SYDNEY - THINK GLOCALLY. Architectural opinion piece.

[Adam Russell [DRAW]]

SYDNEY ARCHITECTURE - THINK GLOCALLY
[Based on my contribution for an SMH article that never went to press]

Architecture operates globally, both in terms of its knowledge base
and it’s competitive professional services. It is no surprise that
Multi-national corporations and ambitious nation-states alike turn to
this global market to procure their architecture. For large and
complex projects, valuing the kudos and reliability offered by an
international practice over and above a less established local
practice makes complete business sense - low risk, high return.

In this context Australian architects have long exported their ideas
and professional expertise to booming Asian and UAE markets. Indeed
these international commissions have underpinned cash flow for a
number of local practices during leaner times back home. It could
therefore be considered hypocritical for local practices to then
complain about overseas practices being awarded major commissions
here.

Sydney is the most globalized city in Australia [Saskia Sassen] so it
stands to reason that high-end clients based in our CBD seek out
architects of global pedigree. Unfortunately “low risk, high return”
buildings by these clients often outweigh examples of progressive
ideas built on local intuition. Without allowing a level of “local
risk”, architectural innovation in the built environment will struggle
to keep up with rapid change, both at the coalface of it’s own
discipline and within evolving cultural, political and environmental
contexts.

To maintain a healthy balance between global competitiveness and local
distinction I believe an “ideas culture” should be driving the
majority of new projects in Sydney. Creative risk should be encouraged
but managed through such things as open design competitions and
dynamic partnerships between “creative” and “established”
architectural practices. With the exception of a few enlightened
clients who have taken up the cause, this ideas culture needs to be
nurtured and driven by the guardians and curators of the city, our
local and state authorities.

Rather than ask “Who should get the big commissions, local or
international architects?” we should be asking “Which architects have
the best ideas to lead Sydney into the future?”


THOUGHTS ON SOME SYDNEY BUILDINGS BY INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES

DEUTCHE BANK PLACE Foster + Partners
Deutche Bank Place is a fine example of its type and makes an heroic
contribution to the Sydney skyline. For me the Deutche Bank building
lacks playfulness leaving a somewhat soulless, generic and mechanistic
feeling particularly at street level.

AURORA PLACE Renzo Piano
Aurora Place is a material and compositional delight. Piano
established a pair of siblings for the site who clearly share DNA but
also exhibit their own unique personalities. The way the apartments
and office tower interplay with parkland, topography and skyline is
constantly refreshing.

REGENT PLACE Foster + Partners
Regent Place provides an austere backdrop to the sandstone heritage of
Sydney Town Hall and St Andrews Cathedral. Its elegant and assertive
form is more akin to A-grade commercial headquarters than its
Chinatown apartment block neighbours. The building’s taught, balcony-
less façade belies expression of the diverse mix of well resolved
single and double level apartment types within.
I don’t think the Regent Place tower quite fulfils the enticing
“Vertical Village” branding Foster and Partners first presented Sydney
with. For me, “Village” implies an open network of civic space and
public access – difficult to achieve within an exclusive, high-
security, high-rise enclave of this nature.

UTS BUSINESS SCHOOL Frank Gehry
Like Swiss practice Hertzog and de Meuron, Gehry establishes a
strategic separation between resolution of floor planning and
reiterative development of the building envelope. This is a clever
strategy when dealing with a complex brief, site and client. Gehry’s
building is open to the network of students, tourists and locals that
frequent this part of the city and it engages with civic life on
multiple levels. Personally, I prefer the aesthetic of Hertzog and de
Meuron over Gehry’s but I am a big fan of his reiterative design
process.
Gehry’s architecture was once risky. As the prominence of his practice
has grown this risk has been commodified. He has done business schools
in the past so knows the territory. I agree with the UTS Vice
Chancellor who unabashedly refers to the commissioning of Gehry as
instrumental in a branding and positioning strategy for the
university. In those terms I feel the proposal is successful.

CENTRAL PARK Jean Nouvel
The aesthetic of One Central Park relies heavily on a mass planted
facade idea, in this instance deployed as a narrow band of planting
wrapped around the tower on each level. The visual success of the
building will depend on adequate maintenance of these vertical gardens
– difficult to assure in a strata title building. If maintainable, the
tower will be a wonderful green counterpoint to Dysart’s resolute UTS
tower across Broadway.

SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE Joern Utzon
Utzon was a young, ambitious architect when he won the commission for
the Opera House through an open design competition. The drama and
controversy that subsequently plagued the project are one of the
cities great back-stories and played a part in bringing Sydney to
maturity. These tribulations of procurement are eclipsed by the
profound and endearing qualities the Sydney Opera House brings to the
city. Sydney took a risk with Utzon, a risk that continues to pay
dividends.


Adam Russell
DRAW