BLOCK The tentacles of the safety legislation stretch, of course, into our offices themselves. Any practice manager must now be concerned with ergonomics, adequate task lighting, indoor air quality, evacuation plans, vehicle usage policy….. as well as productivity, profitability, and doing some billable work. (A company is even obliged to ensure that a staff member doing work from home has their desk set up for good posture!) So I wondered last Friday afternoon, as I ferried cold beers from the boardroom fridge to my colleagues’ desks, how long it will be before companies must enforce strict policies on alcohol in the workplace. Alcohol is a poison, there’s no doubt about that. And many more New Zealanders die from its effects each year than from construction industry dust. That surely makes a strong case for any company to eliminate it altogether. Take that fridge from the boardroom! Ban employees from accepting invitations to drinks with suppliers and consultants! THE BROADSHEET OF THE AUCKLAND BRANCH OF THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS In the same week that David Mitchell’s article on regulation strangling the originality out of architecture appeared in Block, I also watched the excellent webinar on the new health and safety legislation presented by the NZIA, and read an interesting article on the importance of getting drunk in Japanese business culture, all while Men Without Hats’ 1982 hit “The Safety Dance” looped through my head. While Mitchell and his contemporaries will have practised in an earlier, more golden era, when a flash of architectural brilliance was able to shine without the shrouds of regulation and risk management that dim such light today, my own experience has come after the leaky building fiasco – that slow-motion 9/11 of the building industry – emerged. Every junction must now be detailed, every apron flashing questioned, every internal gutter scrutinised. Yet, somehow, brilliance has still struggled its way through this web of regulation, and we’ve seen some amazing buildings in the past dozen years. And now we have the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 to further distract the architect from design, creativity and originality. This new legislation makes us, even as mere paper scratchers and mouse jockeys, liable for crippling fines if an accident on site can be pinned on us for not being paranoid enough to think that it might have been possible, and prevent it. We can’t insure against such fines. We can’t get our company to pay them. How do we draw even a single line knowing that it might lead us to financial ruin at the hands of Worksafe NZ? Don’t get me wrong. I want every builder on every site (but especially my own) to “go home safe and healthy at the end of the day”. But the responsibility to think about site safety at every stage of the design feels like another part of, as Mitchell puts it, the War Against Architecture. There was an interesting statistic presented during the health and safety seminar on deaths in the NZ construction industry. While, on average, there are around five deaths each year from single incidents, it is estimated that around 200 every year die from chronic illness caused by construction dust and vapours. Asbestos. Silica. Paint and welding fumes. While this means that, obviously, my selections of materials and finishes can contribute to reducing that number, it also conjures an analogy: is all the focus on programming, predictability and process giving us the short-term benefits of cost-control and site safety, while condemning us to the slow, silent sickness of mediocre design? 01/02 2016 We Can Dance If We Want To Health and Safety with Rowan Murray Continued next page... RONDO ® METAL CEILING BATTENS WHY GAMBLE WITH ALTERNATIVES Control the hazard and proceed with the task
Transcript
BLOCK
The tentacles of the safety legislation stretch, of course, into our offices themselves. Any practice manager must now be concerned with ergonomics, adequate task lighting, indoor air quality, evacuation plans, vehicle usage policy….. as well as productivity, profitability, and doing some billable work. (A company is even obliged to ensure that a staff member doing work from home has their desk set up for good posture!)
So I wondered last Friday afternoon, as I ferried cold beers from the boardroom fridge to my colleagues’ desks, how long it will be before companies must enforce strict policies on alcohol in the workplace. Alcohol is a poison, there’s no doubt about that. And many more New Zealanders die from its effects each year than from construction industry dust. That surely makes a strong case for any company to eliminate it altogether. Take that fridge from the boardroom! Ban employees from accepting invitations to drinks with suppliers and consultants!
THE BROADSHEET OF THE AUCKLAND BRANCH OF THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
In the same week that David Mitchell’s article on regulation strangling the originality out of architecture appeared in Block, I also watched the excellent webinar on the new health and safety legislation presented by the NZIA, and read an interesting article on the importance of getting drunk in Japanese business culture, all while Men Without Hats’ 1982 hit “The Safety Dance” looped through my head.
While Mitchell and his contemporaries will have practised in an earlier, more golden era, when a flash of architectural brilliance was able to shine without the shrouds of regulation and risk management that dim such light today, my own experience has come after the leaky building fiasco – that slow-motion 9/11 of the building industry – emerged. Every junction must now be detailed, every apron flashing questioned, every internal gutter scrutinised. Yet, somehow, brilliance has still struggled its way through this web of regulation, and we’ve seen some amazing buildings in the past dozen years.
And now we have the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 to further distract the architect from design, creativity and originality. This new legislation makes us, even as mere paper scratchers and mouse jockeys, liable for crippling fines if an accident on site can be pinned on us for not being paranoid enough to think that it might have been possible, and prevent it. We can’t insure against such fines. We can’t get our company to pay them. How do we draw even a single line knowing that it might lead us to financial ruin at the hands of Worksafe NZ?
Don’t get me wrong. I want every builder on every site (but especially my own) to “go home safe and healthy at the end of the day”. But the responsibility to think about site safety at every stage of the design feels like another part of, as Mitchell puts it, the War Against Architecture.
There was an interesting statistic presented during the health and safety seminar on deaths in the NZ construction industry. While, on average, there are around five deaths each year from single incidents, it is estimated that around 200 every year die from chronic illness caused by construction dust and vapours. Asbestos. Silica. Paint and welding fumes. While this means that, obviously, my selections of materials and finishes can contribute to reducing that number, it also conjures an analogy: is all the focus on programming, predictability and process giving us the short-term benefits of cost-control and site safety, while condemning us to the slow, silent sickness of mediocre design?
