Esbjerg Beach Promenade Spektrum Arkitekter
“Design
Stuff to Distract” Dan Plummer
It was a hot, steamy
February Friday, so an afternoon in a cool interior was not a
disappointment; but this did not prevent other disappointments at the
event – the seminar on landscape design at the Abedian School of
Architecture at Bond University in South East Queensland, on the Gold
Coast, 19th February 2016. The occasion came with a fancy,
'all-inclusive' title and much hype: Catalysts, Connections and
Interventions in Landscape – see:
http://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/news/2016-bond-university-architecture-lecture-series
This report came with its own eye-catching headline: Star lineup
revealed for first of Bond Uni's architecture lecture series.
Unfortunately there were errors in this exaggerated blurb beyond the
spelling: it should have been 'line-up.' Educators should know this.
It is a concern that such errors occur: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/the-problems-of-gaining-knowledge.html
Have folk forgotten about punctuation as well as spelling and simple
English grammar? The other problems in this headline seemed to be
with the adjectives 'star' and 'architecture.' Who gauged these
speakers as 'stars'? Indeed, who or what is a 'star'? - and was the
event really about 'architecture'?
Professor Carter
The outcome was that
the presenters were not particularly 'starry.' A couple spoke of
foreign places with accents, so this does have a cringe factor in
Australia; but perhaps this does not make it 'star' material. The
subject of the promotion did seem to be clear: the seminar, or was it
a lecture or set of talks?, was on 'landscape,' not 'architecture.'
Professor Carter noted this as a 'first' in his introduction that was
difficult to hear without the benefit of the microphone being
switched on. Why does it always seem to happen? Why do organisers not
make sure that everything is working properly prior to starting these
sessions? It is not as though the occasion was not planned, or that
the school is using crude and unreliable technologies, like the
amplification systems of old that always appeared to squeal
alarmingly with feedback, and the Kodak Carousel slide projectors
that seemed to rely on rudimentary mechanisms with basic, recurring
problems that frustrated the flow of nearly every presentation.
After being dropped
off at the entrance to the university, an awkward busy roundabout/bus
stop rather than a public place of some prominence, one began the
stroll along the secondary axis to the right. Oddly, this minor
thoroughfare seemed to be the primary, practical address, with the
other more grand linear vista void thrust under the iconic Arata
Isozaki arched building mass, appearing as a mere planning formality,
a 'bold' gesture that opens up to a view of a small bridge across
nearby water and beyond, to nowhere in particular. Even so, the
School of Architecture that is located to the right on the busier,
less formal approach to the site, could not be easily accessed from
the main entry to the university. There was no subtle welcome for one
coming in from the north, no greeting gesture or any pathway to the
school. One had to walk past the building to get onto the access ramp
pointing south, a detour that made one turn through one hundred and
eighty degrees, before one felt that one was on the approach to the
'Sir Peter Cook' building. Was this excursion a planned promenade to
display the building's qualities as 'architecture' to their best
advantage; or did no one think of those walking in from the main
entrance to the university? How can an Australian criticise a
building with such credentials? Cringe! - see:
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/pete-dud-on-cringe.html
and http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/bond-downpipes.html
Where might a wheelie bin go?
Plan view of the Forum Area
The Grand Canyon? - glazing, glare and ghosting
The foyer was empty;
it was only ten minutes prior to the start. The walk up the internal
corridor ramp to the western entry - or was it an exit that mirrored
the entry? - passed the lower studio areas and the sundry, obviously
student displays, and led to the burning, glaring sunlight of the
western courtyard space. It was a stark, bland area void of any
vegetation, located between the designed 'Sir Cook' building, and the
'un-designed' metal-clad school workshop shed. The thought occurred:
which was the more honest building? The place looked like a dead
delivery zone, nowhere, instead of an area for people to enjoy, yet
it had an identical closure to that of the main entry. Indeed, the
cliché Friday sausage sizzle had been set up by the students next to
the shady, but much more public main entry on the east, even though
it had nothing to do with the public or those attending today's
seminar/lecture/talks. Why was the shady pine tree grove that is
'referenced' by the new build not used for the barbecue? The
main-door cooking location made one feel like one was visiting the
local Bunnings hardware store that has frequent 'sausage sizzle' days
to attract tradesmen and promote local charities. How might this
reflect on this new school of architecture? - see:
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/what-is-school-of-architecture.html
Approach from south
This building needs
a serious post-occupancy evaluation. How will it age? How well does
it work? Adjacent to the glass doors in the grand, glazed western
wall was a wheelie bin. Had the architects forgotten about trash?
