Evelyn Reynolds

Western Sydney University has unveiled the winning design for its proposed Indigenous Centre of Excellence by Sarah Lynn Rees, Jackson Clements Burrows, Peter Stutchbury Architecture, Jane Irwin Landscape Architecture, Uncle Dean Kelly, Hill Thalis Architecture and Flux Consultant.
The centre is a key part of the university’s Indigenous Strategy 2020-2025, with the aim of sharing and preserving Indigenous cultures.
The building will be community-focused and will integrate Indigenous knowledge into its design.
“Our design engages with the layered physical and experiential histories of the site to create a proposal that is born from the spatial language of Country and healed through the return of waterway, ecology, and home for non-human kin,” said Sarah Lynn Rees.
“Inspired by the form and safety of the mangroves and veiled by a woven like facade, the design acts as a canvas within which human and non-human kin can re-connect. The Indigenous Centre of Excellence will facilitate the practice of caring for Country and the transfer of cultural and academic knowledge, amplifying individual and collective cultural strength for the benefit of all.”
The facility will accommodate a library, an Elders lounge, Indigenous research and student facilities, internal and external gathering spaces, as well as a theatre, cinema, exhibition galleries, teaching facilities and an Indigenous discovery space.
It will be made from mass timber with Country-focused materials and suppliers. The facade will be constructed using clay directly sourced from Country. It will also be landscaped with entirely Indigenous plants, honouring the site’s ecology.
“Deeply connected with Country and Indigenous knowledges, the Indigenous Centre of Excellence will be a transformational space where communities can connect with the university while learning from and celebrating our incredible culture,” said WSU deputy vice-chancellor Indigenous leadership Michelle Trudgett.
Vice-chancellor and president, Barney Glover, added, “This world-class building represents a significant opportunity for us to intensify our engagement with communities and will connect people and place to celebrate tens of thousands of years of Indigenous knowledge and history.” More

In 1934, Robert Sykes founded Laminex with the onjective of producing and supplying Australians with decorative laminates. Now in its 90th year, the company has an extensive product range including modern laminates, acrylic surfaces, wall panelling products and more.
Over nine decades, the company has grown and established several brands under the Laminex umbrella including Formica, Surround by Laminex and Hi-Macs.
Laminex manufactures 97 percent of its products in Australia at seven manufacturing plants across four states – Victoria, New South Wales (NSW), Western Australia (WA) and Queensland (QLD).
The first plant was established in 1952 in Cheltenham, Victoria. Today, the Cheltenham plant produces high-pressure laminate, compact laminate, and wet-area panelling. In Ballarat, Victoria, develop decorated medium density fibreboard (MDF) for cabinetry doors, prefinished doors and benchtops. The Bathurst, NSW, plant produces a range of partitioning and locker systems, while in Dardanup, WA, and Gympie, QLD, raw particleboard and MDF are manufactured.

View gallery

Laminex x YSG Studio collaboration. Image: Supplied

“As a proudly Australian-owned and operated company for 90 years, local manufacturing is paramount to us at Laminex,” said Sacha Leagh-Murray, general manager of sales and marketing at Laminex. “It is evident now more than ever that manufacturing in Australia is crucial to the success of our economy, with the added advantage of shorter supply times, greater opportunity for quality control and the ability to support local communities and create more jobs for Australians.”
As Laminex has expanded, its dedication to sustainability and responsible manufacturing practices has also grown. In 2005, the company was the first Australian manufacturer to have products supported by a Green Star rating. The company has made efforts to reduce its energy consumption and environmental footprint by establishing several solar farms at strategic manufacturing sites, including Gympie, Bathurst and Ballarat.
Laminex now also facilitates collaborative projects with design studios, tasking the practices to creatively experiment with Laminex products and incorporate them within various environments. Both YSG Studio and Studio Doherty have collaborated with the company on such projects.
To find out more about Laminex, its evolution and its product range, visit the Laminex website. More

The 2024 Pritzker Prize has been awarded to Japanese architect and social advocate Riken Yamamoto for “creating awareness in the community in what is the responsibility of the social demand, for questioning the discipline of architecture to calibrate each individual architectural response, and above all for reminding us that in architecture, as in democracy, spaces must be created by the resolve of the people,” said the jury.
Yamamoto is the 53rd Laureate of the Pritzker Architecture Prize and the ninth to hail from Japan. His architecture career spans five decades with a vast project portfolio that includes private residences, public housing, educational facilities, cultural institutions, civic spaces, as well as city planning ventures.