01/02 2016
We Can Dance If We Want ToHealth and Safety with Rowan Murray
Continued next page...
RONDO® METAL CEILING BATTENS
WHY GAMBLE WITH ALTERNATIVES
Control the hazard and proceed with the task
CHAIR’S REPORT: Lindley Naismith
The Committee for Auckland: The Committee for Auckland has partnered with Auckland Council to hold a confidential member briefing and interactive today 1 December that Michael Thomson and I are attending. Sue Tindal, Group Chief Financial Officer, Auckland Council will be the keynote speaker and in attendance will be representatives from the report authors EY and Cameron Partners. Last week Auckland Council released the two reports required to satisfy a resolution passed by the Governing Body as part of the Long Term Plan adoption in June. The purpose is to assist Councilors’ consideration of alternative methods of financing Auckland future priorities. The Committee for Auckland has, for some time, been encouraging Auckland Council to adopt more flexibility within its funding model. We look forward hearing from Sue Tindal about the various financing alternatives being considered by Council and the discussion under Chatham House Rules that will follow.
Branch Committee members should have received Committee for Auckland newsletters in September, and November. Still a work-in-progress is assistance from the Future Auckland Leaders Alumni in ideas to support the funding of our ongoing membership of this programme.
The Committee for Auckland Future Auckland Leaders Programme: I was privileged to attend the graduation ceremony for the latest cohort of 29 FAL graduates as guest of Auckland Branch participant Courtney Kitchen. Chair of the Committee’s Board of Trustees and departing Auckland City Missioner, Dame Diane Robertson awarded the certificates to the class of 2015. The event was attended by Committee for Auckland’s members from across the public, private and not for profit sectors. As Auckland celebrates five years of amalgamation and looks to its future as the world’s most liveable city, a group of emerging business leaders from all over the region have delivered five social development projects that will enhance the city for residents and visitors. Working in teams, participants selected and were tasked with delivering a project that makes a meaningful contribution to Auckland while providing the opportunity to experience and shape the many facets of leadership practice in action.
The five legacy projects for 2015 are: Community Kitchen, Donating Brains, Garden of Knowledge (Courtney’s project), Maunga Mana and Project Timata. All of the projects forge strong connections with community groups to address social, economic or environmental issues. Placements for the 2016 FAL cohort are closing January 29, 2016 and we are seeking expressions of interest from the Auckland membership for the position of the NZIA nominee by 4 December.
Awards and Local Awards Convenor: Of some urgency is the appointment of the Auckland convenor. Awards entries have opened and close on 19 February. Jury shortlisting should occur immediately following this (prior to the end of February) with jury tours undertaken in the month of March. The Auckland award function has been provisionally scheduled for 11 May 2016.
Auckland Urban Design Panel – Te Aranga Design Principals: Another event that was a privilege to attend was a training session last week for the panellist pool provide background and insight into the manua whenua engagement as now enshrined in the Urban Design Manual. The 3 other professional groups - NZILA, NZPI, NZPC that with the NZIA make up the panel pool were well represented, but architects – who comprise the majority were notably absent. It was a fascinating and informative session lead by Rau Hoskins and an amazing colleague, held on the Waipapa Marae at Auckland University. I urge the architect panellists to attend should there be another opportunity.
But. (And I’m so pleased there is a but!) Alcohol is a social lubricant. Just like those few drops of oil that keep the Paslode firing smoothly nail after nail after nail, a few beers have long been an accepted and effective way to build friendship and trust between colleagues and peers (except, of course, for Mormons, Muslims, Methodists and others who do not partake). Networking is about building relationships. Those relationships have a value which is hard to measure, but is very important in realising any complex, original, even risky project.
In Japan, it is customary for relationships between colleagues and business associates to be forged outside the office during sessions of heavy drinking, and I think that this is, to at least some extent, a part of our own business culture. Now, I wouldn’t encourage an employee to drink heavily for the good of the company, nor work for a boss who expected it. But I wouldn’t accept a company policy on alcohol that would prevent someone from willingly doing what they would do in their spare time anyway.
My current work is remediation – cleaning up some of the mess that the leaky building saga has left behind. It’s a minefield of red tape, council processes, government legislation and application forms, along with multiple tiers of client representatives and nervous, cash-strapped owners. It’s one of the most risk-averse fields of architectural endeavour, because if there’s one thing that’s worse than getting a building wrong, it’s getting it wrong twice. So our design baseline for weather-tightness, fire safety, occupant health, cost control, programming and so on and so forth has to be rock solid, and set at a high level.
But that’s not enough.
Because if there’s one thing worse than making a good design leak in the first place, it’s fixing it with bad design. If we give our clients a weather-tight solution that’s ugly, then we have failed them as surely as if we give them another building that leaks.
So, what do we do then? To avoid hefty fines for workplace accidents? To hang on to the original idea in the face of risk-averse project management? To keep the focus of architecture on design?
We do what architects have always done. We get better. We learn to weave those elements of dustless, scaffolded, hard-hatted, hand-railed, VOC-free, low-vibration, low-decibel, low-alcohol, ergonomic, padded, bubble-wrapped cotton-wool safety into our designs ourselves. Grab a tame project manager to review your concept design, then control the solutions, instead of scrambling to retro-fit some Rube Goldbergesque add-on at the last minute.
Men Without Hats wrote their seminal hit after being kicked out of a nightclub for pogo dancing. (Now, pogo dancing has turned into the uniformly accepted mosh pit, while men without [hard] hats are uniformly kicked off site.) While it seems that the current concern for caution is contrary to the level of risk inherent in architectural originality, it’s one we shouldn’t fight, can’t avoid, and if we do, we’ll just lose more scope for creativity to beam-counting quantity surveyors and jerkin-wearing safety monitors. As architects, we need to learn the moves of The Safety Dance, so we can stay in control of the club. Rowan Murray
We Can Dance If We Want To Continued from prev page...
