Looking In, Looking out

$14.90 Official Journal of the Australian Institute of Architects Victorian Chapter Print Post approved PP 100007205 • ISSN 1329-1254 .

'-. ,,._ '-" I. .. --_....,.

' 111111111

_

ENGINEERING DESIGN SOLUTIONS

--

Building Services Civil Environmentally Sustainable Design Facade Design Fire Safety Structural Traffic Transport & Parking Waste Management

•

l

-

2

�

1. St KiIda Football Club, Moorabbin Oval Redevelopment - Stage 2 Wiliiams Ross Architect.s I Photo: Chns Matterson Oi-$C;iplincn:: Structurill, Civil, ESO

2. The Australian Ballet Centre Redevelopment

Hass.ell Architects I Photo: Lh'lie Thompson Disciplines:: Bu,khng Services. Fil'e Salety, ESO

3. GASP: Growth Area Schools Project Dohertys Creek. Truganina Archlrecrus • K2LD I Photo: Kane Jarrod Oi:;c::iplinC1$. Structural. Civil,Suilding Sorvioo$.

Traffic and Wa&1e Management

4. Orygen and OYH Parkville

8Jlktrd t.oeco Pttrt11CffhJp I Photo: IO,'I Ten Setd.'tm Olscfpllnes: Strueturnl, Civil 3nd Facade

Melbourne

L3 289 WoJngton Par;)(fo South El'ttl Melboumt VIC 3002 t +61396229700 mlbOlrwinoonsu!t.com.au www.lrwlneonsutt.com.au

Darwin

8-2 Smith SIIOOt Oaiwin !lt1" 0800 t ♦61$89805900 drwOitv.inoonsult.com.au

Bendigo

133 McCr.ao SltOot Se,ncligo VIC 3550 t ♦613 5442 6333 bgoOirwincomuttoom.au

···irwinconsult a wsp company

Contents —

Architect Victoria autumn / winter 2019 02 03 08 10 16 20 24 28 32 36 38 40 43 46 52 54 56 58 60 63

With thanks to our Gold Patron

Carey Lyon

President’s message Chapter news Special feature Editorial Campus heritage Open campus City shaping The international campus Art on campus Planting architecture in design The regional campus On campus living The vertical campus Russell Elliott interview Broad perceptions Student perspectives Place value Profile Slice Books

Australian Institute of Architects

Managing Editor Ruth White

Victorian Chapter Level 1, 41 Exhibition St Melbourne, VIC 3000 ABN 72 000 023 012

Editorial and Publishing Coordinator Emma Adams

Become a Patron vic@architecture.com.au 03 8620 3866 Advertise with Us vic@architecture.com.au 03 8620 3866 Subscriptions Five print issues per year, including Awards edition (AUD) $80 Australia/NZ $120 Overseas

Graphics Coordinator Eloyse McCall Guest Editors Jocelyn Chiew Laura Held Editorial Committee James Staughton (Chair) Elizabeth Campbell Laura Held Yvonne Meng John Mercuri Justin Noxon Sarah Lynn Rees Keith Westbrook

On the Cover Original artwork by Eloyse McCall depicting different architectural typologies often found in a university campus.

Art Direction Annie Luo Printing Printed in Melbourne This Publication is Copyright No part of it may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the permission of the Australian Institiute of Architects Victorian Chapter.

Architect Victoria acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land on which our office is located, and pays respect to the Elders past, present and future.

Disclaimer Readers are advised that opinions expressed in articles and in editorial content are those of their authors, not of the Australian Institute of Architects represented by its Victorian Chapter. Similarly, the Australian Institute of Architects makes no representation about the accuracy of statements or about the suitability or quality of goods and services advertised.

President’s message —

The architecture of universities

Victorian Chapter President Amy Muir

The university is a business. A big business. This is not a bad thing, just a fact. In recent years we have seen increases in capital expenditure and a conscious investment in upgrading and redefining the university campus.

This edition of Architect Victoria has been guest edited by Jocelyn Chiew and Laura Held.

Manager of Campus Design at Monash University and current Victorian Chapter Councillor, Jocelyn has been advocating for the role of architecture, landscape and urban design to reshape our university campuses.

From a historical perspective, the architecture of universities has its roots in urban design and city planning. Originally appropriating and occupying city buildings designed for other purposes, universities evolved into communities of their own. In many instances, they have sustained the life of the city in which they are located and created an opportunity to manifest new ideas through architectural experimentation – the symbolic and institutional architecture of European university buildings, the enclosed courtyard typology of Oxford and Cambridge, the open academic village layout of American colleges.

Universities in Victoria evolved from each of these typologies and created a very diverse academic landscape.

The historical evolution of campus design is essential in understanding the use of iconic architecture for branding purposes, and is a very powerful tool to sustain the business of our universities.

With student intakes rising and the prevalence of international students, the parallel between campus design and urban planning and the acknowledgement of branding through constructed environments are more relevant than ever.

The campus might sometimes resemble the 24-hour city as students find ways to work, sleep, play and be educated. It then becomes important to recognise the pressures that students face and to understand the inherent value and wellbeing that architecture can bring to students lives. We are today very aware of

the importance of informal working spaces and the role they play in relationship to the classroom and other programmed spaces within the campus. We have seen many successful examples of these building typologies being delivered through RMIT University with New Academic Street (Lyons in collaboration with MvS Architects, NMBW Architecture Studio, Harrison White and Maddison Architects), Monash University Learning and Teaching Building (John Wardle Architects) and more recently in the commission by the University of Melbourne of the New Student Precinct (Lyons in collaboration with Koning Eizenberg Architects from the US, Breathe Architecture, NMBW Architecture Studio, Greenaway Architects, and Architects EAT).

The establishment of the Education Category in the Victorian Architecture Awards program in 2015 recognises the important role education buildings play within the public realm as an independent typology.

Experimental and unafraid to agitate, the agenda has been set for education buildings to continue developing new learning environments and sustainable communities. This may not always be to the liking of all those who engage with these buildings; however, universities should be congratulated for their ability to see the value of encouraging a memory of time and place associated with a university experience defined by architecture. This is priceless.

I would like to thank our members who have significantly contributed to the realm of education design. Their expertise and advocacy for change through architecture is incredibly important.

I would also like to congratulate Jocelyn Chiew, Laura Held, the Editorial Committee and the many contributors for providing an indepth understanding and celebration of this typology.

Chapter news —

From the Victorian Executive Director Ruth White

Education Committee Dominik Holzer

Over the past few months, members of the committee have continued conversations about the nexus between activities undertaken within architectural practice and teaching within academia. Anthony Clarke from Black Line on X Architecture Studio (BLOXAS) was welcomed as a new member with extensive ties to tertiary education and we look forward to his contribution.

In May we welcomed Carey Lyon as a Gold Patron of the journal. Patrons allow us to continue providing and publishing a place for professional discourse. We are thankful for your support.

We also celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Burra Charter, first adopted in 1979 at the historic South Australian mining town of Burra. The charter defines the basic principles and procedures to be followed in the conservation of heritage places.

The 'nitty-gritty' of the architectural profession was discussed with Ask an Architect. We also brushed up on our knowledge of designing in decorative concrete with an ArchiTECH session

by Holcim (Australia). Graeme Gunn discussed 'Embracing Space' in the Gold Medal Series seminar and we rounded out the month with a warming ArchiTECH session by Supreme Heating.

The Novation Survey, which closed 26 April, is an important first step to allow us to undertake further research and industry engagement supported by the findings. Stay tuned for this.

The shortlist for the 2019 Victorian Architecture Awards was announced at the Exhibition of Entries opening at No Vacancy Gallery. The 2019 Graduate Prize was also awarded on the night, congratulations Louis Nuccitelli from RMIT University for the project ‘Beyond the Selfie’.

The graduate prize recognises the successful balance between design, construction and practice excellence.

Thank you to all those who participated. The Awards program offers an opportunity for public and peer recognition of the innovative work of our members. Over the past weeks 14 juries, which includes 43 awards jurors and 14 graduate jurors, have been travelling across Victoria visiting shortlisted projects. We look forward to hearing the results of all 14 categories and the Victorian Architecture Medal on Friday 28 June at Peninsula in Docklands. Tickets now on sale.

The main focus of action by the committee draws on the effort by the newly formed Continuing Professional Development (CPD) sub-committee led by Catherine Duggan. Since its formation in late 2018, the group has assisted the Victorian Chapter in producing an engaging and highly targeted CPD program that focuses on contemporary topics related to skill-acquisition by architects. The CPD sub-committee will continue its work to ensure the program will evolve and tie into the national effort for CPD programming undertaken by the Institute.

The recent discourse about the accountability of professionals responsible for the design and delivery of construction projects has not gone unnoticed. The public has become

highly sensitised about instances of fire-spread on high-rise residential facades and individual cases of uninhabitable new-built apartments, as covered by the media. Where does the buck stop, and who is ultimately accountable for these instances of (presumed) negligence? These questions are likely going to be raised among professions and agencies who deal with the design, commissioning and construction of buildings. The Education Committee has been discussing compliance issues and their relevance for architectural education in order to prepare architects for potential changes to current legislation further down the track.

Architect Victoria

Victorian Architecture Awards — 2019

Presentation Dinner Tickets Close 14 June

Book online at architecture.com.au

Chapter news —

Practice of Architecture Committee Matt Gibson

Representing the small, medium and large practice forums, senior counselling service, AACA, SONA, the National Practice Committee (NPC), Acumen Content Review Panel and Chapter Council, the committee meet each month to discuss issues of architectural practice in Victoria. This way there is overlap and assurance that similar issues within different

Student Organised Network for Architecture Amarinda Bazeley

We have had a very busy semester to date! The Student Organised Network for Architecture (SONA) kicked off

Medium Practice Forum

circles are addressed in combination to ensure efficient action is taken.

These are in turn reported to the NPC. The latter half of 2018 saw the release of new Acumen notes.

The 2019 Client Architect Agreement was reviewed before its release in April with input from the ARBV and NPC, thank you to Bruce Allen and Hayley Franklin. Briefing notes were prepared on important hot topics such as novation. Thanks to Karen McWilliam for her substantial ongoing contribution in this area. A practice manual at national level is continuing to be reviewed and hopefully soon to be released.

In February, former National President and CEO Michael Peck

presented a paper on building safety and industry reform, and encouraged the need for swift action, strong policy position and a taskforce to address the biggest issue of our time. We thank him for his contribution.

Various surveys were orchestrated at national, state and local levels gauging current issues such as the Procurement Survey, the Time Cost Calculator and various local surveys conducted by the Medium Practice Forum. We encourage all practices to spare a half hour of your time to make a small contribution by filling out these surveys for your own benefit as well the good of the profession.

the semester with Ask an Architect with great success. Students had the opportunity to sit down oneto-one with practicing architects to chat about careers, graduation and university, and to start building their professional networks.

Following this, with our 2019 focus on community, SONA ran an event for first year students at Monash University. Students bought their portfolios along and had the opportunity to mingle with like-minded people and meet the SONA reps.

We are looking forward to partaking in the national Upscale event which is currently in planning.

The event provides students with the opportunity to collaborate with their peers, architects and technical advisors, and works to foster a mentoring network.

•

Matt Gibson • • The Medium Practice Forum met in November to discuss its annual Financial Ratio benchmarking results.

A presentation of the results revealed: • • • •

The financial and operational facts of 22 medium-sized practices.

Average Revenue for a medium size practice in Melbourne.

What Principals pay themselves What staff are paid – setting up

04—05

• • •

Salary fact sheet for Medium Practice principals.

Contract Administration Fees – trends – how are they allocated.

Average office billable rates and multipliers.

Financial ratios – employment expense, overheads and profit as proportions of revenue. Results showed that profit had a decline in 2018 yet employment expenses for practices increased proportionally against previous years. Revenue average of AUD 1.67m.

Number of Associates or named positions per practice size.

The naming of senior members What office management software

Architect Victoria

is the most popular.

Average owner PAYG salary was $112k, taxable income $156k.

• Annual salary of a senior architect in a medium practice.

• Stage splits – SD stage is becoming proportionally larger.

• Charge-out rates as an average per staff member.

The 2019 conveners are Jonathon Boucher (BE Architects), David Wagner (Atelier Wagner) and Albert Mo (Architects EAT) ably assisted by Mel Bright (Make).

Thanks to all for making this such as a successful forum since it commenced in 2013.

•

Chapter news —

Sustainable Architecture Forum Nadine Samaha

The Sustainable Architecture Forum ran two very successful events at the 2019 Sustainability Living Festival.

1. Speed Date an Architect hosted at Off the Grid Five generous Institute architects from SAF, Peter Hirst, Fiona Winzar, Nicola Smith, Terry Nott and Cathi Colla assisted 20 attendees with general information about reducing CO2 emissions in their houses.

Emerging Architects + Graduates Network Camilla Tierney

It's exciting to announce Daniel Moore as newly elected Co-Chair to the Emerging Architects + Graduates Network (EmAGN). Daniel has already been on the committee for a year and is a welcome addition at the helm.

There are a few new members who have joined – keep

Regional Practice Forum Kim Irons

Bendigo and Geelong and Surf Coast regional forums met in February.

Geelong and Surf Coast will be linked to the Deakin University Real Lecture series, a student-operated series which invites presentations from practicing architects. It’s a welcome opportunity for further engagement of

06—07

2. Disruption hosted at the Dome I was joined by Peter Maddison and Jeremy McLeod to deliver a talk on ‘Towards zero emissions’ for over 250 attendees.

Renee van Trier, Caitlin Sinclair and Emma Adams from the Victorian Chapter of the Institute were outstanding in their support to all architects involved. Flyers with information on reducing CO2 emissions were handed out at both events and advanced copies of Architect Victoria were made available at the Off the Grid venue. Eloyse McCall from the Victorian Chapter was fantastic in providing us with the graphics for the flyer.

The feedback from the festival directors and coordinators along with the attendees was very positive. The festival now want us to be involved every year. We acknowledge Scott Wiley's initiative last year in starting our forum's involvement with the festival.

In the last meeting at the request of Belinda Strickland, forum members provided feedback to the Department of the Environment and Energy regarding Your Home 6th edition.

an eye on our Instagram page for a chance to meet everyone. EmAGN is about being inclusive, not exclusive and we welcome all graduates and emerging architects to be a part of the discussion. As your EmAGN representatives we want to ensure that we are always accessible. If you have any questions or concerns – please reach out to us at emagnvic@ architecture.com.au or say hi on our EmAGN Vic Facebook page.

The year started with a Graduate CPD event that focused on working with consultants. Brickworks have kindly agreed to support our

CPD this year and our events will be held at their new flagship location on Collins Street. There is also our forum which will talk about money – always a sensitive subject – so what are the best ways to go about it. We are grateful to Kosloff Architecture who will be supporting us through 2019.

Finally, we are working on some new digital media that we are excited about and hope to share at the National Conference in Melbourne in June.

our local architects with the university.

Bendigo discussed planning challenges, particularly contrary heritage advice by local authorities.

The discussion highlighted the difficulties in more remote locations where authorities have less access to consistent resources. It also raised the recurrent question of what capacity regional forums may have in advocating in their local areas.

However, by the time you read this, the Victorian Regional workshop will have been conducted.

Representatives of each will meet to develop a collective framework,

giving greater voice to members and architectural advocacy in Victorian regions.

As always, should you be interested in joining any of the regional forums, please contact myself or Renee van Trier, at the Victorian Chapter office.

Looking In, Looking Out

C P

New CPD Series for 2019 Gold Medal Parallel Practice NCC & Standards Research in Practice There are many options available for formal CPD at the Victorian Chapter including

ArchiTECH Monthly webinars Recorded sessions Face-to-face sessions Regional CPD Program All sessions are published in the Victorian Chapter’s weekly e-newsletter Vmail You can also find details here architecture.com.au

Special feature —

Q&A– Julia Cambage, CEO Australian Institute of Architects James Staughton (Chair, Editorial Committee, Architect Victoria) put some questions to the CEO on issues which the overall membership might like to know, and/or expect the Institute to both have a position on and to act on.

What vision do you have for promoting the value of architecture to both government and private industry organisations, leaders, influencers and the general public?

As you would be aware the Institute has, in conjunction with members, developed a detailed strategy around three core pillars of advocacy, education and practice. The strategy is designed to strengthen the architectural profession, articulating the unique proposition that architects offer in promoting community, inspiring clients and ultimately creating spaces that deliver measurable benefits and improve the quality and sustainability of our built environment.