Professor Carter had not, but this bin remained in this awkwardly
exposed corner position. Adrian Carter mentioned in his opening chat
that even though he lived on Currumbin Hill with magnificent water
views, he also shared this grand vista with numerous wheelie bins.
One wondered: if he is so sensitive to these public eyesores, why
does he leave the one next to the western door to be seen by all in
the school's circulation corridor? Here one is reminded of the
blocked fire exit: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/exploring-definition-edge-condition-of.html
Strolling back to
the open Forum Area, one soon became aware that more folk had arrived
for the afternoon session, so a seat was taken in anticipation of a
start. The normal nuisances were observed yet again as one sat and
waited – and waited: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/exploring-definition-edge-condition-of.html
and
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/richard-leplastrier-ephemeral.html
and
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/the-nordic-architecture-symposium-aalto.html
It seems as though things will never change. The one o'clock start
became a 1:20pm start, the exact time that the first speaker was
scheduled to have finished. Why on earth can events at the Abedian
School not start on time? The afternoon eventually began with Kevin
O'Brien talking about the aboriginal experience of place, and how he
envisages and manages cultural issues. He made a clear point of
recognising the original land owners, as politicians do. I never do
this, as I take it as read that one is sensitive enough to always be
aware that this country was once inhabited by others, at all places
and at all times. To declare one's awareness on special occasions
seems too much an exaggeration of ME and MY 'special' sensitivity,
too much of a display.
Lockhart River retail store
FOL studio and garden
Mr. O'Brien spoke of
burning land, how this traditional practice managed flora and fauna.
He noted how the first painters illustrated landscapes that looked
like mown fields. After twenty years, these areas were forests. His
emphasis on the apparent need for fire seemed insensitive to
environmentalists who argue that fire destroys flora and fauna –
well, those that cannot tolerate such events: a self-evident
observation that seems to be dismissed in the burning argument. Just
because the aboriginals did it does not make it right. His Lockhart
River scheme – a retail store and offices – illustrated his approach to cultural
issues: seats were provided around a tree so that all can see others
coming and going, and respond appropriately according to the social
rules. He noted somewhat mockingly that Project Services wanted this
area to be a car park without explaining matters further. Where did
the cars go? None were seen. His decorative, 'scarring' fascia
fringe, (his decoration was considered to be 'cultural scarring'
analogous to that on the bodies of older aboriginals), seemed too
close to fashionable laser-cut screens to appear meaningfully
'cultural,' although one can appreciate the effort. His own house
suggested how he saw suburban lifestyle – knock down fences, build
a bar and a barbecue and solve all problems over a wine. Mmmm; grog
and aboriginals is a difficult issue to talk about as a positive
approach to problems. His description of and reference to fire and
dream-time stories seemed too usefully 'aboriginal' and 'factual' to
be sincere, to be genuinely integrated in his work as an emotional
necessity, but this can never be truly assessed with such an emotive
context. One compares the expression/explanation to the writings of
Bill Neijdie (Kakadu Man; About Feeling) and notes a
significant difference in sense, content and intent – sagacity: see below.
Gold Coast, Queensland
Gerard McCormick
The second speaker
was Gerard McCormick, a local Gold Coast landscape planner from the
Cardno office. His firm has done a lot of work for the local Council.
Little wonder, after he explained how he 'cleverly' solved the 'open
space' problem that was of such a concern to Council officers. His
first map of the region illustrated all of the green areas in the
area. It was obvious that there were very, very few green spaces.