View gallery

Yokosuka Museum of Art. Image:

Courtesy of Tomio Ohashi

The Nagoya Zokei University (Nagoya, Japan, 2022), the Circle at Zurich Airport (Zurich, Switzerland, 2020), Tianjin Library (Tianjin, People’s Republic of China, 2012), Jian Wai SOHO (Beijing, People’s Republic of China, 2004), Ecoms House (Tosu, Japan, 2004), Shinonome Canal Court CODAN (Tokyo, Japan, 2003), Future University Hakodate (Hakodate, Japan, 2000), Iwadeyama Junior High School (Osaka, Japan, 1996) and Hotakubo Housing (Kumamoto, Japan, 1991) are among Yamamoto’s most notable projects.
Yamamoto is celebrated for his assertion that members of a community should sustain and support one another. He challenges longstanding notions that have reduced housing to a commodity detached from neighbours, and instead reconsiders the boundaries of private and public realms as spaces for social interaction and chance encounters.

View gallery

Yokosuka Museum of Art. Image:

Courtesy of Tomio Ohashi

“One of the things we need most in the future of cities is to create conditions through architecture that multiply the opportunities for people to come together and interact. By carefully blurring the boundary between public and private, Yamamoto contributes positively beyond the brief to enable community,” said jury chair and 2016 Pritzker Prize Laureate, Alejandro Aravena.
“He is a reassuring architect who brings dignity to everyday life. Normality becomes extraordinary. Calmness leads to splendor.”

View gallery

Yamakawa Villa. Image:

Courtesy of Tomio Ohashi

Tom Pritzker, chairman of award sponsor the Hyatt Foundation, said, “Yamamoto develops a new architectural language that doesn’t merely create spaces for families to live, but creates communities for families to live together,” he said. “His works are always connected to society, cultivating a generosity in spirit and honoring the human moment.
The 2024 Laureate Lecture will be held in Chicago on 16 May and will be open to the public in-person or available to view online. More