I see my role and that of the Institute as implementing that strategy which will lead us to a stronger, more united profession that is better able to influence.

We want architects to have a seat at the decision-making table, with their expertise and capacity to contribute to stronger communities recognised and valued.

Unity, alignment, commitment and a people-centric focus will be critical in achieving our objective.

How do you see the support role of the Institute to the profession as a collective whole (delivering on the long overdue promise of an ACCC acceptable fee guide for example) as well as to individual members (through Acumen, mentoring, professional counsel etc)?

In my first few months in the role I have seen a number of opportunities where the Institute can be a more dynamic participant in supporting both the profession and individual practices.

For example, our digital transformation project will allow for the delivery of services including CPD through a variety of modes including webinars and discussion platforms. This is just one example of how we are revitalising practice toolsets. We've also engaged Gill Matthewson, a research expert from Monash University, to undertake extensive data analysis of fees and project types following our survey on time and cost implications within the

Looking In, Looking Out

profession. This is a key priority and we look forward to sharing the outcomes of this project with members as soon as possible.

In the rapidly changing environment we currently work in, adaptation is essential. I see stronger contracting arrangements, subcontractor arrangements and the championing of better procurement protocols as important areas of focus.

Similarly, improved training in contract management and negotiation at all levels of a project have the capacity to deliver better outcomes.

It will be important to be the knowledge leaders in the space leading the conversation rather than following; drawing on our incredible members’ experiences to drive the process.

How do you see the Institute adapting to support the profession in a world of constantly evolving building procurement processes (from both design and contractual viewpoints)?

There has been a recent research project in this space that will be released in the near future. This provides some much needed research to inform and promote our position.

We have a role to focus on the profession’s pain points and advocate for solutions. This area will be a priority for me and I am confident that my background in procurement will assist in driving the change needed.

How do you see the role of the Institute in the ongoing evolution of the regulatory environment (building and planning regulations, architects act etc)?

Strategic positioning and clear advocacy is the way to influence.

Using our strong voice in a united and planned way will deliver the best outcomes. I am focussed on developing a clear advocacy agenda in conjunction with input from National Council and our state and territory Chapter Councils in line with our strategic intent.

I see this process delivered at a national and state level through our presidents and spokespeople.

There is also a role working with all levels of government, ensuring we

have a process for engagement and the resources to deliver.

Architects are among the most highly qualified, comprehensively regulated of any building practitioner.

Their expertise should constitute a valuable input for governments and policymakers when contemplating the regulatory environment. The Institute has been a vocal advocate for reform and improved compliance and will continue to champion sensible policy solutions on behalf of the profession and for the benefit of the wider community.

As an objective newcomer to the architecture profession what do you see as the visible strengths and weaknesses of both the Insitute and the profession as a whole?

Starting with the Institute I think that great work has been done over a number of years to build a nationally focussed and vibrant peak body.

Change is not a simple process and it often takes many years to change culture and direction. At this point in time, my view is that the structure requires further refinement but that there is great good will and commitment to be better. For me this is the most difficult part, so the good news is that we have good people, who are committed to building an Institute that our profession can be proud of.

In terms of the profession I see the passion, drive and complete commitment to making the lives of others better as a huge strength, but also a weakness because it is a complex thing to be able to express simply and consistently. Concisely articulating the value of architects is no mean feat!

How do you see the leadership role of the Institute regarding ethical issues in the profession (sustainability, gender equity, design for disability etc)?

This comes back to my point above around advocacy and leadership. A strong, values-led organisation must have a well-defined position on the matters you have raised.

Institute members have made headway on many of these

08—09

Architect Victoria

issues, embracing sustainability and advocating for its integration into the design process, or being part of important dialogues on Livable Housing Design guidelines for example.

What we stand for should be clearly articulated and reflect the values of our members. We have more work to do in this space!

How do you see the ongoing and future relationship between the state and national chapters of the Institute?

I am excited by the work that the Chapters are doing. The level of engagement and service delivery is high.

There is also a degree of innovation in the delivery of services that is great to see, and this is to be encouraged. I would like to see greater sharing and adoption of innovation across the organisation.

The role of a central office as I see it is one of shared delivery as part of a continuous feedback loop.

We provide support to ensure that our Chapters can deliver quality services and engage with the membership in a meaningful way. In turn, they provide feedback back to us to enable the provision of better and more services.

The relationship should operate in a way that offers the organisation an opportunity to be nimble, dynamic and better able to meet the market.

What is your view on the cost of Institute membership, striking a balance between affordability and overall revenue to deliver on the aims and charter of the organisation?

We are currently undertaking a full membership review, as provided for in our strategy. The first phase of oneon-one sessions has been completed and I have reviewed the outcomes.

Stage two will comprise some focus groups and then we will survey the entire membership. We anticipate that, following feedback, a new membership structure will be ready for release around August ahead of next year’s membership renewals. This consultative approach will help ensure we strike the right balance and are best able to meet members’ needs.

Editorial —

Looking in, looking out Words by Jocelyn Chiew

In recent decades, universities have been among the greatest patrons of contemporary architectural investment and innovation in Australia, and particularly in Victoria. Anyone who walked down Swanston Street in the nineties will recall the indelible impact of RMIT Building 8 1 and Storey Hall 2 on a city otherwise dominated by monochrome office buildings, which slumbered on weekends. These buildings enlivened a streetscape that was yet to become iconic globally and indicated that something interesting and palpable was occurring behind closed facades. Beyond imagery, and even iconography, architecture assists in the attraction of talent to universities. Australian universities that have risen and continue to rise through world rankings wish to remain globally competitive in areas of research, learning, teaching, enterprise and innovation. Buildings which incorporate contemporary technologies and pedagogies, and which nurture, inspire, welcome and contribute broadly to their contexts, assist these ambitions.

Australian university campuses have undergone significant change over the last decade and continue to evolve in response to multiple challenges and opportunities.

10—11

Growing global demands for education, combined with increased competition from online providers and uncertain funding frameworks, has cemented the need for Australian universities to differentiate themselves.

With a population of 4.8 million, Melbourne is Australia’s second largest city and remarkably, one of the world’s top university cities.

In 2018, it ranked third behind London and Tokyo,3 both considerably more populous at 8.8 million and 13.6 million respectively. By comparison, Sydney at 5.2 million, is ranked ninth. Ranking is an aggregate of six key indicators: affordability, employer activity, desirability, student mix, institutional ranking and student view. While Melbourne doesn’t rank in the top ten for affordability, it performs especially well in student mix and student view, indicating the city attracts students from diverse international locations and backgrounds. Having attractive campuses that are compelling, accessible and photogenic assists with selling both the campus image and experience.

International education is Australia’s largest services export industry and has been Victoria's largest for over a decade. Victoria

Looking In, Looking Out

accounts for almost 32 per cent of Australia's onshore international students.4 In 2016—17, international education in Victoria generated AUD 9.1 billion in export revenue, supported almost 58,000 jobs and had a national market share of 31.7 percent.5 Higher education is the single biggest contributor to international education, representing around two-thirds of the total value.6 Nationally, Australian universities added an estimated AUD 140 billion to the Australian economy in 2014, 'educated more than 1.3 million students in 2016 and directly employed 120,000 full-time equivalent staff'.7 In 2018, Universities Australia found that 16,000 university partner companies derive AUD 10.6 billion in revenue from these collaborations – a return on investment of AUD 4.50 for every dollar invested.8 Such is the impact of universities on our economy, that in 2019, the Victorian Government identified International Education as one of eleven priority sectors.9 In 2018, the Property Council of Australia also launched its Knowledge Clusters Development Committee.10

Australia has 43 universities.

Victoria’s ten universities have 96 disciplines rated above world standard in research excellence11 and feature prominently in world rankings by subject. Notably, Monash Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences is ranked second in the world after Harvard. Anthropology at Australian National University is ranked seventh and Anatomy and Physiology at the University of Melbourne is ranked joint-eighth.12 Seven Victorian universities rank in the world's best.

However, Australian universities need to invest and internationalise more if they are to grow and improve.

There are three commonly cited international university rankings: Academic Rankings of World Universities (ARWU); Times Higher Education (THE); and, QS World Rankings. Chinese universities have been steadily improving their performance on these platforms for the past decade. So much so that THE editorial director Phil Baty singles out ‘the rise of China as the

Above Storey Hall, RMIT University, 1996 Architecture by Ashton Raggatt McDougall Photo by John Gollings

most important trend over that time’.13 This is significant because China is the largest source of international students in Australia with 170,500 enrolments in 2018, followed by India at 64,300 and Malaysia at 25,400.14 Additionally, our region is affected by the fact that 103 of Japan’s universities are now ranked – ‘more than the UK and second only to the US’. Given current political climates in the US and the UK, countries that are more welcoming of international students and global talent may see greater opportunities for growth.15

So, what does all this mean for Australian architecture? By virtue, university campuses are ideal testing grounds for bigger initiatives. They have all the complexities of cities with the advantages afforded by wholly or mostly single ownership. And in some instances, exemption from lengthy planning approvals. As the owneroperators of their sites, it is in the university’s best interest to implement

Architect Victoria

long-term beneficial outcomes when developing their estates. They are therefore well placed to implement and test precinct-level initiatives that would otherwise be hampered by multiple landowners and restrictive planning requirements. Furthermore, the intensely competitive nature of attracting and retaining prospective students, educators and researchers has entailed greater emphasis on architecture as a means of establishing campus identity, quality and ‘stickiness’. On par with this, is a growing interest in smart technologies and their integration with architecture to create responsive, didactic and environmentally sustainable environments that are in themselves tools for learning, teaching and research, not mere receptacles for activity. →

Editorial —

I worked on countless strategic plans and feasibility studies during my time as a consultant, including the Chapel Vision Structure Plan 2007—2031 and Monash Caulfield and Clayton Campus Masterplans 2010—2030 (undertaken at MGS Architects). I enjoyed the scale and complexity of such projects, but wondered after a period of several years, whether any of them would be implemented. The role of Manager, Campus Design, Quality and Planning at Monash Univeristy offered an opportunity to work client-side, to initially assist and then drive the implementation of unique and ambitious campus visions and strategies. The university established new roles to support the implementation of its first contemporary masterplans – a university architect, Design Review Panel and Architect Selection Committee.

Over a period of eight years, we delivered thirteen new buildings, countless refurbishments and numerous landscapes. We introduced a new fleet of awardwinning architectural practices – established, evolving, and emerging.

We wrote the university's first Public Art Masterplan and secured an ongoing fund for the commissioning of public artworks. We developed new interior and exterior design and development controls to introduce consistency to the campus experience across Monash’s multiple locations.

Forty new retail tenancies were established and a new addressing system at Clayton was implemented to improve user experience. We also introduced comprehensive new online resources that enabled broad internal and external buy-in to the vision and strategies we were working towards.

This has helped us to build better partnerships with local, state and federal government agencies.

We established an identity and brand – any work undertaken on campus, whether large or small, strategic or maintenance, contributes to the campus vision and is therefore a part of our Monash Masterplan.

Along the way, our in-house

team of architects and designers expanded from one position to eight, demonstrating the beneficial impact that design thinking, and curation has had on the briefing, design and delivery of compelling campus environments.

The impact of precinctbased design approaches to campus development has been nothing short of transformative. Monash students, staff and visitors are on campus more often and for longer. They advocate for the organisation in ways that are different than before. This approach to campus development has infiltrated other parts of the organisation, culminating in a 2018 United Nations Momentum for Change award for the university’s Net Zero Initiative.16 The award recognises lighthouse activities – the world’s most practical, scalable and replicable examples of solutions to tackle climate change. Numerous architects are contributing to this initiative, pushing the boundaries of standard architectural and building practice in Australia and enabling ongoing research that responds to the potential for universities to be living labs, in and of themselves.17

Projects such as RMIT New Academic Street18 and the University of Melbourne New Student Precinct19 are redefining how institutions share knowledge and invite interaction with the broader precincts and city of which they are a part. These are highly contributory, innovative environments that offer a level of community accessibility and altruism that is currently unmatched by other sectors.

Their delivery model of multiple interdisciplinary design professionals working closely in collaboration to deliver a comprehensive precinct, is also different from what has been done before – entailing a level of design diversity, collaboration and integration that is highly complementary to university functions and ambitions. Universities increasingly value cross-disciplinary collaborations and partnerships, understanding this is where innovation most commonly springs from.

Industry awards are evidence of the exemplary environments being

Looking In, Looking Out

planned and delivered. The next evolution of thinking will likely emerge as universities stretch their impact and partnership beyond the campus into the broader precincts and National Employment and Innovation Clusters of which they are a part.

The programming of academic ambition at Monash has already extended beyond buildings, into the landscape, with projects including Burnley Biodiversity Green Roof (Hassell 2013) and Monash Earth Sciences Garden (Rushwright, OSW, Paul Thompson 2015) placing learning and research overtly on show. Universities want to engage and connect with their communities.

This is reflected in increased university participation to Open House Melbourne programs and events, as captured by Monash University ViceChancellor Margaret Gardner AO, who wrote: ‘Architecture and human-made landscapes can be transformative for the vitality of communities. Our built environments at Monash reflect this principle, fostering cultures of collaboration, innovation, inclusion, and sustainability.’20

When I commenced employment with Monash University in 2010, I expected the move from consulting to last a few years. In 2018, following the implementation of two masterplans, and the development of an additional four masterplans and updates, I had notched eight years.

My time client-side is now parallel with my consulting experience, which inevitably begs the question, where to from here?

For me, the university is a marvellous place to work because I have never stopped learning.

Universities by nature are political ecosystems. To be presented with the opportunity to work with your heroes and role models across a large body of challenging and impactful projects doesn't happen often. I’ve been privileged to work for leaders who believe in the role architects play in affecting curated, forwardfocused and enduring outcomes. I’ve also been fortunate to work alongside individuals whose work I have long admired, including Professor Shane

Above The University of Melbourne Student Precinct, 2019 Architecture by Lyons (Principal Architect) Render by ASPECT Studios courtesy Lyons

Murray, Peter Elliott AM, Shelley Penn, Maudie Palmer AO, Charlotte Day, Perry Lethlean, Ron Jones, Gini Lee and Callum Morton. And I’ve enjoyed the numerous collaborations with other architects, landscape architects, designers, artists and stakeholders.

These are exciting times for universities and architects on multiple sides of the drawing board.

In this issue of Architect Victoria, we assembled a unique group of experts to explore the diversity, potentiality and legacy of university campus design. Hannah Lewi, Cameron Logan and Andrew Murray advocate for the recognition of expansion-era university buildings and landscapes, arguing that architects have a critical role to play in preserving campus heritage. Peter Elliott and Perry Lethlean reflect on the idea of the open campus as a model for inclusive campus development. Rob McGauran, Elliet Spring and Katherine Sundermann explore the role of campus masterplans in transforming Australian suburbs. Michaela Sheahan and Sheree Proposch provide an overview of internationally emerging

12—13

Architect Victoria

campus trends. Charlotte Day delves into the topic of campus sites for cultural inclusion, art and discovery.

Jane Burry looks at inherited and new architectures in the context of setting up a new school at Swinburne University. The regional campus is considered by Michael Bouteloup and Tim Daborn. Ken Ng writes about the importance of student accommodation in creating holistic and nurturing university experiences. Sarah Ball demystifies the concept of the vertical campus Finally, the issue is rounded out by various perspectives on the campus experience. The university perspective is told by interview with Russell Elliott, the public perspective is covered

by Emma Telfer, and various quotes have been submitted by students and graduates from across the state.

Welcome to the university campus edition of Architect Victoria.

We hope you enjoy the read. Sincere thanks to the Editorial Committee, and particularly Laura Held who assisted in the coordination of submissions from Hannah Lewi, Rob McGauran, Michael Bouteloup, and Ken Ng. →

Jocelyn Chiew is a registered architect, landscape architect and urban designer with 16 years professional experience in consulting and client roles. In the role of Manager of Campus Design, Quality and Planning, Jocelyn is responsible for the masterplanning and design of Monash University's sites in Australia.

Jocelyn manages and is a member of the Monash Design Review Panel and Architect Selection Committee, a Founding Member of the Monash Public Art Committee and co-author of the Monash Public Art Masterplan, an Australian Institute of Architects Victorian Chapter Councillor, Property Council of Australia Education Precincts Committee Member and a 2019 Australian Institute of Architects Victorian Awards Juror.