London and Paris would have more open green areas than the Gold
Coast. Council officers were rightly worried about future growth, and
how this already very low proportion of open space per person would
only get increasingly worse. The astonishing solution was not to
create more parks and reserves, but to count the beaches, the rivers,
the creeks, and the roads as open space! Mr. McCormick called this
Green space, Gold space
and Blue space. I wonder which colour was attributed to the
roads? How much of the Pacific Ocean was measured to get the required
number? This seemed to be a great fudge; pure cheek; a real
'engineering' solution to a problem. (Mr. McCormick does work for
Cardno!) Why not measure the sky too, as some enjoy this as a
recreational space? - (this was the argument for including the other
spaces): kites; gliders; aeroplanes; hang gliders; wind surfers; etc.
all use and enjoy the air above, while sun bathers enjoy it as a
source of warm light? Surely this is a really tricky solution, just
too smart; sly; one that only has to do with mathematics and
analytical logic: a 'seat-of-the-pants-saving' solution, not one for
an improved lived experience? It seems to care nothing for feelings
or qualities; merely measurements, calculations and explanatory
words, little more. The other planning examples spoken about appeared
to prove this to be so. There was a great emphasis on mapping
diagrams at a very large scale that used descriptions of
possibilities to suggest intimacy: but there seemed to be no fine
scale thought here. If landscape planning is not able to offer folk
true, real, valued experiences as actual outcomes, it is a waste of
time, and should be put in with town planning as a profession that
needs to be abolished: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/the-rational-shaping-of-surfaces-town.html
None of this augured well for the future of the Gold Coast. It was a
very depressing revelation presented boldly and with supreme
confidence and certainty: with an almost infallible knowing, the kind
one has come to expect from planners who relish their legal
authority.
Bangalow play area
The next scheduled
speakers were Dan Plummer and Belinda Smith; but he spoke for both,
starting his talk by spruiking about the real values of sporting
fields as open space. It was all made to sound poetically idyllic:
sprawling shadows in empty space where one was able to do anything
one wanted, unlike planned play areas. Maybe there was some nostalgia
in this talk that skewed these opinions as he illustrated his visions
with playing fields in Murwillumbah where he walks his dog; and in
Bangalow, where he played soccer as a child; and later cricket as a
teenager. This position looked like a load of nonsense, a real worry,
as leased open space is different to public open space. It is the
difference between corporately managed public space, and public civic
space: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/the-victor-gruen-vision-false-hopes-and.html
Our experience at Yeronga Park in Brisbane highlights the problems.
Yeronga Park memorial pavilion
Yeronga Park memorial gates (that are rarely closed)
Yeronga Park plan view
Years ago, when
involved with the local kindergarten, we had to get a lease number to
be able to lodge a building application with the Council. I went into
the Council offices one lunchtime, but there was not one person
there. So I entered the work area, opened the filing cabinet, found
the Yeronga Park file, and jotted down the number. The great surprise
was the plan of the park in this file. The park was publicly
designated as a memorial park, a memorial to those who had fallen in
WW1. It has a small memorial structure in it that becomes the Anzac
Day centrepiece; otherwise this little monument is a small, neglected
play space that collects rubbish. The plan drawing of the park
illustrated all of the leases in the park that one had always
supposed was open public space. There was: the kindergarten; the CWA
hall; the fire station; the bowls club; the croquet club; the rugby
league football club; the blind cricketer's club; the tennis club;
the scouts hall; the basket ball club; the local state school; the
local public dentistry offices; the local swimming pool; and the
meals on wheels kitchen – all on separate leases. One side of this
high, quality block of land – this park was not developed on low,
flood plains or old refuse tips - had been given over to a strip of
houses. Most of what looked like open space in the park was a
cluttering of leased areas; some were fenced off. Very little of the
park was un-leased open public space; but even this is not considered
off limits to further leasing.