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a very old idea, but the term AI and the field of AI as it relates to modern programmable digital computing have taken their contemporary forms in the past 70 years.1 Today, we interact with AI technologies constantly, as they power our web search engines, enable social media platforms to feed us targeted advertising, and drive our streaming service recommendations. Nonetheless, the release of OpenAI’s open-source AI chatbot ChatGPT in November 2022 signalled a game change because it demonstrated to the wider public a capacity for machines to behave in a “human-like” way. ChatGPT’s arrival also reignited questions and debates that have long preoccupied philosophers and ethicists. For example, if machines can behave like humans, what does this mean for our understanding of moral responsibility?
Across numerous professions, ethically charged questions are being asked about what tasks and responsibilities should be delegated to AI, what consequences might arise, and what or who is then responsible. These questions are concerned with how human (and non-human) actions, behaviours and choices affect the responsibilities we have to each other, to the environment and to future generations.
To discuss ethics in relation to AI, some definitions are required. Often, AI is misconstrued as a single thing, and narrowly conflated with machine learning (ML).2 Or, it is expansively associated with all kinds of algorithmic automation processes. When AI takes the form of a tool designed by humans to complete a task, AI is more correctly a system of technologies – including ML algorithms – that work together to simulate human intelligence or human cognitive functions such as seeing, conversing, under-standing and analysing. Further, AI systems are typically designed to act “with a significant degree of autonomy ” (emphasis mine) – a characteristic that is particularly important when it comes to ethical assessment.3
Ethical practice is about more than simply following rules. It involves examining and evaluating our choices in relation to their possible conse-quences, benefits and disbenefits.
Ethics is both an intellectual endeavour and an applied practice that can help us grapple with the choices and dilemmas we face in our daily work and life. It relates to AI in two ways: “AI ethics” focuses on the ethical dilemmas that arise in the design and use of AI technologies, while the “ethics of AI” encompasses the principles, codes, roadmaps, guides and toolkits that have been created to foster the design of ethical AI. While these provisions regarding the ethics of AI are useful, ethical practice is about more than simply following rules. It involves examining and evaluating our choices in relation to their possible consequences, benefits and disbenefits – in short, exercising moral imagination. As technology ethicist Cennydd Bowles puts it, ethics is quite simply a commitment to take our choices and even our lives seriously.”4
There are many kinds of AI technologies and systems, and their technical differences as well as contexts of use can bear significantly on the nature and scale of their associated ethical conundrums. For example, the ethical problem of “responsibility attribution” is amplified by generative AI systems that use deep learning5 because their inner workings (what happens between the layers of a neural network) can defy explanation. So, the capacity to truly reckon with the ethical significance of AI technologies relies on our ability to understand fundamental technical principles of AI systems in the context of both their design and use.
Since the 1960s, architects have investigated and debated the potential for AI applications in and for the design process. Today, AI technologies are becoming central to the development of industry-standard software. Autodesk is rapidly expanding its suite of AI tools, including by acquiring AI-powered design software companies such as Spacemaker (now Autodesk Forma). To understand and address the complex ethical dilemmas that arise in relation to the design and use of AI technologies in architecture, we can refer to guides and frameworks,6 but we can also apply our innate design thinking skills. We can ask “ethical questions” – not to land on a “yes” or a “no,” but to help us think through scenarios. This process gives us the oppor- tunity to uncover the less obvious or unintended consequences and externalities that the use of AI might bring into play.7
Let’s take an example: should designers use AI-powered automated space-planning tools in the design process? In this scenario, the stakeholders – those who stand to be impacted in some way – might include clients, designers, organizations, the profession and the environment. AI-driven space-planning tools could accelerate design processes and allow designers and clients to explore a broader range of layout options. Their use could also enable designers to spend more time on design evaluation, resulting in higher-quality design outputs. And the design firm might be able to reallocate saved time to upskill its employees in new competencies related to emerging technologies and digital literacy. But, the use of AI could also result in a redistribution of design labour and reduced employment. This ethical dilemma is common for most kinds of automation tools.
A dilemma more specific to AI-powered design tools concerns the ML training methods used to generate outputs. This connects to the responsible AI goal of “explainability” – the ability to comprehend how an AI system generates its outputs or makes decisions to identify impacts and potential hidden biases. For example, if an AI tool were trained on residential plans from another country, its spatial outputs might reflect country-specific cultural norms and regulatory requirements. This doesn’t mean that we should abandon the AI tool, but it does obligate us to keep numerous humans (designers) in the loop. Because even if, by regulation, a design technology company is required to disclose its training data and/or training methods, both design knowledge and technical expertise will be needed to understand what that means in practice.
Zooming out, we must also recognize that AI ethics extends beyond human entities and includes our obligations to non-humans – that is, the environment and its myriad life forms. As AI researcher Kate Crawford has shown, AI technologies rely on an enormous and extractive ecosystem, “from harvesting the data made from our daily activities and expressions, to depleting natural resources, and to exploiting labour around the globe.”8
AI technologies are morally significant because they are entangled in and mediate human decision-making in immeasurable ways. Architects, designers and educators must take responsibility for understanding how AI technologies operate– and what opportunities and pitfalls accompany their use in design practice. By enhancing digital literacy, and normalizing and scaffolding ethical reasoning skills in both the profession and in architecture and design education, we can see AI ethics not as a border guard but as an opportunity to “fertilise new ideas as well as weed out bad ones.”9 More

The new $100 million multi-purpose Adelaide Football Club grounds at Thebarton Oval and Kings Reserve will serve as a training facility and in-season match location for the club, as well as a place for community to gather.
The facility, designed by City Collective, will form part of a wider community and sporting precinct. The Adelaide Football Club women’s team will play onsite matches during game season and both teams will partake in training programs across two sporting fields – Thebarton Oval and a second to be developed in Kings Reserve.
Under the proposal, Thebarton Oval will be reoriented and the heritage grand stand and ticket booth will be retained and upgraded in line with heritage guidelines.
A new Training and Administration Facility (TAF) has been proposed to wrap the eastern side of Thebarton Oval and house indoor training spaces, change rooms, offices, aquatic facilities and game-day support areas. TAF will also function as a destination for public use with the introduction of a cafe, a museum, a function space, and a retail shop – all accessible by a plaza space and lobby.

