Architecture

City of Sydney councillors have unanimously voted in support of a planning proposal for 187 Thomas Street, Haymarket that will pave the way for a 227-metre, 47,000 square metre commercial tower.
Proposed by Adelaide developer Greaton, with an indicative scheme designed by FJMT, the 47-storey tower is described as a mixed-use “hybrid village,” with multiple uses combined within a vertical arrangement, each with their own identity and requirements but sharing common facilities.

It will be structured around a six-level innovation hub and include related functions such as hotel accommodation for business visitors, work space to support start-ups and retail and event space.
The scheme also includes additional publicly accessible open space adjacent to the planned future public plaza on Quay Street.
Planning documents note that 187 Thomas Street, Haymarket lies at the convergence of several precincts where the technology sector, knowledge-intensive creative and start-up industries are emerging, such as the Ultimo-Camperdown Collaboration Area, the NSW Government’s Tech Central precinct and the Western Gateway sub-precinct adjacent to Central Station.

View gallery

The indicative design for 187 Thomas Street, Haymarket, prepared by FJMT.

“This site has locational and site-specific advantages that will allow a future tech hub and innovation precinct to flourish and succeed,” states the proponent. “It represents a one-off opportunity to create an ‘exemplar’ development that future facilities (including the Central to Eveleigh Innovation Precinct) can learn from and leverage off.”
The tower will be located within the Central Sydney Planning Strategy’s Haymarket/Ultimo tower cluster and the maximum planning envelope has been designed with four distinct visual elements to decrease bulk as the tower rises and maximize daylight access.
The tower’s design will be subject to an architectural design competition.
The planning proposal will now be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for determination. More

The proposed National Registration Framework for Building Practitioners (NRF) will result in poorer quality buildings and less safe outcomes for the public, according to a damning submission on the policy by the Australian Institute of Architects.
Initiated by the Building Ministers’ Forum, which brings together state and federal ministers responsible for the construction sector, the NRF was developed in response to the Shergold-Weir Building Confidence report, which pointed to “significant and concerning” problems in compliance and enforcement systems for the building and construction industry.

Since that report’s publication in February 2018, the Institute has repeatedly criticized all levels of government for their failure to fully implement the 24 recommendations, particularly in the face of dramatic fires stemming from flammable cladding, and major defects uncovered in buildings including Sydney’s Opal Tower.

The Australian Building Codes Board released a discussion paper on the proposed NRF earlier in 2020, pitching it as a response to the first two recommendations of the Shergold-Weir report, which called for the registration of building practitioners involved in the design, construction and maintenance of buildings.

According to the Institute, however, the proposed registration framework directly contradicts the purpose of the Building Confidence recommendations and will fail to enhance public trust and confidence in the building industry.
A central problem is the failure to set higher levels of competence for all practitioners, and particularly for building designers and project managers.
“[The proposals] are insufficient to raise confidence in the building industry, because the bar has been set at a level that is too low to ensure quality outcomes,” states the submission, authored by Leanne Hardwicke.

The framework will allow building designers with a diploma in building design (a one- to two-year course) with three years’ post-qualification experience to be able to design building types that currently require a registered architect.

The Institute’s submission notes that registration requirements for architects are much more stringent and involve demonstration of competency through an examination and interview against national competency standards that are recognized internationally. There is currently no comparable assessment process for building designers.

“It is reasonable to state that there would be a significant reduction in public confidence in the Australian medical system if registered medical practitioners were considered equally qualified to people holding bachelor degrees in medicine or degrees in health sciences,” writes Hardwicke in the submission. “Similarly, we do not allow graduates with a medical degree who have not successfully completed the prescribed post graduate training to have the same responsibilities within medical practice.

“However, the NRF does not recognize the significant differences in education and mandatory practical experience between registered architects and others providing building design services. This lack of regulatory recognition corresponds to confusion within the community as to the role and capabilities of an architect as opposed to a designer/drafter and can result in poor quality outcomes and risks to safety.”
The Australian Building Codes Board states that the immediate goal of the framework is to help jurisdictions fill in the gaps in their registration schemes and to include NCC training in accredited qualifications, while the medium-term goal is to make the registration schemes nationally consistent to improve mutual recognition between the states and territories.

