Community in Context: Standards & Space

Jacob Levy Isabella Mrljiak Emma O’Brien Alexander Prichard

COMMUNITY IN CONTEXT: STANDARDS & SPACE

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION

1

BACKGROUND COMMUNITY UNDER THREAT SIRIUS TIMELINE SIRIUS IN CONTEXT

2 4 6

STANDARDS AND COMMUNITY SOCIAL HOUSING STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY STANDARDS AND SIRIUS

8 10

COMMUNITY SPACE IN SIRIUS MAPPING COMMUNAL SPACE THE GROUND PLANE THE PHILLIP ROOM THE CUMBERLAND ST COURTYARD THE HERITAGE ROOM

16 18 22 28 36

READING COMMUNITY THE HERITAGE ROOM GLOUCESTER WALK

38 40

CONCLUSIONS

42

Making room for community in dense residential settings requires considered spatial formulations to mediate between public and private. The obscuring of these boundaries in collective living sees the formulation of complex social networks. Sirius, is to most who grew up speeding past it on the expressway, as easily recognisable as the harbour bridge it skirts. Looking deeper into the tensions surrounding its development, one can see its fortified shell as an expression of the toughness its residents possess. The socio-political motivations behind its development add to the richness and value of its intricacies, the freedom of form and material in the community rooms formed the basis for our curiosity in shared space in Sirius. Our analysis is also a reaction to preceding community responses to the pressure of development and the way standards of design shape communal space in inner-city residential projects. Sirius is an example of social housing design that gives a platform for community at many scales; and with the clever delineation of communal space residents are able to inhabit beyond the cell for living.

1

BACKGROUND COMMUNITY UNDER THREAT Most of The Rocks and Millers Point have been subject to political machinations and schemes of resumption since the beginning of the 20th century. Following an episode of the plague in 1900 large areas of housing were demolished and neighbourhoods excised. In this process of “slum clearance”, streets were realigned making way for new development.

The communities living there continued to be endangered by demolition and eviction, and with the construction of the Cahill expressway in the 1950s poorly maintained homes in public ownership were erased ad nauseum. The phenomenal potential to profit off the redevelopment of The Rocks and Millers Point was recognised and governments began to canvas plans for high-rise residential and office buildings. Askin’s Government saw the establishment of the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority (SCRA) in 19681 at the recommendation of John Overall, to oversee new development in the area. Numerous redevelopment plans were tabled, notably in 1971 a plan was put forward which retained only nine heritage buildings and a few others kept for their facades alone2.

Community criticism of these kinds of proposals was growing and led to the establishment of various resident action groups. The Millers Point Resident Action Group, founded by Nita McCrae intended to educate the community and rally against SCRA policies and here the beginnings of the Green Bans were underway to protect housing and reclaim greenspace. The resistance against development and shared experience of displacement and instability in The Rocks and Millers Point, preceding these confrontations, formed a collective identity for its residents and is reason for the fortified sense of community that has persisted even when in 2014 residents of Sirius were once again forced to relocate3.

2

SIRIUS

SIRIUS

Clyde Street (Now High Lane) prior to resumption and demolition in 1901.

Sydney Cover Redevelopment Authority proposed development of The Rocks, 1971.

“Fantastic… The community was tight as anything, like. Tight as a bank. Beautiful. If anybody had any problems there was always somebody you could go to and talk it out.”

HERITAGE LISTED

HERITAGE LISTED

Resident Pat speaking about Millers Point.

3

BACKGROUND SIRIUS TIMELINE

1970 Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority proposeded the demolition of large amount of the original buildings of The Rocks area to be replaced with high rise 1971 Establishment of The Rocks Residents’ Action Group 1971-1974 The Green Ban movement started in November 1971. With the incomming Whitlam Govt, in 1972 came large interventions in Sydney’s urban affairs.

1975 In June 1975, saw the lifting of the Green Ban allowing for the construction of public housing including Tao Gofers Sirius.

1978 - 1979 Four design options for Social housing in the Rocks area were presented to the Housing Commission of NSW, for the site of Sirius. Tao Gofers Sirius as seen today was the winning design.

1980 Completion of the Sirius building.

Residents of the Rocks former social housing given unit preference in the unit allotment.

2014 The NSW Government announced the sale of social housing for reinvestment into Sydney area, treating housing as merely a property asset for profit.

2018 Myra Demetriou, last remaining resident in Sirius, is relocated 2018 The State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005 altered to include the Sirius site under Schedule 3 resulting in application of site-specific planning controls.

2019 Sirius Developments Pty Ltd was granted the right to purchase the Property on 21 June 2019.

4

5

BACKGROUND SIRIUS IN CONTEXT This xtend section places Sirus in xtcone and swho the aryingv scale fo in euvA rinty T from neighbud t Milers ointP to Circula . yQua Selctd images depict swvie fo the city from Sirus’ ftop, cnsiderhyatw withsurondg.blea

THE ROCKS

7M

24M

MILLERS POINT

Cumberland Street

Gloucester Walk George Street

TRINITY AVENUE

6

SIRIUS BUILDING

THE ROCKS PRECINCT

Overseas Passenger Terminal

HARBOUR FORESHORE

7

STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY SOCIAL HOUSING STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY Community is made in space that challenges, and places where a collective identity can be cultivated.

Looking at Sirius and the events which led to its construction, the community which had moved in already possessed a neighbourhood mentality and an understanding of mutual and collective living from the streets of Millers Point.

The building, designed well within NSW Housing Commission standards and other constraints of the time, had social motivations. This resulted in the deliberate distribution of shared space throughout the building which the residents were able to appropriate and translate their own sense of home into. A place which was a comparatively denser residential situation.

Looking at the project objectives that Sirius is based on leads one to question what provisions for community space in social housing exist today.