View gallery

A new Training and Administration Facility (TAF) has been proposed to wrap the eastern side of Thebarton Oval. Image:

City Collective

The proposal reveals Kings Reserve would be transformed to improve access to Thebarton Oval. As part of the reserve’s upgrade, new pedestrian and cycling paths would be established between Ashwin Parade and Ashley Street, landscaping works undertaken, improved lighting and permanent fencing removed.
The planning documents state the vision for the project is to create a dynamic, “vibrant, inclusive and harmonious space where community and sports seamlessly coexist.” The project’s guiding principles, as identified in the consultation phase, include a strong precinct identity, quality facilities and spaces, a ground that accommodates a wide variety of activities, improvement of precinct amenity with integration of urban and climate resilient spaces, safe access to the facility and linkages to the remainder of the precinct.
On 19 December 2023, the City of West Torrens Council approved Adelaide Football Club’s (AFC) Thebarton Oval Precinct Masterplan. The football club has now lodged plans with the State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP) to develop the Thebarton site. The proposal is now on exhibition for public comment. More

Australian architecture practices can now enter their projects into an international awards program presented by the International Union of Architects (UIA), in collaboration with UN-Habitat.
The UIA 2030 Award is a biennial award now in its second cycle. The program was established to celebrate projects that align with the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It invites architects worldwide to submit built projects that demonstrate exceptional design quality and have made weighty contributions toward achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The first cycle of the award, held in 2022, received in 125 project entries from 40 countries.
The 2024 program will run across two stages. Stage one submissions will be assessed by the region in which they are located including Western Europe; Central and Eastern Europe and the Middle East; The Americas; Asia and Oceania, and Africa. Between one and three regional finalists in each award category will proceed to stage two. A medal will be presented to the overall winners of each category upon completion of stage two.
The six awards categories are:
1. Good Health and Wellbeing: projects that have contributed to the promotion of health and wellbeing, in line with the principles that underpin target 3.3 of SDG 3.
2. Adequate, safe and affordable housing: projects that have resulted in the supply of accessible, adequate, safe and affordable housing and urban regeneration, in line with target 11.1 of SDG 11.
3. Access to safe, accessible, and sustainable public transport: projects that by virtue of siting, design, density have significantly contributed to the provision of safe, accessible, and sustainable public transport options. The project must align with key principles highlighted in target 11.2.1 of SDG 11.
4. Access to green and public space: projects that have provided access to safe, inclusive, green open spaces for communal use, consistent with the principles underpinning target 11.7 of SDG 11.
5. Adaptation to climate change and resilience to disasters: projects that have been designed to address climate change and/or to be resilient to natural disasters. This category is related to the principles outlined in target 11b of SDG 11.
6. Promotion, restoration and sustainable use of ecosystems: Projects, which either through its siting, design or construction, contributes to the promotion, restoration and/or sustainable use of ecosystems in line with the fundamentals of SDG 15.
Entries will be judged on the extent to which they can evidence that they having addressed each SDG principle. The jury members will comprise architect Peter Oborn (UK); human settlements officer at UN-Habitat, Andrew Rudd (USA); director of the Danish Town Planning Institute, Tina Saaby (Denmark); city architect and Member of the Parliament of Bulgaria, Violeta Komitova (Bulgaria); senior scholar at the Centre for Sustainable Urban Development, The Climate School, Columbia University, Anna Rubbo (USA); the former director of city design at the City of Melbourne, Rob Adams (Australia), and founder of Ntsika Architects, Nadia Tromp (South Africa).
Alternate jurors include the vice president of the Vietnam Association of Architects and founder of 1+1 >2 Architects, Hoàng Thúc Hào (Vietnam), and SDG expert, Ishtiaque Zahir Titas (Bangladesh).
The deadline for stage one entries is 12 April 2024, with shortlisted stage one entries to be notified on 31 May. The deadline for the submission of stage two entries is 23 August 2024. The final winners will be announced at the World Urban Forum, held between 4 and 8 November 2024 in Cairo, Egypt.
To enter, visit the International Union of Architects awards platform. More

