Monday 17 April 2023

WHAT TO DO WITH SUBURBIA?


What has happened with our housing developments that, in spite of the best efforts with style, finishes and detail, have become the new slums. Are the planners to blame? After all, Councils do approve the subdivisions and provide the guidelines for all other approvals, even if these are managed by others – outsourced is the word: a process that gives total control to Councils without any of the responsibility or hassles. We see large homes filling small blocks with minimum distances between adjacent structures, so that, from above, one sees an expanse of roofs that are nearly touching, stretching unbroken north, south, east, and west.





This is obviously very poor development, seemingly unlivable, providing awkward relationships for habitation, as though no one has given any consideration to a neighbour or another’s proximity. How have things come to be so bad; so sad? One might have been able to manage this itemised, self-interested development on larger blocks that provided more open space allowing manipulations to orchestrate quiet, comfortable, private living spaces, but today we have the awkward clash of ambitions that praise small, ‘green’ blocks, while, at the same time, dreaming of large homes. While there are ‘tiny house’ stirrings in the architectural press, and in the other media that suggest solutions without resolving any of the planning, mobility, and service problems, the cliché concept of a basic house is now becoming more and more aspirational, envisaging ever increasing volumes for collections of fanciful functions, meaning that the whole block is now taken up by the home. A bit of footy or cricket in the backyard is a fantasy referencing the idyllic past.






The traditional subdivision around our ever-growing cities provided blocks of land that allowed an appropriate sized house to be erected on it, with good setbacks at the sides, a front garden, and a large backyard. The block sizes varied from 16 to 40 perches, (about 400 to 1000 sq metres), but the houses varied in simplicity and size too, to suit the proportions of the spaces around them. Basic needs were accommodated without any extremes in extravagance. It seems that this simplistic idea of a block of ground to build on was only a variation in scale of how our very first settlers managed the bush. Land grants were made as blocks of bush or countryside, plots that were cleared for habitation and farming. As the settlements grew, so the blocks became smaller and smaller until they reached the 16/40 perch block pattern when greater densities in the growing suburbs were required.





It looks as though there has been no other idea for housing that has been considered in this country. The planning experiments in Britain, ‘the home country,’ and in Europe, seemed to have had no impact here. Perhaps we just had too much space to be bothered with other ideas? It appears as though this carelessness with the management of settlement has continued on through to this day, as we keep doing what we have been doing for centuries: we just keep drawing intricate road patterns with rectangular blocks around them, irrespective of region or place. Planners seem to be happy with this strategy, pressing on with this mindlessness, praising themselves for their bold steps that provide ever-more-narrow roads to service smaller and smaller blocks. These ‘green’ developments are the new slums that we see getting built on the outskirts of our towns and cities.





It is a pattern that seems to accommodate a similar attitude to change to that shown by the house builders. The model for the home is known and understood as a single house that can be built using all of the existing skills and processes with some juggling of styles, materials, and appearances to allow and promote some sense of difference in what is really just the same – or is it now worse? The traditional Queensland house came from a catalogue and could be constructed with a standard set of materials and parts, quickly and efficiently.





Today, one might be able to say much the same about our developers who do offer ‘standard’ homes that seem to have random variations that have little relation to any kit of parts other than on a minuscule scale: the house might be described as a stud frame with a brick veneer, aluminium windows, and a tiled roof, all on a concrete slab, offering a familiar pattern of action for the builder, but giving a blaze of different ‘everythings and anythings’ that has become our suburbia. Each house becomes its own centre of attention, making every effort to be seen, and is shaped for its own bespoke ambitions and intentions irrespective of any surroundings. These houses are being constructed on tiny ‘green’ blocks or on larger areas, with the only difference being the restrictions that the smaller block might impose within its limits. As part of the ‘green’ concept, building setbacks and clearances are all reduced, as if to compensate for the smaller block without any thought being given to the inevitable outcome.





One could argue that this is merely mindless planning and development that allows the past to plough on into the future without worrying about the quality of dwelling: its space; its light; its privacy; its breezes; its micro-climate; its orientation; its adjacency; its context - or anything other than itself. Attention is given only to my house on my block of land, as though we might still be in the 1820s when we have been granted a block on our arrival from ‘the old country,’ to start our new life in the colony.




If we are just going to keep pressing on with this blinkered approach to our country and our built environment, then everything will only get worse. Already we see our new suburbs with narrow streets lined with cars parked on the footpaths because there is no space on the road, or in the property, as the garages have all been built in to provide for an Airbnb, or a rumpus room that couldn’t be squeezed in on the ‘green’ block anywhere near the media room, family room, office, sun room, five bedrooms, five ensuites, dining room, parents’ retreat, kitchen, dining, utility room, and barbecue space on 400 square metres or less.




The sheer frustration of this circumstance has given momentum to the ‘tiny house’ concept; but, again, no planner or Council has given thought to, let alone yet worked out, what to do with these permanent, mobile places that come with tow bar and wheels, as well as all services ready for connection - to what? - complete with covered patios and outdoor rock gardens. The collisions in intent are stark and blatantly obvious once one pauses and gives just a little thought to the situation. Why do we not get any resolution to our mess that only ever keeps on becoming more of an unhappy shambles?





Planners and Councils appear to be happy to press on doing what they have always done without looking at the muddle that their rules and management have caused, and doing something about it. It is as though no one could care, with the same mistakes getting repeated to give the same outcomes, that now have the aggravation of the tiny house silliness, a circumstance that, if it remains unattended, will ensure the creation of slums in ever more areas as open spaces are fitted with granny flats or offices squeezed in next to the workshop shed and the garden store.