The framework states that “the core design discipline” is the registered building designer. It sets out three levels of registration for building designers: level 1 (all buildings); level 2 (Medium rise buildings); and level 3 (Low rise buildings). Registered architects would meet the requirements to be registered as building designers level 1.
The Institute notes that this categorization views architects as largely equal to building designers and other lesser qualified practitioners offering building design services, and that it would cause confusion by requiring registered architects to also be registered as building designers.
It “strongly recommends” that the categories be reconfigured so that a registered architect would be required to design buildings of more than two storeys.
Other problems with the framework, according to the Institute, include the use of the term “architect” in relation to people who are not registered, and insufficient clarity over who is qualified to provide access consulting and energy efficiency services. It also states that the barrier of entry for project managers is far too low, and that “architects must be included as project managers.”
“There must be a robust system for assessing whether a person has the competence to undertake the permitted work,” states the submission. “The aim of the NRF should be to improve competency of all building practitioners over time to an appropriate minimum standard.”
Neil Savery, Chief Executive of the Australian Building Codes Board, told ArchitectureAU that while it would be inappropriate to comment on specific criticisms of the draft framework, the board welcomed the submissions received, and would be “very open” to making changes to the framework, taking into consideration submissions from various parties. The board has contacted Institute CEO Julia Cambage, informing her that it is open to further discussion.
To read the Institute’s full submission, head here. More

FJMT has unveiled designs for two slim tower forms at 189 Kent Street, Sydney, with a gap between the buildings to provide a “cut through the city” leading towards the nearby water at Barangaroo.
The $80 million development, to be built on the land of the Gadigal of the Eora nation, will reach to 24 storeys (94 metres) and house 125 apartments.
“One form is forward, the other one back, responding to the adjacent forms but also providing an invitation to investigate beyond,” FJMT state in planning documents. “This stepped form is not rigid like the adjacent walled responses along Kent Street but is open and welcoming.”

View gallery

189 Kent Street, Sydney by FJMT.

FJMT’s scheme for the development was selected in an architectural design competition held in January 2019. The selection panel commended the two-tower form for its flexibility and for “providing a highly legible east-west connection through the site, which recognized the axial quality of the existing Grosvenor Street and was legible at both ground level and in the upper tower form.”

In terms of façade design, the towers will have three distinct characters at different levels. The podium will be designed to appear as if it’s “chiselled from stone,” with carved masonry embedded into and of the site. At mid-level, the towers are designed as “organic and flowing” sculptural insertions, while above, the tower forms are classic and simple.
“The design of the tower forms are modulated through the bridging levels and the juxtaposition of smaller volumes,” state the architects. “These elements are formed in line with the golden proportions and break the bulk into smaller scale relating it to more to the human scale.”
Planning documents for the development are on public exhibit until 29 September.

Related topics More

The Heritage Council of New South Wales has made moves towards placing an interim heritage order on the modernist MLC Building, as the campaign to save the building gains momentum.
Designed by Bates, Smart and McCutcheon and completed in 1956, the office building at 105-153 Miller Street, North Sydney was the largest building of its type in Australia at the time of its construction.
Plans to demolish it and replace it with a new commercial office tower designed by the same architecture firm (now known as Bates Smart) are currently before North Sydney Council. But residents, architects, and modernism enthusiasts have blasted the demolition proposal, arguing that the North Sydney MLC building is “one of the most important mid-century modernist buildings in Australia.”

North Sydney Council has been flooded with around 70 submissions related to the proposal, while more than 1,680 people have signed a petition protesting the development launched by modern architecture preservation organization Docomomo.

On 1 September, the Heritage Council noted that the building “may be of state heritage significance” and resolved to notify the owner that it will be considering whether or not to list the item. The council will also invite public submissions on the potential listing over a period of 28 days.
The MLC building currently has only local heritage status, with its listing describing it as “a seminal work in the development of high-rise buildings in Australia.”
Scott Robertson, president of Docomomo, says that it is at least of state significance and, because of its size, quality, early date of construction and the national attention it drew upon opening (being opened by the then prime minister Robert Menzies) it is of national importance.