0123ÿ123ÿ567892 ÿ 6 6 1 962ÿ3 0092 ÿ 79 2 8ÿ

70 9 ÿ 893 2 910ÿ87 0 2 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ!"#ÿ$% ÿ& ' ÿ' ( $ ÿ) ÿ ÿ & *% &ÿ + *% ÿ ÿ & $ ÿ 'ÿ ) ÿ % ÿ' ( $ ,ÿ ÿ * ÿ % 'ÿ- ÿ& 'ÿ . ' ÿ ÿ! & $ ÿ/ . ÿ0% ' ÿ1!/02ÿ 'ÿ ÿ3 ( & $ ÿ4 .ÿ 5 &%$ ÿ * - ÿ ÿ ÿ' ( $ ,ÿ

867868ÿ 9:;<79=9>6?

In Sirius, for instance, community space acts as a supplement to the individual living cell (in the case of an older persons’ or single unit and the Heritage Room), as well as oering an extension of this social network, deliberately and incidentally, in places like the Phillip room, the entrance courtyards, the lift lobby and even at a tenant’s letterbox.

@ABCBÿEFGHIJKÿCELJEJÿ LBMNHLBOBPECÿLBQBIEÿ RSTUVCÿLBIBPEÿCAHWEÿ EXYJLZCÿCELJEJ[LBJZFÿ ZB\BKXGOBPECÿEAJEÿJHOÿ EXÿOHEH]JEBÿEABÿHOGJIEÿ XWÿWNENLBÿIAJP]BC^

8ku>a<>_ÿvÿ89w;7<6k

ku>a<>_ÿvÿ mJFgPZHP]ÿJPZÿCBINLHEFÿ 8 CELJEB]HBCÿCAXNKZÿeBÿ ?<_>8_9 HPEB]LJEBZÿHPEXÿEABÿ ZBCH]PÿJEÿJPÿBJLKFÿCEJ]Bÿ ==y>ÿ EXÿHPIKNZBÿeXEAÿGJCCH\Bÿ ? y JPZÿJIEH\BÿOBJCNLBC^ 9w;7<6kÿ

cXÿWNENLBÿCELJEJÿdÿYAXKBÿeNHKZHP]ÿXGBLJEXLÿ SCCNOBÿWNKKÿCELJEJÿdÿGLBGJLBÿJKKÿZXINOBPECÿeNEÿIXPgLOÿHWÿKXZ]BOBPEÿHCÿLBMNHLBZ^ÿhBWBLÿEXÿEABÿ ZB\BKXGOBPEÿeLHBWÿWXLÿGLXiBIEÿCGBIHgIÿZHLBIEHXP^ mABLBÿZNJKÿnBFÿJGJLEOBPECÿJLBÿZB\BKXGBZoÿBJIAÿJGJLEOBPEÿCAXNKZÿeBÿWNKKFÿCBKWÿIXPEJHPBZÿJPZÿCELJEJÿ LBJZFoÿSpqÿIXOGKHJPEÿJPZÿEXÿJÿOHPHONOÿCHK\BLÿCEJPZJLZ^ÿ@FGHIJKÿIXOeHPJEHXPCÿHPIKNZBÿCENZHXrCENZHXÿ XLÿsÿeBZrCENZHXÿXLÿtÿeBZrsÿeBZ^ pB\BKXGÿJÿIXOGLBABPCH\BÿYJFgPZHP]ÿCELJEB]FÿEAJEÿHPIKNZBCÿCGJEHJKÿINBCoÿKH]AEHP]ÿJPZÿCH]PJ]B^ÿSKKXYÿ WXLÿeXEAÿCEJENEXLFÿJPZÿ]BPBLJKÿCH]PJ]B^ÿSKKXYÿWXLÿSxÿPXEHIBCÿEXÿeBÿOXNPEBZÿHPÿWXFBL^ÿhBWBLÿEXÿRSTUÿ UXOGXPBPEÿhBMNHLBOBPECÿWXLÿOJEBLHJKÿCGBIHgIJEHXPC^ÿ zPIXLGXLJEBÿGLHPIHGKBCÿXWÿULHOBÿ{LB\BPEHXPÿ@ALXN]Aÿ|P\HLXPOBPEJKÿpBCH]P^ÿSKKXYÿWXLÿGJCCH\Bÿ CNL\BHKKJPIBÿXWÿJKKÿCBINLBÿBPELHBCÿJPZÿIXOOXPÿ]JLZBPC^ÿ zPEBLIXOÿLBMNHLBZÿJEÿeNHKZHP]ÿBPELHBC^ÿ{LX\HZBÿCYHGBÿJIIBCCÿEXÿBPEBLÿJGJLEOBPEÿeNHKZHP]CÿJPZÿnBFÿ JPZÿKXInCÿWXLÿEXYPÿAXNCBC^ÿhBWBLÿZB\BKXGOBPEÿeLHBWÿWXLÿZBEJHKC^

8}879aÿ <7w;8̀6<y>

76<w8ÿ̀ÿ ~AJLBZÿIHLINKJEHXPÿ 9 CAXNKZÿeBÿYBKK[KHEoÿ 678>?ly7686<y> CJWBÿJPZÿHP\HEHP]oÿYHEAÿ JZBMNJEBÿYHZEAÿWXLÿ yk97?ÿvÿ OX\HP]ÿEBPJPEÿWNLPHENLB^ wy77<ay7?