Ph+64 9 358 2770 PO Box 90952 AMSCEmail us for a full-colour pdf or back issues
End of year reviews are an emotional time for students and supervisors. To the mix of wariness, hope, and elation I would add a critic’s unease; unease with displays of ever more publication ready material - plans primed for circulation, sections for dissemination, and numerous perspectives ready for press.
I’ve imagined making a stop-motion movie of student displays from the past decade or so. You’d note a clear but quiet revolution wherein publication-ready material incrementally crowds out other kinds of things. Change like this must be measured in degrees, but it’s fair to say that drawings from outside the territory of the architectural media now struggle to find their place on the pin boards. There’s an abundance of perspectives, aerial views, and other graphic wonders that capture the final creation, but depictions of a design life, of students scratching around and figuring things out are few and far between. The signs of a design genius – of a creative power at work – are rarely shown alongside the finished thing. By and large the products of creative work crowd out the evidence of design genius.
A change in the material on show and the kinds of discussion that ensue can be explored as a change in manufacturing models. I’d contend a ‘publication’ model is now crowding out a more ‘authentic’ model. The qualities and characteristics of former will be discussed below, but the idea of an authentic model suggests a way of making that leads to things with a unique existence. This is architecture with no back-up copy. Within the embrace of an authentic model, things are made with a sense of being here and now, what Walter Benjamin described as something having a “unique existence at the place where it happens to be.”
A Quiet RevolutionChanging the Way Architects Are Made
Continued next page...
Best wishes for 2016from all of us at Copybook!2016 is our 30th year in business and throughout that time we have enjoyed a special relationship with many of you in the architectural community - Thank you for your support.
We will continue to provide a fast and efficient service for all our customers - if you haven’t used us before and are looking for someone new, please give us a call. On Mayoral Drive in the City
Una selezione di colori per fugature con un effetto senza pari
Dalla ricerca Mapei, 14 colori per la stuccatura di piastrelle ceramiche dall’effetto naturale per un abbinamento perfetto. Un ambiente di design che non ti aspetti.
A choice of colours for grouting mortars with an unrivalled effect
From Mapei research: 14 colours with a natural effect, the perfect combination for grouting ceramic tiles. A touch of design you weren’t expecting.
BOOK.indd 5 06/08/14 18:54
133 SABBIA SAND
135 POLVERE DORATA GOLDEN DUST
142 MARRONE BROWN
136 FANGO MUD
149 SABBIA VULCANICA VOLCANO SAND
174 TORNADO TORNADO
134 SETA SILK
I col
ori e
spos
ti so
no in
dica
tivi e
pos
sono
var
iare
per
mot
ivi d
i sta
mpa
Due
to th
e pr
intin
g pr
oces
ses
invo
lved,
the
colo
urs
shou
ld b
e ta
ken
as m
erel
y in
dica
tive
of th
e sh
ades
of t
he a
ctua
l pro
duct
.
BOOK.indd 4 06/08/14 18:54
103 BIANCO LUNA MOON WHITE
111 GRIGIO ARGENTO SILVER GREY
113 GRIGIO CEMENTO CEMENT GREY
114 ANTRACITE ANTHRACITE
130 JASMINE JASMINE
132 BEIGE 2000 BEIGE 2000
110 MANHATTAN 2000 MANHATTAN 2000
Una selezione di colori per fugature con un effetto senza pari
Dalla ricerca Mapei, 14 colori per la stuccatura di piastrelle ceramiche dall’effetto naturale per un abbinamento perfetto. Un ambiente di design che non ti aspetti.
A choice of colours for grouting mortars with an unrivalled effect
From Mapei research: 14 colours with a natural effect, the perfect combination for grouting ceramic tiles. A touch of design you weren’t expecting.
BOOK.indd 5 06/08/14 18:54
The perfect range of earth tone colours
A Quiet Revolution Continued from prev page...
Get too close to something authentic and you risk smudging a line and changing things forever. There’s room here for stuff that can only really be in one place at a time; things whose full intensity must be experienced exclusively at that place where it happens to be. Authentic material frustrates reproduction, publication, and dissemination. It’s exclusive and this presents both opportunities and constraints. By contrast, things made within the embrace of a publication model put architecture at the outer limits of quantum physics. Here is architecture that can be everywhere at the same time.
The idea of a publication model crowding out an authentic model should not be mistaken as a call for the resurrection of a golden age of the handmade. As Simon Ingram shows, a computer can make authentic works. His Random Walk and Painting Assemblage are collaborations with computers and other robotic paraphernalia that result in digitally driven paintings immersed in the here and now.
Within the embrace of a publication model, the opportunities mechanical reproduction and dissemination afford tends to crowd out the space for authentic things. This can happen for good reason and carries with it the benefits of being in all places at all times, including a denunciation of exclusivity. But alongside the opportunities there are risks.
An architecture school shapes students as much as the formal or conceptual pursuits that fascinate the wider world. Who teaches and examines students, what technologies are at their disposal, what they’re required to make - these are some of the factors fashioning the school in which students contemplate the right and good.
How does this mix play out today? Alongside a few tenured staff, a highly casualised labour force is seconded from the market place to teach and examine the final years. As for technology, students have access to software and tools from across a range of industries. This access is consistent with the ‘democratization of the tools of invention’ that accompanied the growth of web-culture. It’s radically changed “who does what”. More than before, architecture students master the technologies of the graphic design, multimedia design, product design, computer programming, and rapid prototyping industries (to name just a few) alongside more traditional architectural technologies.
With these tools they make a case for architecture; a thesis published in duplicate and couriered out for examination. And what case does the thesis make? One for an architecture bound up in a world where the traditional tools of architectural invention have themselves been democratized. This is a world where Sketch-Up removes many of the barriers that traditionally limited the untrained in their efforts. All kinds of people are in on the game and this creates some incentive to reclaim ground for architecture - an incentive to go beyond Sketch-Up.