She has led multiple Master of Urban Design studios at the University of Melbourne, and participates in critiques and juries for architecture and landscape architecture.

Laura Held is principal architect and editor at Studio OneOne, a multi-disciplinary architectural practice with a focus on architecture, communications, publications, awards and media. Laura is a registered architect, fellow of the the Australian Institute of Architects and Architect Victoria Editorial Committee member. Her roles have included juror for the Victorian Architecture Awards and SuperStudios, City of Melbourne Future Melbourne Committee and CPD presenter on awards and communications within professional practice. She has also been a mentor within architectural graduate programs, and guest critic for architecture design studios at the University of Melbourne and Monash University. Laura is an advocate for architectural education and the entrepreneurial spirit that exists within our burgeoning architectural profession.

Notes 1993, Edmond and Corrigan in association with The Demaine Partnership

1

2

1996, Ashton Raggatt McDougall

3

www.topuniversities.com/city-rankings/2018

Victoria State Government - Jobs, Precincts and Regions, International Education webpage, updated 23 April 2018 https://djpr.vic.gov.au/priority-industriessectors/international-education/economic-value-ofvictorias-international-education

4

5 Victoria State Government - Jobs, Precincts and Regions, International Education webpage, updated 23 April 2018 https://djpr.vic.gov.au/priority-industriessectors/international-education/economic-value-ofvictorias-international-education 6 Deloitte Access Economics, The importance of universities to Australia’s prosperity: A report prepared for Universities Australia, October 2015, p vi 7

Universities Australia Data Snapshot 2018

Paul Karp, $2.2bn funding cut to universities 'a cap on opportunity for all', 28 Feb 2018 8

www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/feb/28/22bnfunding-cut-to-universities-a-cap-on-opportunity-for-all 9

https://djpr.vic.gov.au/priority-industries-sectors

Rebranded in 2019 as the Property Council of Australia’s ‘Education Precincts Committee’, www.propertycouncil.com.au/Web/Membership/ Divisions/Victorian_Office/Committees/Web/ Membership/Victorian_Division/Committees. aspx?Division=VIC&hkey=1c55804e-4ad8-4569-840974b7c21886d2 10

11

www.arc.gov.au/excellence-research-australia

12

www.topuniversities.com/subject-rankings/2018

13

Department of Education and Training

14

Department of Education and Training

Rhyannon Bartlett-Imadegawa, Nikkei Asian Review, 26 Septermber 2018 https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/EastAsian-universities-climb-higher-in-global-rankings 15

16 Monash Net Zero Initative Brochure www.monash. edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/1140365/Monash-NetZero-Brochure.pdf#

Recent and emerging works by DCM (Biomedical Learning and Teaching Building 2019), ARM (Chancellery Building 2020), Grimshaw (Technology Education Building 2020) and JCB (Gillies Hall 2019) are all helping to deliver on this ambition by incorporating on-site solar energy generation, precinct thermal stores, recycled water ring main, low embodied energy materials including CLT, and high performance construction methodologies in Passive House.

17

18 Lyons in collaboration with Harrison White and Maddison Architects, MvS Architects, NMBW Architecture Studio and TCL Studio 2018

Lyons in collaboration with Koning Eizenberg Architects USA, Aspect Studios, Breathe, NMBW, Greenaway Architects, Glas Urban and Architects EAT 2021–22

19

20 In 2018, following eight years of continuous campus renewal, Monash University opened the doors to thirty-six buildings and fourteen landscapes across its four campuses in Australia for the annual Open House Melbourne Weekend. It was by far the largest Precinct Partner offer in the eleven-year history of the program and enabled our academic community to re-engage with neighbours, alumni and first time visitors.

Left Monash University’s award-winning Learning and Teaching Building at Clayton campus, looking into one of Victoria’s busiest bus interchanges Architecture by John Wardle Architects Landscape Architecture by McGregor Coxall (Monash Transport Interchange) and ASPECT Studios (building curtilage) Photo by Trevor Mein

Architect Victoria

Article —

Campus heritage

Words by Hannah Lewi, Cameron Logan and Andrew Murray

The process of recognising places as historical and having heritage value is never settled. It is an uneven process, somewhat quixotic and often contentious. Some moments seem to demand that we revise and reassess established critical judgements and cherished assumptions. A few years ago it became evident to us that this is the case for Australia’s postwar university campuses. In around 2015 a group of seven researchers from five Australian universities, led by Associate Professor Andrew Saniga at the University of Melbourne, perceived a pressing need to undertake a rigorous reassessment of the so-called expansion-era university campuses. Places such as Macquarie, Monash, Murdoch, Flinders and La Trobe, developed in the wake of a higher education funding boom between 1958 and 1975. In 2016 the group was awarded an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Grant to fund this work and produce a forthcoming book on the modern Australian campus.

Over the past three years we have been building a corpus of information about the history of Australian university architecture, planning and landscape design that is unprecedented in its scope and

depth. We engaged with the rich archives of the universities, talked to planners and architects who shaped the universities across the period, and heard from decision makers about their priorities for Australia’s campuses. This allowed us to identify a pattern of contemporary thinking and planning that often disregards and devalues much that is valuable about the recent past.

A quick survey of heritage listings around the country underlines these characteristic attitudes to the architecture of expansion-era campuses. The Victorian State Heritage Register includes a very wide range of buildings completed on the University of Melbourne’s Parkville campus in the nineteenth century and a handful of well-regarded early twentieth century buildings.

Interestingly the register also includes three key postwar projects: the Underground Carpark (Loder and Bayly in association with Harris, Lange and partners, 1972), Wilson Hall (Bates, Smart and McCutcheon, 1956) and the Beaurepaire Centre (Eggleston, Macdonald and Secomb, 1956). These were all distinguished projects that broke decisively with the traditional campus image while underpinning a reinvigoration of

Looking In, Looking Out

campus life in that period. Yet, the postwar campuses in Victoria have just one heritage-listed representative, the Monash University Religious Centre designed by Mockridge, Stahle and Mitchell in 1967-8.

This is an important building with integral artworks, but a type hardly emblematic of the postwar education revolution that played out at these institutions.

Despite the lack of formal acknowledgment by heritage agencies, or by the universities themselves, the postwar education boom produced an array of high quality and significant buildings. The expansion-era campuses procured landmark buildings by some of the country’s most prominent architects alongside young practices who could stretch their capabilities beyond the domestic sphere. But it also acted as a kind of ‘proving ground’ for a range of emerging practitioners including urban and landscape designers, and through the commissioning of significant works from progressive artists like Norma Redpath, Lenton Parr and Leonard French. The largely blank slate of the new campus also created a setting for the testing of technological innovations and the exploration of large-scale masterplanning solutions. That many of the country’s finest and earliest examples of Brutalist buildings and curtain wall innovations are located within these suburban campuses is testament to their capacity to support and enable architectural progress. Consequently there remains a raft of typically ignored and underappreciated or misunderstood buildings and ensembles located within the, admittedly, highly variable quality of campus environments today.

Important postwar examples found across Victoria include Menzies College by Romberg and Boyd 1968, and Chisholm College by Chancellor and Patrick 1972 – both at La Trobe University; La Trobe’s masterplan by Roy Simpson of Yuncken Freeman; the Humanities Building by Eggleston, MacDonald and Secomb 1961, and Robert Blackwood Hall by Sir Roy

Above Robert Blackwood Hall, Monash University, 1971 Architecture by Sir Roy Grounds Photo by Templo Photography, courtesy State Library Victoria pictures collection.

Grounds 1971 – both at Monash University; alongside a raft of major buildings by Daryl Jackson (Deakin University, the University of Melbourne), Guilford Bell (Monash University) and John Scarborough the University of Melbourne, Monash University). This is not to mention the number of former Colleges of Advanced Education which were absorbed into the university system in the early 1990s. Notable among

16—17

Architect Victoria

them is the former Bendigo College of Advanced Education, now a campus of La Trobe University with the remarkable cream-brick megastructure of the Student Union/Library building designed by Buchan Laird Buchan in association with Californian architect Ernest J. Kump in 1977.

The problem, as we see it, is twofold. The first reason is that this lack of recognition and protection contributes to the general tendency →

Article —

Top La Trobe University looking north across campus. Photo courtesy La Trobe University photographic collection Above Menzies College Stage 1, La Trobe University, 1969. Architecture by Romberg and Boyd Photo by Peter Wille, courtesy State Library Victoria Pictures Collection

18—19

Looking In, Looking Out

to value what is more obviously historical and visibly ‘old’ (and thereby sits easier with campus marketing and branding). Such a tendency makes heritage conservation a dead letter, a set of more or less thoughtless transcripts for received wisdom and taste. It should instead be a vital and forward-looking cultural tool for engaging with the historic environment of all ages. The second reason is more specific to the tertiary education sector. In a period where competition has overtaken cooperation as the watchword for universities, leaders in the sector look to architecture more than ever for its role in image promotion. The expansion-era campuses have thus been caught in something of a pincer hold. On one side are the so-called sandstone campuses which can call upon the solidity of tradition as manifest in various collegiate Gothic buildings and other traditional styles.

On the other side are the former technical colleges and institutes such as RMIT and UTS that heavily promote the dynamism of their urban locations and cutting-edge architectural propositions.

Postwar suburban campuses have responded by attempting to import an urban atmosphere with pop-up food venues and the like, while commissioning eye-catching new buildings that have not always responded in an informed way to established masterplans or wellconceived growth patterns. Of course expectations of how a university campus should function must and will continue to grow and change, and many of the experiments played out in the 1960s to 1980s were less than successful. These can be sensitively worked with to draw out better outcomes for ongoing flexible use and sustainability. By providing a better understanding of the recent history of the Australian modern campus we hope to engender that the heritage value of modern campuses can reside not just in a few singular buildings, but also in their landscapes, their visionary planning and social and artistic significance.

Architect Victoria

Macquarie University, for example, recently destroyed their Central Courtyard (Macquarie University Architect Planners Office, consultant Richard Clough, 1967), a defining landscape element composed of a careful grid of lemon-scented gums.

Let’s hope that we see less of these kinds of campus refresh projects that ultimately diminish the holistic environmental quality and cultural value of campuses. Architects have an important role to play in this. As Louis Kahn insisted, architects should not serve the brief without reflection. It is their role to help define and redefine the nature of the institution by imaginatively responding to their brief.

This includes historically informed consideration of how all existing buildings and landscapes have uniquely shaped higher education institutions in Australia over time and of their ongoing value to them.

Hannah Lewi is Professor in Architecture and Co-Director of the Australian Centre for Architectural History and Urban and Cultural Heritage in the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Design at the University of Melbourne.

Cameron Logan is an urban and architectural historian and Director of the postgraduate program in heritage conservation at the University of Sydney.

Andrew Murray is a research assistant for the Australian Campus project and PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne.

This work is supported by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Grant. For more information, see https://msd.unimelb. edu.au/research/projects/current/ campus-building-modern-australianuniversities

Article —

Open campus

University of Melbourne have their historic core buried in an expanded campus network, or RMIT University, which is scattered through the fabric of the city.

There are various strategies for repairing and renewing campuses, which can be tailored to each found circumstance. For instance, Monash University had become a tangled maze of pathways criss-crossing the campus. Drastic action was needed to establish a legible circulation network of generous pedestrian walks and public spaces. At RMIT, a more surgical approach was required, as there was a complete lack of defined public spaces and connections. Each part of the campus was assigned a new public space role. A road became a pedestrian path, a carpark became a lawn and dead end lanes were opened up and connected into the network.

Words by Peter Elliott and Perry Lethlean

Over the past few decades universities have embraced a much more outward looking perspective beyond the confines of the traditional campus model. Campuses are no longer seen as isolated citadels but engaging places that are more open and inviting, providing more student-friendly spaces with stronger connections to the wider community.

The idea of the open campus has transformed the evolving identity and role of the university within the life of our cities. The campuses that designers inherit are largely already built, so the challenge is how best to adapt, renew and extend them to suit a new generation.

The more successful campus transformations have focused on improving the quality of the public realm experience, as well as commissioning a new era of local architecture. Everyone is aware that students spend less time on campus than in the past, so the aim is to create campus environments that engage students in new ways.

New campus model Until relatively recently university campuses were typically internally focussed, often with poor building fabric and degraded external spaces

dominated by roads, cars and service infrastructure. From the 1990s universities began to question the nature of the modern campus. Rather than the familiar insular defined campus, a new open campus model evolved which turned the campus inside out, connecting more strongly to their local neighbourhoods.

The ideas driving the open campus ran concurrently with the transformative thinking that happened within our cities, where priority was given to pedestrians and improved quality of public space. Instead of public spaces being seen as incidental, or the areas left between buildings, public space in all its iterations, became the primary binding element of our cities focused on people. University campuses borrowed from the city’s experience, which has helped inform a new language of campus development.

Campus bones Designers are typically reworking campuses that already exist. In this context it is critical to understand and build upon the different DNA of each individual campus. Some have the strong bones of a planned campus structure like La Trobe and Monash universities, while others such as the

Looking In, Looking Out

Identity and marketplace Universities now actively market their identities to attract staff and students based not just on their academic credentials, but the quality of their campus environments and facilities.

This is an international competition and everyone shops around, so comparisons are easy and they matter.

Every university now attempts to define a distinct identity. The University of Melbourne promotes its history and tradition through the clock tower and the cloister, RMIT by contrast, heralds extraordinary contemporary architecture and Monash reinforces a university situated in an Australian parkland setting. The more successful campuses have a consistent and cohesive approach to standard details and materials. Like great cities, the idea is that the public spaces form a coherent setting for many and varied architectures.

Pressure from the international student market has fostered the delivery of more oncampus housing. This has required universities to host more support services with the added benefit of making campuses more vibrant places.

Above Marysville recovery continues to struggle Photograph by Robert Stent

Above Campus Green, Monash University Caulfield Landscape architecture by Taylor Culity Lethlean Studio, intergrated artwork by Agatha Goethe-Snape, 2015 Photo by John Gollings

Successful governance The more successful campus transformations have been achieved through a strong governance and procurement structure. Firstly, campus transformations are dependent on good leadership beginning at the most senior university levels, with support from the chancellor, vice-chancellor and their executive teams.

Secondly, there needs to be a forum to promote and assess design quality. This is typically achieved via a design review panel, comprised of senior academics and prominent design professionals in architecture and landscape architecture. Thirdly, separate budgets need to be allocated for the campus spaces that are separate to the building program.

20—21

Architect Victoria

Lastly, there needs to be proper procurement processes, which fosters a range of design-led practices from emerging to established practitioners, with major projects delivered in instances via design competitions.

A shift to precinct planning Masterplans have been the traditional form of campus planning.

More recently, the idea and role of masterplans has radically changed, shifting from fixed and finite visions into high level strategic plans.

Campus planning must anticipate and adjust to the changing demands of the modern university. In reality universities are no longer limited to a single location, but are now comprised of a network of campuses, each with their own identity. →

Top RMIT University Lawn, 2012. Architecture by Peter Elliott Architecture and Urban Design. Photo by Dianna Snape Above University Lawn before as a carpark

22—23

Looking In, Looking Out

Article —

The translation of the university’s strategic plan best occurs through a design framework plan. This is the guiding document that provides a robust vision for the physical development of the campus.

Under the framework, defined campus  precincts of a manageable scale are identified for more detail design planning. Here the role hierarchy and the character of the public spaces are deemed paramount and determined prior to building commissions. This ensures the campus structure is the higher order rather than individual building programs. It is unwise to step straight from a high-level strategic plan to a design commission without first testing and developing a feasible approach, brief and budget.

Part of the city but different The university campus is not a minicity, although it has similar attributes.

Universities that are situated in a suburban context are attempting to rebuild themselves in the manner of a micro-city, with a vibrant mixed use program otherwise lacking in their immediate context. On the other hand the city-based universities are openly integrating and merging into their adjacent urban fabric, in a synergetic arrangement of city and campus as one seamless place. Each are striving for a vibrant city life, as a means of providing dynamic campus experiences and to better engage with industry partners and the community at large. This approach has delivered multiple benefits for the institution as well as assisting in the regeneration of adjacent dormant neighbourhoods.

As a model for city transformation, universities have been very successful, for they possess large land holdings under a singular governance structure. This has allowed for a complete transformation of whole city blocks into pedestrian friendly environments of great civic quality.

