Collective Agency, the 2019 Australian Institute of Architects National Conference has continued to challenge architecture’s status quo on the second and final day.
In case you missed the day one highlights, take a look here.
Session 5 Regenerative and disruptive economy.
Kicking off day two at the Melbourne Convention Centre was session captain Nick Brunsdon from POST architecture. In this opening salvo Brunsdon reaffirmed ‘This whole conference is not about credentials but about ideas’. The radical case in point was the first speaker of this session Cecille Weldon, perhaps the first real estate agent ever to address a National Architecture Conference. This speaker selection once again proved that the co-creative directors Stephen Choi and Monique Woodward were not afraid to take risks in pursuit of delivering the ideas that the architecture profession needs to hear. Don’t shoot the messenger, this is not about them, this is about the messages that the architecture profession needs to hear.
In her presentation, Weldon underscored the property system that the architecture profession works within. Perhaps the most compelling point was in how limiting the current property advertising process is in regards to sustainability. If the value of building sustainability to the property purchaser is limited to a four item box ticking exercise, architects can hardly be surprised when clients aren’t willing to spend money on a more sustainable product. The take away point is that we need to adjust our language and improve our communication if we are wanting to make change. We need to be talking about the features that good design unlocks in order to have value assigned by our clients.
Next up to the podium was Farzin Lotfi-Jam of US based practice Farzin Farzin. With three research based projects, Lofti-Jam demonstrated the nature of 21st century architecture practice: Incredibly broad in scope and output, readily adopting unorthodox or emerging tools, and all led by a particularly architectural curiosity.
In his first example, Lofti-Jam’s architectural curiosity led to him using an x-ray machine to examine the UN Headquarters in New York. This unusual technique revealed an interesting narrative of how new technology had been inserted into older building fabric. The X-ray medium itself is was bizarrely familiar to the traditional architectural sectional drawing used to understand spatial relationships. The final outcome of this work was an exhibition that placed the X-rays in a form of dialogue with historical archival material.
The next project by Lofti-Jam was in the form of app called Cher. The central premise of the app was to promote a sharing of the objects and spaces in the urban realm by strangers. Based in Copenhagen the app enabled users to photograph and then circle an object they wanted to Cher (share) with others. This app then revealed the creative interactions that developed as a result of people interacting with their city through the app. Invitations for others to experience the smell of donuts or to participate in a speculation or to share an object became easily accessible.
To conclude his presentation Lofti-Jam discussed the emerging ‘smart cities’ push by the dominant tech companies. Over the last decade these companies have been falling over themselves to offer cities data collection sensors and infrastructure. The pretence is to keep people safe and traffic flowing when disruptions occur. The reality though is likely to be more sinister. These companies are offering these systems to cities in order to monetise the data. The monitoring of the population is justified through public safety, so in essence these companies are exploiting fear for profit. Whilst some architects might be wondering what this has to do with them, the answer is in our ability to act in the public interest. As this trend continues across cities, it is an aspect of urbanism that architects must keep a check on, if we are to maintain public trust.
The final speaker for the session was Ros Moriarty from Balarinji an aboriginal owned strategy and design business based in Sydney. Moriarty spoke on the use of indigenous art in place making, noting the often shallow processes that so often occur. Whilst it is good that project leaders often think that a place needs some indigenous art, often this is done without connecting the artist with the place. Instead, common practice should be to engage with artists that have a connection with the place. Architects should be asking if that person can speak for that place. This engagement should come at the start of the project and continue through it, rather than at the end.
Moriarty concluded by questioning the audience, who will deliver the change that is necessary. ‘If not Architects, then who?’
Session 6 Positioning Practice.
Architecture’s whole professional training is aligned with the western cannon. The positioning practice session, captained by the entertaining and incredibly woke Kieran Wong (The Fulcrum Agency), provided an opportunity to have a very challenging discussion about colonialism and architecture.
The session began with Jen Wood and Emanuel Admassu from architecture practice AD-WO. This presentation was focussed on research undertaken in Ethiopia and Tanzania and the relationships and tensions between the African and western identities. Punctuating the presentation were a series of mesmerizing diagrams. At times however it was a challenge to follow the locations and some grounding maps may have aided a deeper understanding of the context.