A turn towards a publication model is one binding force that helps fashion a school. And it describes a way of making that must seem perfectly natural. Firstly, it fits well with the way in which students are assessed. Whereas assessment once involved a roving group of examiners visiting individual projects, now multiple copies of a thesis are sent out for examination. A publication model offers great convenience here because there’s pressure on the copies to be facsimiles – otherwise, which examiner would you give the ‘good copy’ to? Graphic design and reproduction tools come to the fore. First PageMaker, then QuarkXPress, then In-Design – publishing industry tools offer students increasing reliability in WYSIWHG (What You See is What You Get).
The pressure for replication cannot be divorced from pressures upon making and thinking. One can begin to sense a crowding out of an authentic approach; of thoughts and things that embody an architectural presence in one place at one time. A need for a stable and reproducible vision understandably
Continued next page...
creates hesitation when it comes to things that might smudge or smear and otherwise frustrate reproduction because they’re too big, too small, and too fine, light, heavy, or delicate.
A stable vision then enables students to seize opportunities. They can have their work on show in crits, published in a draft thesis, pinned up at a grad show, emailed to competitions, and handed out as a CV - all at the same time. But this means making and thinking about architecture that can be simultaneously in more than one place. Again, in this context it can make little sense to make things reliant on a unique existence for effect.
Lastly, publication technologies offer students some delight. Using image-editing software like Photoshop, they’re making a myriad of astonishing elevation, section, and perspective drawings through a process of digital collage. With fine layer control, they seamlessly draw together light, texture, colour, line, and entourage into a delightful whole washed across a tracery of building lines extracted from an underlying computer model. Atmosphere and emotion are rendered with exquisite care.
A turn to atmosphere is one response to the democratisation of architectural technology. The delightful drawings demonstrate the point at which Sketch-Up fails with its emphasis upon building shape. The student’s drawings suggest shape is but a side effect of an architect’s atmospheric ambitions. And those who want to make architecture need to do more than drive Sketch-Up. Publishing tools like Photoshop offer a route towards that ‘something more’ and a publication model supports their use.
The course towards a change in manufacturing models is complicated and this discussion is at best illustrative of some of the forces at play. But it’s hopefully enough to show how a turn towards a publication model can seem like a natural course of action. It complements educational expectations and opportunities. It’s convenient, firm, and delightful and it can seem to go without saying that it’s the right way to make architecture.
This change is a ‘quiet revolution’. It’s change that has the force of a revolution – some ways of thinking, making, and talking about architecture are coming to dominate and others are being crowded out. And a generation of students is being bound together by publication tools, values, and thoughts. And while not all change needs to be riotous, this one is distinctive for its quietness. It’s change through infiltration. The publication model is quietly exerting influence over a wide array of thoughts and actions.
A quiet architectural revolution kindles unease because of the risk it’s part of a broader but equally quiet societal revolution that has transpired over recent decades. This is a revolution in which we’ve drifted from having a market economy to being a market society - a change in which nearly everything in society is either up for sale or at least thought of in those terms. Critically, the advent of a publication model in architectural education is concurrent with the advent of a market society.
A market society is a place where market thinking and market values exert influence over aspects of life traditionally governed by non-market norms. Examples abound - social welfare tenants are offered cash incentives to move out of Auckland, prisons earn profits for corporations administering justice reconceived as biddable contracts, and charter schools recast education in the terms of an economist’s logic. Social welfare, justice, and education are some of the spheres where market values now crowd out traditional non-market ways of thinking. Commentators say this has all happened quietly, without a robust public debate on the moral limits of markets.
If social welfare, justice, and education are quietly up for sale, what chance does architecture stand? What’s at stake if the quiet revolution in manufacturing is complementary to market thinking crowding out other kinds of architectural thought?
This is not to say a publication model is responsible for architecture’s commodification. Nor is it to yearn for another golden age, this time one in which architecture is intrinsically valued, unfettered by market forces. It is though a question of what’s at stake if there’s a complementary relationship between a publication model and a market takeover. What are the risks if market incentives and marketing material crowds out other ways of thinking about making architecture in school? And what are the risks if a publication model fosters a market surge by the way it schools students in designing architecture for consumption?One risk is that students learn about the architect’s role as a consumption engineer and develop advanced skills in coercing consumption, but that this crowds out learning about the other roles an architect can fulfil.
Another risk is that students learn to make a hollow architecture, one devoid of design genius and one that degrades public dignity. Unfortunately this is not a theoretical risk, but a lesson Steve Jobs learned observing the failings of product design companies.
Taking Xerox as his example, Jobs describes how the company’s market share was so large that its leaders decided it didn’t matter whether they made better photocopiers. People had to come to Xerox for their reproduction tools. In this context, marketing and sales people were the ones deemed capable of making the company more successful. They crowded out designers at the decision-making table and the company then forgot what it meant to make good products. The design genius that brought Xerox success was disenfranchised and rotted out, leaving behind the hollow shell of a company that could point to a marketing campaign but had no leading products. Those running the company had no sense of the difference between a good and a bad product and no conception of the design genius required to turn a good idea into a good product. Worst of all, says Jobs, when marketing and sales crowded out design genius, Xerox was left with no feeling in its heart for wanting to help its customers. It saw them as consumers of a marketing strategy and not as dignified people deserving of design genius.
Playing this scenario through architectural education raises unease. If marketing material crowds out the evidence of design genius there’s a risk design genius will not be valued as part of architecture’s public discourse. There’s then a risk students might forget what it means and what it takes to make good architecture. And if a publication model complements a market drive by supporting the products of creative work over the evidence of design genius, there’s a risk of making a hollow architecture from which design genius has been rotted out. It’s a short journey then to architecture that does not engage the public in a dignified way but recasts them primarily as consumers of a marketing strategy.
