Evelyn Reynolds

NSW arts minister Don Harwin has accepted the recommendations of the Heritage Council of NSW and the Independent Planning Commission to place North Sydney’s MLC Building on the state heritage register, scuttling plans to demolish the modernist office tower and replace it with a new building designed by the same architect.
In a report handed down on 21 April, the planning commission agreed with the heritage council’s assessment that the building was of state heritage significance and that the listing would not cause the owner undue financial hardship.
It also disagreed with the owner that refurbishment would result in a “fake replica” of the building.
Harwin, announcing his decision on 2 June, said the listing “celebrates the importance of this building to the history of architectural design in NSW and Australia and will provide protection for its heritage values for future generations,” the Sydney Morning Herald reports.
The decision follows a campaign by heritage advocates including Docomomo Australia and the National Trust to protect the building, the first high-rise office block in North Sydney and the largest building of its type in Australia when it was completed in 1956.
Designed by Walter Osborn McCutcheon of Bates Smart and McCutcheon, the building was the first in Australia to use a curtain wall design and the first to use modular units. It is listed on the Australian Institute of Architects’ Register of Nationally Significant 20th Century Buildings and is described in its local heritage listing as “a seminal building on subsequent highrise design in Sydney.”
But the firm behind the original design, which today goes by Bates Smart, also designed its proposed replacement and doesn’t rate the existing building so highly. It said the design was “flawed from the beginning” due to its east–west orientation. In planning documents, the firm said it had worked with the building’s owners for more than a decade to find a way to refurbish it, but found it was unviable.
The owner estimated that it would cost $212 million to upgrade the building should it gain heritage listing, and that “works necessary to upgrade the building to allow its future use will result in a fake replica of the original item, with little remaining heritage significance.”

View gallery

Proposed North Sydney tower designed by Bates Smart.

Relying on an independent report prepared by PTW Architects and Urbis, the Independent Planning Commission agreed with the Heritage Council that the $212 million figure was likely an overestimate, and that even if it was accurate, it assumed the east wing of the building would have to be retained if listed – which is “not necessarily the case.”
All parties agree that the east wing (one of three distinct elements along with the west wing and the central tower) is of lesser heritage significance, and the planning commission found that “the demolition and replacement of the east wing may be necessary to achieve a commercially viable outcome.” But in regards to the west wing, the commission found the interventions required to upgrade the services “need not be as physically impactful as the owner has submitted” and “the unusual floor plate does not preclude a tenantable subdivision.”
Further, while many of the cost-estimates included in the owner’s submissions were predicated on the assumption that he building would be refurbished to achieve A-Grade office status, the commission, following a submission from North Sydney Council, noted that this would not be necessary to make the building commercially viable.
North Sydney Council mayor Jilly Gibson was a strong supporter of the proposed redevelopment, stating that the listing would be impediment to “invigorating the CBD” and that “nobody in our CBD should be working in a B- or C-graded building.”
In response to the decision to list the building, she said, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, that everyone should accept the decision and move forwards. “Bates Smart are very smart architects, I’m sure they’ll get to work on a new scheme that’s outstanding and respects the decision of the panel,” she said. More

Nightingale, the celebrated architect-led housing provider, has been restructured from a social enterprise to a not-for-profit organization and a string of changes have been made to the way it operates. The transition has caused a rift among its founding architects over issues of transparency, governance and the perception of potential conflicts of interest.
Architect Andrew Maynard, who was a shareholder of Nightingale’s previous entity, has questioned how the not-for-profit organization has been set up, publishing a series of posts on social media decrying the birth of “another green-washed developer.” While Maynard welcomes the organization’s transition to becoming a not-for-profit, he objects to the make-up of the new organization, noting that it’s “what’s under the hood that counts.”

View gallery

Andrew Maynard, left. Image:

Peter Bennetts

Nightingale’s new constitution names two founding members, Jeremy McLeod and Tamara Veltre. The constitution also states that members can vote at annual general meetings and change the constitution through a special resolution.
This, according to Maynard, gives control of the organization to a select few. “Why would we have Jeremy and his wife as the only members? There are many other not-for-profits that have thousands of members. Why wouldn’t you have everyone who owns a Nightingale home as members, so you actually have a lot of people there to protect the founding principles of sustainability and community, instead of just two people?”
Angela Perry, chair of the Nightingale Housing board, said that the change was being made to ensure the project couldn’t become about profits. “One of the biggest drivers behind the change in structure was a concern that previously its was owned by five people – Andrew Maynard, Jeremy Mcleod, James Legge, Peter Lalor and myself.
“Under that structure, it was possible for it to be sold, monetized, and for the dividends and profits to flow back to those shareholders.”
“Our intention, and the intention of all of the founding individuals, was that that should never happen. We collectively made the decision to ensure that there aren’t any owners going forward.”

View gallery

Jeremy Mcleod.