Architect Victoria

Peter Elliott is a Melbourne architect and recipient of the 2017 Australian Institute of Architects Gold Medal.

He is currently an Adjunct Professor of Architecture at the Faculty of Art Design and Architecture at Monash University. In 2015 he was awarded an honorary Doctor of Architecture by the University of Melbourne. He has a special interest in the design of the public realm, and has lectured and written extensively on contemporary architecture and urban design.

Perry Lethlean is Managing Director of the landscape architecture and urban design practice TCL and Adjunct Professor of the School of Architecture and Urban Design at RMIT. He was one of the first students to participate in the RMIT University landscape architecture program at its inception in 1982. He later completed a Master in Urban Design (1992) followed by a PhD (2014), both at RMIT. His work is widely published, particularly his successful competition entries and awards for major national and international design projects including Auckland Waterfront, The Australian Garden and the National Arboretum in Canberra.

Article —

City shaping

services and vitality of a university city.

The suburban campus

Words by Rob McGauran, Elliet Spring and Katherine Sundemann

While our national press and political discourse might have us believe that our future is all about our mineral resources and governments have progressively reduced their support per student, our university sector has shown remarkable resilience and success. For states like Victoria, the sector is our largest export industry, a major employer and a major driver of both our capital and regional city prosperity. This growth has corresponded with the rapidly changing natures of work and the urban transformation of our capital cities and regional centres.

For Australian universities, attracting the best talent to the physical campus is contingent on providing a compelling campus experience. Often designed and constructed in the mid-twentieth century, in then edge-of-the-city, car-dependent locations, Australian universities are constructed around introverted models. Similarly, they are typically composed of disciplinary schools or faculties and campus futures are determined by independent initiatives in a frequently uncoordinated way.

Recent solutions have sometimes delivered outcomes that fail the test of relevance, utilisation and utility as they have concerned

themselves only with the narrowly defined needs of the school or university at the time. Elsewhere buildings are ageing and no longer suited for contemporary learning and teaching, while the spaces between facilities are often neglected and dominated by outmoded service and entitlement paradigms. Despite their increasing interdependence, connections to surrounding city neighbourhoods, partnership enterprises and economies are frequently defensive and disconnected.

The university city The global success of university city partnerships in the past twenty years is evidenced with the benchmarks in east and westcoast North America, Europe and more recently Asia. Similarly, Australia must find ways to better shape our cities, so that they leverage the central city, middle and outer urban and regional city campuses and the talent they attract to maximum benefit for our communities, enterprises and economies. This presents an opportunity to strategically rethink the campus as a welcoming knowledge neighbourhood: one that supports innovation, partnerships and contemporary pedagogy with all the

Looking In, Looking Out

While the sandstone historic universities in Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide have occupied premier central locations and benefitted from historic public transport connectivity, later universities were often built at the edge of the city and almost entirely reliant on the car.

This has undermined the amenity of campuses, while the changing nature of economies has meant students have had to travel further to part-time jobs and homes. Research in recent years has shown how divisive this combination of factors is on both student experience and learning outcomes. At the same time, peer-topeer learning and cross-disciplinary research questions have become significant elements of globally competitive universities.

In Victoria, the designation of our major suburban university campuses as hearts of National Employment and Innovation Clusters (NEICs within Plan Melbourne), such as Monash, La Trobe and Sunshine is an important first step. It has reframed the role of these locations as central generators of economic prosperity, innovation, employment and urban reshaping but needs now to be matched with urgent investment in public transport connectivity, affordable key worker housing and enabling zoning and governance initiatives at precinct level.

Town and gown Universities have realised that the best learning and research outcomes continue to be delivered where an enabling campus and workplace experience exists. Recent research has demonstrated a strong nexus between the provision of high quality accommodation for students and key workers near campuses and improved academic results and research outcomes. Corresponding to this has been the desire to embed the university within the story of the future city with the development of a network of NEICs. More recently,

Above University of New South Wales, 2018 Photo by Ethan Rohloff Photography

universities including University of New South Wales (UNSW), University of Wollongong, La Trobe, Monash, Victoria and Federation universities have all developed masterplan initiatives, that have sought to ensure the university promotes integrated community and city programming, with more government partnering in the delivery of infrastructure.

At Monash University, this has seen the delivery of the Transport Interchange, the proposed Victorian Heart Hospital, Alexander Theatre redevelopment, a refocus on translational research and enterprise and the extension of campus street networks to edges; cementing the core campus as the focus of a larger NEIC.

In other cases, where campuses are expanding beyond traditional boundaries, universities have sought to engage meaningfully with abutting faculties and university uses, streets and neighbourhoods.

Examples include the University Square Precinct of the University of Melbourne, the western precinct of RMIT and the expansion of UNSW, where campus expansion has forced these institutions to

24—25

Architect Victoria

reconsider and integrate with abutting neighbourhoods.

In turn the role of design is changing, with an increased priority in commissions for some universities given to architects able to deliver great solutions for all campus users and not simply those utilising the facilities.

Changes in pedagogy For many campuses, these seismic shifts, combined with rapid growth in student populations and internationalisation of the student body, has also challenged traditional teaching pedagogies and campus experiences, and, in turn, budgets and priorities. Once packed lecture theatres are now frequently underpopulated as students watch lectures online, advanced communication technologies enable spaces to be rapidly adapted for the needs of differing disciplinary cohorts and priorities are being given to projects that can deliver great impact often through high utilisation.

Students occupying cramped living conditions, combined with the increasing value of peer-to-peer learning are challenging how the →

Article —

university considers the allocation of space on campus and its 24-hour availability. Equally too, work readiness and the life-long learning needs of twenty-first-century workforces are demanding deeper relationships between universities, communities, economies and enterprises.

Design for place and learning Successful campuses are now designing for place, rather than a fashion parade of different faculty buildings that could be individually modestly successful, but contribute nothing to the spaces in between or to the development of necessary interdisciplinary skills and insights.

For Monash University, new work has focused on the creation of a legible campus environment where curiosity is inspired, collaboration enabled and where the excellence in learning, teaching and research is showcased. The aim has been to connect new facilities to great external social and learning spaces connected by a quality network of streets. The briefing of these buildings has sought to activate the campus and optimise utilisation of expensive capital works projects through relatively inexpensive but impactful public realm projects.

A university that had in recent years been largely defined by its introverted faculty-focused buildings and poor spaces for peer-to-peer, crossdisciplinary learning, legibility, student life and experience, and walkability, has with committed leadership and curatorship, become a model of what can be possible.

Organisations more confident in their role, vision, governance and reporting have also sought to implement reporting processes for their plans that agree on measures of success. The campus environmental footprint, biodiversity, modal shift, space utilisation, residential occupancy and learning outcomes, extra-curricular engagement, retail expenditure, research achievements, awards, student satisfaction and time spent on campus can all be measured and reported against targets. All can be invaluable research and

26—27

enterprise inputs to organisations that in part exist to drive informed decision-making and better futures.

Those that have sought to embrace information that will acknowledge both successes and failures have been able to more quickly adapt to change and apply their capital more effectively with Monash, University of British Columbia, University of Pennsylvania examples of such an approach.

The role of the masterplan This process of transformation must start with a masterplan that choreographs the campus vision, socialises the challenges that each campus faces, and puts forward an ambitious framework for action.

Successful masterplans are formed from a thorough understanding of the social, political and physical elements of the campus and context, and are aligned with the identity, ambition and capacity of the university. Rather than preconceived ideas, it draws on international best practice for campus design, grounded in evidence-based solutions, and a deep knowledge of place, people and purpose. Finally, it provides a framework for intervention, facilitating buy-in from both internal stakeholders and community, industry and government partners.

Good governance In order to successfully implement a masterplan, there needs to be an effective governance structure.

There is a role for the university architect or masterplanner to act as choreographer, ensuring each new building or public realm project relates back to the intent of the masterplan.

Equally there must be input from external voices through a design review panel, and clear accountability for all participants. For many public universities, this transparency and strategic alignment is a stretch too far but for those who have developed such a plan the results can be demonstrated through successful and coherent implementation.

Many campuses have examples of poorly conceived and integrated tenures. With campuses hosting multiple partners, good

Looking In, Looking Out

governance and a clear masterplan vision shaped around a shared vision is essential. At Monash University, design excellence has been underpinned by key initiatives initiated under former Vice-Chancellor Professor Ed Byrne and Chancellor Dr Alan Finkel, which have continued under the current leadership of Simon McKeon and Margaret Gardner. Key changes were the adoption of a new governance and procurement process that first established a vision for the university. This was then supported by the commissioning of a campus vision and masterplan for Caulfield and Clayton campuses led by MGS Architects. Importantly, these plans incorporated a new governance process that centralised campus realisation funding and priorities, adopted procurement systems that used architecture award recipients as a key source for the shortlisting of design consultants, and utilised a proactive Design Review Panel which included leaders from both within the university and from external industry.

As a result, a new generation of design talent has been able to find a voice on campus.

The framework also established measures of success against which progress might be reported, as well as clear accountability, essential in our view for a learning institution focussed on continual improvement. A next longoverdue step being considered by several leading public universities is to curate for gender equality in project procurement. Measures such as this and the utilisation of new projects important to good decision making could not be achieved without good and accountable governance and reporting mechanisms.

For too long, the contributions of architects to campuses through their design inputs were often narrowly targeted. Projects that could have had a legacy of positive transformation have instead thwarted ambition through poor placemaking, briefing and programming. The result of this combination of measures has been an expanded role for architects in

Above RMIT Swanston Academic Building, 2012 Architecture by Lyons Photo by Rob McGauran courtesy MGS Architects

creating great precincts and joined-up projects that do more than meet the narrow ambitions of sponsoring deans or campus managers. These projects enrich campuses and build the culture of curiosity and sharing knowledge and infrastructure that enable skills to be nurtured and questions asked that collectively meet the challenges of this new conceptual age.

Rob McGauran is Founding Director of MGS Architects, Adjunct Professor of Architectural Practice and Inaugural University Architect (2010—16) Monash University and Professorial Fellow Melbourne University.

Architect Victoria

Elliet Spring is Associate Director of MGS Architects and co-project lead of masterplans for Trinity College Parkville and UNSW Campus Framework.

Katherine Sundemann is Associate Director of MGS Architects and co-project lead of masterplans for University of Wollongong and La Trobe Bendigo, and masterplan update for Monash Clayton, and UNSW Campus Framework.

Article —

The international campus

gates and departmental barriers, these buildings now include soaring atria, commercial workplace design, fabrication labs and maker-spaces.

They deliver more than productivity; they are buildings that people love to be in, with event spaces, cafes, lounges, and art galleries.

Ideas borrowed from other fields that challenge academics to reach out beyond their departmental boundaries.

At international universities, three different campus strategies reflect this willingness to engage with industry.

Words by Michaela Sheahan and Sheree Proposch

1. You come to us

Globally, a major priority for both government and higher education is to prepare the next generation for jobs in science, engineering and technology – and new architecture on university campuses reflects that shift in focus.

As education moves from ‘what can we know?’ to ‘what can we do?’ science and engineering buildings are no longer insular and hidden, but facing outward toward their communities – transparent and architecturally striking places that feel better connected to the world beyond their walls. They are designed to contribute to a campus identity that exudes commitment to innovation and purpose, and to attract heavy-hitting talent and funding.

Industry engagement is central to this transformation.

Thanks to our insatiable appetite to know who’s doing what, no one stays ahead of the pack for long. Design strategies on Australian campuses are similar to those in Europe, the UK and North America, reflecting changing curricula, technology and demographics.

Collaborative learning hubs, bookless libraries and smaller teaching spaces are appearing everywhere. But the rise of industry partnerships in academic

research is changing architecture on campus more and more.

We expect universities to explore the big challenges of our time, and then to find a way to solve them. As a result, universities are starting to connect with industry in a more inclusive way. Partnerships are not only paths to more funding and more productive research.

Affiliation with a university also brings credibility to commercial ventures, just as a business partnership brings commercial potential to academic research.

In the past, universities allocated each faculty a building with staff offices, lecture theatres and tutorial rooms – hopefully all close to a library and a few cheap-food outlets.

Science buildings were full of cramped labs and musty corridors where academics shared critical discoveries with each other. Outsiders were really not part of the picture. But the new drive to commercialise research means these faculties now want spaces with transparent and flexible architecture, in landmark locations, so they can showcase their talent and achievements.

This creates a raft of design opportunities. Dispensing with walls,

Looking In, Looking Out

Bringing businesses into faculty buildings is the most common approach. It capitalises on existing university land, infrastructure and proximity to other academic departments. For industry, a campus presence increases exposure to specialised talent pools. It also doubles as a subtle advertisement for their work.

A self-described ‘front door to the UK advanced materials community’, the Henry Royce Institute

by NBBJ (opening in 2020) will connect academics at the University of Manchester and other institutions with all parts of the advanced materials supply chain. It will invite everyone from start-ups to multinationals to participate at a range of scales – from daily equipment hire to long-term research projects in sectors as diverse as healthcare and aeronautics.1

It will also contribute to a compelling story about the university’s commitment to industry, including most recently the National Graphene Institute (Jestico+White), and the current Manchester Engineering Campus Development (Meccanoo).

While Manchester’s model includes many changing partnerships, the University of Bolton's National Centre for Motorsport Engineering has partnered with just one highly specialised company, RLR Motorsport.

The new facility combines teaching and labs with a vast event and display

Above Marysville recovery continues to struggle Photograph by Robert Stent

Above National Centre for Motorsport Engineering University of Bolton, 2017. Architecture by HASSELL Photo by Mark Cocksedge

space, an incubator for start-ups, and technical workshops for robotic engineering, carbon-fibre weaving and wind tunnels. Bolton’s students get hands-on experience with highperformance racing technology – and RLR gets access to emerging talent.

Some universities are repurposing old facilities rather than starting afresh. But the critical design elements remain the same – visual connection and flexibility. For example, Science Gallery London, a listed building recently upgraded by LTS Architects, fuses the art industry, local community and researchers from King’s College London in an experimental program of exhibitions.

28—29

Architect Victoria

Robohouse at the Technical University Delft has been transformed into an open, flexible space full of large-scale technology. And over a dozen robotics companies use it to test their products while networking with students and researchers.2 2. We’ll come to you As the space squeeze intensifies on inner-city campuses, universities are looking to industrial zones for their larger engineering operations.

The University of Sheffield has invested heavily in engineering, bringing industry onto the city campus in their signature building, The Diamond, and working with industry →

Article —

Above Robohouse, Technical University of Delft, the Netherlands, 2018 Architecture by ArchitectuurMAKEN Photo by Ossip van Duivenbode

in their own setting further afield at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Campus. The Diamond brings Siemens data and researchers in close contact with students in a lounge beside a small maker-space, while their ‘landmark circular glass building’ – Factory 2050 – on the outskirts of town provides ample space for industrial-scale technology used by the university, Boeing and Siemens.3

30—31

3. Somewhere new Some universities are choosing to reimagine the old science park model with a more visible academic presence. Here they can make a bold statement of intent, with room to grow and architecture that accommodates the objectives of multiple parties.

Three Canadian universities (Toronto, York and Ryerson) are partners at MaRS, a private, not-for-profit biotech incubation organisation in inner

Looking In, Looking Out

city Toronto.4 A large atrium space connecting the researchers and startups working in the towers is also used for community events, publicising research activity to a broad audience.

And on Roosevelt Island in New York City, Cornell Tech is a fastgrowing technology precinct anchored by the Tata Innovation Center (by Weiss/Manfredi), where students, start-ups and established researchers are co-located on a prominent island

campus with parks, a function centre, hotel and residential accommodation.5

At first glance, these approaches are similar across the world, but there are subtle regional variations due to political and economic circumstances. In the US, the long-lasting effects of the Great Recession combined with student demand have created unprecedented investment in new facilities at the expense of maintenance of old buildings.6

In the UK, Brexit negotiations may lower European student demand7 and dull the potential for industry partnerships as companies threaten to relocate to Europe. Despite this, new medical research and STEM facilities represent the largest area of capital spending from the Russell Group universities – and they promise the best return on investment for the UK government.8

Once upon a time, education’s focus was selfimprovement and enlightenment. Now, tertiary education is an economic driver for governments and a means to a job for students. Gone are the days of individual faculty buildings with a host of obscure spaces. Now, transparent, multi-faculty science and engineering facilities have emerged as an open invitation for industry to work with academia.