My unease lies with this risk. Sitting in the crits, I sometimes felt like I was first and foremost a consumer. I fear the work remade me in this way, crowding out my wish to be in front of architecture in other ways. And it happened quietly, almost like it went without saying. SF
Mon, 15th 4:00p.m.– 7:00pm
Expert Tour 2016 – Energy Saving, Health and ClimateQBE Stadium - Level 1 North Lounge, Stadium Drive, North Shore
Tue, 23rd 1:30p.m.– 3:30p.m.
NZIA Resene Distinguished Speaker Seminar– Peter Cullinane, Sir Raymond “Ray” AveryPullman Hotel, cnr. Waterloo Quadrant and Princes Street
Tue, 23rd 3:30p.m.– 5:30p.m.
Colour in Architecture and Design – Beyond Aesthetics Auckland Art Gallery, cnr. Kitchener and Wellesley Street
Thu, 25th 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
The Green Room 27 Napier Street, Freemans Bay
Mon, 29th 7:30 a.m. - 9:20 a.m.
Kjetil Thorsen (Snohetta) Lecture Owen G Glenn Building, UoA Business School, 12 Grafton Road
NZIA Calender: February
A Quiet Revolution Continued from prev page...
SECRETARY & TREASURER’S REPORT: Michael Thompson
All good: Not all costs are in but it would appear we have a surplus of approx. $15k on this year’s budget, which will no doubt please HQ.Main reasons are costs on Arch Week were $7,000 under budget due to getting more sponsorship and the spend being down. Part of the reason for this is that we did not have a key speaker, and we mainly tapped into other events rather than organising our own events. These are things to be discussed in the Arch Week debrief. Also, student events were about $7,000 under budget, mainly because we had only 2 or 3 of the imagined 10 to 12 events. Again something to be worked on for next year to make sure we carry out these events.Block costs were down as well, there appear to have been only 6 issues this year rather than the eight budgeted for - approx. $3,000. Again for discussion with the Block team. Elsewhere pluses and minuses balanced each other out. So we can afford to reward everyone with a small end of year lunch/dinner.
PORTFOLIO: COUNCILLORS’ REPORT: Christina van Bohemen & Tim Melville
Report of November Council Meeting: At the recent meeting council the hot topics were Health and Safety, and also Marketing and Advocacy.
Health and Safety Legislation: H+S changes which come into effect next April have implications for the organisation as well as for practitioners. This includes branch activities particularly those that occur outside of Zurich House, such as Architecture Week or walking tours and building visits. It will be important to include this as an agenda item for our meetings and more particularly that any event we are responsible for running outside includes consideration and documentation of what risks there might be and what H+S measures have been put in place. We can seek advice or guidance from National Office for developing a strategy and template for branch use.
Marketing: The poor media coverage of the recent National Awards has prompted the president and council to consider how NZIA should address the marketing of the profession’s skills in order to meet the strategic goals. A working group led by Pip Cheshire will define a course of action and who, if any, external consultants may be engaged. This review will need to address who the target market is, promotion of process as well as the outcome, and to consider how the membership can engage with the public at local level.
NZIA Website: Council has expressed its concern and slow pace of the site’s development and delayed launch. Council was given a presentation of the beta version, which was received with a lot of enthusiasm. It would seem there are still issues to work through between the 3 companies working on it. But we are promised, the launch is coming soon...
Member Services: In 2016 National Office will run a pilot of NZIA Advisory and Issues Management Service. This is in response to the continuing number and type of complaints that NZIA receives.
Continued p.6...
The Fine Print Continued from p.2...
The intention is to establish a mediation service for both clients and architects that may facilitate the resolution of issues arising so as to keep the project on track. The program is modelled on a similar service offered by Master Builders. It will be free for both architects and clients. Such a service could both assist to get through difficult points in a project as well as reduce the number of complaints made to both NZIA and NZRAB. Funds have been allocated for specialist mediation services, training for “mentor” architects, and documentation of advisory guide notes. In addition the CPD programme will include professional education designed to improve improved business practice and service delivery.
CPD Programme 2016 and Beyond: See the attached list of possible topics. This has been generated both by the recent member survey as well as by the nature of complaints NZIA receives. There is a role for the branch to play in contribution to this programme as well as SPGs and IOTs are another useful vehicle for developing skills in these areas.NZIA/AGM Architecture NZ Editorial Board: An editorial board has been established to work with AGM. The intention is that the board will provide focus, direction and review across the title given its branding as the “official journal of the Institute”.
UoA REPORT: Michael Milojević
With most students now off doing other things and most of the semester grading done, the School staff focuses on student enquiries and ensuring this year’s thesis students meet their final deadlines. The MArch(Prof) thesis deadline is tomorrow, and this is the cause for well-earned celebration marked by a Town & Gown event hosted in the School by the NZIA. Concurrently staff are meeting with next year’s thesis students about their topics due this week and scheduling their summer preparative research as it’s now not uncommon that their project sites might be overseas where they are heading in the break. Based on an in-house Pechakucha of 13 excellent thesis projects the School has selected Tessa Forde, Chirag Jindal, Rob Pak and Katy Turner as our 2015 NZIA CADImage Student Design Award finalists. A couple of weeks ago Rob Pak won the AAA Visionary Architecture Award Student Category with a project for the extensive redevelopment of the former Auckland Railway Station and rail yards between Quay Street and the Strand; last year’s NZIA SDA finalist Zee Shake Lee won the AAA Visionary Architecture Award Conceptual Category.
