This was the headline that surprised the eye. What! Gibbo
has just died and already the vultures are moving in to clean up the profits by
reworking his much-loved and awarded work, literally behind his back. It seems
that someone did not have the courage to promote such a vision during his
lifetime. It looks like an opportunist’s cowardice. Part of his Queensland
Cultural Centre had already been given a work over by the practice involved in
the proposed redesign, and other firms too. Now it seemed that everything was
open for anything to occur. Airspace was going to be sold. The report simply
said that it ‘will’ be - no doubts at all. The whole place would be given an
upgrade, added life, 'energised' as the jargon spin says, suggesting that the precinct,
like Gibbo, is now dead - past its useful life purpose; or is it just about
style and fashionable imagery? - see: http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/on-death-of-robin-gibson-architect.html
Can linear places be public squares, or do they remain thoroughfares?
What might Robin Gibson have thought of this proposal that
seemed to have at its heart the desire to make money by selling off rights to
develop a high rise hotel and an equally high block of apartments in the
cultural precinct. Indeed, the Premier of the State boldly noted, ‘open and
upfront’ as he said - as if this rude, brazen positioning was the same as
‘open’ government, not selling off the jewels or defacing a significant
building complex - that this exercise was a blatant grab for profits, to make
money for the coffers that, like every government of opposite persuasion always
says, were ‘in a much worse state than anticipated.’ It is this shameless
admission that the whole concept is about making money that allows the architectural jargon to look like simple
fabrications, invented to mislead, to divert attention away from what appears
to be obvious: that this is a pure grab for cash where anything will be allowed
if one can pay for it or will pay for it. It does not appear to be a development that has the
good of Brisbane or its future at its heart. It seems to hold no vision other
than those in its own interests. It reeks of some of the reports now coming
from ICAC, the New South Wales corruption commission, where money is sought for
a variety of causes, fabricated excuses, any reason - but it is always for
money alone; just for money. The motivation is singular; the purpose
insignificant: the only outcome considered relevant is to gain money. This is
no way to plan.
Given that the claim about defeated governments leaving
messy finances always arises, yes always, meaning that promises have to be
broken for the good of the country and all of the voters - remember the classic
‘non-core ‘ promise of Little Johnny, Primer Minister Howard ? - why is no party bright enough, honest
enough, or responsible enough to allow for such contingencies, to accommodate such circumstances when promoting itself and promising outcomes for government? It all
looks like a game that allows the most outrageous guarantees to be made in the
grab for power, and then, when they have to be broken, to keep blaming others
as long as might be possible in order to allow anything to occur. It has almost
become a cliché circumstance. Yes, governments are experts at creating ways in
which anything might happen all for the good of everyone in a ‘win-win’ spin
situation, in spite of anything that might have been assured.
So the spin is that money has to be made from nothing but
air; that the government ‘goodies,’ anything, anywhere, have to be sold for
fast cash to improve the books that have been left in such a drastic and
critical shape. Things are promoted as being urgent and necessary until there
is some other desire to spend - then money flows willy-nilly. It seems that
someone came up with the idea to create a new master plan for the cultural
precinct of Brisbane’s south bank area and beyond, and was able to flog the
idea of selling airspace to the government and developers: literally money for nothing!
The report in The Courier Mail said that Cox Rayner, the firm that
designed the Kurilpa Bridge, has prepared the ‘20 year plan.’ - see http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/on-bridges.html
This was the firm that falsely promoted the pedestrian
bridge across the Brisbane River as a ‘tensegrity strucutre’ without
qualification when it was really a cable stay structure that only in a very
small, incidental, almost decorative part, involved tensegrity principles. This
fact was finally admitted in a corrected Wikipedia article posted under the
name of the engineers, Arup. The Cox Rayner site had been closed down by
Wikipedia because it apparently breached the site’s conditions, possibly by
using it for commercial promotional purposes: see - http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/tensegrity-bridge.html
Now this architectural firm wants to change the Gibson
development in what appears to be a blatant grab for a job. Where is the need?
The firm has already been involved in the Master Plan for the GOMA extension of
the site. For this precinct it created a forecourt of vehicular driveways and
bus stops that services the car parking entrances and drop off areas. One
wonders why such a great riverfront opportunity had been so misused for mundane
traffic purposes that create a barrier for pedestrian approaches, when there
were other subtler and more sensitive possibilities that could have created places
for people that connected with the river. The public space that is left over
reads like an incidental, narrow linear link between the art gallery and GOMA
running in front of the cheekily redecorated library that seems to be the model
for the redesign of all of Robin Gibson’s work: smother it with ad hoc
interesting pieces and a story.