Whether they’re on campus, off campus or in brand new collaborative precincts, these buildings symbolise a university’s dedication to solving some of the most pressing problems facing our world.

Michaela Sheahan is a senior researcher at HASSELL. Michaela provides HASSELL designers with evidence to inform their project work across a number of sectors, with a focus on education, health and urban design. This broad spectrum of work enables Michaela to bring a holistic outlook to the research, analysis and benchmarking exercises that large dynamic projects require.

Architect Victoria

Sheree Proposch is an architect and principal at HASSELL, focusing on social infrastructure precincts and projects – universities, healthcare and research facilities, the industries they engage with, and the knowledge clusters they create.

Notes 1

BBJ, 2019, www.nbbj.com/work/henry-royce-institute/

Design Boom , Robots are taking over this former campus building at Delft University, www. designboom.com/architecture/robohouse-robovalleyarchitectuurmaken-tu-delft-university-01-18-2019/ 2

3 AMRC, 2019, Factory 2050, www.amrc.co.uk/facilities/ factory-2050 4

MaRS, 2019, www.marsdd.com/about/

Cornell Tech, 2019.Website at https://tech.cornell.edu/ campus/tata-innovation-center/ 5

6 Sightlines, 2017, State of Facilities in Higher Education, www.sightlines.com/insight/2018-state-of-facilities/

The Australian, 2018, Warnings that Brexit could impact overseas student enrolments. January 17th, 2018

7

8 Biggar Economics, 2014, Economic Impact of the Russell group Investment Plans, www.russellgroup.ac.uk/ media/5256/economic-impact-of-the-capital-investmentplans-of-the-russell-group-universities.pdf

Looking In, Looking Out

Article —

Art on campus

Words by Charlotte Day

Artworks have been integrated into the buildings of Monash University since the opening of the university in the early 1960s, and pieces by Leonard French, John Perceval and Clive Murray White remain some of the most recognised and appreciated artworks on campus to this day.

Monash’s art collection has grown and developed across the intervening sixty years along with the university itself.

One of the principle drivers of the Art on Campus program, which includes substantial displays of artworks from the collection in over 66 buildings, is a mission to inspire students and staff through art experiences that challenge and encourage seeing, thinking and feeling differently.

Universities with longer histories, like the University of Melbourne, have collections acquired over hundreds of years that encompass Classical antiquities, archeological artefacts, scientific instruments, natural history items, First Nations material culture, contemporary art and much more. The recently opened Arts West building in Melbourne’s Faculty of Arts designed

by ARM Architecture includes integrated display areas for different collections, specially designed

32—33

rooms for studying cultural material and spaces for public exhibitions.

Likewise, the University of Sydney’s ambitious 7,600-square-metre Chau Chak Wing Museum, designed by Johnson Pilton Walker, which is due to open in 2020, will bring its broad ranging arts, archeology and sciences collections under one roof and across fourteen separate exhibits. Both projects are examples of how collections are increasingly recognised as valuable educational resources and demonstrate how they are being put to use in specific teaching and learning programs.

As this issue of Architect Victoria attests, many universities across Australia have initiated major infrastructure and campus enhancement projects over the last decade, and art and related collections are playing an increasingly important role in the process of these campus renewal programs.

Many universities now have public art masterplans that are linked to other planning documents, visions and strategic frameworks. Some, like the universities of Melbourne and Sydney, are planning new or expanded cultural facilities, and many others have committed public art budgets.

Architect Victoria

In most instances though, these dedicated expenditures have been established by arbitrary means rather than through a set percentage of the capital works program budget.

This is an exciting time and context for art-making because it involves a high degree of collaboration and consultation, between artists and architects, landscape architects, experience designers, educators, building and property divisions and so on. This interdisciplinary work can lead to a range of publicly accessible outcomes including permanently sited works, temporal elements and ephemeral interventions. Nonetheless there is a considerable difference between making art for a gallery or related supportive setting and working outside of that context. The big challenge for those commissioning public art is to embrace the opportunity to be innovative and not restrict the artists or kinds of practices represented. It is important that there is a commissioning context in which risks can be taken and artists are supported to work together with architects and relevant stakeholders to test new approaches to public art.

Many universities are taking a leadership role in this space. As well as making a contribution to art and culture, universities are often motivated by the desire to enrich the campus experience and to contribute ‘a sense of inclusion, diversity, openness and engagement’ to quote the University of Sydney’s Art in the Public Realm Strategy.

This is a common thread. At Deakin University, Professor David Cross and Associate Professor Katya Johanson have established the Public Art Commission to research the curation and delivery of public funded and commissioned arts projects. Their research will also focus on measuring the impact of public art initiatives and is anticipated to become a very useful resource. →

Left Kulata Tjuata (many spears) consists of 277 handcarved spears made by a group of senior men working with young men from the Tjala Arts Centre, 2015 Photo by Dianna Snape

Above 18 Innovation Walk, Monash University Architecture by Kosloff Architecture with Callum Morton and Monash Arts Projects Photo by Andrew Lloyd

Some of the most exciting developments recently are projects that acknowledge the traditional lands and Indigenous custodianship of university campuses. Monash University’s recently released Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Framework clearly prioritises ‘integrating Indigenous perspectives and knowledges into our buildings and landscapes in prominent and visible positions’. Kulata Tjuta, which consists of 277 hand-carved spears made by a group of senior men working with young men from the Tjala Arts Centre in the community of Amata in South Australia, is the focal point of the Cox Architecture—renovated Matheson Library at Monash Clayton Campus and brings Indigenous knowledge and culture front and centre in the home of humanities.

34—35

Another project underway at Monash by Quandamooka woman artist Megan Cope involves a number of interventions into the plaza that welcomes students onto campus.

Cope’s project includes words and phrases in twenty languages that were shared with the artist by Indigenous staff and students at Monash. This work will also includes a cast bronze sculpture that references an early nineteenth century tarnuk held in the First Peoples collection of Museum Victoria. The original tarnuk was made from the gnarl of a gum tree hollowed out by gouging and fire, while the bronze replica has been cast from a mould of a 3D model of the original, thus marrying customary practice and new technologies. Cope’s project has involved consultation with communities and Elders and created

Looking In, Looking Out

the opportunity for many people to be engaged in its conception, have investment in its realisation and plan for its future activation.

A consultative process is also recognised in RMIT University’s Ngarara Place located in the centre of its city campus. Led by an Indigenous design team including Greenaway Architects, the project was conceived to create a place for ceremony, remembrance and reflection and includes built elements, plantings and art. The result is both a dynamic site of cultural expression as well as an educational setting that articulates the six to seven seasons of the Kulin Nation. The architect of this project, Wailwan and Kamilaroi man, Jefa Greenaway, is a high-profile commentator and advocate for the integration of Indigenous knowledge

into the built environment and public realm. Moving away from a focus on the production of artefacts to concentrating on process and involving Indigenous principles in relation to siting, sustainability and cultural awareness, Greenaway’s approach is leading the way forward in public practice.

Bidjara, Garingal and Ghungalu man Dale Harding’s artwork SPINE 2 at the University of Sydney will consist of three elements (the first completed) and is an extraordinarily elegant work that references the sandstone that defines many of the university’s buildings, and connects to the sandstone country that rises and falls along the spine of Eastern Australia. This major public art commission also draws on its location in proximity to the environmental sciences department, acknowledges the coexistence of different knowledge systems, and creates the opportunity for dialogue between them.

As in Harding’s project, which will involve the establishment of a garden of Indigenous plantings too, the most interesting public art developments are where artists play a key role in the conception and design development of a building or site. At Monash, artist Callum Morton was employed as an artist consultant to great effect, working with Kosloff Architecture and Monash Arts Projects on a new skin and entry to the building housing the Science and Psychology departments. We are currently working with ARM Architects on an art colonnade to grace the new Chancellery Building. This project involves a number of artists who will create ‘cultural markers – each culturally, materially and formally unique – an assembly that together represents the qualities and endeavors of the University itself’ according to the vision of architect Ian McDougall.

Not all projects are necessarily permanent materially although their impact may be far longer and deeper. In 2018 Kuku Yalanji, Waanji, Yidinji and Gugu Yimithirr man Vernon Ah Kee installed a series of large words across the

Architect Victoria

busy Fenn Place thoroughfare within the City West campus of University of South Australia. Although temporal, the scale and prominence of the words, asserts the significance of Indigenous languages in defining culture and identity and highlights the enduring presence of Kaurna culture and connection to country. Another model initiated by the University of Melbourne is generative in a different way. In the lead-up to the design and build of the New Student Precinct project the university collaborated with the art organisation, Next Wave, to produce a series of public art installations, programming and mentorship initiatives that creates connection to the past, the present and also contributes to the future of the site.

In researching this article, there were a great number of significant university art projects in development that were not able to be made public yet, suffice to say that it looks to be an incredibly productive period of public realm activity ahead.

Watch this space!

Charlotte Day joined Monash University Museum of Art as Director in 2013. Previously she worked as an independent curator and was Associate Curator at the Australian Centre for Contemporary Art (ACCA) where she worked on largescale commissions by local and international artists. Charlotte has worked across a range of public and private contexts, from advising on temporary and permanent urban-sited works to the acquisition of works for public and private collections.

Article —

Planting architecture in design Words by Jane Burry

In 2018, Swinburne University of Technology opened its doors to undergraduate architecture students.1,2 Architectural engineering was launched simultaneously. This year, in August, Swinburne will welcome the first postgraduate students in the Master of Architecture, Master of Urban Design and combined Master of Architecture and Urban Design.3

These programs are planted into the fertile ground of one of Victoria’s oldest and most prestigious design schools.4 They join established courses in interior architecture, industrial design, product design engineering and wideranging disciplines in communication design. All are located at the Hawthorn campus in the Advanced Manufacturing and Design Centre (AMDC) – an 11-storey building with deep atria, sky lounge and elevated garden, atop a line of incorporated local shops (UK-based Wilkinson Eyre with Jacobs SKM, 2014).5,6,7

Swinburne’s Faculty of Design became a School in the Faculty of Health, Arts and Design in 2014 as part of larger university restructuring.

The newly created School of Design traded its historical creative heartland on the Prahran campus next to Chapel Street for cross-university

opportunities to work with other disciplines. Design academics in all disciplines in the School, including Centre for Design Innovation researchers,8 currently work with industry, community and colleagues across health, social science, media, film and TV, engineering, even astronomy and biotechnology to make a difference in headline areas such as design for wellbeing, opportunities of advanced manufacturing, and architectural and urban ecologies.

The Advanced Technology Centre (H2o 2011), and AMDC building transformed the face to Burwood Road. Wakefield Street is a fondly inhabited park in the heart of the campus, providing views of greenery to the Vice Chancellor’s office and student housing alike. Glenferrie station, central to the campus, happily locates us within 12 minutes of Flinders Street. The two pedestrian concourses running under the railway line that bisects the campus are the life lines linking the two sides of the campus, and, by channelling the whole community through them, vital locales for chance encounter, a favourite spot for pop-up booths and student activity.

Looking In, Looking Out

The Swinburne Design Factory, (now Design Factory Melbourne or DFM),9 is a pioneer network node of the original Design Factory in Aalto University, Finland.

It brings together teams of design, business, engineering and IT students for design-led innovation with industry. In 2018, DFM moved from the AMDC into the new Innovation Hub next door in the extended historic Hawthorn Fire Station on Williams Street (H2o, 2018).10 DFM’s former home with the design studios on AMDC level 5 was converted to justin-time architecture studios and a new state of the art 'soft prototyping space' with student friendly small-scale robotics, laser cutting, 3D printing, hot-wire cutting and more.

Meanwhile the new Swinburne Protolab on the corner of Wakefield, John and William streets, is the expansion of the digital fabrication workshop that already boasted an exceptional collection of advanced technologies for the industrial design and product engineering programs (H2o, 2019).11 It has vastly increased the size and scope of the workshop to accommodate the new architecture cohorts, to upscale industrial robotics, and create an open visual interface to the campus. Importantly it supports the opportunity to take multiple classes simultaneously more easily into the making spaces.

The university has committed to a major refit of floors on the AMDC building occupied by the School of Design. To date, the School has slotted into and worked within shared occupancy spaces conceived for higher educational activity, pleased to be co-located as a School within the same building. The refit will give greater visibility and identity to design activities, including architecture, within the building. This means not only conceiving of staff work areas and teaching spaces that are able to accommodate future growth supported by workplace research, but foregrounding ‘designerly’ activity, formal and informal display and exhibition, and accommodating diverse ways of working: making,

Above Swinburne University of Technology from Burwood Road features H2o Architects timber dome structure for Swinburne's FOFI project (factory of the future).

Photo by Trevor Mein

prototyping, experimentation and scholarship. This also means underpinning the collaborative work culture with spaces that genuinely support it, are more open to external partners, and exploit the building’s natural advantages of light and spectacular Hawthorn views to do so.

Kerstin Thompson Architects have just been appointed as the architect.

While other universities are already enjoying the fruits of quite radical long-term masterplanning, the sense of anticipation and further spatial and organisational potentiality at Swinburne makes it a very exciting place to work right now.

Jane Burry is the Dean of the School of Design in the Faculty of Health Arts and Design at Swinburne University of Technology.

36—37

Architect Victoria

Notes www.swinburne.edu.au/study/course/bachelor-ofdesign-architecture/ 2 ssuu.com/swinarchitecture/docs/architecture_booklet 3 www.swinburne.edu.au/news/browse-by-category/ design/ 4 Formerly known as the National School of Design (NSD) 5 www.wilkinsoneyre.com/projects/advancedmanufacturing-centre-swinburne-university-oftechnology-melbourne 6 www.swinburne.edu.au/research/strengthsachievements/specialist-facilities/advancedmanufacturing-and-design-centre/ 7 www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXF11UBf09w 8 www.cdiengage.com.au 9 dfm.org.au/about/ 10 www.swinburne.edu.au/innovation-precinct/ 11 fhadprotolab.com 1

Article —

The regional campus Words by Michael Bouteloup and Tim Daborn

Many of Victoria’s first regional universities were established following an increased national focus on tertiary education during the Menzies era through the Australian Universities Commission in 1959.

Monash University (Clayton c.1958), La Trobe University, (Bundoora c.1964) and Deakin University (Geelong c.1978) created campuses evolved from the traditional understanding of the campus as a ‘field’1 and also became known as the verdant or 'gumtree'2 universities. Where Deakin University was first established solely as a regional campus, Monash and La Trobe universities have since expanded to add regional campuses.3 As new universities, their architectural language was consciously modern, typically constructed of concrete and glass rather than the stone and brick of the first universities. Their designs heavily referenced the modern architectural concepts derived from new English universities such as the University of Sussex (c.1961), East Anglia University (c.1963) and the University of Essex (c.1963).4 Yunken Freeman’s masterplan and architectural work at La Trobe University used a similar language as seen in Essex, where networked courtyards were embedded

38—39

into a formalised landscape of concourses, concrete structure was expressed, with repetition and shaped feature buildings. The modernist language was further extended by Robin Boyd in his design for Menzies College. While some may view the original Yunken Freeman vision at La Trobe as a limitation on the capacity for change, there have been projects where the campus' emblematic architectural tropes are used to break the mould. For instance, the La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science (Lyons c.2013) explores repetition and the use of the concourse.

A further impact on regional campuses was the removal of the distinction between the university and non-university sector in 1988, which permitted new generation universities where colleges and technical schools were incorporated into new universities, inheriting a collection of buildings of varying type and style.

Ballarat University originated from the 1870 School of Mines and a number of organisations over its lifetime until becoming Federation University in 2013. Similarly, Monash University’s Gippsland Campus – which also became part of Federation University – began life as the Yallourn Technical School in 1928, training workers for a

Looking In, Looking Out

local power station. The architectural outcomes of such mergers are less coherent and often result in newer buildings urgently seeking to create an identity, usually with mixed results.

The contemporary regional campus is distinguished by these two origins, which are also reflected in their architecture. Regional campuses also have greater demands placed on their buildings and facilities as they do not have the economies of scale of larger campuses and funding margins are much tighter than a campus where there is a critical mass of buildings.

Hence, many regional campuses have been pragmatic with buildings that have evolved under a series of different institutions. A great architectural example of this is the Clyde Cameron College (c.1975) in Albury by Kevin Borland of the Architects Group. Originally designed as a Trade Union Training Academy, the campus subsequently became a College of Advanced Education before La Trobe University acquired it.