SKKÿCEJHLIJCBCÿONCEÿIXOGKFÿYHEAÿEABÿcJEHXPJKÿUXPCELNIEHXPÿUXZB ÿBPCNLBÿJPFÿB EBLPJKÿXLÿeLBB BYJFÿ CEJHLCÿJLBÿIX\BLBZÿWXLÿYBJEABLÿGLXEBIEHXP^ÿmABPÿKHWECÿJLBÿLBMNHLBZÿeFÿEABÿZB\BKXGOBPEÿeLHBWoÿJCCNOBÿ OHPHONOÿtÿIXOOBLIHJKÿ]LJZBÿKHWEC^ÿ SKKÿWXFBLCÿJPZÿIXLLHZXLCÿEXÿAJ\BÿAJLZÿQXXLÿgPHCAÿJPZÿeBÿPJENLJKKFÿ\BPEHKJEBZ^ÿ J HOHCBÿPJENLJKÿZJFKH]AEHP]ÿHPÿIXOOXPÿJLBJC^ÿ CBÿBPBL]FÿB IHBPEÿR|pÿKH]AEHP]ÿEALXN]AXNEoÿYHEAÿYJLOÿ KH]AEÿJPZÿeJFXPBEÿgEEHP]C^ÿ HEÿJKKÿJLEHgIHJKÿKH]AEHP]ÿYHEAÿeNHKEÿHPÿGAXEXÿCBPCXLCÿEXÿLBZNIBÿXP]XHP]ÿXGBLJEHP]ÿ IXCEC^ÿ|PCNLBÿJKKÿIXOOXPÿIXLLHZXLÿZHOBPCHXPCÿJLBÿCNHEJeKBÿWXLÿWLBMNBPEÿOX\HP]ÿXWÿZXOBCEHIÿWNLPHENLB^ 8<>69>8>w9ÿ |PCNLBÿGLX\HCHXPÿXWÿWJ JZBÿOJHPEBPJPIBÿ XPBCÿJPZÿGLXIBZNLBCoÿJCÿYBKKÿJCÿJPFÿCBL\HIBÿJIIBCCÿEXÿKHWECÿ XLÿXEABLÿOJHPEBPJPIBÿ XPBC^ 8ww9??

y==y>ÿ yy=?

UXOOXPÿLXXOCÿCAXNKZÿ y==y>ÿ eBÿYBKIXOHP]ÿJPZÿKXYÿÿ yy=?ÿ OJHPEBPJPIBÿEXÿ BPIXNLJ]BÿGXCHEH\Bÿ CXIHJKÿHPEBLJIEHXP^

mABPÿJÿIXOOXPÿLXXOÿHCÿLBMNHLBZÿeFÿEABÿeLHBWoÿJKKXYÿWXLÿnHEIABPBEEBoÿKXNP]BoÿYJKKÿOXNPEBZÿ@ ÿNPHEoÿ JPZÿJZiJIBPEÿmU^ÿ CBÿLBCHKHBPEÿQXXLÿgPHCA^ÿ |PCNLBÿPJENLJKÿ\BPEHKJEHXPÿHCÿJ\JHKJeKBÿHPÿJKKÿIXOOXPÿLXXOCÿJPZÿXLHBPEÿEABÿLXXOÿEXÿX\BLKXXnÿÿ JPZÿXGBPÿXPEXÿJÿ]JLZBPÿXLÿZBInÿJLBJ^ÿ

y==y>ÿ 87a9>?

977<_86<y> UXOOXPÿ]JLZBPCÿ HPÿONKEH[LBCHZBPEHJKÿ ZYBKKHP]CÿCAXNKZÿÿ eBÿPJEH\BoÿJIIBCCHeKBÿ JPZÿCNCEJHPBZÿWXLÿJKKÿ 8986<>_ EBPJPECÿEXÿBPiXF^ÿ

{LX\HZBÿ]JLZBPÿOJHPEBPJPIBÿCELJEB]FÿWXLÿLB\HBY^ÿzPCEJKKÿZLHGÿHLLH]JEHXPÿCFCEBOÿWXLÿONKEHÿLBCHZBPEHJKÿ ZYBKKHP]CÿXPKFÿYABPÿCGBIHgBZÿHPÿZB\BKXGOBPEÿeLHBW^ÿmABLBÿLJHPYJEBLÿEJPnCÿIJPÿeBÿLBEHINKJEBZÿWXLÿ ]JLZBPÿNCBoÿHPCEJKKÿMNJKHEFÿGNOGÿ OHPHONOÿ [FBJLÿYJLLJPEF ^ {LX\HZBÿLXeNCEÿXNEZXXLÿCBJEHP]ÿHPÿIXOOXPÿ]JLZBPÿJLBJCÿWXLÿEBPJPEÿNCBÿJPZÿJOBPHEF^ÿUXPCHZBLÿ GLX HOHEFÿXWÿCBJEHP]ÿEXÿXEABLÿZYBKKHP]CÿEXÿBPCNLBÿEBPJPEÿGLH\JIF^ÿzPEB]LJEBÿCBJEHP]ÿKJFXNEÿYHEAÿELBBÿ JPZÿGKJPEHP]ÿCELJEB]HBC^ 799? @LBBCÿEAJEÿ]LXYÿEJKKBLÿEAJPÿ OÿCAXNKZÿeBÿGKJPEBZÿJEÿKBJCEÿ OÿWLXOÿEABÿeNHKZHP]^ÿpBIHZNXNCÿELBCCÿOJFÿ JCCHCEÿYHEAÿGJCCH\BÿCXKJLÿCAJZHP]^ÿcJEH\BÿJPZÿZLXN]AEÿEXKBLJPEÿCGBIHBCÿGLBWBLLBZ^ y==;><6kÿ UXOONPHEFÿ]JLZBPCÿOJFÿeBÿIXPCHZBLBZÿWXLÿKJL]BÿCIJKBÿZB\BKXGOBPEC^ _87a9>?

With collective living, the loss of certain functions of the personal home makes the role of collective additional infrastructure increasingly important in cultivating urban community 4 During negotiations between residents and the SCRA, The Rocks Resident Action Group put forward the ‘People’s Plan’ (1975) 5 which outlined the demands of locals being removed from Millers Point housing. In the newspaper clipping below from 1973 6 , the loss of community amenity and facility is noted and appears to translate into the plan and the following project objectives outlined by Architect Tao Gofers.

