Across the Ditch

Published in Architecture NZ Nov/Dec 2012

IMAGE  COURTESY ©TERROIR  

Coverage from the Across the Ditch annual conference of RAIA NSW country division.

I recently was lucky enough to be able to attend the annual conference of AIA NSW Country Division appropriately named “Across the Ditch.” The event proved to be an insightful and welcome few days highlighting some of the universal issues practices are facing both here and across the ditch.

The Conference was held in Napier partly because of its provincial setting partly in homage to the spirit of recovery embodied in the city’s architecture, partly as an excuse to jump on a plane.

The NSW country division was established as a separate operating unit of the NSW chapter of the AIA to represent the needs of architects who’s primary area of business was outside of the urban areas of Sydney or Newcastle. The perception that the needs of provincial architects could be catered to more effectively by a standalone chapter acting locally “to promote and provide better architecture services” was the premise for the formation of the NSW country division.

The conference themes addressed the concerns of the provincial architect and the idea that “Regional cities and towns need alternatives to universal anonymous development in order to retain their individual character and ensure their future viability. “

The sweeping azure horizon framed in the adroit aluminum of the War memorial conference centre windows formed the backdrop for invited speakers, various social functions, and the Country division’s annual awards ceremony. As all conferences in the art deco capital of the universe should, proceedings were kicked off with a walking tour.

What became plain over the course of the event was the similarities in issues architects both sides of the ditch are dealing with, both the scale of the city and individual building. No denying the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) is very real and has had a profound effect on the business of architecture.

The conference raised some interesting questions regards practice in the “country” in our age of globalization and hyper communication where location is less important than data connection and runway length. The desire to park out front still exists in the larger metros so that hardly defines a provincial mindset. Perhaps it’s a relationship to landscape that defines the provincial and how we express that relationship, the connectedness of people to place expressed in our buildings and public spaces as the vine to the land.

Chris Kelly’s presentation “regional character and architectural opportunities “ talked the audience through some of the opportunities his workshop has found in the regional context to explore elements of “mastering architecture” specifically in relationship to “craft” and place making with reference to the award winning Waitomo visitors centre and the locally relevant proposed Te Mata Peak visitors centre. Both projects use the specificities of site including cultural connections and an overlay of Maori stories to uncover innovative responses to brief.

There was general applause by the visitors for the recent uplifting of standards in NZ architecture and specifically an appreciation of the craft demonstrated (leaky buildings aside). Both countries struggle with the standards inflicted in the mass housing markets and the inertia inherent in both the building industry and local government planning regimes.  In the context of the rise of the uber practice happening in the Australian market with an associated loss of craft, New Zealand’s pure point of difference could be craft based?

?

Geographic isolation no longer equals cultural isolation. Geography is no longer an excuse for mediocrity. As identified by the NSW country group it is the professional responsibility of its chapter members to actively promote educate and engage with the community regards local design issues and best practice. No more so than now the regional opportunity exists whether it be leveraging off geography, climate or attitude. Community education is vital.

Applause was also given by Australian colleagues to the collaboration and participation of indigenous culture in architectural projects in Aotearoa, highlighting a very unique NZ opportunity. This  was Communicated none more so than by Pip Cheshire’s presentation of the time laden process to develop a Samuel Marsden memorial in the Bay of Islands. A project of national significance, not a church nor a wharenui then what? A definition of national identity somewhere between God and Maui, somewhere between landscape and building, a new story or a new take on an old story? The opportunity again based on the specificity of site and culture for a unique NZ story to emerge from the landscape.  A question we can continue to ask ourselves where does architecture sit in the cultural and geographic landscape as a definition of a regional identity and by extension nationhood?

NZ recent success at the WAN awards solidifies our place in the global ecology of architecture innovation. The city is now becoming the focus of architectural research in NZ. Our Australian Colleagues have the head start in that respect with federal representation at the level of the city in order to deliver the quadruple bottom line. The need for similar representation at the government level in New Zealand is not going away. Architecture needs to assert itself as a relevant and vital process and outcome of city building. This is true of the main centers but lets not forget the provinces in perpetual danger of ruin by project managers and well intentioned but misguided politicians.

The questions asked by Gerard Reinmuth of Sydney Practice Terrior,whose practice name itself translates loosely as a sense of place,spehere of influence spans its conception in Tasmania, growth in Sydney to current work in Copenhagen. The practice has taken up the gauntlet of global and critical reflective practice perhaps more than any other speaker offering an insight into how relevance needs to be maintained through evolving practice models and focus on architects core skills and key point of difference, their   innate “spatial intelligence” which offers the potential to reconsider their abilities and role in city making and where in the value chain they might sit.  

Ian Athfield in his closing presentation touched on some important issues specifically related to his recent experience in Christchurch, the struggle between the heritage supporters, the engineers and the insurance industry. In a sense the struggle between nostalgia and authenticity. As Napier did eighty years ago Christchurch has been given the mandate to embrace the opportunities of our time.

Nationally our urban centers await the shockwaves from the earthquake quake commission findings, which may render some regional city’s heritage buildings at land value less cost of demolition. This is a real and present threat to National built heritage.

Mr. Athfield most importantly reminding us that dogged determination, passion and imagination can indeed move mountains and you needn’t wait for council consent to do so. The vitality of Ath and his work was greatly appreciated by the audience cementing him as the legend he is not just here but across the ditch also. A shame there was not a few more NZ architects in the audience to join the collegial discussion, hopefully an indictment on the cost of attendance and not the local culture. Cheers to the NSW country division, a good bunch and a great event.