Next to the podium was Genevieve Murray and Joel Sherwood-Spring of Future Method. This young practice, like many others at a similar stage, are grappling with their identity as a practice. What is it to be an emerging architecture practice in this era? They describe themselves as being community members first and architects second. This embedded attachment to their community drove them to act when their State government released plans to radically densify the Refern and Waterloo area. What followed was a story of one and a half years of community advocacy and activism aimed at preventing the continuing dispossession of the indigenous people from the area. Future Method allied themselves with the Waterloo Public Housing Action Group to push for social justice against a system of capital and governance determined to dramatically escalate population densities equivalent to that of Hong Kong.
“We are the intersection between land and capital” Jen Wood
As interesting as these presentations were, the following panel discussion between the speakers and session captain proved to be the most valuable part of the session. The big question, is how architects should act given that they are intrinsically embedded in a system that is predicated on the elimination of indigeneity. As architects, our starting point is often the land survey, based off the land title. This title system that we work from, is tied back to the idea of crown land and Terra Nullius. Our entire system is fundamentally flawed. There is no easy answer or comfortable solution to this. However unless we recognise the question, we cannot begin to conceive an answer.
Session 7 Advocacy and Influence.
How can architects act as advocates to influence our built environment? In Melbourne, earlier this year, this question was answered by the Citizens for Melbourne Association and their successful ‘Our City Our Square’ campaign. Stepping the audience through the details of the 18 month battle for the Yarra Building at Federation Square was Tania Davidge, President of the Citizens For Melbourne Association. The toolkit for advocacy included having the right team, a clear message, to take your opportunities, to find your allies and to understand your place.
For those in the audience looking to advocate or become an activist this was a masterclass. However there are lessons too for all architects proposing change in the built environment. Projects must have a social license to operate. Even with a powerful government and an international mega company pushing for a project, once it loses the social license, it is very hard if not impossible for the project to proceed. Ignore this at your peril.
(for full disclosure, Michael Smith is also a member of the Citizens for Melbourne).
Next up to the podium was another local hero, Jeremy McLeod of Breathe Architecture. Very well known for the Nightingale Housing body of work, McLeod began by questioning our very understanding of what an architect is.
“Is our idea of the architect, a 20th century vision of an architect?”
Jeremy McLeod
Outlining the increasingly severe climate emergency that we are facing, along with moral and ethical dilemmas of practice, McLeod outlined our choices as architects. Do nothing, or do something. Breathe Architecture decided to do something, and what followed were a 10 cracking ideas on how to respond to our time and place. From ideas on housing, waste, education and public art, what was demonstrated was how real change can happen if architects decide to act. Our actions have impacts.
The final speaker for the session was Elisapeta Heta from Jasmax in New Zealand. Giving one of the most inspiring presentations of the conference, Heta provided a fascinating insight into New Zealand’s indigenous design community. Despite the perception that the Maori population as a whole has been highly successful in having its culture respected, incarceration rates of indigenous New Zealanders is in fact staggeringly high, even when compared with aboriginal and other indigenous communities. Heta explained that the conversation needs to shift from one of surviving to one of thriving and that to do this the collective voice is important.
In discussing her practice Jasmax, Heta explained the deliberate choice of their leadership to pursue a bicultural practice. One that could produce buildings that would reflect Maori culture and be culturally embedded to place through design.
One of the most interesting ideas from this presentation was in regards to architecture’s peak body. In New Zealand the Maori community has recently gifted a new name to their Institute of Architects, Kahui Whaihanga. Heta explained that this new name came with a huge responsibility to act as fit and proper custodians of the environment. The immediate question for the Australian Institute of Architects is how can they lead the way for our profession in recognising our indigenous nations?
“Get comfortable with being uncomfortable”
Elisapeta Heta
Concluding the session was a discussion on some poster provided by students. This is the first time in recent history where a group of students have been given an opportunity within the National Conference to inject their ideas. It was further acknowledgement of the conference directors that it was ideas, and perspectives they were interested in promoting rather than, just senior international architects on the talk circuit.