Following on from some academic staff retirements and resignations, the School has been conducting international searches to fill new positions in urban design, technology, media, and history and theory. The candidates’ presentations suggest many tantalizing pedadgogical and research directions; it is expected that there will imminently be vital new staff in all streams of the School’s program. In addition to planning for next year’s double review of the academic programs - a National Visiting Panel and the University’s own internal review - this is the time of year when the School plans its public events programs Communiqué and Fast Forward which includes, this coming year, cooperation with The University of Queensland.
UoA STUDENT REPORT: Sam Aislabie
Thesis Exhibition: The Exit Show is an exhibition of the work of final year thesis students from the University of Auckland. It opened on Friday 13th Nov to almost 600 people in the courtyard of Ironbank. The exhibition over the weekend attracted a surprising crowd too, with 340 people visiting. We are super-grateful to Warren and Mahoney and Architectus who stepped up to sponsor the event at short notice. A big thanks to Biz Dojo and forlease.co.nz for the use of the space. In the past this event has been organised by the University of Auckland. However, for various reasons support was pulled from it a few weeks prior. As a result SANNZ stepped in to organise it. This situation exemplifies the importance of having an organisation like SANNZ which sits independent of each of the Universities and is able to put the interests of architecture students first.A sponsor has expressed interest in our running a similar event next year, but with work from students across the universities and perhaps pairing it with some sort of showcase from ‘the profession’ to the graduating students.
UNITEC REPORT: Jeanette Budgett
The student year at Unitec wound up last week with the annual Prize-giving and Gradfest. A big night made better by the support of sponsors, the NZIA included amongst the Warren Trust, NZACS, Team Architects and Cadimage. We would like to thank all of you again for making it such a generous occasion. Four of our top students are not yet finished: John Belford Lela’ulu, Kiri McKenna, Hannah Broatch and Don Pengpala will present their final year projects in the NZIA CADimage Student Design Awards 2015 this week.
Change is in the air with the departure of Tony Van Raat (15 years sterling effort in the job as Head of Department) and Unitec’s institutional transformation underway. Architecture is to form a department with Landscape Architecture and Interior Architecture in 2016. We will be one ‘pathway’ in a larger network entitled ‘Construction and Infrastructure.’ The association with Landscape is not new. Some of you may remember SCALA, School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, whose name lives on in our public lecture series. We look forward to working with our new/old colleagues.
In the interim, the reins have passed to Renee Davies, currently Head of Department (HOD) of Landscape Architecture and Acting HOD of Architecture, ably assisted by Peter McPherson as Programme Director of the Bachelor of Architectural Studies and yours truly in the same role for the Master of Architecture (Professional). UNITEC is currently seeking a new person to head up this consortium of departments. There will be one Head of Practice Pathway for the Architecture grouping of disciplines/programmes and the outcome of that process should be known prior to Christmas.
UNITEC STUDENT REPORT: Jonnel Mamauag
UNITEC this year has been hectic to say the least. Plans for next year involve mainly the same work: reports for the committee, events with SANNZ, and continuing the conversation and connection with the profession, the student body and their respective schools.
SANNZ has had a great revival this year, and conversations with the other reps (Sam Aislabie and co.) indicate that we should establish a succession plan in order for the network to continue on and not fizzle out as in the past. Student reception to the network has been overwhelmingly positive, along with the respective architecture schools and local branches. The group wishes to continue on with this momentum in 2016, and careful planning is key. How this pans out is still on the drawing board. Future activities and plans for SANNZ will be outlined in further detail in Sam Aislabie’s report, with some repeats of the most successful activities in the following year e.g. 24hour comp, and the SANNZ Journals.
On a similar subject, next year also involves looking for a successor for my spot at the committee, hopefully before mid-year. This one is high on my list, as I am looking to focus more on the Master’s research project for 2016. But the lack of candidates or volunteers is an issue. Finding one from the younger year groups who were highly active with Branch and SANNZ activities is ideal. Fingers crossed this will sort itself out sooner than later.
GRADUATE PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION: Bobby Shen
The Graduate Professional Education portfolio has seen the re-evaluation of the offering for graduate members over 2015 following 2014’s focus of helping last stage architectural students move into graduate life. The second Pathways Workshop was held again at the University of Auckland for this purpose and this has been documented so other branches can adopt the format if they see the need for it.
The GDP programme addresses most graduate concerns with registration to become an architect so GPE of the Auckland Branch has been complementing on a more local level. A Study Group Q and A session with recently registered architects Hannah Andrews, Nick Sayes, Glen Frost and Dasha Tarasova gave attendees different approaches on how to make the most of study groups. An expert seminar was also held about Demystifying Risk with a talk by Graham Strez on professional risk, insurances, etc. There was a full house attending the seminar and it was filmed by the NZIA and is now available online for graduates who may have missed out.
On that note, these seminars on contentious or tricky issues to do with practice and thus registration seem to be popular with graduates and over the next year I hope the GPE can provide more. If any graduate or GDP members have suggestions for these, please email Bobby Shen [email protected]. 2016 will see a similar programme of events from the GPE with ongoing efforts to strengthen the student-graduate divide in relation to the NZIA community. Ongoing liaison with the graduate representative in the NZIA and other branches has started this year with hopes to continue.
DESIGN ADVOCACY: Jo Aitken
Auckland Architecture Week 2015: We will be holding a debrief to discuss the week in depth and start planning for Auckland Architecture Week 2016. Auckland Architecture Week took place in September, which we helped organise with Jessica Barter, Sam Aislabie, Lindley Naismith and Michael Thompson. The week was a success, with the majority of events selling out, with a full house. We attended most of the events that week, which were both insightful and entertaining, so thank you to all the wonderful speakers and attendees. A huge thank you goes out to the Primary supporters of the event: Resene, Gib, AUT and the Warren Trust. Thank you also to all the other sponsors and supporters from individual events including HOME Magazine, Interiors Magazine, Architecture New Zealand, Sika, Man O’War Vineyard, Metalcraft, Cobalt Recruiting, The University of Auckland and 76 Small Rooms podcast team.