She said that a formally not-for-profit Nightingale would also align ethically with some of the organizations it is working with to deliver affordable and equitable housing, including religious landholders such as Fresh Hope in Sydney and the Baptist church in Melbourne.
“We’re not averse to increasing membership,” she continued. “We created the first two members as Tamara and Jeremy in order to get the not-for-profit up and running.
“However, most not-for-profits have limited number of members for a reason and that’s because it becomes incredibly difficult get a quorum at AGMs in order to vote on certain things.”
Maynard also raised the issue of the possible perception of a conflict of interest. “When you have a person who is the member, who is also the managing director and distributing the work – [several of the Nightingale] projects went to his own company – when you have those conflicts of interest, that’s damaging to the organization.
“This isn’t about Jeremy,” he said. “He’s led this remarkable housing revolution, it is incredible. My concern is about how we have good governance that protects the remarkable work that has been done.”
But Perry said the concerns around governance were “a little bit misplaced” because the “fundamentals of a not-for-profit can never be changed.”
“Tamara and Jeremy have the ability to change the constitution but not in relation to the not-for-profit clauses, nor the wind-up clause. We believe the most important things are protected within the constitution because of the very structure that we have.”
A statement from Nightingale issued on 1 June explained further, “Some have questioned the relationship between Breathe and Nightingale. Breathe has bought [sic] five of those projects to Nightingale under the licence model. The additional two projects that were allocated to Breathe by Nightingale were done so on merit, recognizing the studio’s proven track record in delivering great buildings while keeping costs within budget. In both instances, the Nightingale delivery team worked in conjunction with external partners and funders to select the architect that was best placed to bring confidence to future residents and could complete the design and delivery under tight timelines.”
Nightingale will also do away with its pioneering licensing model, which was predicated on architects securing their own sites and raising the funding themselves.
In its seven years of operation, Nightingale Housing has issued 33 licenses and completed three apartment projects with 11 under construction. But the company believes its progress could be better and that its licensing model, in fact, has been a significant hurdle and many architects have struggled to secure funding.
Instead, Nightingale will essentially become the developer, with in-house teams that will undertake feasibility studies and raise financing.
“The future model is Nightingale will take the risk, not the architects. We want the architects to do what they’re really good at, which is designing incredible buildings,” said Nightingale founder Jeremy Mcleod.
Nightingale will choose from a pre-assessed panel of practices, based on guidelines around their capability, sustainability and the gender diversity of their leadership teams. Three practices will be invited to tender on any project, from which the board will choose one.
“That will give the opportunity for everyone to work on projects, based on what their skill-set is, instead of relying on architects to bring projects to Nightingale.”
“I’ve come on a long journey basically,” McLeod admitted. “It’s been a very imperfect journey and we’ve got a lot of improving to do.”
Maynard says that despite some of the hurdles, “Nightingale is fulfilling its mission, we are delivering sustainable, cost-effective, community-orientated homes.
“Jeremy is a remarkable visionary; I’m never going to doubt that. [But] Jeremy doesn’t have to do it all. Why don’t we have an independent, not-for-profit housing provider? That would be pretty great.”
Nightingale’s statement issued on 1 June also said, “As part of moves to further strengthen governance at Nightingale, the organization plans to appoint a Chief Executive Officer in the medium term. Adding three additional members to the not-for-profit entity also remains a goal in a similar timeframe.”
In response to Maynard’s social media posts, McLeod and the other directors sent him a defamation concerns notice. But McLeod has since told the Australian Financial Review that the notice has been retracted and “His posts are a matter for him.” More

The University of Newcastle has announced the winner of its design competition for a new dedicated building for its alumni.
“Alumni House will be a space dedicated to fostering the pride and nostalgia that alumni feel for the university, giving them a sense of belonging and enabling them to give back with impact by offering their time and expertise to the next generation of graduates,” the university said.
The building will be located on the site of the former TPI House site at 231 King Street.
A scheme by Durbach Block Jaggers with Jane Irwin Landscape Architecture, Cox Inall Ridgeway, Ongarato and Northrop was judged the best.
“Alumni House is a place for past and future connections,” Durbach Block Jaggers said of its design. “An alumni building is both for gathering in the present and sharing the memories of past experiences. Alumni House is a beacon, lighting the way back and forward.

View gallery

Alumni House by Durbach Block Jaggers with Jane Irwin Landscape Architecture, Cox Inall Ridgeway, Ongarato and Northrop.

“Alumni House is ideally located for both passing through and staying, for active streets and serendipitous encounters, for ceremonial and joyful use. Poised between civic streets, an established park, and the University corridor, Alumni House captures a calm civic presence and a dynamic future. The building enables an uplifting, open, inclusive, civic identity, porous to the public realm.”
The judges praised the scheme’s “poetic response to the brief, which successfully addresses the primary requirement of providing a welcoming place for alumni, while projecting a memorable presence in the city that looks to the future.”
University of Newcastle vice-chancellor Alex Zelinsky said, “The DBJ design for Alumni House is truly unique and will be a great gift from the University and our alumni – a place for connection, engagement and participation in University life and communities beyond the lecture theatre.”
The university launched a competition for the design with City Lab. Schemes by Candalepas Associates and David Boyle Architect, Sam Crawford Architects and Curious Practice, and Tonkin Zulaikha Greer were also shortlisted in the competition. Across all the invited participants, more than 70 University of Newcastle alumni competed.
The building will cost an estimated $15 million to construct. The university will contribute $5 million and it hopes to raise the remaining $10 million through philanthropy over the next two years. More