8<>_9̀ÿ ab9``<>_? ;6̀<f 79?<a9>6<8` 3;8ÿ̀j9kÿ 8l876=9>6?

+ NSW LAHC Design Standards, 2014

2. To take advantage of the unique opportunity to create a development that could provide a range of accommodation to suit the displaced residents of the Rocks area and also create a community project which is generally representative of all family and age groups in the city with facilities for maximum interaction appropriate to their needs.

8. To maximise the use of the sites unique amenity close to the city by providing communal and private outdoor spaces and provide communal spaces within the building.

The ‘Good design for social housing’ document (developed by the Land and Housing Corporation and Government Architect) emphasises the relevance of good design to achieve goals such as, ‘a sense of belonging for our communities’ 7.

It’s read in conjunction with the Multiresidential supplement which provides some detail in its guidelines, which are circumstantial 8 .

The NSW DPIE A ‘ partment Design Guide’, also details some objectives relatied to community space 10.

Common rooms should be welcoming and low maintenance to encourage positive social interaction.

Objective 4F1Common circulation spaces provide opportunities for casual social interaction among residents and can assist with social recognition.

Community gardens may be considered for large scale developments.

The emphasis is on buildings which are low maintenance, incorporate passive crime prevention and work with universal design principles. The preceding LAHC Design standards provide further 9 clarication and specicity . Some requirements are as follows.

Total common room space (excluding lobby and circulation) in Sirius amounts to 2.7m2 per tenant.

8

Common rooms may not reduce existing private residential space. (p. 26)

Objective 3D1An adequate area of communal open space is provided to enhance residential amenity and to provide opportunities for landscaping. At a minimum of 25% of the site

Objective 4F2 In larger developments, community rooms for activities such as owners corporation meetings or resident use should be provided and are ideally colocated with communal open space The following pages compare aspects of Sirius to today’s standards.

Common rooms are to be sized at 1.5m2 per tenant, with a minimum main room size of 36m2 (p. 27) Sustaining community is pointed to as one of four key goals in ‘Good design for social housing’, critically however, no requirements establish the parameters

9

STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY STANDARDS AND SIRIUS

104.5

108.5

112.5

As stated in the Rothwell Symposium Session One, ...in general, the standards of housing are too small, too restricting.

The principle of the standard minimum for the living space is wrong .

10

3610

4590

BEDROOM 1 AREA: 14.57m2

3690

LIVING AREA: 16.16m2

BED 1

9800

2580

1580

1690 490

1550

BATHROOM TYPE: B-03 AREA: 4.82m2

LAUNDRY TYPE: L-02 AREA: 2.89m2

KITCHEN TYPE: K-04 AREA: 16.16m2

BEDROOM 2 AREA: 13.84m2

GARDEN SPACE AREA: 32.63m2

3690

BEDROOM 2 AREA: 13.84m2

GARDEN SPACE AREA: 32.63m2

3610

KITCHEN TYPE: K-04 AREA: 16.16m2

4590

2180

120

LIVING

45

90

BED 2

m

m

GARDEN SPACE 36

90

1710

960

330

3520

2600 3750

3770

80

m

m

0m

m m

0m

95

The modulation and jittering of unit type enabled a stronger sense of community, by mimicking a large and diverse neighbourhood structures.

It is also evident here how community can occur on a more intimate scale. Social interaction past the boundaries and thresholds of public and private space means residents can maintain a healthy social network in a variety of generous spaces, giving the tenant agency and a sense of ownership when living in the city.

BEDROOM 1 AREA: 14.57m2

LIVING AREA: 16.16m2

2600mm

Objective 4K1A range of apartment types and sizes is provided to cater for dierent household types now and into the future.

112.5

3980

The two bedroom split-level unit typology is a common recurring apartment type within the Sirius housing. It features two bedrooms and an enclosed private outdoor garden, one of many unique features of the scheme which exceeded social housing design standards at the time of Sirius construction.

Incorporating standard family units with aged/accessible units in the Sirius building was not typical of the NSW Housing Commissions approach to tenant mix at the time, now this is a standard strategy to diversify social housing stock included in the previously mentioned guides and indentified by the Apartment Design guide.

108.5

LAHC Dwelling Requirements (for 2 bed unit) 70m2

2 bed unit in the Sirius building, split level 68.5m2

Room mix

Combo kit/liv/din Single bathroom including laundry

Combo kit/din Seperate living Single bathroom Seperate laundry

Corridor

1000mm

950mm

Door opening

850mm

800mm

Ceiling height

2700mm

2600mm

Room width

3600mm (living) 3000mm (bed)

4590mm (living) 3690mm (bed)

Open space

2000mm deep 10m2 , 2 separate spaces preferred

3770mm deep 32.36m2, Single space

Internal area

KITCHEN

2-bed split level unit, with semi-enclosed garden

11

STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY STANDARDS AND SIRIUS

STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY A CELL FOR LIVING

An example of an apartment typology in Sirius that afiords far less genorosity to its occupant is the single bedroom unit.

Whilst it fulls internal requirements for todays standards, it does not provide access to private open space, and is rather supplemented by communal private space of the Heritage Room and the ground floor plane below.

By addressing these two unit typologies, we can see the disparity in quality of private community space across the Sirius building. This manouvre encouraged the centralised and collectivised spaces to be shared; primarily by the occupants of the one bedroom units.

KITCHEN

In reference to Karol Teiges radical rethinking of domestic space in The Minimum Dwelling, the schema for collective living is devised. Teige reduced the apartment to an individual living cell with one room per adult. All centralised and collectivised contents were to be removed from the cell and accessible by all occupants; including the kitchen, dining and bathing spaces. For Teige, this collectivist reconstruction of dwelling was the organisational basis for all forms of socialist life11.