One day a few years
ago, the leagues club decided it wanted another football field. No,
it could not share the second open 'practice' area with the blind
cricketer's second pitch; it wanted its own space. The club had
chosen an area of the park bounded by mature trees and made a
submission to Council. A local group objected, arguing that the new
field would require the removal of trees and the loss of more public
space. In spite of this, Council approved the proposal: see –
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/will-development-applications-always-be.html
So an appeal was lodged. We took the space used by the existing field
as an image from Google Earth and superimposed it onto the approved
space. It did not fit without removing trees. The appeal went to
court. The club and Council lost. This is why one should not get too
excited about leased open sports spaces. Inevitably a president or a
new management group comes along with the ambition to expand: bigger
club house; more fields; larger entertainment rooms; more bars; a
bottle shop; more car parking areas; larger facilities; poker
machines; etc., etc. This is what happened at Yeronga Park. One has
to be wary! This glorification of leased zones is not what it
purports to be. It can all go very wrong so easily. Public open space
must be public open space, nothing else.
Norries Headland lookout
Chinatown, Southport
Mr. Plummer showed a
lookout project his office had completed at Norries Headland - a nice curving timber
seat/platform wrapping around a slope. The work displayed a
sensitivity not revealed in the Southport Chinatown, another project
he has been involved in that is due to open shortly. The bland
comment that all such 'cultural' places are false is wrong. Sydney
and the Fortitude Valley in Brisbane have Chinatowns that have grown
organically out of an ad hoc concentration of places 'eastern.' Just
why Southport needs a 'Chinatown' where there seems to be a definite
lack of things 'Chinese,' is a concern. One has to be cynical and
point out that there are local government elections due next month!
The project showed little of the care for place and persons revealed
in the lookout. This speaker closed his presentation by again
eulogising the open sports fields of his youth, praising them as
places that don't need “design stuff to distract.” This gritty,
almost bitter critique from a designer? He is not in love with his
work, or so it seems. With this attitude, he will only provide fodder
for critics who see architects, landscape or otherwise, as a waste of
time and money: does he have the same philosophy as the next speaker?
Chernobyl
Sue Anne Ware
livened up the audience with a loud, articulate and assured
presentation. An American Professor from Newcastle – she had all of
the cringe-worthy material needed in Australia! - started by
declaring that landscape did not need her or anyone to tell it what
to do! It seemed that designers were irrelevant! Landscape could look
after itself: it knew best. She illustrated this position with a
photograph of Chernobyl, but didn't expand much on the theme. It
seemed like a good headline to catch attention, as all of her other
examples appeared very structured and well managed. One wondered how
a polluted site like Chernobyl could be used as an example of
'valued' landscaping, ad hoc or otherwise. Was she simply trying to
tell us that she had been there? Something was askew here. No wonder
not much more was said about this concept; but she had wished that
she had done the three projects she was to talk about.
The Arboretum, Canberra
Ms Ware moved on to
describe a Mediterranean project near Gruissan in southern France –
a museum developed on old salt mines and fish ponds. The tide told
its story in the salt marshes; and time too. It was interesting, but
the project lacked specific detail. Her loud story removed all
possibilities of reverie and review to convince one that everything
was as she said. A few jokes were used to distract and entertain;
perhaps to show that she was an ordinary human? Then the new forests
of Canberra were presented: the Arboretum. The idea was 100 forests
of 2.5ha each, of single species tree groupings with a couple
buildings and an interesting overall pattern – 'a patchwork of
trees' that would take generations to mature. In this sense it was
bigger than any one individual. The scheme looked pretty; she made it
sound impressive. Then she spoke about the Grand Parc des Docks de
Saint-Ouen in France: likewise an interesting proposal, truly French,
with little plots for all to play and grow in as they might choose,
in amongst the open regeneration zone and other recreational spaces.
The comment was that this could not happen in Australia, such are our
workplace, health and safety rules. It was difficult to get an
understanding of the wholeness of these projects, but Ms Ware only
had twenty minutes to speak, and time was getting away. At least the
Ware images had texts that could be easily read. The previous two
speakers showed lettering and some plans that were impossible to
decipher.
There were no
questions, so the break was taken. It was nearly five to three. The
programme had this as a 2:30 – 3:00pm pause. Professor Carter
declared that this should be a prompt, six-minute 'get-up-and-move-
around' time. At 3:40pm, after coffee, cakes, kisses, hugs, and
chats, and continued care-free, relaxed socialising, he started the
late-afternoon session. Was he introducing his wife? One was not
told. The projects that Marianne Kristensen Carter presented were all
'old' work out of the office of Jeppe Aagaard Andersen of Copenhagen
when she worked there. Was this talk merely an opportunity to fill a
'Danish' space in the schedule? It looked as though the last session
had been given over to this theme. Maybe something more current might
have been useful?