Planned with a different vision, these places could have
become a public square spreading out from the Merivale Street axis at the strangely-named
Go Between bridge – don’t all bridges go between? - and connecting directly
with the CBD via other bridge connections that had some rational beginning and
ending, places that made sense to join together, as argued in On Bridges - see http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/on-bridges.html
- a natural, cohesive connection touching necessity and purpose within the
structure of the city, enriching it, celebrating it, rather than seeking a
dramatic ‘world’s first’ and missing poorly with deceptive promotions. Now this
architectural firm wants to change the cultural centre precinct, put life back
into it when it had the chance to do this years ago, both in the master plan and
with the bridge. One has to be sceptical, especially with the Premier’s
admission still ringing in the ears: money, money, money!
The illustration uses the typical half-light, day-night technique of architectural photographs to highlight the interior
and shades the tower mass into the darker cloud off to one side, almost as an incidental 'aside'
A glimpse at the images on line in The Courier Mail
site shows the usual architectural graphic tricks. Here we see glass and
reflective bamboozlings layering Gibson’s forms with grey-blue ghosts of towers
looming softly in the sky in gentle, sweetly innocent monochromatic puffs. Towers do not
do this unless in cloud or mist, an occasion in Brisbane that is rather rare.
This is an architectural misrepresentation - yet again, another one of the many
seen in this profession? - see http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/seeing-what-we-believe-idyllic-visions.html Towers are solid; hard: they have a presence and footprint; they do not float; they create and cast
shade. They can reflect, like the glassy layers that find it useful to be
delineated in this manner apparently to multiply confusion in order to add
‘interest’ to the vision, complexity for the eye to be dazzled; for the
perception to be fuzzy and intriguing, suggesting ‘new life,’ whatever this is.
Why argue for added life, suggesting that there is none, or little there now,
when there was the chance to do just this, to at least start it, with an
earlier master plan? Surely these are not just sugary words and nebulous images
to soften up minds for the advantage of developers? Or are they? What is really
wrong with the place as it now exists, an aggregation of award winning
buildings designed by an architect who was a Gold Medallist in his profession?
Could this firm improve on Ronchamp? La Tourette? Wright’s work? Why not? What
are the moral rights obligations here? Is this merely the same old argument
that any other architect could do better?
The scheme reminds one of Le Corbusier's Plan Voisin for the centre of Paris, 1925 - proposed nearly 90 years ago!
There is a question lingering here: why does it seem
impossible for one architect to respect another architect’s work? Why is it
that one architect always believes that a superior job can always be done - by
him or her? There is a sickness in the profession that is promoted by the
self-centred idea that architects are gods - that ‘my’ expression is always
supreme: IRON architects. More modesty is required; more piety; more tolerance;
greater humility.
But does not an architect have a moral right for his work to
be respected? On moral rights and more personally, I have had an important
portion, the entrance and its parts, of one of my projects, the Kangaroo Point
Cliffs Boardwalk, demolished by this firm - ironically with its Goodwill Bridge
- without any contact being made, nothing at all by anyone; and another
project, Block E at the South Bank TAFE, significantly modified after I had
been contacted by a third party - apparently the firm did not want to talk to
me directly about it: mmmmm. After I had said that I would refuse the proposal,
I was told smugly, carelessly, that it was going to happen in spite of my
objections. The box on the required consultation had been ticked: so much for
moral rights in Queensland. Given these outcomes with this same firm of
architects, one has to be concerned about the respect that might be shown for
Gibbo’s work. As an aside, it is interesting to read that Roger Scruton sees
beauty as a moral matter; but this is Queensland where beauty and morals seem
to play second fiddle to money and other’s whims.
Well, what would Robin Gibson have thought of this scheme?
Sadly, he is no longer here to tell us, but he would have been very articulate
about it. What we know of his thoughts can assist us. He always spoke of his
cultural centre in the context of the distant hills of Mount Coot-tha. Its role was
to block out the rude silhouetted industrial profiles poking up from West End
when viewed from the city, to allow everyone to lift up their eyes unto the
hills, to enjoy them without the intervention of the crude, ad hoc functional
structures. Gibbo loved these hills that formed the western horizon of the
cityscape, just as he cherished the Kangaroo Pint cliffs that closed the
eastern vistas. One might assume that this is the reason that he kept his
development low, horizontal: to allow his carefully detailed, off-white
concrete masses to be framed by this iconic, rolling backdrop to the city. He
recognised that Brisbane held a unique quality with its special relationship to
these natural features.