F

K-06 B-10

ROBE

In the case of Sirius, architect Tao Gofers encouraged a collectivist dwelling by supplementing the opportunist communal space in the one bedroom apartments with centralised and collectivised spaces within the tower component, and sprawling across the ground plane below. Gofers provided childrens space, house-keeping, salonequivalent, services and physical culture within the centralised and collectivised spaces.

This communal space is organised around, and directly adjacent to, the onebedroom apartments, mostly occupied by elderly, disabled, or single inhabitants; providing a strong community connection and high quality space beyond the individual living cell.

B-01

L-01

Karol Teige The Minimum Dwelling

LAHC Dwelling Requirements (for 1 bed unit) 42m2

1 bed unit in the Sirius building 43.10m2

Combo kit/liv/din Single bathroom including laundry

Combo kit/liv/din Single bathroom including laundry

Corridor

1000mm

950mm

Door opening

850mm

800mm

Ceiling height

2700mm

2600mm

Room width

3600mm (living) 3000mm (bed)

4590mm (living) 3690mm (bed)

Open space

2000mm deep 6m2

N/A

Internal area Room mix

12

Tao Gofers The Sirius Building

centralised and collectivised

individual living cell

services

shared, supplementary

heritage room

rooftop garden

phillip room

lift lobby

open space

podium courtyards

bedroom

loungeroom

bathroom

kitchen

individual, private

13

COMMUNITY SPACE IN SIRIUS A ‘communal core’ of interlinked shared spaces forms the basis of the architectural strategy for community within Sirius. This core is anchored by the Phillip Room and the Heritage Room, deliberately constructed communal space.

THE HERITAGE ROOM

THE PHILLIP ROOM

14

15

INCIDENTAL COMMUNITY

COMMUNITY SPACE IN SIRIUS MAPPING COMMUNAL SPACE By separating the spaces that hold potential for community engagement in three categories, we may understand the spread and hierarchy of communal spaces.

The first Category Contains “Incidental” spaces. These occur primarily on a micro-scale, ordinarily between adjacent neighbours and familiar faces. They are the “bumpins”, or the “coming and going” places of social interaction. 17.4% of the total community spaces are classified as incidental.

The Second Category Contains “Private” spaces with potential beyond the standard apartment “cell”.

They afford larger spaces as an extension of apartments, but are not privately available to residents living in the tower.

At 47.4%, these spaces account for almost half of the total community space throughout the Sirius building.

INCIDENTAL

COMMUNITY

17 .4 %

17.4% The Third Category Contains “Deliberate” spaces that were dedicated for social interaction and community gathering. In the tower portion, private community spaces are supplemented by the Heritage Room.

The street-level plane accounts for the majority of these spaces acting as the ‘hearth’ of the community. These spaces amount to 35.2% of total community space and is primarily accessed off Cumberland Street, and secondarily accessed off Gloucester Walk.

DRYROOM TOWER LOBBY STAIRS

WALK-UPS 06-07

08-09

1.02

1.03

2.01

2.02

2.03

3.01

3.02

3.03

4.01

4.02

4.03

14 .0 %

12-13

14-15

18-19

16-17

20-21

22-23

24-25

PRIVATE COMMUNITY PRIVATE COMMUNITY

47 .4 %

47.8%

INDIVIDUAL GREEN ROOF

02

03

04

06

08

INDIVIDUAL BALCONY SPACES

31 .0 %

By analysis of the spread of community spaces, we see that 30% of all community space is accessed via the ground plane, and is directly accessible by all one-bedroom apartments. For larger apartments, most are afforded a private communal space within their apartment and have less direct access to the deliberate communal spaces. The deliberate communal spaces directly supplement the standardised size single dwellings.

01

01

01

02

02

02

04

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

19

21

23

3.4 %

08

09

08

11

08

08

11

11

09

13

INDIVIDUAL COURTYARD

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13 %

13

17

GLOUCESTER WALK

1.01

3.4 %

10-11

DELIBERATE COMMUNITY DELIBERATE

13

15

15

15

15

17

17

24 13

COMMUNITY

35 .2 %

36.2%

EASTERN TERRACE 13 .0 %

LIBRARY

HERITAGE ROOM ROOF GARDEN

1.1 %

4.1 %

PHILLIP ROOM

CUM

External courtyards around Sirius.

COMMUNAL EXTERNAL SPACE

6.8 %

BER

COMMUNAL INTERNAL SPACE

LAN

D ST

REE

LOBBY SPACE

T

DRYROOM STAIRS INDIVIDUAL GARDEN

WESTERN TERRACES 10 .2 %

INDIVIDUAL BALCONY INDIVIDUAL COURTYARD

5

16

10

20

50

17

COMMUNITY SPACE IN SIRIUS THE GROUND PLANE A ‘communal core’ of interlinked shared spaces forms the basis of the architectural strategy for community.

The ground plane houses most of the large deliberate communal areas and connects Gloucester Walk all the way through to the formal entry on Cumberland Street. The spaces fluctuate in scale, proportion, texture, and contain a centralised and collectivised functions. It acts both as the “hearth” of the community, and also supplements the missing private open space in the single bedroom units.

18

19

COMMUNITY SPACE IN SIRIUS THE GROUND PLANE As in section, the plan of the ground floor through the ‘communal core’ of the building illustrates the combination of the Phillip Room and its external extensions, the Cumberland St courtyard and the Gloucester Walk terrace.

Scale Taken as a whole, these spaces provide a 469m2 space that offers the potential for the community of Sirius (207 persons12) to come together, or for large gatherings of both building occupants and visitors.