Brisbane Airport Corporation has unveiled plans to create a third terminal at the airport, which would integrate domestic and international operations. The terminal would be between 200,000 and 250,000 square metres in size, located between the two runways and accommodate the 50 million passengers and 50,000 works expected by the 2040s. A spokesperson for Brisbane […] More

Architecture academic Richard Blythe has been appointed pro vice-chancellor of Curtin University’s faculty of humanities after a global search for a candidate. Blythe is currently dean of the College of Architecture and Urban Studies at Virginia Tech in the United States, previously dean of the School of Architecture and Design at RMIT University in Melbourne. […] More

A survey conducted by recruitment firm Hays has found that more than half of architecture employers intend to award pay rises to their employees.
The organization surveyed almost 3,500 organizations and 3,800 skilled professionals across 28 specialist areas, of which 142 were architecture practices.
The survey found that 53 percent of architecture employers will increase salaries in their next review, which is 11 percent more than the previous year. 20 percent will increase salaries by more than 3 percent, while the remaining 33 percent will increase salaries by less than 3 percent.
This is compared with 67 percent of employers, across the various sectors, who will increase salaries in their next review.
Among the employees surveyed, 72 percent of the architecture professionals said a pay rise of 3 percent or more would better reflect their performance and 73 percent of surveyed individuals were either looking for, plan to look for, or are open to new employment opportunities in the next year, due to a lack of promotional opportunities, uncompetitive salaries and a lack of new challenges.
Hays Architecture senior regional director Simon Bristow said, “On the one hand, we have over half of architecture employers intending to increase salaries in the year ahead, which is a remarkable sign of the confidence employers exhibit today. On the other, professionalssay the value of these increases is far less than they deserve. This is creating a gap between what employers will offer and employees say they are worth.
“As our data shows, learning and developing new skills is now more important than a pay rise,” Bristow continued. The survey found that 65 percent of skilled professionals ranked learning and developing new skills as the most important priority, while a pay rise was most important for 58 percent of those surveyed.
“A lack of promotional opportunities is also the primary factor driving professionals into the jobs market today. This makes re-investing in career progression pathways and staff development a sensible strategy for the year ahead,” Bristow said.
“After a year in which many skilled professionals put career plans on hold, they are focusing once more on their long-term goals.”
The survey also found the pandemic has dramatically changed expectations of workplace arrangements with only 7 percent of skilled professionals expression a preference to return to the workplace full time. More

The South Australian government has committed $4 million for a 40-unit housing development in the southern Adelaide suburb of Bedford Park to accommodate Aboriginal Elders as part of a new ten-year strategy aimed at “hitting the reset button” on the state’s provision of Aboriginal housing.
The Elders Village, to be built close to the culturally significant site of Warriparinga near the Sturt River in Bedford Park, will be delivered by the state government in partnership with national not-for-profit housing provider Aboriginal Community Housing Limited, the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation and the Kaurna Yerta Aboriginal Corporation.
Adelaide firm C4 Architects is designing the village, which will include an outdoor fire pit and disability-friendly units with kitchen, dining, living, separate bedroom and bathroom to promote independent living.
The land, currently owned by the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation, is being granted to the Kaurna Pangkarra Property Trust, a subsidiary of native title holders Kaurna Yerta Aboriginal Corporation.
Kaurna Nation Pangkarra Property Trust chair Garth Agius welcomed the initiative. “Adelaide has been our home for thousands of years,” he said. “This is still our traditional lands, our Yarta, our country Pangkarra, but as the traditional owners we still do not own our own homes.”
Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation CEO Joe Morrison said the project was about providing a culturally appropriate independent living solution for Aboriginal people in South Australia. “The ILSC believes the joint approach between native title holders, the State Government, community organizations and a federal government entity is the key to successfully delivering a project which will provide long term social and cultural benefits for Aboriginal elders on Kaurna country,” he said.
Construction on the village is expected to begin in early 2022.
The South Australian Aboriginal Housing Strategy 2021-31 also allocates $28.4 million for a remote housing replacement program over six years, $34 million for remote housing maintenance over five years and $17 million new social and affordable housing over six years.
Housing solutions will be co-designed by communities “to increase the cultural awareness capacity of the housing sector.”
The development of the strategy has been spearheaded by the SA Housing Authority’s head of Aboriginal housing Erin Woolford, a Kuyani-Arrernte woman.
SA’s minister for human services Michelle Lensink said the strategy would continue to be shaped by Aboriginal people.
“We’re really excited to launch our new Aboriginal housing strategy – the state’s first stand-alone housing strategy which addresses the specific housing needs of Aboriginal South Australians,” she said.
“We know that better housing is a key factor in closing the health and life expectancy gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples.
“Housing provides a stable place from which to access health services, access and maintain employment, attend school and generally increase social inclusion.” More