View gallery

The existing North Sydney MLC building by Bates Smart and McCutcheon, completed in 1956.

“Demolition of heritage items can only be justified in the most exceptional circumstances and every effort must be made to find compatible uses for heritage items and to apply re-use and refurbishment strategies,” he writes, in a submission to North Sydney Council.
“One has only to regard examples such as the Queen Victoria Building in the Sydney CBD to find an example of a development that worked with the building to find a suitable modern, viable use.
“The evidence presented in the development application for the replacement of the MLC Building does not demonstrate in any detail that alternative strategies to demolition have been pursued with any rigor.”

Developer IOF Custodian has said that redevelopment of the site is necessary, since a study found it would cost $118 million to adequately restore the building.
Bates Smart states in planning documents that while it recognizes the significance of the building, it was also “flawed from the beginning” due to its east–west orientation. The firm accepted the commission to design the new building on the basis that it could “design a building in the spirit of MLC that is as pioneering for the 21st century as MLC was for the late 20th century.” More

A Sydney housing complex made from half a million recycled bricks has taken out the top sustainability award in the 2020 Good Design Awards.
Arkadia, designed by Breathe Architecture and DKO for Defence Housing Australia, was judged to be both environmentally and socially sustainable by the jury. Comprising four buildings and located on a busy road, the complex forms a protective wall and creates a new park, which is shared with its neighbours.
The use of brick is in reference to the site’s industrial history and is an almost entirely carbon neutral skin. The complex also uses other recycled materials and passive solar technologies.

View gallery

Arkadia by Breathe Architecture and DKO Architecture.
Image: Tom Ross
Brandon Gien, CEO of Good Design Australia, said, “Our world is crying out for cutting edge-design innovations that are solving problems, improving our quality of life and helping our planet move towards a more sustainable future for us all. The Arkadia development is an example manifest of outstanding form and function, using technologies of the present to evoke memories of the past and be true to all elements of great design.”

Arkadia was also awarded Best in Class in the Architectural Design, Commercial and Residential category. “This is an exceptional design on all levels. It is truly innovative and applies strong environmentally sustainable principles. A real game-changer for defence housing,” the jury said.
The Best in Class winner in the Architectural Design, Interior Design category was 100 Creek Street Redevelopment by Cameron and Co Architecture. The jury commended the designer’s “clever approach to renewing existing buildings.”

View gallery

100 Creek Street Redevelopment by Cameron and Co Architecture.
Image: Toby Scott
“This refurbishment is an exemplar of what’s possible in the upgrade of the existing tired building stock,” the jury said.
A design project that creatively and safely diverts the public from major infrastructure construction sites was awarded Best in Class in the Architectural Design, Urban Design and Public Spaces category. Metro Tunnel Creative Program by Cross Yarra Partnership Project Co., The Place Agency and Global Arts Projects “successfully coordinates a highly creative, original and engaging program of public art activities,” said the jury.

The Kambri precinct at Australian National University by BVN, Lahznimmo and Aspect Studios was named Best in Class for Precinct Design, a new category added to the awards in 2020. “This is clearly a very attractive place to study and will entice the broader community to gain a stronger connection and better understanding of the university,” said the jury. “The design intent has resulted in the creation of ‘connection and intimate spaces’ as well as big boulevard statements.”

View gallery

Kambri ANU by BVN, Lahznimmo and Aspect Studios
Image: Florian Groehn
Interior designer Mia Feasey was named winner of the 2020 Women in Design Award. Feasey is the founder and CEO of Siren Design, which has studios in Sydney, Melbourne and Singapore. The practice’s clients include large multinational corporations such as Google, Facebook, Uber and Atlassian to Visa, KPMG, PWC and Pfizer.
The Good Design Awards program recognizes design across a wide range of disciplines, including architecture, fashion, engineering, communications and products.
The overall winner in 2020 was a wearable and portable medical device that provides doctors with on-demand data for the assessment of brain health. More

A major new public space designed to be “cool and green” will be developed at Sydney’s Central Station, under plans unveiled by the council.
First proposed by Danish architect Jan Gehl, as part of the 2007 Public Space, Public Life study, the new public space will be a critical component of the wider redevelopment of the area, under the state government’s Tech Central precinct plan, which aims to attract start-ups and tech-orientated firms.
The council has prepared early concept plans for the space, to be known as Central Square, in consultation with Spackman Mossop Michaels and Tonkin Zulaikha Greer. They envisage the spaces as one square made up of four distinct spaces.