The wider impact of a university beyond its campus perimeter is also evident more significantly in regional centres than in metropolitan areas. Where historically a town was typically designed around the location of its church, town hall, post office and primary school, the university is now the key driver of urban and social planning within many regional towns and cities, where the large influx of population has a wide-felt impact on the regional city as a whole.

Ballarat, Bendigo, Warrnambool and Geelong now gain a great deal of their identity through being university towns, where the ever-changing infrastructure of La Trobe, Federation and Deakin universities, physically define each city. Deakin University, for example, was originally sited on a paddock beyond the boundary of Geelong at Waurn Ponds. Now surrounded by development, the campus has been paramount to the growth and function of the southern region of the city. The university has also redefined existing infrastructure: its waterfront campus,

Above School of Medicine Optometry Clinic, Deakin University, 2019 Architecture by Bourke & Bouteloup Architects Photo by Tom Ross

when opened, instantly regenerated a desolate area of the city and strengthened the university’s influence on the city as a whole.

The Waurn Ponds campus has expanded to include a number of large low-rise technical buildings around a student centre and new campus sporting facilities (reflecting a push for student wellbeing, common across contemporary campuses). The recent Epworth hospital adjacent the campus has a physical connection with the university. This reflects the relationship with the city as a university town and demonstrates a new outward focus that campuses are harnessing.

One of our recent projects, the School of Medicine Optometry Clinic at the Waurn Ponds campus, combines a learning space with an accredited optometry practice.

The design allows students to gain experience with patient diagnosis and consulting – evidence of a university tailoring a relatively recent building

to an evolving education program.

The inherent flux in a campus can be addressed in a manner which does not dilute identity or coherence, but uses existing architecture and spaces as infrastructure for reconceiving an existing architectural language.

There are many fine examples where the strategic thinking of universities combined with equally thoughtful architectural responses have permitted change and new space typologies for the campus. Whether regional or metropolitan based, campuses also act as a catalyst on critical parts of the city or region and also as microcosms of the city.

Michael Bouteloup is a Director at Bourke and Bouteloup Architects who specialise in campus, learning and research buildings. Michael undertook a Design Research Masters at RMIT University in 2010, titled Campus and Effect, Ways of Designing Incompletely.

Architect Victoria

Tim Daborn is a Graduate of Architecture at Bourke and Bouteloup Architects and worked on the Deakin University School of Medicine, Optometry Clinic.

Notes The term campus derives from ‘field’ (‘open field, battlefield’ from camp ‘open space for military exercise’) originating in Roman military installations eg Campus Martius. The German ‘kampf’ (also from camp) refers more directly to ‘battle’ or ‘struggle’. Campus was first used in a college sense at Princeton University, (previously College of New Jersey, 1746) as a transformation of the Italian word ‘campo’, meaning shaped piazza, court or pitch (eg campo da tennis) 2 Moodie, G. Types of Australian Universities, www. academia.edu/310547/Types_of_Australian_universities accessed February 2019 3 Some of these campuses were regional at the time of founding and have since been subsumed by Melbourne’s relentless urban growth. As such, in many instances the changed relationship of the regional campus with the city and suburbs has forced a re-consideration of their role and identity.

4 University of Essex, masterplan by Kenneth Capon, Architects Co-Partnership, was designed as a new University in the UK in New Brutalism, see J Lubbock, 'Something Fierce' Exhibition Guide, September 2014 for further discussion. Also, University of Sussex, masterplan

by Sir Basil Spence with feature circular plan buildings similar to the original La Trobe masterplan.

1

Article —

On campus living Words by Ken Ng

Living on campus has been vital to a good education since the early days of universities. This experience not only promoted academic excellence, but also imbued students with the necessary skills for life and a network of life-long friends.

Unlike other housing typologies which are for a wide demographic, student accommodation caters almost exclusively for 17 to 24 year olds. The architecture of student accommodation therefore is informed by the needs of this demographic, traditions of a university, its history, culture, governance, contemporary pedagogy and market forces.

Although colleges and halls of residences have traditionally provided accommodation for students on campus, their relationship to a university and what academic and pastoral-care functions they provide, varies from university to university and from country to country. Universities such as Oxford and Cambridge have colleges and halls of residences that were formed by the university under a federated structure. These colleges and halls provide accommodation, and also performed all of the tutorial and formal teaching functions while the university conducted examinations and conferred degrees.

In Australian universities, living on campus is not compulsory and is not a requirement for obtaining degrees. Teaching, examinations and conference of degrees are centralised within the university, and colleges and halls are separately governed, providing accommodation and pastoral care only. Regardless of governance and the extent of academic functions that a college or hall may provide, students that live on campus have demonstrably higher academic achievements and an enhanced university experience.

With compulsory contact time reducing, it is academic excellence and the enhanced student experience from on-campus living, along with the ever-increasing demand for education and university places that have motivated universities to increase accommodation offerings to attract their share of the best and brightest. Many universities now offer accommodation guarantees for all their undergraduate students and encouraging them to take up a once in a life time, live on campus education. In addition to traditional and independent colleges and halls, universities are now building and operating their own accommodation, and also in partnerships with private

Looking In, Looking Out

providers, developing accommodation on and off campus.

The student accommodation typology takes on many forms.

Typologies include multi-bed cluster apartments in large accommodation buildings and stand-alone shared houses; colleges with all meals included, and also colleges which are self-catered. The private sector continues to pursue high-end studio type apartments off campus, whereas, universities seek to provide diverse options for students requiring greater affordability in housing.

Student accommodation built in the past ten years has trended from an individual centred living model, towards a traditional collegiate and cohort centred model.

Masterplanning of most campuses has moved away from traditions of a centralised academic core with peripheral residential accomodation to vibrant 24/7 hubs, as is the case with RMIT University. Day-time classes and nocturnal lifestyles mean Swanston and Elizabeth streets, with their mix of faculties, the State Library of Victoria and high-density student accommodation, provide an economy of eateries and service providers that cater specifically to the student demographic. In the push to create ‘sticky’ campuses, universities are now developing a lifestyle where student accommodation is at the heart of the campus and provides all the necessities from morning to night.

Our approach to student accommodation architecture is that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Each university campus and each project will have different requirements based on site context, the university’s strategic vision and its masterplan, demand demographics and the mix of current accommodation offerings. Every project will require its own innovative approach to functional and operational requirements, social and architectural design responses.

In 2013 Deakin University opened a 300-bed residence at → Right Waratah Place, Deakin University, 2017 Architecture by Nettletontribe Architects Photo by Chris Matterson

Architect Victoria

Above Wamburun Hall, Australian National University, 2019 Architecture by Nettletontribe Architects Photo by Rodrigo Vargas

their Waurn Ponds Campus, and a further 100-bed residence at their Warrnambool campus. These projects were laid out in an all studio configuration across large sites in low-rise buildings, each with central and dispersed communal spaces and linked by landscaped edible gardens.

Victoria University opened the 508-bed UniLodge@VU in 2015 in partnership with a private provider, comprising studios and a substantial mix of two- and six-bed shared apartments. Deakin University opened Waratah Place with 577 beds in Burwood and 410 beds in Geelong, also in shared configurations.

In 2015, the University of Sydney refurbished the Queen Mary building, a former nurses quarters in the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital precinct. This project aimed to offer accommodation 30 per cent below market rent, and reversed the norm of apartment-style buildings. The building featured 800 single occupant bedrooms with centralised shared bathrooms and extensive communal areas throughout. The 500-bed Wamburun Hall at the Australian National University recently opened in 2019 with a similar self-catered college model. The University of Melbourne is following with a 578-bed hall on

Bouverie Street in Carlton. Common to all, is the need to create a safe, inclusive and healthy environment.

Students need spaces for private study and sleeping as well as social spaces that facilitate interaction for recreation and group academic activities.

Space planning that allows graduated levels of privacy, providing students the privacy that they need, the opportunity for chance meetings, and the gathering of small and large friendship groups will facilitiate students with a well balanced and social lifestyle.

Shared accommodation has its obvious advantages. Living in these environments means that students will have others that will look out for them.

In studio-oriented developments, the location of essential shared facilities such as bathrooms, laundries, rubbish chutes, lifts, stairs, entries and foyers become critically important.

Circulation routes that pass through nodal points increase the opportunity for human interaction. A single point of entry and reception is a way of ensuring some interaction and the chance to assess the wellbeing of students as they come and go.

Good sightlines across all spaces is also important. At Deakin Burwood,

Looking In, Looking Out

Waratah Place has semi-private communal spaces overlooking open walkways and circular voids around vertical circulation nodes. At Deakin Geelong, apartment living and dining areas looking into a shared communal void provide views across to each other and across Corio Bay.

The architecture of student accommodation is first and foremost governed by the need to facilitate social interaction, balancing the need for private study and sleeping with the need for human contact. Our responsibility is to create spaces with affordable rents that shape the best days of one’s life, while designing and providing beautiful buildings that are robust and rigorous to accomodate and nurture student life.

Ken Ng is a studio director of Nettletontribe with over ten years experience designing student accommodation for universities and private providers around Australia.

His work in this area spans Deakin University, Victoria University, the University of Melbourne, University of Tasmania, University of Sydney, University of Canberra and the Australian National University. Ken has insight into creating designs specific to a university’s traditions, ethos and constituent cohorts.

Article —

The vertical campus Words by Sarah Ball

Tall university buildings are not new.

At 11 storeys and 50 metres tall the modernist Menzies Building has been a landmark at Monash University’s Clayton campus since the 1960s, while the Redmond Barry Building (12 storeys, 1961) and the Raymond Priestley Building (11 storeys, 1970) have long stood tall on the University of Melbourne Parkville campus.

These and traditional buildings like them in a landscaped campus setting were for the most part designed for a single faculty and are programmed in a customary way. From elevated lecture theatres, tutorial rooms and laboratories, students and staff come down to the ground plane to use common facilities such as the library, social settings and student amenities.

In contrast, RMIT and the Australian Catholic University, with their inner-city locations and limited campus footprints, have been compelled to expand and redevelop their campuses by going up rather than out. Building 8 on Swanton Street signified RMIT’s commitment to a forward and design-led building program, setting a new standard for RMIT’s infrastructure in the 1990s. The multilevel building housed multiple faculties, a library and the student union. The recent completion of New

42—43

Academic Street revitalises Building 8, 10, 12 and 14 where, by reconceiving the heart of the campus, the student experience is enhanced. Learning spaces are interconnected and the spatial planning prioritises informal, incidental and social interactions.

Deakin University’s Geelong Waterfront Campus is another vertical campus setting. Here, all the university functions – teaching and learning, staff, library, student services, and food and beverage – are housed within the multi-level architecturally significant historic Woolstores building in the city centre.

Vertical urbanism – hybrid education buildings programmed to make full use of the vertical dimension to support better experiences – is the key difference between these contemporary and traditional examples. More than just tall buildings, they represent the emergence of a new typology. As universities compete for enrolments, the key driver of this emerging typology is the quality of student experience.

The vertical campus is often a satellite city campus to an established university’s main suburban campus.

In the heart of a central business district their location invites the

Architect Victoria

campus to knit into the existing city infrastructure – transport, food and beverage, retail and accommodation.

A true vertical campus is multifaculty with a range of typical campus functions to enhance student experiences within one building.

The rise of the vertical campus has also been made possible by universities embracing new financial models. Where typically universities are owner, developer and occupier of their education buildings, vertical campuses are being delivered in partnership with developers and universities taking on long-term leases.

In 2016 Western Sydney University (WSU) opened its flagship campus in Parramatta, Sydney.

Now known as the Peter Shergold Building, the Parramatta City Campus is a standalone campus within an A-grade commercial building. It was developed and is owned by Charter Hall. WSU has a 15-year lease with options up to 40 years, confirming a long-term commitment to the campus and the Parramatta Square precinct.

The 14-storey building was a catalyst project driving the renewal of one of Australia's biggest urban precincts and supports the ambition for the transformation of Parramatta into a true university city.

Embedded in central Parramatta, students and staff can access public transport easily with the adjacent transport interchange, connecting rail and bus networks to the Sydney CBD and beyond.

Digital wayfinding at the front door and throughout all levels of the campus indicate links to the transport hub. Students are within reach of local facilities, and in turn, the local community has access to WSU’s educational, research and consulting services. The design facilitates through-site connections to a local network of civic and cultural strategies. →

Article —

Right The central atrium of the Western Sydney University Parramatta City Campus is the building’s heart; vital for activation and high utilisation, 2016 Base building by Architectus, fit-out by Woods Bagot Photo by Nicole England

The 14-storey building is a pivotal campus whose vertical learning environment is designed to connect the university to business, industry and the community – a hallmark of WSU’s emphasis on developing employable and work-ready graduates.

Originally intended as an office building, it was transformed into an education campus part way through the design, after rigorously testing the flexibility and resilience of the initial commercial base design. The first ten storeys are occupied by WSU with PWC occupying the top four floors.

The challenge within these campus buildings over so many floors is to create and support the opportunities for students and educators to co-mingle and interact. Centred on the concept of me (student), we (university), us (community), the interiors concept for the Peter Shergold Building intends to blur the lines between a traditional commercial office tower and a functional university campus.

The building has a porous core; the central atrium is the building’s heart, promoting a sense of community and connectivity for greater mobility while aiding sightlines between floors. A central lift core sees students and industry mingle on the ground-floor lobby. Interconnecting stairs and voids encourage collaboration and organic conversation as all users move through the campus. Voids and stairs may occupy otherwise lettable space but without them activation and high utilisation of the vertical campus will fail.

Changes in pedagogy and technology have enabled such a campus to evolve within a commercial building. There are no lecture theatres; instead, the design focuses on an interactive approach to teaching and learning – a prominent aspect of WSU curriculum. The campus is

44—45

a showpiece for blended learning (a combination of online and face-toface learning) in a future-focused, spatially diverse and student-centred environment. With an agnostic approach to the interior fit-out, the design allows for truly flexible and future-proofed learning environments.

Free-flowing movement across each floor plate creates moments for discovery and serendipitous interactions for students and staff.

Similarly, Victoria University (VU) is reconceptualising its city presence in Melbourne’s CBD. Announced late last year, the new City West Tower is being developed

by ISPT and leased back to the university. The new 24,000-squaremetre building spanning 32 levels will drive consolidation of its city campus into a single precinct. The precinct will include library, student services, informal learning, active classrooms for undergraduate, postgraduate, pathway programs and the VU Polytechnic, alongside the academic and administrative workplace. VU research centres will also have an important presence. It will be a true vertical campus in height, mix of functions and access to a spectrum of stacked spaces bringing people and resources closer together. Flat-floor learning spaces and course-specific spaces are supported by informal spaces throughout. With no lecture theatres the campus is able to be developed within a commercial tower design. Importantly, the planning and inclusion of social spaces promote student and staff interaction across most levels.

True vertical education campuses are changing what we think a tertiary campus must be, as well as the way in which universities design and deliver their assets.

With a commitment to blended learning environments universities

Looking In, Looking Out

are exploring traditional commercial office buildings as sites for new campuses. At a time when almost every single space typology on campus is being reconsidered, many of these spaces can work within a commercial floorplate and be developed within a commercially-focused financial model.

What differentiates a vertical campus from tall buildings on campus? Rather than a facultybased tall building with teaching spaces in the lower levels, a vertical campus blends a variety of occupants and spatial typologies, distributed throughout the tower. A one-stop-shop for learning in a single building.

Sarah Ball is a principal at Woods Bagot and leads their education sector in Australia. Core to her role is enhancing learning opportunities through design; driving every project is Sarah’s abiding interest in understanding how people relate to one another in a learning environment – and supporting those exchanges and interactions through design.

Equally, Sarah is attracted to projects where knowledge and research are transferred across typologies, where projects – largely because of their complexity, but also because of new procurement models – demand a highly coordinated and integrated approach.

Architect Victoria

Interview —

Russell Elliott interview Interview by Jocelyn Chiew

There are few people in the university sector with Russell Elliott’s breadth of experience in campus design and development. He has led transformations at Deakin, Melbourne and Monash universities, where he has helmed significant changes to procurement practice and policy, chaired innumerable PCGs, and overseen the delivery of highly significant projects – now an indelible part of these institutions’ identities.

