark architecture lands before a befuddled Council.
But a wasteful concrete edifice with no apparent ecological role is not the stuff of up-to-date modern public architecture.
Consider the ramifications of a useless concrete skin alone. Where will the sand come from shortly to produce the concrete? Yes, we are about to start mining the tip of Seven Mile Beach. Our own rather impressive mini Henty Dunes. A sand wonderland at our doorsteps. Dig it up!
Bold architectural statements do backfire. The much quoted Gehri Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao has become the predicted liability: A high maintenance public wasteland with absolutely no connection with the still ailing city. All the extra air, bus and rail services have been taken off the market. The afficionados have seen the beast. Interest lost, back to the grind!
Time for Local Councils and the State Government to get off their hands NOW and develop contemporary planning policies (the Government’s “Better Planning Initiative” tinkers around the edges, but does not address policy).
Policies would need to include:
• Energy and resource efficiency
• Greened roofs and façades
• Setbacks for urban forestry with significant tree canopy
• Open façades for interaction with the public space
• Natural heating and cooling without air conditioning
• Pedestrian and bicycle friendly facilities
• Water and waste water efficiency
• Connection to public transport
• Etc etc.
Pie in the sky? No! The Melbourne City Council has just built HC2, a working example of what really modern architecture looks and feels like (www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/info.cfm?top=171&pg=1933). Vastly different from this constipated 1950s concrete reverie. Fascinating stuff that would befit an organisation like the Menzies Research Institute, which — after all — deals with human wellbeing.