Ghosts of the future float as rectangular clouds in the graded wash of the sky over the river steps
On a more detailed and specific, personal note, one can see
that, in one illustration in The Courier Mail, the forecourt and
riverside zones have been reshaped with numerous steps leading down to the
river walk built years after the gallery’s completion. I worked with Robin on
this part of the project in the early days when something was needed for the
Queen to open - see: http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/on-death-of-robin-gibson-architect.html In some early sketches, I had prepared
some schemes just like this one, but Rob rejected them all. He finally
developed the idea of green areas getting higher and denser as they approached
the bridge, with a clever diagonal ramp running across the slope - a very
subtle idea that made this place distinctive. Robin did not want steps, just
grassy slopes and riverside green in front of his building. Yet the
‘redesigned’ plan has concrete steps in excess, complete with hoods. Are these
for shade? The Kurilpa Bridge is not the only bridge this firm has designed.
There is the Goodwill Bridge too. Both have shades that, at times, struggle to
achieve what seems to be their purpose. What might happen here, as style seems
to be more important than function in the existing examples.
Has the Gold Coast City Council cultural centre competition
inspired this firm to create a diagrammatic grid to cover the surrounds? - see: http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/gold-coast-guggenheim-gangnam-wow.html There is this suggestion in the patterning of the proposed
shelters that ARM considers to be its great discovery that allowed everything
to fall into place in its Gold Coast scheme that, interestingly, also has its
commercial driving force. Important blocks lining Bundall Road are to be
subdivided off and sold for apartment block developments. The income from these
sales will apparently fund the new scheme - ‘win-win’ spin again, all for the
good of the people! Dare one object?
Oh, what to do? What is one expected to say? The issues are
so mixed, convoluted and complex that they seem impure - insincere. There does
not appear to be sufficient evidence to make any upgrade necessary apart from
some revenge of style. The timing is just too sad; too blatant; too structured;
the Premier’s words too bold. The ambitions likewise seem to be unbelievable,
to involve greed and self-interest rather than any improvement of public place
in Brisbane, for Brisbane. This is, as the Premier has declared it, simply a
money grab.
One needs a better argument for change than this, because it
is very likely to be only a scheme for the good of the developer rather than
anything else. Consider Barangaroo in Sydney. The report today, (07 May 2014),
in the media pointed out that this project has doubled in size since it was
first briefed in 2005 - for the good of? What might happen at the cultural
centre? What history might be defaced? How much more airspace might be sold of?
Where else might one get money for air? How big might this apparent grab
become?
Sydney Morning Herald - 1 day ago
Unpublished
plans for the Barangaroo site show planned
buildings have more than doubled in size since the original design brief was
issued, .
Brisbane needs better than this - better planning; more
concern; more consideration; more real and substantial beauty that is looked after, cared for,
rather than being modified just to suit a few. The other matter of interest here noted by Roger
Scruton is that cities started to fail once architects took on urban planning,
creating single visions for large regions rather than letting areas grow as an
accumulation of places shaped to accommodate neighbours, not built as smart districts for the
display of sole genius: 'MY' importance: see RogerScruton Green Philospohy How
To Think Seriously Sbout The Panet, Atlantic Books, London, 2013. This precinct seems to be being shaped just for money, by
money, rather than having anything to do with people, place or planet.
Robin Gibson's complex becomes almost incidental, cropped off to one side in favour of the new and bold
We need to rediscover how to make cities of true quality,
not bleat out jargon phrases and commercial blurb in order to convince a few to
allow a few to do anything just for the benefit of the few. This has nothing to
do with Spitfire pilots either. There is no glory here for anyone, just
profits.
But everything is now open for public comment. This is a
strange strategy often used by the Premier in order to get his way. Who really
knows what the ‘result’ might be? Who checks? Is this just the cliché
call of politicians to ‘trust us’? Anyone can say and claim anything in this
loose guise of a game? There are no rules; there is no scrutiny; no strategy
other than to prove one point that will be proved. What is the methodology other than diversionary
spin? My personal experience with this scheming was with parking in our street.
To overcome my clear and calculated objections, proven mathematically, the
premier, then Lord Mayor of Brisbane, contacted neighbours via an informal poll
to ask all nearby residents their opinion of my proposal. The response was that
I lost: go away; we will no longer respond to any of your correspondence. Can
this outcome be verified? No. Is it sensible? No.
The blunt, somewhat 'smart-arse' hand-scribbled note on the bottom of the letter
read: ‘Its not about equity; its about democracy!’ - signed Campbell
Newman. Puzzlingly Newman’s view of democracy has nothing to do with equity: (see 20 June 2014 note below). It
is a bit like PM Abbott’s understanding of democracy. He has recently said that
democracy has nothing to do with what people want; it has to do with what
people need. This is 7th May 2014. The budget is due next Tuesday.