His projects have changed the face of our city – impacting parts of Geelong and Southbank, and resonating at a city scale. In October 2018 Russell was appointed Associate to the Chief Operating Officer (property) at Monash University. Prior to that he was VicePresident (services), a position he held for nine years. Following a project review meeting at Monash University City Conference Centre, we sat down for half an hour to discuss Russell’s insights into the way universities think, where they might head in the future and to recap on a long and illustrious career.

How long have you been working in this space and where did it all start?

I’ve been working in universities for more than forty years. However, the keen interest in physical environments

really started in the mid to late 1980s when I assumed responsibility for Deakin University’s Property Services Division as part of my role as Vice President (administration). I was in this role for twenty years. (Prior to this, Russell trained as a geophysicist and was an educator, a role that explains his reputation as the Gentleman Chair, such is his ability to skillfully and affably manage complex projects.)

On Deakin and the emergence of a new university model Deakin was a university that was growing rapidly, both through mergers and organic growth, and through its pioneering efforts in distance education in Australia. While I was there we undertook a significant number of major capital projects, both at the regional campuses at Waurn Ponds and Warrnambool and at the university’s waterfront campus in Geelong. I was involved in the creation of the latter, and through mergers with other institutions at Warrnambool and various sites across Melbourne, undertook the development or redevelopment of campuses in Geelong, Warrnambool, Rusden, Burwood and Toorak. (Between 1987 and 2004, 89 institutions in Australia offering higher education courses

Looking In, Looking Out

were consolidated to become 39 universities. Scale was seen to provide opportunities and was one of the key reasons for the consolidations.)

This was a period of major redevelopment at Burwood [an existing campus formerly occupied by the Victorian State College and the Burwood High School]. We did the Health Sciences Building J (Wood Marsh 1996), Icon building and those around it (Wood Marsh with Pels Innes Neilson Kosloff 1997), Deakin Central (H2o 2006), and started the International Centre and Business Buildings (H2o 2008). We appointed some very good masterplanners and architects, had a very capable buildings and grounds team and we focussed deliberately on what building design and landscape design meant for those who worked, studied on, or visited our campuses. The designers we worked with, chosen through either competition or by select lists were in sympathy with what we were trying to do to provide congenial spaces which suited the needs of students, staff and the communities within which the various campuses were located.

On Melbourne and the emergence of highly civic partnership projects After my time at Deakin I was very fortunate to spend a period of time at the University of Melbourne looking after their Property and Services Division, while Melbourne undertook some major developments including its involvement in the Southbankbased Melbourne Theatre Company (for Major Projects Victoria/the University of Melbourne/Melbourne Theatre Company, ARM 2008) and Melbourne Recital Centre (for Major Projects Victoria/the University of Melbourne, ARM 2008), their Business and Economics Building (‘The Spot’, Metier 3 2009), Melbourne Brain Centre (Lyons 2011), and major refurbishments of other ageing infrastructure and buildings. I was subsequently asked to be Chair of the group overseeing the design and build of the new Melbourne School of Design (John Wardle Architects and NADAAA 2014) and Arts West (ARM and Architectus 2017), both of which are outstanding buildings in my view.

Above Deakin Health Sciences Building J, 1996 Architecture by Wood Marsh Photo courtesy Wood Marsh Architecture

On Monash and an intense period of campus renewal I joined Monash at a time when the university recognised that a number of its buildings and the areas in which they were located were looking tired and not able to serve adequately the purposes for which they were now being used. It was very exciting to be a part of the team leading the rejuvenation of Monash’s campuses, principally at Clayton and Caulfield, but also at Peninsula. It was a time when Monash more seriously acknowledged the importance of good design in delivering quality, fit-for-purpose buildings, which sat appropriately in their particular campus context.

46—47

Architect Victoria

It’s very pleasing to see today the difference in campus appearance and legibility that has been created in the last eight or nine years. Major building developments have included: a 600-bed NRAS-supported student accommodation development (BVN 2011), New Horizons (Lyons 2013), Green Chemical Futures (Lyons 2015) and the North West Precinct (JCB with MGS masterplanners 2014), a thousand-bed student accommodation [referring to Turner, Logan, Campbell and Holman Halls (JCB, MCR, Hayball and RMA 2016)], the Learning and Teaching Building (JWA 2018), Biomedical Learning and Teaching Building (DCM 2019), Gillies Hall/ Peninsula Accommodation (JCB 2019), the rebirth of Alexander Theatre and →

Interview —

Above Gillies Hall, Monash University Peninsula campus, 2019 Architecture by JCB Architects Photo by Peter Clarke

the new Jazz Club and Sound Gallery (PEA 2018/19), the new Chancellery Building (ARM 2019), and Technology Education Design Building (Grimshaw 2020). A major reworking of Monash’s landscapes with clear connecting walkways and well-designed garden and study spaces are now a feature of its campuses.

It’s been a lot of buildings!

It’s a star-studded cast of university projects.

On the cost of campus development Some people have focussed on how much money these buildings cost – it

48—49

is a large sum, but it follows on from a period of sustained under-investment in campus facilities which are critical to a university’s ability to deliver what is expected of it, particularly in what is now a highly competitive national and international environment. Such major works don’t come cheap but the investment is worthwhile and necessary if we are to keep our campuses as places that students and staff want to be and where they can enjoy spending time. Our work has been guided by the desire to make campuses places to come, and places to stay. And the understanding that

Looking In, Looking Out

we had to do more by way of providing amenities, including food outlets that students like, together with social spaces and activities including events.

These and contemporary formal learning spaces and informal study spaces are essential if we are to keep students a part of the physical campus and to enable them to enjoy the social experience of being at university.

On the future of university campuses I still see the social side of learning, and learning from interactions with other people, as an important part of the university experience. I believe

that campuses have a future but they will have to change and offer more than many do today. We have to have spaces that are functionally suited to the kind of research that is done today, and they can be very demanding in terms of technical requirements and specifications, but they also have to be places that students and staff feel welcome and able to do the things that are important to them. Learning spaces have changed and will no doubt continue to change. There is a challenge in keeping pace with students’ preferred learning modes.

But there is no choice if we are to maintain what we see as our important role in the development of the next generation of professionals and our future leaders.

The services that learning spaces offer – including retail and food – provide opportunities for respite and rejuvenation as well as study, meaning that students don’t have to go off campus to get the services they want and need. Technology will continue to be a growing area of focus – not just for learning but so students and staff can keep up to date with the communities they wish to be a part of. Shade is important, as are our big screens (and other campus activation devices). Students are increasingly concerned that our campuses improve their environmental performance also, and this is an area where we can and should play a leadership role.

Historic buildings need to be treated sensitively and offer opportunities for greater precinct renewal and identity.

Deakin’s Geelong Waterfront Campus (McGlashan Everist 1997) revitalised the historic (and neglected Dalgety) Woolstores on Corio Bay. Lastly, the spaces between buildings are just as important as the spaces within them, in terms of their impact on student and staff experiences.

Architect Victoria

On the value of masterplans and design review Masterplans have a huge role to play in the evolution of campuses. They prompt questions and challenge project teams to think differently about how they might otherwise approach a project. They help to ensure that we are creating the right outcomes and places for our campuses.

Melbourne formed its Design Review Panel in the time that I was there and it considerably lifted the quality of building design on its campuses. Monash did likewise when I arrived (in 2009). Design review panels provide invaluable advice and keep architects on their toes – knowing they are going to have a group of experienced design professionals interacting with them on the nature and quality of the designs that they deliver.

On workplace design More attention has been paid recently to workplace design in universities, noting it is more evolved in the commercial sector. Picking up best practice examples of how other organisations arrange their workplaces will assist. Lend Lease and Arup’s new offices in the Melbourne Quarter (Arup and DCM 2018) have much to commend them in this respect.

On working with architects and other professionals I’ve been privileged to be able to work with wonderful teams of architects, consultants, builders and in-house professionals to do such exciting and satisfying work. →

Interview —

Looking In, Looking Out

Left Melbourne School of Design, located within the historic centre of the University of Melbourne's Parkville campus Architecture by John Wardle Architects in collaboration with Boston architecture firm NADAAA, 2015 Photos by Nils Koenning

It was a happy coincidence for me that I arrived at Monash when I did, I was able to work with Perry Lethlean, Peter Elliott, Geoffrey London, Professor John Redmond, Professor Shane Murray and others, who brought such terrific ideas to Monash processes, projects and initiatives. I’ve done three very satisfying projects with John Wardle Architects – including two stunning new buildings (the Learning and Teaching Building at Clayton, and Melbourne School of Design at the University of Melbourne). I have also been very pleased to work with ARM on two projects, and Lyons (four projects) together with MCR, JCB (four projects), DCM, McGlashan Everist, BKK and now Kosloff Architecture.

As well as working with big established practices and wellrespected designers, we have sought out emerging architects and provided opportunities for them to demonstrate their capabilities. It has been a great experience for these people to be able to work with university design review panel members and the experience it can add to projects.

We choose our architects carefully. We take meeting fit-forpurpose and budget as given and are looking for imaginative ideas and selection of materials as well. We want

50—51

Architect Victoria

to create interesting spaces that work, are pleasing to look at and to be in.

We push for ever-better energy and environmental performance (and have just completed the university-first passive house major project). If we, as institutions who prepare graduates in these fields can’t show what can be done to deliver high performing welldesigned buildings, who will?

I have also had some very satisfying experiences with today’s new generation of builders. Builders who appreciate the importance of design and who make great efforts to find ways of faithfully delivering what architects have imagined. They have been a source of creative construction approaches, ideas on improved material choices and fabrication and many other ideas that have been put to great benefit in the constructibility and quality of many of our buildings.

Article —

Broad perceptions

Words by Emma Telfer

Open House Melbourne is an independent organisation that fosters public appreciation for architecture and public engagement in conversations about the future of our cities. Along with 100-plus special events programed throughout the year, the much-loved Open House Weekend has become an important celebration of architecture across the city and within most major university campuses. While there is no fee to be involved in Open House, universities have hard costs such as staffing, security, cleaning, programming, etc., when opening their doors for extracurricular events such as ours. Some go further and become financial supporters of our program, contributing to Open House Melbourne’s mission in increasing design literacy and inviting people to participate in conversations about architecture, urban planning, and the built environment more broadly.

Why do they invest in conversing with the general public?

What’s the appeal? Melbourne universities are property behemoths, with new buildings, precincts and renewal projects popping up every other day. Open House is an opportunity to be a good neighbour and invite the local community in to

52—53

explore the ever-expanding campus.

This invitation assists in fostering a culture of university campuses as public space instead of the cloistered academic precincts of the past.

Monash University offered no fewer than 37 locations across four campuses in the 2018 Open House building program, creating an opportunity for academics, architects, staff and students who are passionate and knowledgeable about their facilities to hone their skills in presenting complex ideas to a general and industry audience – along with the curious wider community, the Open House audience contains a healthy number of architects, designers, planners and urbanists who jump on any opportunity to take an architecture tour of significant new university buildings and precincts.

University participation also offers an opportunity for deeper reflection. In 2018, we co-presented with Melbourne School of Design ‘The Australian Ugliness’, a three-channel video work by Australian artist Eugenia Lim and installation by WOWOWA that took Robin Boyd’s ideas from the 1960s and stretched them to consider gender, race and identity in relation to our built environment.

Looking In, Looking Out

We have hosted Sensory City Tours through RMIT New Academic Street in partnership with OoPLA, tours that contemplated the sensory nature of the spaces from the perspective of a person with low vision or blindness. The tours focused upon not what the building looks like but what it feels like, smells like and sounds like, and how this supports or isolates different building users.

Why are universities an important part of our program? Along with the expanded program of critical yet accessible enquiry, they offer a hub of experimentation, innovation and regeneration. University buildings are often historically and/or architecturally significant, using the latest in materials and construction techniques, award winning, and some offer insight into the architectural process – all criteria we look for when selecting buildings for our program.

Emma Telfer is the Executive Director of Open House Melbourne, and like the organisation, she champions the city of Melbourne through its built environment. Emma is also a founding partner of the Office for Good Design, a unique curatorial group that works with private organisations and major cultural institutions to realise their interest in design, architecture, and the broader creative industries.

Right ‘The Australian Ugliness’, a three-channel video work by Australian artist Eugenia Lim and installation by WOWOWA. Photo by Tom Ross.

Architect Victoria

Compiled with assistance from Bridget Nathan, graduate architect at McIldowie Partners, and Jacquelyn Mangubat, graduate architect at Gray Puksand.

‘From my own experience as a student and exploring other study environments across Melbourne (including other universities and community libraries) I believe Deakin Waterfront campus successfully delivers an effective learning environment. The celebration of diverse spaces encourages students to learn in multiple ways, which is essential to self-development. It also strengthens the sense of student community, as students who utilise the campus spaces can discuss, collaborate, critique and motivate each other outside teaching hours.

This kind of experience can’t be substituted by online courses. Located within a small city, the campus and Woolstores provides valuable opportunities for learning and development as an aspiring architect.’

Jacquelyn Mangubat, Graduate Master of Architecture (Design Management) and SONA Representative, Deakin University

What does the university campus give you?

‘A university campus provides an opportunity for sparking connections among groups from a variety of backgrounds. Alike to a city, this results though planned, timetabled interactions, but also, in a very rich way, through spontaneous occurrences that lead to lifelong professional and personal friendships.

As the campus interacts with the greater urban environment, a late bus, a traffic jam, an incorrect map, we are forced out of our comfort zones and are encouraged to interact with each other, enabling the connections our educational communities pride themselves upon.’

Bridget Nathan, Graduate Master of Architecture, University of Melbourne and Bachelor of Design, Swinburne University

‘A good university campus can give you the mental space needed for stimulating education and research.

The campus can become so much more than it’s physical space If needless distractions are removed and individuals have spaces where they can come together to effectively discuss their learning. Whether positively or negatively, a campus is the reflection of a universities values.’

Sam Lee, Research Assistant Computational Biology and Human Genetics, Deakin University and 2018 Graduate, Human Molecular Genetics, Victoria University of Wellington

What do you enjoy on the campus?

‘In terms of the campus and facilities provided I really enjoyed Swinburne. I was lucky as the new Advanced Manufacturing and Design Centre in Hawthorn had just opened [and it] was where the majority of my classes were. The classrooms and facilities were very up to date – especially tech wise. The overall design brought a lot of natural lighting through a central light well which was beneficial for relaxation in crazy study time, but there simply wasn’t enough utilising of study space around this.’ Chris Bullen, Graduate Bachelor of Interior Architecture (Honours), Swinburne University

‘The university space is a conglomerate of historic buildings merged with new build innovative design precincts.

Bustling with students reminding me simultaneously of my joy to learn.’

Alissa Flatley, PhD Student Geography, the University of Melbourne

Looking In, Looking Out

‘As a mature part-time student, being on campus gives me the opportunity to engage with students and staff, in a sophisticated and high quality learning and social environment. The diverse range of formal and informal spaces – internal and external – provide me with choices on campus to study, meet, eat, and drink amongst the stimuli of a learning environment.

The quality of the campus architecture communicates to me the University's respect of their students by offering inspiring, contemporary and professional spaces.’ Louise Dann, Student Master of Urban Planning and Design, Monash University

‘In comparison to global examples, I would like to have felt more of a certain permanency (the kind that perhaps architecture studio environments create) but across other disciplines. Studying engineering at Monash Clayton has allowed me to see the difference. A lot of students don’t come to lectures or spend much time on campus and in the common areas. For those students in which travel is difficult; how can we implement a sense of belonging and ‘permanency’ that architecture studios create for them? I think that online learning tools have many benefits but how can we mitigate the risks of social isolation they may create?

Can we plan and design for all of our users and all students? I think the experience could be improved by further considering the user experience of a student after hours.

Also more bikes/scooters!’

Leanne Haidar, Student Bachelors of Architectural Design and Engineering (Civil), Monash University

How does the university architecture communicate to you?

‘Situating myself in my studies physically makes a big difference to how I do so mentally. A big portion of my course focuses on art history and theory, and I find that being on campus helps me dilute the things I’m learning into the world around me, and make sense of how different individuals have done so, similarly, before me. Face-to-face conversation and discussion also plays an especially important part in stretching my perspective, which would be lost – or at least eroded – if it was all online!’

Harriet Jones, Student Bachelor of Art History & Curating, Monash University

‘I chose to do my MBA on campus rather than online. I find that being on campus and in class better enables me to: engage with my class content, interact with my classmates, build rapport with my teachers and also helps me to focus my attention on studying. When I arrive at school it puts me in the frame of mind to study.