“Central Square is envisaged as a collection of connected public spaces, with public plazas, tree-lined walkways and the transformation of Railway Square into a cool, green space,” Sydney mayor Clover Moore told media. “It’s an idea that will underpin Tech Central and give identity to the precinct as a whole.”

View gallery

Central Square, Sydney.
Image: City of Sydney
Overall, the hopes for the square are that it will be vibrant and active day and night, with a focus on youth activities and places for visitors, public transport users, the university population, workers and others surrounding the city. The design will also celebrating the unique heritage of the place, carefully balancing heritage intervention with broader benefit to the public.
Located to the west of the sandstone train station, the space will include a tree-line “Western Walk,” allowing for the safe passage of large numbers of people to nearby destinations; the Lower Square, which will be an active space 24 hours a day; the “quiet and passive” Upper Square; and the re-imagined Railway Square, which will be cool and green, “an urban setting under a copse of trees.”
A structuring principles report for the project is going before the City of Sydney’s Transport, Heritage and Planning Committee today, 14 September. The report to the committee notes that “a major new public place at Central is a critical part of the reenvisioning of this area of the city. High quality open space will help to attract and retain talent in the new precinct and support the younger demographic including university students. More

A modernist pavilion in a Melbourne park is facing partial demolition by the local council.
Architecture practice Kennedy Nolan is petitioning the council and its councillors to halt the demolition and reconsider its decision.
The structure, known as the Riverside Pavilion, consists of a double-storey building designed by Carter Couch in the 1980s. It has a pyramid-shaped roof with a tall, ventilating chimney.
In October 2019, the council made the decision to demolish part of the structure in order to make way for a storage shed for the neighbouring Ivanhoe Northcote Canoe Club, despite receiving nine objections to the demolition plan.

One objection was from University of Melbourne chair of architecture professor Philip Goad. In his submission to the council Goad said that the pavilion is a “rare, non-residential work by the highly regarded Paul Couch [and an example of his] long-held interest in tilt-slab precast concrete panel construction system that is often a defining feature of his better-known residential works.”

“Couch has been a pioneer in using tilt-slab concrete panels in small-scale settings,” he continued.
“In my opinion there is definitely a case for, at the very least, listing the pavilion structure and workshop/change rooms together with the bluestone amphitheatre as being of local heritage.
“I also believe that with further investigation there could be a possible case for considering the entire complex and its site as being of even greater significance.”

View gallery

Riverside Pavilion by Carter Couch.
Image: Tom Ross
A council heritage advisor agreed with Goad and told a senior statutory planner, “The existing bluestone amphitheatre and adjacent pavilion structure and workshop/change rooms have iconic, longstanding (and currently active) connections with the diverse recreational uses of the park along the Yarra. There is strong evidence that the bluestone amphitheatre and adjacent pavilion structure and workshop/change rooms have contributory social significance in and of themselves, as well as being related objects that contribute to the cultural significance of the place.

“Furthermore, research produced by professor Philip Goad and architects Kennedy Nolan in response to this application have demonstrated the potential of the structures (both amphitheatre, change rooms and barbecue area) to have both local and state level architectural significance in and of themselves.

“It is strongly recommended that the application to demolish the barbecue shelter be refused.”
The pavilion is located in Fairfield Park, which itself is listed on the Victorian Heritage Register, however the statement of significance does not mention the pavilion. Its heritage significance is defined by Edwardian-era structures and plantings.