Individually, the spaces each provide opportunity for congregation through a relatively even distribution of external to internal to external space (Cumberland courtyard 134m2, Phillip Room 196m2, Gloucester terrace 139m2). The potential of these spaces to accommodate these events is demonstrated through their use, with The Phillip Room playing host to a production of Romeo & Juliet and the Cumberland courtyard hosting large supporter gatherings as part of the Save our Sirius campaign.

A comparison to the internal floor area of a typical 2 bedroom split level apartment (68.5m2) demonstrates the comparative modesty of these spaces in regard purely to area allocated (total GFA 6094m213). And yet the potential offered by these spaces for the residents of Sirius to engage in individual, group and community activities beyond the immediacy of their homes within these larger spaces greatly expands the range of possible activities accommodated by Sirius.

Internal Ground Floor Communal Space

Typical 2 bed split level apartment

196m2

68.5m2

Communal Core Ground Plan

20

469m2

21

COMMUNITY SPACE IN SIRIUS THE PHILLIP ROOM The Phillip Room is the primary communal space within Sirius. Oriented East toward the Sydney Opera House, the room proper is planned in three zones, a children’s area, a community area, and a reception area. The entrance and foyer are immediately adjacent to this space and provide an extension to the total area as well as a mechanism of drawing the community in.

3

2

1

The placement of the Phillip Room in close proximity to the main entrance emphasises the visibility of community interaction to those entering the building or leaving their apartments via the lifts. These spaces are served by three secondary spaces, a servery, a storage room and male and female amenities.

Implied Spatial Delineation The delineation of three programmed zones (children’s area, community area and reception area) in the architectural documentation and construction of the Phillip Room are implied rather than defined. Rather than creating three separate rooms for these programs, these spaces are implied within the overall, maintaining the potential of the greater space.

4

5

The stepping of the East facade, structural columns on the 4m structural grid and beams over (shown dashed) imply three rectangular zones. In the case of the children’s play area this is further implied via a change in the floor finish from carpet to timber and the inclusion of perimeter cork strips (whether these were built/removed is unclear).

In not formally programming or separating (via walls) these spaces their use is left to the residents and the potential of the whole is maintained.

22

4

6

KEY

9

7

10 8

10

1. CHILDRENS AREA 2. COMMUNITY AREA 3. RECEPTION AREA 4. LIFTS 5. FOYER 6. WAITING ROOM 7. OFFICE 8. ENTRANCE 9. MAIL AREA 10. TOILETS COMMUNAL SPACE SECONDARY SPACE

23

COMMUNITY SPACE IN SIRIUS THE PHILLIP ROOM A building is a fragment made of pieces similarly, to how the conglomeration of residents forms a diverse community.

The fragments shown include the threshold moment between the central place of assembly – the Phillip room and the spatial experience of the adjacent Gloucester walk This space has many special qualities.

Firstly, it acts as a social condenser.

Allowing you to augment what is in your apartment. This social engineering to encourages communal gathering.

K

E

ST

E UC

Secondly, it brings an a more grandiose architecture to social housing that isn’t usually accessible by all, but to which all people deserve access.

AL RW

O GL

3

It achieves this through the inclusion of non-standard features: carpet in common areas and the vaulted timber ceiling, this altering of materiality contributing to the user experience and bringing a sense of welcoming warmth.

2 12

The vaulted timber ceiling aids users to recognise the delineation of spaces from the ground plane. This is achieved through the visible variations to ceiling height, between the lower entry spaces to the heightened expanse of the rear zone, this peak an indication of the potential application as a theatre or presentation space.

1 4 8

5

9 11

As for the walk itself, this view emphasises the scale of the outer wall and hints at its ability to conceal details of the façade and public space to passersby.

24

KEY 1. CHILDRENS AREA 2. COMMUNITY AREA 3. RECEPTION AREA 4. LIFTS 5. FOYER 6. WAITING ROOM 7. OFFICE 8. ENTRANCE 9. MAIL AREA 10. TOILETS 11. STAIRS 12. LIBRARY

10 6

7

25

COMMUNITY SPACE IN SIRIUS THE PHILLIP ROOM These two perspectives show the Phillip room in use. Demonstrating its use as a space for events organised by and for residents, or larger scale events to invite the public in.

Here is a representation of the Sydney city rehousing meeting. This contrast of the images showing both the duality of the space as formal or informal and showing change over time. From a joyful space for inhabitants, to a room used to host meetings a part of the process of eviction.

This drawing depicts the use of the room as a theatre space. Here mimicking the reproduction of the Romeo and Juliet play as described by Tao Gofers.

The Phillip room as a theatre...

26

... and as a place for public gathering.

Interpenetration between these individual and public space, allows for the creation of incidental and deliberate interaction. The appropriation of the space by people in the community is what creates a building. Its all about how each person takes the space and makes it their own. By giving generosity everywhere community happens in unexpected spaces.

27

COMMUNITY SPACE IN SIRIUS CUMBERLAND STREET COURTYARD Describd ybao T ersfGo as the ormal‘f entry’ to het irusS Buildng, the Cumberland St ardcouty idesvpro the primay pedstrian egrs from Cumberland stre to Sirus’ eryof and throug aces elw as ylob ift erwo to the Philp Rom whic( it ormsf an ).toxensi The Cumberland St ardcouty videspro xternalshdcou yib space, whose tenialpo orf thbo large and more intmae xternal comunal actives it esrv a dul prose a thcirulaonsped.b The rdacouty rmsof the centr fo a wider orknetw fo public, atesmi-prv and atepriv teracs, ardscouty and syalkwth re constud bew Sirus and the stre, mediatng the andresictpv bwhold public realm. nI this yaw the ardcouty embdsyirctlwhnpaou the ground plane fo Sirus, C o ering a erdymultia space tha thbo sheltr from but also ygenrousl engas with the stre, wingalo orf a mainted link enbtw Sirus and the broade comunity fo The Rocks and Milers thersidnblog.wc P

East/West Section

Courtyard Plan 1

28

2

4

29

COMMUNITY SPACE IN SIRIUS COURTYARD CONSTRUCTION The spaces created within the Sirius Housing Project and the Cumberland courtyard, are similar in that they are constructed through the repetition and variation of a single module. The ‘cellular’ expression of the housing read in the precast façade steps in and out and up and down across the façade, an egalitarian expression that hides the complexity of the split-level apartments beyond. The bricks of the courtyard also step, rotate and combine to form walls, garden beds, terraces and seats. The demarcation of modular scale through materiality marks a clear divide between housing above and communal ground plane below Spatial construction The courtyard materiality, standard house bricks (270x110x76) selected to reflect the heritage character of The Rocks, facilitate the construction of the space. Walls and stairs extend from the 4m structural grid and then curve following radial offsets (commonly 900mm and 1100mm) to respond to the street and define more intimate spaces.

