|
 |
| |
RADAR
FEATURES
COMMENT
| |
| | | |
 |
| |
| |
|
| | LETTERS
| DREW ON THE OPERA HOUSE |
In 2000, Jørn Utzon said, “If you suddenly
make windows in that platform it becomes
an office building with something white
on top.” He has now done just that with
the completion of the Western Loggia
(see Architecture Australia vol 95 no 3
May/June 2006).
More recently, the loggia has been rented
out as Cafe West, with 80 seats that obstruct
any views of Sydney Harbour from the new
Western Foyer.
The trabeated form of the new colonnade
has little in common with the Sydney
Opera House, which is possibly why it was
isolated from the platform as a kind of
vorbau or fore building. Even so, this
attempt to dissociate the new addition from
the existing structure is insufficient and
only further highlights the incongruity of
the loggia.
I am reminded of an elderly man I saw
peeing in the middle of the square in front
of Santa Croce, Florence. For privacy, he
held a large handkerchief in front of
himself. There was nothing obscene about
his privates, but there is about the loggia.
It draws attention to the mistake of making
windows and Utzon’s unexplained
disregard of his own sensible advice.
The loggia is a foreign object bearing little
relationship to the shape of the platform
or the beautiful beams of the original
Opera House. If only Utzon had visited
the Opera House prior to proceeding,
perhaps he would have realized how wrong
the loggia is.
One hoped for something better and more
in keeping with the spirit of the Opera
House. The loggia is a sad conclusion to a
great and valiant career in its twilight, with
Utzon now 88 years old. Not only does the
Western Loggia fail to add anything positive
to the House, it detracts considerably
without serving any detectable function
as either a gallery walk or sun protection.
Sydney already has more than enough
restaurants, especially around East Circular
Quay. Why do we need yet another,
especially considering the sensitivity of
its location?
Sandra Kaji-O’Grady concludes her
review, “It [the Opera House] is sufficiently
robust and imperfect to take on this and
other considered additions, each adding
something to its story.” This is more a pious
political hope than an accurate observation
and entirely misunderstands the nature of
Utzon’s great achievement in creating a
building that was conceived to be seen from
all sides and from above. The very
three-dimensionality of the Sydney Opera
House prevents it from being either added
to or detracted from without destroying this
sculptural integrity. One would no more
contemplate adding an extra arm or hand to
Michelangelo’s David. This same reasoning
can be applied to the Opera House, which
conforms to the same Renaissance aesthetic
definition of plastic perfection. The idea
that it could be added to is typical of a
bureaucrat or ticket collector, not an artist.
There have been a great many mistakes and
the Western Loggia is the most recent, as
Eric Sierins’s photographs testify.
The Opera House’s division into two
discrete parts makes it enormously difficult
– virtually impossible – to add to it. The
“Group of Thousand Columns” at Chichén
Itzá in the Yucatán is not a colonnade but a
revolutionary attempt to create a deep room
focused on an altar. As such, it is not typical
of Mayan architecture and is entirely
irrelevant in the Opera House context. To
use it to justify the loggia is a symptom of
the desperation that was felt in justifying
something so clearly useless and foreign.
In Denmark, where the Utzon name is
akin to royalty, Danes have not felt
constrained in criticizing ill-advised
projects for commercial developers by
Utzon Associates in the late 80s and 90s
that led to their rejection. They are
architecturally mature, unlike Australia,
where all criticism has been stifled by the
mere association of the Western Loggia with
his name. It is time we grew up. How can
we possibly promote democracy to the
outside world when we suppress dissenting
voices in Australia?
PHILIP DREW IS THE AUTHOR OF THREE BOOKS
ON THE SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE, INCLUDING
AN INTERNATIONALLY AWARDED MONOGRAPH
PUBLISHED BY PHAIDON AND A BIOGRAPHY
OF UTZON.
|
| IS A UNIFIED ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION A NON SEQUITUR? |
In the late 80s several former RAIA national
presidents were invited to meet in
Melbourne to discuss the future of the
profession and the role of the RAIA. Among
those present were Peter McIntyre, John
Davidson and the late Peter Johnston.
The overwhelming conclusion of that
meeting was that the success of the RAIA
depended on the ability of the Institute to
unite the profession. It was noted that, in
spite of being formed in 1929–30 as a single
corporate entity, the RAIA’s efforts had been
fragmented and disunited by interstate
rivalry. RAIA activities and actions were
duplicated, resources wasted and corporate
knowledge lost through a lack of
coordination and proper administration.
These issues were addressed in the early
90s. The interpretation of the RAIA motto
Artem Promovemus Una (United we
advance architecture) was rediscovered and,
as a result, the RAIA underwent a
governance restructure followed by a
management and administrative restructure.
The object of this process was to create
unity of purpose and efficiency of operation.
Those of us who participated in that
process were fired by the belief that a united
architectural profession could be a powerful
force in political and construction industry
affairs. We believed that as a leader of the
design professions, the RAIA would be a
major influence on the decision-making
process that determines the quality of the
built environment.
With this background, I now watch
bemusedly the fragmentation of the
profession that appears to be gaining
momentum.
When an RAIA National Councillor
(Chapter President) publicly claims a lack
of support from the national office and
argues that his chapter is superior to others
in terms of operation and management, it is
clear that the RAIA is reverting to its former
bad habits (Architect Victoria June 2006).
There are only about 12,000 registered
architects in Australia, but there are now
three national associations of architects:
Australian Architecture Association (AAA),
Association of Architects Australia (ACA-A)
and the RAIA (which appears constantly at
risk of becoming a national office with eight
chapter organizations). Also at a national
level, the Architects Accreditation Council
of Australia (ACAA) attempts to coordinate
the work of eight sovereign State and
Territory Architects Registration Boards, all
seeking to redefine themselves under new
or revised legislation. This represents a
relatively high level of fragmentation for
a small, knowledgeable and skilled, but
generally grossly underpaid, profession.
In a society that has been indoctrinated
with the manner and ethics of commercial
competition, the architectural profession
needs to unite under one banner. The RAIA
is best placed to convene this unity,
primarily to advance architecture but also
to advance architects.
MICHAEL PECK, AM LFRAIA, IS A FORMER RAIA
NATIONAL PRESIDENT AND A FORMER CEO OF THE
RAIA.
|
| FIXES |
• Kate Cullity tells us that the credits for
the North Terrace Redevelopment (AA
March/April 2006, vol 95 no 2) should have
included Ecological Engineering, the Water
Sensitive Urban Design consultants.
• Lourens West writes that Perth’s
Playhouse Theatre was designed by Krantz
and Sheldon, not Peter Parkinson as stated
in the review of the CentreStage competition
(AA March/April 2006, vol 95 no 2).
• FJMT points out that credits for the
Blacktown Library (AA May/June 2006,
vol 95 no 3) incorrectly included a credit for
landscape architect Pittendrigh Shinkfield
Bruce, who was not involved in the project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright © 2010 Architecture Media Pty Ltd
|
|
|
|