New ideas are needed if we are ever going to do something different in order to achieve better outcomes. One gets a little tired of the cliché sighs of those who care, with the disease of thoughtless development growing our suburbs faster and faster, as the pressures increase to provide ever more housing that is needed now. One can appreciate the urgency, and wonders if this is not the stimulus that demands the negligent haste that generates this mess. Whatever it might be, a conscious pause is needed so that the issue of housing can be thought through carefully with the intent to provide quality space for all in a timely manner, rather than pressing on, shoving out the same shelter on the same patterns, in any shape or size just because we can do this effortlessly.



Kingo Housing

Australia has had a few attempts as prefab housing, but we still use the diagrams and strategies of old to plan and build, even though we know of examples in Europe where a house can be factory-made as parts, and assembled to be complete within two weeks on a site that has its foundations prepared: but this is just the house. We need better planning solutions as well; ideas for housing that can allow places to cluster and gather in ways that do not compromise any quality of living, or have any detrimental impact on the environment. This cry is not a first; it is merely the outcome of frustration from neglect. For years, enthusiasts have been preaching the benefits of developments like that of Jørn Utzon’s Kingo Houses, a project he completed in 1959 - over sixty years ago: and, even knowing of these possibilities, we still fool around aimlessly repeating the crude distribution started by our early settlers, without any real attempt to do things otherwise.


Kingo Housing 


The first thing we have to do is to understand the seriousness of the matter; then we have to move on with a clear intent to change things for the better. One can already hear the groans of the planners who might have to face new challenges by stepping out of their comfort zone; and the whinges of the builders who, one could anticipate, might begin complaining about this dislocation by declaring how everything to do with these ‘new ideas’ will make building more expensive – just unaffordable and time-consuming. It is difficult to break habits that are over 200 years old, especially when the media is so keen to grasp on any issue and emphasise the division, rather than work hard to get the good message across. Good news is no news: but it has to happen.




We need a set of principles that can be enforced to ensure we get good outcomes if we don’t want the world crudely ‘Kingoed,’ which is the danger. Change has to come, because dwellings do have an impact on our well-being; and on our mental health too. Cooperation is required in this enterprise; we do not want an array of genius designers all creating masterpieces for themselves. We need to build new suburbias that are desirable and beautiful, collectively. Perhaps it is our ‘selfie’ world that hinders any change that might promote a cooperative outcome to create community comfort and privacy. We need this to become a shared desire; without this, we will remain in the competitive milieu that has given us what we have today: a thoughtless enterprise that ensures easy profit and no risk as the developers and builders compete for the lowest denominator while promising everything, creating our present new suburban slums that can be set out and constructed using the old ways, without a new care, or any attempt to change for a better vision. As Mad magazine’s motto said: “What, Me Worry?” when the profits can be made doing things the easy way?




We need to worry, for the impacts of our actions are already proving to be detrimental: change is needed. With our present formal arrangements, change has to come from our planners and Councils, but if these bodies are incapable of any considered action, other methods will have to be devised. Climate change and the detailed consideration of energy usage are likely to demand that we break from our lazy, cliché ways. Here we are already slipping back into our old ways of thinking everything is OK because we are getting more and more electric vehicles - climate change solved. The EV world is being hyped every day as our solution to survival, with news items appearing almost hourly, telling us how great everything is: over 7,000 vehicles a week from one factory! The breakdown of this figure into daily needs is so remarkable as to generate disbelief: every day, 1000 bits and pieces of everything that is required to make a vehicle is required; yes, every day, for just one factory: 1000 lithium batteries; 1000 steering wheels; 1000 computers; 4000 wheels and tyres; and so it goes on and on. Are all of these components being made with the sustainability of our environment, our earth, in mind; or do we just concentrate on the wonders of the flashy EV that looks like every other car?




We have to be very careful to not let the media exaggerations shape our beliefs, for this is the same driving force that let’s everything that we see and know of as suburbia today, be promoted as a wonderful norm; and if one wants to declare it otherwise, one is an elitist fool; an arrogant dilettante – an architect. The approach involves the same thinking as that which explains: “You wouldn’t ever want an architect; the fees would pay for the swimming pool; the builder knows what he’s doing: an architect will only give you something different that is over budget and leaks” - and no one would want something different!





So, do we get the suburbia we deserve? It is truly an inexplicable shambles that leaves one more than frustrated as the supportive, self-interested articles are produced by the media directly beside with those complaining about mental health issues and other personal problems. The irony here is that the resistance seems to come, not only from planners and Councils, developers and builders, but also from those who are suffering from the environment they live in, that soon drives egos to madness in a self-perpetuating cycle. It’s going to take a big step to break this unfortunate suburban mess, but it has to happen. It just beggars belief that it has been allowed to go on for so long, unquestioned; or continually criticised as a dismissive, intellectual exercise that offers no solution or desires any action, a game that sometimes even uses the cliché icons as clever design references.#


My house on my block.

#

One thinks of Robin Boyd’s Australian Ugliness with its somewhat cynical critiques and edgy elitism; and how Melbourne architect Peter Corrigan, (Edmond and Corrigan), used Boyd’s ‘horrors’ as smart references in his work, praising things suburban and ‘tasteless’ with a brazen, intellectual cheek that seemed to just want to 'stir things up' - to disturb Boyd's refined, cultured, discriminating world.


Edmond and Corrigan house



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.