No doubt we will be told what we need, in the same manner as Newman will tell
us likewise for our cultural centre that ‘will’ have its airspace developed.
One has to remember Newman’s credentials. He promoted the development of the
tunnels in Brisbane that are reportedly seriously struggling to survive
financially; but Newman holds no shame about this. Oddly, almost unbelievably, the illustrations in The
Courier Mail include a final video of, yes, yet another tunnel proposal - a
two-level tunnel for trains and buses. Will he never learn? It seems not,
because only politicians know what the people need in an inequitable democracy.
The video entertains the eye with vehicles moving just as in child's play
It all appears to be a recipe for a problematical outcome
for the city, again. Yet wasn’t it Newman who promoted the city as ‘the most
liveable’? Jargon needs to be challenged; spin queried. Real experience needs
to become not only our guide and measure, how we might improve and enrich it, but also our
ambition, how to care for neighbours, place and context. Vague notions of
opportunities for profit alone should be sidelined so that real impacts can be
assessed rather than having our city sold off to developers for profit. We need
to listen to what the city is saying, to what it wants to be. Forcing outcomes
on any place is like waterboarding it in order to achieve a defined
conclusion, as declared in the IT WILL HAPPEN, in spite of everything and
anything.
The Gold Coast Bulletin carried a small article with
the headline:
BOLDS PLANS UNVEILLED FOR CULTURAL SITE MAKEOVER on 6 May
2014:
Airspace over the Queensland Performing Arts Centre and the
Queensland Museum will be sold off by the State Government to fund a facelift
for the cultural precinct.
Bold plans for the redesign unveiled at the State Library
yesterday include two new towers, a 1500-seat theatre and more covered
walkways.
Premier Campbell Newman said his government was being “quite open and upfront” about the commercial opportunities included in the upgrade.
Note: ‘will’ - it will happen in spite of anything; ‘bold’ -
the scheme is controversial; and the ‘open and upfront’ position, as if this
made the concept and its process democratic and fair in spite of everything appearing otherwise. One is able to be ‘open and upfront’ with the most hideous of
propositions, but it does not change their sense or morality. Spin needs to be
deconstructed so that cunning politicians and architects who want to tell us
what they need, do not hoodwink us. This is not city planning. It is the
highwayman’s approach to planning: lurk in the dark and take advantage of all
opportunities in order to maximize profit in spite of anyone’s existence and
any neighbour’s needs: but who is my neighbour? This is the classic legal
question that has been beautifully answered by Lord Atkin:
Lord Atkin observed: “The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour . . . Who then in law is my neighbour?”
The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in my contemplation
as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which
are called in question.
THE ARTICLE
Brisbane
cultural centre precinct to be radically redesigned under new master plan
ROBYN IRONSIDE, PHIL BROWN
THE COURIER-MAIL
MAY 05, 2014 4:30PM
SOUTH
Bank’s skyline will be transformed by an ambitious redesign of the cultural
precinct that will add a new five-star hotel and residential tower to the area.
Open
spaces will be “energised” with new seating and covered walkways, outdoor
theatres and dining facilities.
The firm
that designed the Kurilpa Bridge, Cox Rayner, came up with the “20-year vision”
which will now be made available for public comment.
Unveiling
the plans today, Premier Campbell Newman said the sale of airspace over the
Queensland Performing Arts Complex and the Queensland Museum would help fund
the work.
“The
master plan is a bold vision to guide future development and investment over
the next 20 years, proposing new theatres, hotels, dining and science
facilities as well as a new learning centre,” Mr Newman said.
“We want
to make what’s great about Queensland even better and the economic advantages
of a booming cultural precinct will be felt by all Queenslanders.”
The plan
aims to increase visitor numbers to the precinct from five million a year to
7.5 million and boost revenue by 120 per cent.
Arts
Minister Ian Walker said there was unprecedented public demand in Queensland
for performing arts, with people turning out in droves to purchase tickets for
Disney’s The Lion King at QPAC, and the recent sellout art
show Cai Guo-Qiang: Falling
Back to Earth.
“We want
to keep attracting these magnificent shows while preserving what makes
Southbank so unique and attractive,” Mr Walker said.
As part
of the push to make Southbank more of an “extension of the city” the plan
proposes covering pedestrian walkways on the Victoria Bridge.
Mr Newman
said that had been looked at before, and it was found to be almost impossible
to do.