“Yarra City Council should consider nominating Fairfield Park for inclusion on the Victorian Heritage Register with the bluestone amphitheatre and adjacent pavilion structure and workshop/change rooms listed as important contributory or related objects,” the heritage advisor said.
However, a second heritage advisor told the council, “From the photos I have been provided it is clear that the subject shed is a pre-fabricated galvanised shed, of unknown age but possibly dating from the 1960s/70s.

“The shed certainly has no architectural significance and it is highly unlikely to be of any historical significance for its age or associations.”
After the council’s decision to proceed with the demolition, Nolan and others took the matter to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which found in favour of the council.
“The Council submitted that the demolition of the post-war gazebo structure is of no consequence from a heritage perspective,” VCAT senior member Bill Sibonis said in handing down the tribunal’s decision.

“A key consideration is that the structures to be demolished are not identified as contributory to the heritage precinct. Whether this is a correct designation is not a matter for the Tribunal. I must take the planning scheme as I find it.

“The demolition of the structures would not be inconsistent with heritage policy, which only seeks the retention of significant and contributory buildings. Based on the Heritage Review and the Statement of Significance, the structures do not contribute to the significance of the heritage place. Accordingly, their loss would not represent an unacceptable outcome from a heritage perspective.”
Kennedy Nolan had prepared an alternative scheme that would retain pavilion and also provide additional storage spaces for the canoe club. However, “The Council have made no comments about our proposal – we [had] to pressure them to even acknowledge the receipt of the documents,” Rachel Nolan told ArchitectureAU.
The pavilion has been nominated for state heritage listing. Heritage Victoria will consider the nomination on 21 September.
At the time of publication, the petition has attracted more than 2,000 signatures. More

A survey of Victorian architects has found around $6.85 billion worth of the state’s construction sector is in jeopardy as a result of the pandemic lockdowns.
The survey conducted by the Association of Consulting Architects received responses from 196 practices, representing 1,215 full time technical staff and 161.5 full time equivalent casual technical staff.
Around 80 percent of practices reported having project cancelled or put on hold, with $2.3 billion worth of projects cancelled and $4.55 billion put on hold. This amounted to a total of $6.85 billion worth of projects or an average of $36.8 million worth for each firm. The cancelled or on-hold projects represent around 16 percent of the total construction sector, which included $42.4 billion worth of projects in 2018-2019.

The survey sample represents 18.7 percent of Victoria’s 1,046 architectural companies registered with the Architects Registration Board of Victoria. Most of the responding practices (67 percent) are very small enterprises employing five people or fewer.

The survey found widespread concern for current and future work with 28.49 percent of practices having less than two months of work in the pipeline and just 15.7 percent of practices having more than six months of work.

A majority of responding practices experienced declines in revenue, with just 10.5 percent reporting no decline. More than two-thirds (69 percent) of practices are receiving the federal government’s Job Keeper wage subsidy, which is preventing a majority of practices from staff losses. However, 11 percent reported that Job Keeper has not prevented staff redundancies or stand downs.

Around one in five (22 percent) of practices have had to make changes to employment arrangements, most commonly by reducing working hours (50 percent), changing roles (33 percent), reducing pay (32 percent), standing down staff (15 percent), or instituting redundancies (12 percent).

Responding practices reported that the residential sector was most sensitive to declines, with 66 percent contributing to project cancellations, followed by the commercial sector at 14 percent.
Respondents also reported that while the federal government’s Home Builder grant scheme had resulted in increased enquiries it was not having any effect in generating new projects due to the time restrictions of the grant, which stipulate that contracts must be signed before 31 December 2020 and construction must begin within three months of the contract date.

Respondents called for further government stimulus measures, including extending Job Keeper to sole traders and increasing infrastructure spending in public, education, health, community and housing projects.
They also called for the mandatory involvement of architects in design and construction of buildings greater than three storeys – something that architects have advocated for repeatedly throughout the development of Victoria’s apartment design standards.
The ACA’s survey was conducted between 20 and 27 August, three weeks after the stage four restrictions came into effect, which mandated that architectural services close their on site operations and limited workers on construction sites to 25 percent.
The full results of the survey can be found on the ACA website. More