Overall the campus facilities are really nice and enjoy being there. The quality and facilities of the small rooms to do group work are really important. My school has just built a bar and cafe.

It’s a really nice space and I enjoy being there.’

Emily Coldbeck, Student Melbourne Business School the University of Melbourne

How do you interact with the university campus?

‘Personally, it is nice to do my work/study in one place and the remaining time in another place. I prefer real life communications rather than online communications. The possibility to meet people doing similar activities helps to open discussion, listen to different perspectives and enrich connections with a wider range of students and researchers from different academic backgrounds. Usually, the campus is better for learning.’

Ziad Al Bkhetan, PhD Student, Computer Science, the University of Melbourne

‘The university campus provides me with the classroom, often on level three, for my lectures, tutorials and workshops. I know that there is an amazing food forest grounded within the centre of the city campus.’ Prudence Rothwell, Student Master of Food Systems and Gastronomy, William Angliss Institute

54—55

Architect Victoria

‘The campus gave me a place that welcomed and encouraged thought exploration. Open 24/7, the campus gave me a constant ground – separate from home – where I could go down the rabbit hole, asking questions and exploring tangents.’

Heather Chapman, Graduate Bachelor of Design (Landscape Architecture) & Bachelor of Applied Science (Planning), RMIT University

Office of the Victorian Government Architect —

Place value Words by Sophie Patitsas

‘Single-purpose spending is done’1 There was strong attendance by the architecture profession at a recent site visit to South Melbourne Primary School organised by Learning Environments Australasia. The visit extended to a robust panel discussion with the school’s architect, school principal and a former councillor – a testament to the critical role that public buildings and their services continue to play in our community.

This much-celebrated school is important as Victoria’s first purposebuilt vertical primary school but goes above and beyond by combining both community services and education, to serve the future population of Fishermans Bend which will be one of Australia’s most densely populated urban renewal areas.

The school principal spoke with pride about the value of key aspects of the design of the primary school including a highly-contested fenceless public plaza that welcomes the community and facilities in the school that are available for use outside of school hours. His sentiment was echoed by the panel in a broad ranging discussion about the concept of a school design that looks beyond its site boundary, enhances public

56—57

amenity and creates value for the community.

Perhaps there is a lesson here for the University of Melbourne’s potential new, seven-hectare campus – also at Fishermans Bend. The university’s investment in a new engineering school at the campus is already being positioned as a ‘catalyst for new collaborations and investments, connecting industry and research in the precinct.’2 How might this ambition for a new 21st century campus manifest in an emerging urban renewal precinct? How might an urban design-led approach, underpinned by principles about Place, People, Governance and Leadership,3 catalyse an outcome that challenges businessas-usual?

Over a 30-year period RMIT University has shown how an ‘institution occupying and spread out through an existing urban setting (can do more than simply) co-exist in a state of semi-permanent conflict.’4 The change from an institute of technology to university has been accompanied by a carefully curated capital works program that embraced heterogeneity5 and innovation in its procurement of architecture.

This concept of diversity has been enhanced by a consistent and

Looking In, Looking Out

civic-minded approach to campus development that has seen the campus open to the city. The university’s transformation has gone beyond the creation of new buildings, urban spaces and identity to create value within and beyond the campus, enhancing the student experience of the city (and the city’s experience of the university).

The next step in the evolution of the city to the north will see the City of Melbourne, in partnership with RMIT University and the University of Melbourne create a Melbourne Innovation District – a smart city initiative to drive investment in the knowledge economy. The new Metro Tunnel is a major catalyst and is creating both momentum and imperative to reimagine this part of the city. The question is how this initial transport investment will be leveraged to not only capture value but to create value for the community.

How can an urban innovation district enhance the public’s appreciation of this part of the city?

Within government there is a clear intention to maximise economic, social and environmental value from the State Government’s unprecedented program of investment in infrastructure, precincts and services. This is articulated in Victoria’s Value Creation and Capture Framework. The framework applies to a variety of sectors including transport, health, housing and education. It is an important recognition of not just project as ‘capital’ but of project in ‘context’.

Recent organisational changes and realignments within government that give effect to this policy framework reflect this shift. Resources are being formally aligned around places and precincts. The Office of the Victorian Government Architect aims to capitalise on this shift to raise awareness on the critical role of design in this emerging context. We will continue to articulate our more nuanced understanding of ‘value’ and the need to embed urban and architectural design excellence across all public investment. This (we hope)

Above South Melbourne Primary School, 2018 Architecture by Hayball Photo by Chris Matterson

will enable and empower government, stakeholders, industry partners, architects, landscape architects and other allied disciplines in the built environment to play their part in a new norm.

Sophie Patitsas is a member of RMIT University’s Design and Development Committee and Master of Architecture Program Advisory Committee and Chair of the Urban Design Program Advisory Committee. Contributions made in her capacity as Principal Adviser, Architecture and Urban Design for the Office of the Victorian Government Architect.

Architect Victoria

Notes Lynn Richards, President and CEO of the Congress of New Urbanism speaking at the Plan Melbourne Showcase (held 20 April 2019) 1

https://www.alumni.unimelb.edu.au/universityannounces-new-engineering-campus 2

3 Terms that are capitalised have the corresponding meaning: Place (enhancing, connected, diverse, enduring), People (comfortable, vibrant, safe, walkable) and Governance and Leadership (context, engagement, excellence and custodianship), in Creating Places for People, An Urban Design Protocol for Australian Cities

Tom Wilkinson, Typology: Universities, The Architectural Review (6 October 2015)

4

5 Peter Elliott, Episodic Urbanism: the RMIT Urban Spaces Project, 1996-2015 by Peter Elliott Architecture + Urban Design (URO Publications 2015): 141

Looking In, Looking Out

Profile —

Dayne Trower Architects Words by Elizabeth Campbell

Dayne Trower embodies all the qualities of an architect you can imagine. He is carefully measured in his approach to conversation, considered in his appearance and extremely thoughtful in his methods of architectural practice. When chatting with Dayne, there is a certain quality of effortless sophistication – every detail of a question is contemplated before a response is given.

Dayne started his architecture career differently to most. He worked for well-known graphic designer Brian Sadgrove while studying design at Swinburne University National School of Design. Seeing the way in which Dayne approached design, Brian suggested he shift his focus from the two-dimensional world of graphic design into the three dimensions of architecture.

Coming from a design background, Dayne used model making at RMIT University, viewing it as a way to remove himself from anything that had graphic connotations into something that was physically made in three dimensions.

‘It was a tool to work things out and I always understood if you could figure it out in model form, you could figure out how something would go together as a built outcome.’

58—59

Dayne worked for Sean Godsell Architects first as a student, progressing in his professional career through graduate to registered architect. He established his own practice in 2017, Dayne Trower Architects (DTA). The practice ethos is to ‘celebrate the process of making architecture through building, research and art practice.’ Dayne elaborates, ‘it is about refining every element back to its essence.’ In many ways, this clarifies the relationships in his projects – some of which are alterations and additions and others which are new residences.

Each project is approached with care. With the inception of each project, Dayne mentions that he is ‘always looking for clarity in process and finding the most simple way to do something. That is why model making is a big part of the practice.’

Dayne sees this as straight forward, he notes that ‘it’s not complicated – and it doesn’t need to be.’ Model making is used by DTA at every stage to clarify design thoughts, relationships, material junctions and scale. Some models are made in timber as sketch models, others are presentation models for client meetings. Each model is a refining tool making the design intent clearer. In the later stages of

Architect Victoria

a project, Dayne works closely with different fabricators having portions of building elements made at 1:1 before their construction on site.

There is a certain level of rigor to this method of practicing architecture. A level that is not often realised during early design phases with computer modelling. As well as clarifying thought through models, Dayne uses the technique of model making as a way to reduce risk and eliminate often unwelcome surprises on site. Model making ‘slows down the pace of realising architecture, so the decisions made are hopefully the right ones.’

Model making is also a method of investigating how an off-the-shelf material, such as brick, can be used in a unique way. In one of DTA’s current projects, a custom brick has been made to construct a wall with varying textures across its surface. This brick has a direct relationship with the existing bricks on site providing a discourse with the history of the site, but also referencing both the time and place it has been constructed.

Left Project models by Dayne Trower Architects

Slice —

New projects Assembled by Elizabeth Campbell and Laura Held

Project 1 Sally Draper Architects

Project 2 Kennedy Nolan

Christ Church Grammar School Main Campus

Kooyong

It is easy to miss Christ Church Grammar School, hidden on the edge of Fawkner Park behind the elegant bluestone of Christ Church with its curiously spotty spire.

Although discreetly positioned within its heritage surrounds, the new building cleverly accommodates a significant program of spaces. Sally Draper Architects in association with McIldowie Partners were appointed to undertake a masterplan for the school’s main campus.

Using an unconventional strategy of locating learning spaces below ground level and opening them to sunken courtyards and north-facing voids, an open airy learning environment has been created, which responds sensitively to the historic and religious context of the school.

The campus achieves a delightful and enriching environment for its community and provides a valuable and timely model for schools in dense urban and historic contexts.

Kooyong, named for its location on Kooyong Road, Armadale is a hybrid multi-residential building.

Essentially a row of six townhouses, it has a common basement carpark and a street presentation which is informed by the singular expression of the mansion block, or perhaps a single dwelling.

Armadale is characterised by large, detached family houses – with a preponderance of heritage styles from the Victorian to inter-war Georgian. The area is also known for its well-established bio-mass made up of mature street trees and established gardens with an abundant canopy of mostly exotic trees.

Kennedy Nolan Architects' aspiration for Kooyong was that it would be a sophisticated response to this privileged environment and integrate a higher residential density sensitively and unobtrusively.

Photographer Trevor Mein

60—61

Photographer Derek Swalwell

Looking In, Looking Out

Project 3 Taylor Knights

Project 4 Decibel Architecture

Fitzroy Terrace

MFB Marine Response Headquarters

Fitzroy Terrace is an intricate and holistic re-working of a previously run down double-storey terrace in the gritty, northern fringes of Fitzroy. The design itself represents an obscuring between the old and the new through the deliberate play of thresholds and vertical journeys through the internal spaces. This in turn responds to a restrictive site, the solution for which is best captured in section.

Tasked with tackling a deep, narrow site, locked on both sides by double-height party walls, and plagued with issues of darkness, damp, and poor ventilation – our approach focussed on injecting light deep into the footprint of the home through a series of light-catching sculptural volumes and openings. In addition, the interior spaces have been reconsidered using the principles of inverted living, flipping the original arrangement by lifting living spaces onto the first floor, improving natural cross-ventilation, accessing valuable northern light, and capturing city views to the south.

Located at an existing marina in Port Melbourne, the marine response facility is the first building of its kind, designed to provide critical infrastructure for the Metropolitan Fire Brigade (MFB) along the banks of the Yarra River. The building is comprised of two prefabricated portable units that contain fire facilities for the MFB's water-based division of firefighters.

The necessity of water access meant that flood water management and ease of access to marina facilities was a key consideration. A custom perforated metal facade and portico envelops the portable units providing a sheltered access ramp and stair to the elevated units.

The project’s brief required a pragmatic and time effective solution that was low cost, lightweight and would also allow for the relocation and repurposing of building materials when a more permanent facility is required in the future.

Photographer Peter Clarke

Photographer Decibel Architecture

Architect Victoria

Books —

Designing the Global City

Architectural Guide Australia

Robert Freestone, Gethin Davison and Richard Hu

Sarah Zahradnik

This text explores how architectural and urban design values have been co-opted by global cities to enhance their economic competitiveness by creating a superior built environment that is not just aesthetically memorable but more productive and sustainable. It focuses on the experience of central Sydney through its policy commitment to ‘design excellence’ and more particularly to mandatory competitive design processes for major private development.

Framed within broader contexts that link it to comparable urban policy and design issues in the Asia-Pacific region and globally, it provides a scholarly but accessible volume that provides a balanced and critical overview of a policy that has changed the design culture, development expectations, public realm and skyline of central Sydney, raising issues surrounding the uneven distribution of benefits and costs, professional practice, representative democracy, and implications of globalisation.

Architectural Guide Australia presents over 200 projects. Each chapter, dedicated to one of the nation’s eight state capitals, presents buildings that represent the major moments in the country’s architectural history, from its colonial origins to the contemporary era. The book includes an introduction to Australia’s most influential architects as well as essays by Harry Seidler (1923 – 2006), John Gollings, and David Bridgman.

Seidler’s essay argues for the incorporation of sunlight and shadow, phenomena so distinctly characteristic of the country’s climate, into architecture both from an aesthetic and practical standpoint. Gollings offers a historical sweep of Australian architecture before identifying the three major architectural strands of contemporary Australia. Bridgman explores the challenges of designing in the hot-humid tropics in particular, outlining the climatic considerations that must be accounted for when building in those regions.

Publisher Palgrave Macmillan

Publisher DOM publishers

Looking In, Looking Out

Resident Dog

Beaumaris Modern

Nicole England

Fiona Austin

Just as every home is different, so is every dog.

In this stunningly photographed book of architecturally superb houses – many of them architects’ own homes – we see how the presence of a dog brings warmth and life to the most dramatic spaces. From mid-century raw brick to a penthouse apartment, gracious Edwardian to Scandinavian modern, from beach house to country retreat, there is always room for a dog or two.

Seemingly oblivious to designer furniture, heritage considerations or serious design aesthetics, dogs can make themselves at home anywhere.

In fact, the rooms in this book are all the more appealing because of their resident dog.

Resident Dog captures magnificent architecture and divine interiors, but within every frame, the dog’s idiosyncratic personalities can’t help but shine through.

Beaumaris Modern is a collection of mid-century modern Beaumaris houses, beautifully documented

by Jack Shelton, a bayside local now living and working as a professional photographer in LA. Some are original in their design and are the architects’ own homes from the 50s and 60s and other homes have been sensitively restored and renovated.

All the houses have a back story, fascinating interiors and architectural details, particularly the houses in which the owners have lived for over 50 years. Each house features a history, written by Fiona Austin, a Beaumaris resident, interior designer and local Beaumaris heritage expert, and Alison Alexander, a Beaumaris mid-century home owner, writer, editor and daughter of prominent architect Ross Stahle, from the architectural practice Mockridge Stahle Mitchell.

Each house includes a biography of the original architect, written by mid-century expert and architectural historian, Simon Reeves. A detailed floor plan also accompanies each house.

Publisher Thames & Hudson

Publisher Beaumaris Modern

62—63

Architect Victoria

Official Journal of the Australian Institute of Architects Victorian Chapter —

Become a patron

Architect Victoria is one of Australia’s oldest architecture journals, published continuously since 1966.

A highly respected industry publication, Architect Victoria is a voice for the architectural profession.

It is issued quarterly and sent to over 3000 subscribers comprising architects, individuals, and academic and cultural institutions. Each edition is also available in digital format on the Victorian Chapter website and sharable via social media.

We invite you to become a patron of Architect Victoria and enjoy the benefits of supporting the journal.

Your support ensures content is of the highest quality and allows us to continue providing and publishing a place for professional discourse.

Patrons will receive visual representation and acknowledgement within the journal. This will be in order of sign up with the supporting patron’s name published alongside their level of support.

For more information about becoming a patron, please contact the Victorian Chapter at vic@architecture. com.au or on (03) 8620 3866.

Making A Difference Engineered Benchtops Made From

Recycled Glass No Crystalline Silica

Venetian Blue

WWW.BETTASTONE.COM.AU

Patron support levels (four editions) Gold Patron AUD 2000+GST Silver Patron AUD 1200+GST Bronze Patron AUD 500+GST

Betta Stone is the ideal hard surface for kitchen bench tops, splash backs, bathroom vanities and BBQ worktops • Provides opportunity to participate in reduction of landfill and circular economy.

• Environmentally safe with no harmful Crystalline Silica dust, UV protected and Australian made from sourcing of recycled glass to final pressing of the product.

• Designed with contemporary style in mind, Betta Stone features sleek lines, smooth textures and vibrant colours.

Sustainable

Australian Made

Silica Free

Environmentally Safe

Dubai Storm

Casablanca

Budapest Drift

Rio Sunset

A: 4 Broadfield Rd, Broadmeadows VIC 3047

PH: (03) 9359 3973

www.architecture.com.au/conference

Victorian Architecture Awards — 2019

To book tickets: Please call the Victorian Chapter on (03) 8620 3866 or visit architecture.com.au