“Let’s have another go at that, there is
advice from some of these experts here who say they can come up with some ways
to do it.
“I do
remember that a former deputy to myself (as Lord Mayor) David Hinchliffe
suggested an umbrella stand at either end of the bridge. That was a joke.”
The
period for public comment will run for up to two months, and Mr Newman said he
would expect the initial steps to delivering the plan be taken in the 2015-16
financial year.
http://m.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/brisbane-cultural-centre-precinct-to-be-radically-redesigned-under-new-master-plan/story-fnihsrf2-1226906273317
On 'the plan aims to increase visitor numbers,' see: http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/who-or-what-is-tourist.html
brisbanetimes.com.au also reported on the redesign:
Cultural precinct to get new theatre, hotel under proposed
master plan
An
artist's impression of the proposed changes to the cultural precinct. Photo: Supplied
Queenslanders have one month to tell the government what they think of
a sweeping
new master plan for
Brisbane’s cultural precinct.
Premier Campbell Newman said he had “no shadow of a doubt” that the
20-year plan would make South Bank and South Brisbane Australia’s leading arts
and culture hub.
“I think this vision will be very powerful for Brisbane going forward,”
he said.
“Nowhere in Australia has so rich an offering, such a range of
different venues and experiences in such a vibrant piece of public space.”
The plan, drawn up by Cox Rayner architects and consultants Urbis, is
designed to make the precinct easier to navigate, and to better connect
existing cultural assets.
It features:
Expansions to the
Queensland Museum, plus a dedicated science centre
A new 5-star hotel
and/or office space to be built over the Queensland Performing Arts Complex,
which will also see a new 1500-seat theatre built, plus an all-seasons outdoor
venue
More public access to
the river from the State Library, including an amphitheatre, remodelled Edge
facility and CityCat terminal
A new grand staircase
to the Queensland Art Gallery forecourt, plus expanded frontage, a new
gallery and a canopied link to GoMA
A remodelled Cultural
Forecourt, to include space for 10,000 people during large public events, and
waterfront seating with a canopy
A new pedestrian
bridge over Melbourne Street
Covered footpaths on
the Victoria Bridge
A future major
cultural facility on the current Parmalat factory site at Kurilpa (subject to
plans for the business to move)
Arts Minister Ian
Walker said the plan incorporated advice from all stakeholders, including the
Brisbane City Council and South Bank Corporation, but now needed input from its
future users.
“What you see here
today is a great inspiration for comment, but it might not be what it finishes
up as at all,” he said.
“It depends upon the
people of Queensland, because it’s now their turn to tell us what they want
from this precinct.”
Mr Newman said until
public consultation was complete the government would not put a cost on the
development, but admitted it would try to minimise its own contribution.
“The idea with the
two towers is that we could generate some income from that to pay for some of
this infrastructure, so we’re going to try to make it as self-funding as we
can,” he said.
“The other thing
that will help pay for this is the expansion of the retail space…that will help
provide a revenue stream.”
Mr Newman said
consultation could be extended to two months if required, after which time
construction priorities would start being assigned, with bids to be received
for the 2015-2016 financial year.
Note: "no shadow of a doubt" . . . "very powerful for Brisbane going forward" . . . "nowhere in Australia" . . . "a vibrant piece of public space" - all these comments are based on a few scant, smudgy sketches. It looks like pure spin; vague, hyped hopes being used as a sales pitch to sell apparent certainty: that 'it' - whatever - will happen: "so rich an offering"? Humbug? It appears so since, as Lord Mayor of the City of Brisbane, Campbell Neuman was always complaining about the State's control of the Southbank Parklands area, arguing that this important part of Brisbane should be controlled by the Brisbane City Council planners. Now we see Neuman, as Premier of the State of Queensland, promoting a special master plan for the cultural precinct on the south bank without any apparent involvement of the Brisbane City Council. Such are the games of power.
A city needs a rich vision as a whole, a plan defined in a clear and precise, unambiguous enforceable document that is indeed implemented, not negotiated away to the highest bidder or bamboozled by the cleverest spin. Plucking out different areas of a city and formulating special plans for these precincts out of the context of the whole is a random and opportunistic method for any city to develop. But the redesign of Robin Gibson's Brisbane award-winning cultural precinct is, after all, only Neuman's grab for money, isn't it?
20 June 2014
Do all right wing governments hold a vision of democracy without equality?
Joe Hockey says 'we can't promise equality' as he dismisses budget critics
http://gu.com/p/3q2bj
NOTE:
It seems that, with Premier Newman, if it is not tunnels, it's towers: see - http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/queenslands-power-tower.html