The
Sydney
University
campus landscaping
dated from
2003/4! It
was over
ten years old: see
-
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/school-of-architecture-hits-wall.html
Still,
the work was impressive – carefully considered and beautifully
detailed;
intimate
in a civic way.
It set an example for the Gold Coast planning authorities: if only -
if
only they could care!
The other
representatives from Denmark rose to speak. Two architects from a
practice called Spektrum Arkitekter in Copenhagen. Sofie Willems and
Joan Maria Raun Nielsen explained that they had been given a grant
from the Danish government to travel and talk about their work. One
has to note that if two partners travel to talk, then they really
should agree prior to the event just who says what and when. It does
not look good for one to butt in to the other's enthusiastic spuiking
and ask to speak. This happened twice. One had to forgive the
enthusiasm to tell: the work was good, sensitive; with a feeling for
place, persons and materials. It highlighted just what was missing
with the local landscape planners – feeling for place and the true
achievement of everyday quality outcomes, of rich and meaningful
experiences. There was no theory or statistics here, just a love of
place and people, and an awareness of the beauty of materials and the
power of design.
Esbjerg Beach Promenade
A
group of colleagues won
a
competition
for a
boardwalk.
This
was the start of Spektrum Arkitekter.
As
well as the long, timber-clad walkway and ramps over the rocks to the
beach, the project proposed
tidal
poles
to
mark
changes by identifying and defining place and
location
in the expansive void of sand, sea and horizon. This bold concept
grew
into many other purposes that allow play, exercise and relaxation –
it is a remarkable success.
They
are true totems.
The project work on
the 'unknown' park uses a new, beautifully detailed path to encourage
passersby to explore and experience the pace differently, instead of
using the area as a shortcut. It is a great example of how design can
improve with minimal input; significantly too! The Røsnæs
project showed a sensitive understanding and treatment of areas
determined to be important in association with the local community.
Here places of beauty and significance were identified by the group.
At each location there was a subtle intervention to facilitate the
full experience of being there. One central building, perhaps it
could be called a tourist centre?, had the map model of the
peninsular with all locations identified in detail. It made a
uniquely special place out of a 25km journey, quietly, with thought,
care; humbly, with little, modest but fine-tuned interventions.
One has to comment
that if a practice of female architects can achieve such successful,
sensitive and responsible outcomes as these, then we need more
practices like this one. The work was rich, delicate, responsive, and
understanding. It thought about people, and encompassed them as
persons, individuals, with feeling. There was no hypothetical
nonsense here: just results. If we are unable to achieve good
outcomes, then we need to change now, because we will find ourselves
bogged down only in theoretical, self-important self-interest. There
is no point in defining possibilities if they can and will never be
achieved. If we are not willing to act with the best ambitions for
others – with respect, then we need to leave the profession if we
refuse to change, for staying will only perpetuate the current
situation where planners spruik about nothing but their clever
interpretative powers, and rave on about outcomes in reports with
jargon that 'ticks the right boxes' – a term used by Mr. McCormick
in his talk. We must do more than just tick boxes.
What hope is there
when all of these planning reports are written with promotional
propaganda-like texts saying 'the right thing,' while huge power
pylons get installed on the main road - (look along Reedy Creek
Road)? Who cares? When one raises this problem that will be there for
years and years to come in spite of all the ambitious reports, one is
told that this is out of Council's control – that it is the
government power supply body installing this infrastructure. One
response to a similar criticism from a local councillor was that one
could always leave the area if one was unhappy with the Gold Coast!!
This is Australia, land of careless, outrageous, Ozzie buffoon:
“She'll be roight moite. No worries! F..K off ya smart-arse
poofter!” (It should be noted that when the threat of AIDS was in
its heyday, in the list of those most likely to contract the disease
was 'architects.')
