In the Steel Profile magazine 120 May 2015 that
covered the BKK ‘Geelong Ring Road [Truck Stop] Rest Areas,’ - see: http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/ronchamp-rest-areas-and-meaning.html - the cover
also advertised the Clare Design ‘Burleigh Heads Granny Flat.’ The article on
this little structure was given six pages. It was titled ‘BEAT BOX.’ The
headline subtext read: ‘Clare Design has created a double-story, steel-clad
pavilion for its clients that echoes the lightweight qualities of
the traditional Queenslander, without the verandah trimmings.’ It is almost the
same as promoting Roy Rogers without his horse Trigger; Slim Dusty without his
‘golden’ guitar.
Why do architectural reviews always seek some ‘reference,’
any reference: to enrich the idea? The BKK project referenced Ronchamp and
medieval towers, and more. Strangely, in this granny flat project the reference
is to the ‘Queenslander without the verandah,’ the iconic identity of the style
that is oddly referred to as ‘the verandah trimmings’ – a mere accessory. Who
knows exactly which particular ‘Queenslander’ is being referred to less its
verandah? There are many varieties, all with verandahs, and all with different
outcomes once stripped of them.
Has anyone seen a Queenslander without its verandah? It is
truly a sad circumstance. One is left with a bulky, naked shed of awkward
proportions. A ‘Queenslander’ does not make as nice a ruin as Wright’s Taliesin
West might. Looking at the Clare design, one might consider describing the
result as a simple shed. Indeed, the title bluntly calls it a ‘box.’ So why
drag in the Queenslander, less its verandah? Has architectural writing got out
of control with its boasting, its extreme ‘intellectual’ hagiography?
The article finishes with a celestial touch: ‘In suburban Burleigh Heads, within earshot
of the surf on a clear evening, Clare Design’s Granny Flat brings all of the
stars into alignment.’ Is Peter Hyatt a fan of Hair? The proposition is
a bit like the cliché ‘seeing of Stradbroke Island on a clear day.’
Is this style of review/reporting prepared for the
profession or for the public? If it is for the profession, it appears very
indulgent. Do architects need to be preached to with such fabricated eloquence?
Can they not see straight through the hype? Have these promotions become some
sort of competition to see who can create the best yarn? If this writing is for
the public, it is not doing much at all for the future of architecture as being
perceived as anything but some elitist game.
The project seems to be a very nice yellow ('sunny Queensland?) and silver steel scheme, neatly detailed
and resolved, but why does everyone appear to want to say more and more about
it, skewing obscure matters to make them, both the author and the building,
appear uniquely ‘clever’ and ‘academic’?
More needs to be done to promote architecture as an everyday
expectation and outcome, an everyday experience, if we are to overcome the
perception that architects are dilettantes, just a waste of time and money with
all of their self-important, indulgent, nonsensical blurb.
Links to other PAIRS:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.