The ability of the curved wall to open broadly to the street and funnel residents or guests toward the building further reinforces the idea of an embedding of Sirius and its geographically centred community in context.

5

670 670

1450 900

30

1600

900

1600

485 1100

6

600

485 900

3100

900 900

900

7900

Module Array - Cells / Brick

Circle Geometry

Phillip Room

Amenities, Lobby, Fire Egress (tower)

30.8m2 Fire Egress (car park)

Office

Unit 12

42.5m2

Units, Street

Terraces and scale Changes in level (three steps equaling 510mm) define three terraces within the space. The threshold between these spaces is further emphasised through the brick composition, stair edges being formed in rowlock courses before transition back to the main ground plane of stretcher courses.

Again, the relative modesty of these spaces can be read through comparison to the typical 2 bed split level unit and demonstrated through an overlay of the geometry of the central garden bed onto the unit plan.

1100

Units, Street

33m2

Typical 2 bed split level apartment Central gardenbed overlay

+510 +510

Terrace Delineation - Plan & Section 1

2

4

31

COMMUNITY SPACE IN SIRIUS FLEXIBILITY AND COMMUNITY USE Similar to the Phillip room, the success of the courtyard is due in part to its ability to cater to the various changing requirements of the Sirius community through an ability to operate flexibly over a number of scales depending on the need of the residents. Within the three terraces, smaller spaces are defined within the curves of walls. Partitions in the space are created and cultivated through planting. A freedom is afforded to the residents in the provision of a space that can be occupied in many ways.

The use of the courtyard is explored in three moments across time, imagined from photographic documentation.

A day at Sirius An individual reads, tucked against a bricked wall, sheltered by trees. A small group construct their own small conversation circle combining curved brick seating and furniture. Stairs become a seat for an adult conversing with a group of children. Two residents share a coffee framed within the parallel curves of two low walls.

The Cumberland Street courtyard soon after construction.

A small meeting in the Cumberland Street courtyard.

32

33

Save our Sirius Residents, members of The Rocks & Millers Point community and the public gather in the courtyard to celebrate the Sirius community and protest government intent. Terraces form small ampitheatres for public address.

34

Today The space stands empty. Steel fencing fixed into the fabric of Sirius prevents entry and splits the courtyard in two.

Lack of required maintenance is evident in step cracking, missing bricks, bottles in the garden beds. In the latest architectural documentation describing the future conversion of Sirius into luxury apartments the courtyard is marked for complete demolition.

35

COMMUNITY SPACE IN SIRIUS THE HERITAGE ROOM The Heritage Room and adjoining garden terrace provides the older residents within Sirius a place to gather away from the main community facilities. The room is shared between 17 units and residents and is located on the eighth floor directly ofi the lift lobby for ease of access. The garden terrace, which is about 60m2, allowed the tenants to watch Sydney harbour displays and the boats pass by. The room is simply another single module, modestly ffnished but featuring on the south wall a computer-generated mural of the 1978 Sydney Skyline from the same direction, a relic of the time.

1978

2020

The importance of a dedicated space for older tenants to gather supplements the individual, private units they inhabited and often made social by welcoming others in and sustains a sense of belonging within a dense residential community. The heritage room, in its elevated position, is registered by passersby on the Harbour Bridge by its plantings and outlook and is something of a glimpse of the community that had once made use of it.

Enjoying the comforts of the Heritage room.

36

37

READING COMMUNITY THE HERITAGE ROOM

The Heritage room viewed from the Sydney Harbour Bridge footpath.

38

39

READING COMMUNITY GLOUCESTER WALK A ublicp reading fo Sirus along the ground plane fo Gloucestr alkw asw construed via seri fo tgraphs aligned 2 o set from the as fçde Sirus.fo foxpresinublcth aTe thorugfae is vtra onesSiu can eb eadr yb groupin tosph yb materily: Concret, vyhea lantig,p 1. Carpark / Light planting

lightpandbrck. ortinsP fo the images wher the public has tenialpo to cath a glimpse fo an ocupant are higlted. Thes publicthe waonfrgms ocupants buildng the fo reading a ormf to and ytenialpo bg to understa h comunity ythe orm.f Thes fragments are large and more conetrad on theNorwalk,ndGucsf lines fo sight from the thorugfae into atepriv dscourty and balconies is most alent,vpr and smalet and least conetrad around the erwto wher the bulk fo the carpk fçde clusxe . theinro swv

2. Heavy planting

1

2

3

4

5

Interconnected External Communal Space

The disperal fo edwvi fragments is glimpse vidngpro fo nsteadI xical:prdo Philpte wn spac omuityhe f

3. Dwelling / Carpark / Light planting

romandspceit( importan in the repsntaio and Sirus the fo desir th fo understaig )comunity the public reads indvual cels and atepriv outdr space ( degr hiawt socied ynrmal fo ).yacpriv “The buildng coneals the . whatispengd” fruo 4. Carpark

5. Dwelling / Brick

40

41

CONCLUSIONS Reflecting on the qualities of the communal core of the Sirius building and the embrace of these spaces by its residents, we have chosen to conclude our study with the delineation of preliminary principles, propositions that help determine the provision for shared space in a social housing scheme to sustain community.