Auckland Architecture week collaborated successfully with several other events including the Albert-Eden Bungalow Festival, The University of Auckland National Institute of Creative Arts and Industries Career Week, NZ Green Building Council’s celebration of World Green Building Week, Auckland Conversation series and the Architecture+Women NZ’s day of events, so thank you to all those people involved in organising and running these events.
Open House and Waterfront Auckland: We are currently in discussion with Waterfront Auckland to assist with organising ‘Open House’, which is to take place in April 2016. ‘Open House’ This is an annual event that is already running in several cities worldwide such as London, New York, Rome, Chicago, Dublin, Bareclona, Lisbon, Vienna and so on. It is a simple but powerful concept: showcasing outstanding architecture for all to experience, for free. It is an event that invites everyone to explore and understand the value of a well-designed environment.
AAA Visionary Architecture Awards 2015: Congratulations to all the winners announced at a ceremony held on 17th November. This year, 200 entries were received from leading architectural practices and students around the country and 12 projects were awarded. The judging panel consisted of Rewi Thompson (Design tutor at University of Auckland), Dean MacKenzie (Monk Mackenzie Architects) and Lynda Simmons (Lecturer at University of Auckland) and Chris Darby (Auckland Council’s Urban Design Champion and deputy Chairperson of the Infrastructure and Auckland Development Committees).
Next Year: We will continue the DATC initiative and see if this can be expanded further in 2016 to improve the reach of architecture and architectural initiatives among the public. We will be helping organise Auckland Architecture week and similar initiatives in 2016 for both Design Advocacy to a wider audience and for the benefit of the NZIA members. This includes working with Waterfront Auckland on the event outlined above and some other design advocacy projects in 2016.
PRACTICE PORTFOLIO: Neil Martin
PIG: On 3 November 2015 John Sutherland presented to a full house on the pro’s and con’s of substitutions to specified products or systems during construction. This was a rapid scoot across the various inter-related issues of professional expertise, documentation, market reality, liability, consenting challenges, and more. It was a great summary of the issues faced when bridging between the world of detailed design and documentation and construction. A special PIG session was held on 18 November to accommodate a presentation by Courtney Kitchen on her Future Auckland Leaders Experience over the last two years. This seminar course is sponsored by the NZIA Auckland Branch, with applications currently being open for the 2016 candidate. Courtney’s talk was great value and inspired the modest but highly engaged group to ask questions for 30 minutes. We are continuing planning for next year’s talks. The calendar will be confirmed in the New Year. Suggestions welcome:
Auckland Council Customer Advisory Group: The ACCAG session was not attended by the NZIA this month.
NZIA NZCIC Working Group: The NZIA working group meets again on 4 December 2015
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES GROUP: Hannah Andrew
2015 has seen a range of engaging EIG activities including presentations on Leaky Buildings, Roof Construction, the Auckland Design Manual and Universal Design, as well as a Green Architecture Walk as part of Architecture Week, and attending the Universal Design Forum run by Auckland Council.
The Universal Design Forum is ongoing, with the next meeting (mid December) providing an opportunity to review the extensive work Auckland Council have been carrying out for the Universal Design Hub – including the building reviewer tool and the Universal Design personas. Other liaison included meeting with Cyrielle Durand, the NZ Business Development Manager of FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) who have only recently introduced a NZ office of FSC. FSC are a non-profit membership based organisation that look to ensure forests are managed in a way that not only takes care of the animals and plants that call it home, but also workers and local communities who rely on forests, and indigenous groups whose heritage connects them to forest landscapes. Cyrielle will be doing a presentation in early 2016, and you can refer to https://nz.fsc.org for more information on FSC. Liaison is also underway to organize a presentation by Sofie Willems & Joan Raun Nielsen of Danish firm Spektrum Arkitekter (www.spektrumarkitekter.dk) during their visit in February 2016. Sofie and Joan are incredible presenters with a fantastic body of work, so keep an eye out early next year. General organisation is underway for 2016 with consideration to the EIG team, and possible presentations and events. Topic suggestions are always encouraged - please email [email protected]
HERITAGE PORTFOLIO: Adam Wild
The PAUP: The vexed issue of special character and controls over pre-1944 buildings in Auckland continues unabated. Notwithstanding interim guidance from the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) to the Auckland Council that proceeding with the pre-1944 demolition controls in the PAUP would not be supported by the IHP, Council remain determined to promote this control. Further work by Council has seen a reduction in the extent of Auckland covered by the control.
Post-1944 Heritage: The civic administration building The consequence of the EOI to the market for those interested in the adaptive reuse of the former Auckland City Council Civic Administration Building and land associated with it continues. No news has been forthcoming on the level of interest the market has in this opportunity and the special values of this building and the regard for other modern heritage.
The Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Bill: One of the finer details contained in the recent revisions to the Bill is the targeting of strengthening to parapets and to veranda canopies. These building elements are recognised as two of the less resilient found in the 1000s of unreinforced masonry buildings and the prospect of making verandas more resilient aligns with our campaign for making veranda canopies not simply more resilient, but safe zones associated with earthquake-prone buildings.
Heritage NZ vs Palmerston North City Council: We have been assisting the Western Branch through the year on a related matter with submissions it has been making to an appeal in the Environment Court with respect to a local plan change. Through member involvement the ‘restricted discretionary’ activity threshold for consenting remains. Heritage NZ had appealed to amend to ‘non-complying’ in respect of total or partial demolition, however architects require a planning framework that enables adaptive reuse which will invariably require some degree of demolition. The cost to obtain resource consent for heritage buildings is too high and this will help with s104D gateway tests in terms of RMA. Amanda Coates (local Western Branch committee member) noted that “our s274 involvement as a Branch has merit”. Arising
out of this work, and following on from conversations with PNCC, is the development of a Heritage Strategy for the City. Again Amanda notes: “We are heartened to see so many architects and architectural designers have submitted on the latest PC20 Residential review of the district plan. This raises the profile of the architectural profession and increases the mix of opinions considered in decision making.”