Silvester Fuller has won a design competition to redevelop a disused building into a worker and market housing building in Sydney’s Redfern.
Redfern Place is a proposed housing precinct comprising four buildings that will supply housing to more than 300 families. Silvester Fuller was appointed the design of the worker and market housing building within the precinct after submitting a proposal that aligned with the desired vision for a community- and Country-centric building at 600-660 Elizabeth Street.
Silvester Fuller’s winning scheme features a stepped building of 14 and 10 storeys. The building will accommodate 180 homes. A communal, “family floor” rooftop garden will be created on level 10 to provide residents with access to the outdoors, as well as a space for social interaction. An internal street or breezeway will connect the homes within the building, as well as establish a link between Elizabeth and Kettle streets.
Partner of Silvester Fuller, Penny Fuller, said they are delighted to have been selected to design the building alongside the rest of the precinct’s design team.
“Our vision strives to rebalance amenity and cost with a more meaningful Connection to Country. The ambition of the project is a community-focused collection of homes proposing an evolution in the allocation of private and shared space, announcing a small incremental shift serving as a catalyst for the evolution of how we might live together and share this land we are so fortunate to call home,” Fuller said.
The precinct will also supply affordable and social housing (accounting for 70 percent of the homes), a 3,500-square-metre community facility, as well as a new head office for community housing provider, Bridge Housing. A First Nations narrative will be weaved throughout the precinct to reflect the historical significance of Redfern as the meeting place of the Aboriginal Rights Movement.
Architecture And has been appointed the design of the community facility within the complex. The wider design team includes Hayball as overall design team lead and executive architect, Aspect Studios as landscape architects and cultural advisers, Yerrabingin.
“Redfern Place, like Redfern itself, will be a place for community; it will be contemporary, eclectic, connected and have deep roots to Country. We are excited to collaborate with Bridge Housing and the new additions to the design team to create homes and community facilities that will be interwoven into this incredible context, creating much-needed social value for residents for generations to come,” said Hayball principal and NSW studio lead, Dave Tordoff.
Redfern Place is currently undergoing community consultation. More

The Alastair Swayn Foundation has announced it is now accepting applications for its 2024 round one grants program, with successful applicants to be awarded funding for commencing design-related research.
The 2024 round one grants program opened on 1 March with two funding streams available: Design Thinking Grants and Design Strategy Grants. Individuals, groups and organizations can apply for either of the two streams until 12 April.
The Design Thinking Grants provide $5,000 to successful candidates to undertake a research project in architecture, landscape architecture, industrial design, heritage preservation and restoration, adaptive re-use of architecture or product design and designing for accessibility. The Design Strategy Grants will allocate $10,000 to successful applicants to conduct research on significant challenges within the fields of architecture and design in Australia.
The 2023 round two grant recipients have been revealed alongside the announcement that the 2024 round one program has opened for submissions. The categories for the 2023 round two program included Design Strategy, Design Thinking, an $8,000-$10,000 Design Audio grant and an International grant of up to $15,000.
The 2023 category winners are:
Design Strategy
Tom Alves – Social Housing as a Site for Design Leadership and Innovation
Heliotope (Jane Caught) – Glass in the Anthropocene
Luka Enstrom and Brooke Jackson – Home Office – Feasibility of Housing in Vacant Commercial Office Buildings of Sydney
University of Canberra (Mike Louw, Sally Farrah, Max Maxwell, Sam Tomkins) – Second Ski
Deakin University (Akari Nakai Kidd) – A Home, Not Housing: Empowering Women Through Co-design of a Good-Home Design Blueprint
Design Thinking
Melanie Mury (Mury Architects) – Girl Power: Design Solutions for an Equitable and Inclusive Future for Females in Sport
University of Sydney (Laura Goh) – Shared and sustainable future communities: removing regulatory barriers to innovative cohousing design in the Australian Capital Territory
Design Audio
Parlour (Justine Clark and Alison McFadye) – Parlour Pod – Summer Listening 2024
Susty Spec (Isabella Peppard) – Upfront: Conversations in Carbon
Open House Melbourne (Tania Davidge) – City and Regional Catalysts
Cottage Industries (Cristina Garduño Freeman, Vicki Leibowitz, Antonia Fredman, Nicholas Searle) – Not to Scale
RMIT (Adele Varcoe) – Feeling Fashion
International
Office (Simon Robinson) – Retain, Repair, Reinvest: An International Study of Exemplary Public Housing Tower Refurbishment Projects More