The
project manager for the nearly-finished ‘Power Tower’ was being
interviewed on television. The announcement was that the new ‘Power
Tower’ of the Queensland Government, the new government offices
built to make way for the proposed casino development by allowing the
demolition of the existing nearby government accommodation, (three
award-winning structures: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/brisbanes-new-casino-proposal-approved.html
), was to be opened in November 2016, if all went to plan. The completion
of the building had been delayed by a few months; the end could at
last be determined.
The
project manager spoke about the building, its accommodation features,
its fit-out, and its environmental qualities. He seemed to want to
record his disappointment that it had "No solar panels,"
adding, apparently by way of almost satirical commentary, that "the
roof slopes the wrong way." It seems that there must have been a
debate about this matter during the design process: he appears to
have lost. One was left wondering: why could the roof not have sloped
the ‘right’ way for solar panels? Surely this could only have
been a win-win situation for government: good PR and a saving on
power costs? The idea could have set an example for all. With the
current arrangement, one ponders why the grand slice has been used to
terminate the top of this tall tower. The concept must add
complications to the detailing.
The city without the riverside freeway
The
final building is a tall, triangular extrusion with rounded truncated
corners. Unusually for such a dominant building, it is sited in a
dead-end corner of the CBD, between entry and exit ramps, and beside
the freeway they serve, the brutal 1960’s transport infrastructure
that follows the edge of the river in front of the CBD: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/queenslands-power-tower.html
The mass is completed with a large, salami-like truncation, creating
a plane that faces south, away from the CBD. One gets the sense that
the building is ‘looking’ away from the CBD; that it stands as a
self-centred, proud, isolated identity, wanting nothing to do with
the city. It is an unfortunate reading for a government structure.
RAAF memorial, Queen's Park
One
is reminded of the RAAF memorial eagle sculpture on the corner of Queens
Park closer to Brisbane’s CBD. Here the bird is placed flying
‘away’ from the CBD, distinctly giving the impression of showing
its bottom to the place as it flies off. The gesture is a subtle,
perhaps unintended reference, allowing for an interpretation that
suggests neglect and rudeness; but it is there. One gets the feeling
that everything might have been perceived more positively if the bird
had been reversed, placed to appear to fly towards the CBD rather
than giving the impression of being keen to leave it; to ignore it;
to get away from it.
Brisbane city
The
new ‘Power Tower’ appears to do likewise. It seems to turn away
from the city to pompously look south, putting its ‘back’ to the
place it is there to serve. This is because the sense of address of
the tower is located by the truncation, “the slope (that) faces the wrong
way” for solar. This shaping gives the tower a ‘face.’ The authority of an 'address' - the 'facing' - can be seen in the statue of Queen Victoria in Queen's Park.
The Queen Victoria statue in Queen's Park formalises the axis of the park with its address
One
wonders what particular difference it might have made if the slope
had been angled ‘the right way,’ facing north. There seems to be
nothing that could have hindered the rotation of the plan or the
‘salami’ slice. Was it that the first sketch had fixed everything
for this design; that its ‘creative’ inspiration made it thus?
What is the slope for: mere aesthetics? If it had been reversed and
covered with solar panels, it might have been given some sculptural
relevance beyond what now seems to be a strategy based on preference
for particular appearance. A reversal might also have given more
office space more river views.
Why
are practical issues ignored in favour of what looks like whims? Is
this architecture’s problem: form no longer follows anything but
personal ideas; pretty preferred patterns? Do integrated functions get ignored in favour of desired images? Why? It appears that
the project manager is still asking this question with some degree of
frustration as he remembers the lost opportunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.