EVENTS PORTFOLIO: Jessica Barter
Architecture Week: Architecture week built on the success of last year with 11 events and exhibitions in late September. Linking this week with other organisations and industry partners proved particularly successful, bringing larger and more diverse crowds as well as reducing the amount of organisation at our end. We continue to maintain a good relationship with the AAW sponsors and will work with many again next year. An architecture week debrief is scheduled for Dec 1st and any suggested changes will be reported back to the committee. Town and Gown: On Tuesday 1st December (tomorrow) a panel of architects will discuss with graduating students ‘the next step into practice’ over beer and pizza at the University of Auckland. Dom Glamuzina, Dan Marshall, Lance & Nicky Herbst and myself will be addressing how to get a job, get registered and the role of the NZIA. NZ at the 2016 Venice Biennale: All preparations for Future Islands are going well and we are really excited to be seeing glimpses of the finished exhibition. All 20 composite ‘islands’ have been manufactured and delivered to a studio space we have to work from for the next few months where we have been undergoing suspension / lighting and projection testing. 55 projects from NZ architects will be exhibited in the form of models, which are all currently under production. The project is currently running on time and on budget and is due to be loaded into a container in January to travel to Venice by sea. The accompanying catalogue is also in full production. The NZIA have held a number of successful patrons events in Queenstown and Auckland that have seen a great response. For those interested in joining us in Venice the opening event for the Future Islands exhibit will be taking place on May 25th, 2016 with other events being held over the following few days. The NZIA are still seeking patronage and also volunteers to mind the exhibition over its duration. (Further information at http://venice.nzia.co.nz)
SANNZ: Sam Aislabie
Building on the success of 2015 we propose a larger program of events between the four schools - University of Auckland, Victoria University, Unitec, and CPIT
24hr Design Competition: The same as in 2015, except bigger. The 24hr competition is the only regular event which brings students from all 4 schools together. In 2015 we had almost 100 entrants, 40 of which were from Wellington or Christchurch. However, we had a wait list of 30 people so in 2016 we would love to increase the scale of the event and number of entrants. We have already had a sponsor express interest in supporting next year’s event.
International Speaker + Workshops: We have invited a prominent international academic to visit Auckland and Wellington in the first half of 2016 for a lecture and an afternoon workshop with students. We are currently seeking sponsorship for this. More info TBC soon!
off~route 3: In its third year, off~route is a mini-symposium that looks at recent graduates who are running their own practices or building full scale projects as part of their thesis. This would take place in Auckland and Wellington, sharing some of the speakers between the two.
Publication: The bi-annual SANNZ journal publishes submissions from students across the country, with each issue being edited by one of the three main schools - Vic, UoA, Unitec
Local regional events: A small allocation of money is put aside for any small events or initiatives within schools. This has proved incredibly fruitful as it enables smaller events to happen. In 2015 this included a reading group, life drawing classes, crit club and a small end of year social event.2015 Metrics: We spent some time last month looking closely at the number of people we have reached with each of our events. The data is:
off~route akl,100; off~route wgtn, 80; 24 Hour Competition, 100 + 50 additional student viewers; Congress in Melbourne, 30; Life Drawing, 30; Reading group, 12 x 7 events = 84; Akl end of year BBQ, 150; SANNZ Journal, 2,250 printed in total (all taken); MVRDV Talk, 100; Crit Club, 2 x 20 = 40; Wellington Study groups, 120; Exit Show, 600 opening + 340 exhibition = 940. Year Total = 4,074.
General notes for 2016
• I think it would be beneficial to compile a working document of who currently sponsors the NZIA. We have occasionally approached people for sponsorship who are already providing assistance to the institute for events or at Venice etc. which has been a bit embarrassing. I am happy to help with this if the branch thinks it would be useful.
• I think there is perhaps a bit of an overlap in events and intentions of several graduate events - Pathways, Town and Gown, Entry Show and ‘off~route’. They all have a slightly different agenda and are important events however I think they would benefit from being more evenly dispersed through the year rather than just the later half.
• All the main SANNZ reps are stepping back into a support role and letting others take on leadership roles. As a result I will step down from the Auckland Branch in 2016 and allow one of the next UoA SANNZ reps to be on the committee. I hope this connection remains a benefit to both SANNZ and the branch.
FAL & A+W: Courtney Kitchen
FAL: The FAL programme for 2014/15 was wrapped up formally with the graduation event on Feb 17th, held at Auckland Museum. The five community projects were presented to a crowd of Committee for Auckland members and stakeholders. The Garden of Knowledge project was well received, having recently won the “Built and Grown Environment” award at the NZ Aged Care Association national conference, and has established a promising legacy with the project being undertaken by NZ Aged Care Association. Applications are now open for the 2016-17 NZIA participant.
Architecture+Women: A+W in association with the Auckland Branch have a number of events planned for early 2016, including a TIG (or EIG) event to compliment the Straw Bale Conference, and a breakfast event with Sofie Willems & Joan Raun Nielsen of Danish firm Spektrum Arkitekter (www.spektrumarkitekter.dk). A+W are seeking support from the Branch by way of marketing/event notices under the umbrella of the Issues Groups, and possible provision of refreshments.
EVENTS SUPPORT: John Balasoglou
Tennis Tournament Mid-March, Winter Lecture Series June/July, International Guest Speaker September for AAW 2016.
Lecture: Kjetil Thorsen – Snøhetta
6:30pm, Monday 29th FebruaryOwen G Glenn BuildingUniversity of Auckland Business SchoolRSVP at http://events.metroglass.co.nz/