Whilst this was a refreshing and worthwhile ambition, it unfortunately didn’t quite seem to work in execution.
With a conference daring to be different, daring to have difficult discussions and daring to take risks, it was unlikely that all risks would pay off. The use of a conference app kept the audience informed and reduced printing whilst also enabling interaction through live poling throughout the conference. This was a brilliant idea, but the polling questions were often underwhelming. To some it felt like being push polled, or told this is how you should think, a situation that architects will always push back against. If the app idea continues into future conferences it would be great to see more though put into how these questions can be produce informative results.
Session 8 Action
The final session of the conference also contained some of the biggest names.
Greg Burgess a senior Australian architect whose work is almost universally admired, provided a staggeringly honest reflection upon his career. His story, like so many in the conference came back to a story of identity. The search for an identity. To know oneself in order to design architecture that embodies the values and the spirit of the architect. To make it worthwhile. For Burgess this was about an architecture with empathy and courage at its core.
Next to the stage was Momoyo Kaijima from Atelier Bow-Wow. Talking through a collection of recent projects Kaijima presented perhaps one of the most conventional presentations of the conference. In fact the focus on projects was almost jarring in the context that it was positioned. As sometimes occurs with international speakers, the presentation felt like it was dusted off the shelf rather than curated for the topic. Nevertheless the projects were interesting and for those thirsty for the ideas of a big name international practice would have been satisfied. The stand out project was for a series of dwellings designed in response to the 2011 tsunami. These dwellings consisted of a series of modules that would enable the expansion of the dwellings over time.
Marcos Rosello from aLL Design in the United Kingdom, signalled a return to the provocation through a highly energised presentation. Pacing the stage, Rosello challenged the audience as to why cities are so happily demolishing so much of their built fabric. People have made memories in these buildings and in those streets and we do not value this enough. He noted that when big architecture firms do big international projects they often replace whole sections of the city with a homogenous large scale piece of architecture. When aLL Design work on such projects they make a point of teaming with a series of local architects as an active measure against homogeneity.
“We don’t use single use plastic bags anymore. Why do we have single use buildings?”
Marcos Rosello
The values of urban preservation have led aLL Design to a series of projects such as The Sharp Project in Toronto that have utilized stilts to place the required building mass above and away from valuable urban fabric. Some clever engineering and a very bold vision have led to an extraordinary outcome that has even had a measurable impact on local tourism.
Wrapping up the session was Shelley Penn, an architect who has had an extraordinary impact on the Australian architecture profession and the built environment. Penn in her words showed what leadership in architecture looks like. Honest and vulnerable, resolute and wise. Courageous. Here stood an architect urging her profession to be brave and make change.
“We can’t leave it to everyone else, we must take action”
Shelley Penn
Before the close of the conference, creative directors Monique Woodward and Stephen Choi were back to ask one last thing. They asked for a pledge. A pledge from everyone who attended. What action were they going to take? What were they going to change? What privilege were they going to give up for the greater good?
The conference closed to the words of Louis Mokak and the deep resonating sounds of Alex Splitt playing the Digeridoo.
“We are not interested in intention, we are only interested in action.”
Louis Mokak
This was the conference the Australian architecture profession had to have. Right now it feels like the house is on fire and this conference is the alarm that is telling us we need to act. Yes we need to be able to be inspired by beautiful details and extraordinary craftsmanship, but those things alone are not going to bring us closer to resolving our indigenous cultural illiteracy, fight inequity and inequality, or respond to our climate emergency.
Congratulations to the creative directors, Stephen Choi and Monique Woodward, as well as the Australian Institute of Architects for being brave enough to begin the conversation.
Architecture is for everyone
Contact Us
Feel free to contact us with questions or feedback:
Latest Post
- A crisis of trust February 10, 2020
- The Square and the Park. October 28, 2019
- Fixing The Building Industry – A Wishlist September 12, 2019
- 2019 NATIONAL CONFERENCE DAY 2 June 24, 2019
- 2019 National Conference Day 1 June 22, 2019
Leave a Reply