Social housing is principally rooted in a concern for societal wellbeing and the right of all to a secure and adequate home. Community spaces should extend provisions for individualisation of spaces by occupants. This in turn, encourages a sense of permanency and ownership. Engineering a more humane approach, rather than the housing model currently favoured by the NSW Housing Commission ofice. One which deters long-term occupancy of social housing.

Resultantly, a premises spatial quality should supplement users with an enhanced perceptual experience.

Architects should be concerned with granting all members of society regardless of social status access to grandiose architecture rather than reserving this for extravagant projects funded by high paying clients.

On a dierent strain, residential buildings should exist within an urban centre as platform to sustain community. They can mimic, and draw the delineation of form from the natural city sprawl. This supplements the single dwelling. Within this framework; the circulation spaces become akin to streets, the modular cell - imitates traditional houses, and gathering spaces (both indoor and outdoor) become social condensers acting similarly to parks or townhalls normally found in the public realm.

42

Within Sirius this emulation of the urban fabric occurs through the hierarchical delineation of ‘private, deliberate and incidental’ spaces which act as social condensers offering users potential for interaction across different scales.

Similarly, accommodation architecture should not have a standard ‘one size fits all’ approach to apartment design.

Rather to support the conglomeration of residents from a diverse community, the framework should feature a series of varied apartment types. The overall structure acting as an apparatus ‘catering’ to differing family or individual needs. Including, possessing the necessary detailing to enhance, not disrupt the lives of disabled or elderly residents.

Ongoing, there is opportunity for community spaces to be embedded on the ground plane. Offering a mediating threshold between the public realm and private residence. We see this as a potential for a space which offers both a protective verge and engages a link to the adjacent street and landscape beyond. Acting as a mechanism to draw the community in, extending the idea of ‘shared gathering space’ into the wider orbiting social situation.

Ultimately the design should take measures to promote a sense of unity with which occupants can identify with, this translating to a perception of ‘home’ as an established residence; Achieved through a collective ide

43

Endnotes

Image References

1 Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Act. 1968. Sydney: NSW Parliament.

2 Shelter New South Wales. 2016. “A Contemporary Forced Urban Removal: The Displacement Of Public Housing Residents From Millers Point, Dawes Point And The Sirius Building By The New South Wales Government”. Sydney: Shelter New South Wales. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2016-09/apo-nid68189.pdf.

3 Property NSW. “The Rocks Conservation Area”. 2007. Blog. http://www.shfa.nsw.gov.au/sydney-About_us-Heritage_role-Heritage_and_Conservation_Register.htm&objectid=170.

4 A Peoples’ Plan For The Rocks. 1975. Kensington: Rocks Peoples’ Plan Committee.

5 Schmid, Susanne, Dietmar Eberle, and Margrit Hugentobler. 2019. A History Of Collective Living: Forms Of Shared Housing. Basel: Birkhauser.

6 Tribune. 1973. “Residents In Action At The Rocks”, 1973. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/236855613?searchTerm=Rocks%20Resident%20Action%20Group#.

7 NSW Land and Housing Corporation. 2020. “Good Design For Social Housing”. Sydney: Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

8 NSW Land and Housing Corporation. 2020. “Land And Housing Corporation Dwelling Requirements”.

Sydney: Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

9 NSW Land and Housing Corporation. 2014. “Design Standards”. Sydney: Department of Family and Community Services.

10 NSW Department of Planning and Environment. 2015. “Apartment Design Guide: Tools For Improving The Design Of Residential Apartment Development”. Sydney: NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

11 Teige, Karel, and Eric Dluhosch. 2002. The Minimum Dwelling. Cambridge: MIT Press.

12 Dunn, John. 2017. Sirius. Sydney: Piper Press.

13 Ibid.

P2. City of Sydney. 2021. Terraces In Clyde Street Millers Point, 1901. Image. http://shorturl.at/cenHS P2.Fairfax Syndication. 2021. Proposed Redevelopment Of The Rocks, Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority. Image. Accessed August 20. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Proposed-redevelopment-of-The-Rocks-Sydney-Cove-Redevelopment-Authority-Source-Fairfax_fig1_328121394.

P32 Gofers, Tao. 2002. Sirius Completed. Image. https://siriusbuildingarchive.wordpress.com/006-sirius-completed/#jp-carousel-746.

P32 Woolley, Nicholas. 2002. Sirius Cumberland Street Courtyard. Image.

P34.Guthrie, Ben. 2017. SOS Event. Image. https://www.instagram.com/p/BSXSdqzDnDQ/.

P34. Guthrie, Ben. 2017. SOS Event. Image. https://www.instagram.com/p/BSSuQTxDz3x/.

P37. Millers Point Community Group. 2021. Heritage Room. Image. Accessed August 20. http://millerspointcommunity.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/HeritageRoom.jpg.

General References Aureli, Pier Vittorio. 2018. “Soft Cell: The Minimum Dwelling”. Blog. The Architectural Review. https://www. architectural-review.com/essays/soft-cell-the-minimum-dwelling.

Fiske, Pat. 1985. Rocking The Foundations. Film. Sydney: Bower Bird Films.

Gofers, Tao. 2018. “Tao Gofers On Sirius And The Fight For A More Inclusive Sydney”. Blog. Architectureau. https://architectureau.com/articles/tao-gofers-sirius/.

Lucine, Blue. 2018. The Eviction. Film. Sydney: SBS. Rodrigo, Russell. 2021. “From Eyesore To Icon Reappraising Sydney’s Sirius Apartments (1975-80)”. Sydney: University of New South Wales.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing). 2009. Sydney: Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

44

45

46