Reedy Creek Road, Burleigh Heads
Reedy Creek Road, Burleigh Heads
This brash attitude
needs to change if we are going to have any reasonable future beyond
smart words and clever interpretations, like counting beaches and
roads. This is simply just too clever: pure nonsense, an irrelevance,
when it comes down to experience and place in the ordinary everyday
living of life. Does Mr. McCormick count the hoons who do screaming,
rubber-burning wheelies etc. nearly every night somewhere on the
coast, as being involved in a recreational activity? Does he argue
that roads are open space because they are used by joggers? Does he
consider their importance in providing access to 'recreational
opportunities' to be a reason to include them in the list of valued
open spaces? This looks like pure humbug! Nothing else: a typical
cynical Gold Coast Council response to a sensitive issue. Why has it
been accepted? Has it? With this approach to things, there is little
wonder that the nearby World Heritage-listed area, Springbrook, is so
neglected, seen only as a tourist location to be serviced by a cable
way to attract only more and more visitors.
Springbrook National Park
If the measure
cannot be ordinary, everyday experience and its wonderful delight; of
changing the way people can experience place, the world and others
for the better of all, then we are wasting our time and energy. If
nothing came from the Bond seminar but this understanding highlighted
by the work of Spektrum Arkitekter, then this is sufficient, as it
lies at the core of good design, be this architecture, landscape,
planning or simple graphics. The core is love and concern for people
– making places, things for people. It was a delight to see someone
understand how tiny matters are critical. We need to constantly
attend to these infinitesimal parts of our lives and how we interact
with these objects and they with us: the light on a pavement; the
pattern; the colour; the shadows; the texture – knowing that we are
walking. The big reports are generally too broad, schematic; too big to be useful.
They usualy just fill up shelves and political gaps and gaffs. Planners
need to know this. Planning anything is about “design stuff to
distract” in a positive, meaningful way, as all good design should
be, and should become, to be an essential part of our world. We need
such interventions more than ever.
Esbjerg Beach Promenade
After a relaxing
cool wine, a cracker and cheese, departure, just prior to the
beginning of the panel discussion. Time had got away and one had to
leave. The heavy humidity of the day lingered under a full cloud
cover. It was still uncomfortable, 'sticky' outside. Maybe one should
have lingered for the chat? One might have been able to if the day
had been run to schedule.
Folkets Park, Spektrum Arkitekter
THE PROGRAMME
This story e can listen careful
and how you want to feel on your feeling
This story e coming right through your body
e go right down foot and head
fingernail and blood… through the heart
and e can feel it because e’ll come right through
Bill Neidjie
P.S.
It is of interest
that the office of Spektrum Arkitekter started with a competition
entry. The sad thing in Australia is that it was the submission of a
Danish architect's scheme for the Sydney Opera House and the
following success of this entry that stifled architectural
competitions in this country. It seemed that every government or
managing body was concerned that one 'might get an opera house'
outcome with an open competition. So, if a competition was to go
ahead, it was nearly always by careful invitation. If left open, the
winning scheme was always selected with one eye on the architect who
was sometimes asked to team up with a more experienced firm if the
project was to go ahead! The whole excitement and interest of
architectural competitions has been lost. The hope that a great idea
could get built again has gone. It seems that we will only get boxes
like those of the other Opera House submissions.
One has to add that
the Federation Square international competition that did take a risky
decision has only added to the concern with competitions. Arguments
about shards, changes and the actual built experience of what looked
like a grand idea as drawings and 3D images, has made folk more than
wary. Instead of the exciting complications of layers and meshes, one
sees a clumsily detailed shambles of heavy, awkward steel. The
delight in the flimsy elegance, the dance of veils, has gone, to
become a ponderous, over-worked Corbusian concrete column and slab
structure clad in an ad hoc complexity of varying materials, mostly
poorly, roughly detailed. It gives the impression that the intent was
well beyond the technical skills of those who had to implement the
envisaged concept.
The GOMA building in
Brisbane is an example of a 'safe' building being chosen in a
competition. The submissions included some exciting proposals that
involved the river with a greater intimacy; but these, apparently,
seemed too risky. A box with a slightly tilted lid like the Opera
House in Copenhagen was selected: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/pairs-3.html
Was this an Edison/Swan experience?
