This paper discusses how architectural practices can engage with and be inspired by a culture that is more than 60.000 years old. How can architects learn from situated and embodied Indigenous knowledge systems in the Australian context? How can an ethical engagement with indigenous histories and practices inspire the development of future architectural practices? This paper proposes that a better understanding of indigenous relationships to land and our environment can inspire us as a society and as architects to imagine new ways of thinking and practising. Considering our numerous contemporary crises, such as climate change, species extinction, food insecurity, we might need to begin to challenge and question western European norms and frameworks. The persistence of colonial thinking, operating within a capitalist system, has been the root cause of most of our contemporary crises. To attempt to undo the polarities that persist between indigenous and non-indigenous knowledge and thinking, we might learn new ways of storytelling as a means of envisioning an alternative future. This paper understands the theme of the ‘ultra’ as that position that keeps us apart and stops us from sharing stories that might lead to alternative ways of speculating on shared spatial futures. To situate this discussion, we present a collaborative and pedagogical design experiment undertaken on the lands of the Dja Dja Wurrung. On this Country, tentative attempts to learn with the environment and its associated stories were ventured on a small field and storytelling was used to shift our understanding of country and architecture.
{"title":"On a Field: Undoing Polarities between Indigenous and Non-indigenous Design Knowledges","authors":"Rochus Urban Urban, Dylan Newell","doi":"10.55939/a3984pnz9n","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55939/a3984pnz9n","url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses how architectural practices can engage with and be inspired by a culture that is more than 60.000 years old. How can architects learn from situated and embodied Indigenous knowledge systems in the Australian context? How can an ethical engagement with indigenous histories and practices inspire the development of future architectural practices? This paper proposes that a better understanding of indigenous relationships to land and our environment can inspire us as a society and as architects to imagine new ways of thinking and practising. Considering our numerous contemporary crises, such as climate change, species extinction, food insecurity, we might need to begin to challenge and question western European norms and frameworks. The persistence of colonial thinking, operating within a capitalist system, has been the root cause of most of our contemporary crises. To attempt to undo the polarities that persist between indigenous and non-indigenous knowledge and thinking, we might learn new ways of storytelling as a means of envisioning an alternative future.\u0000\u0000 This paper understands the theme of the ‘ultra’ as that position that keeps us apart and stops us from sharing stories that might lead to alternative ways of speculating on shared spatial futures. To situate this discussion, we present a collaborative and pedagogical design experiment undertaken on the lands of the Dja Dja Wurrung. On this Country, tentative attempts to learn with the environment and its associated stories were ventured on a small field and storytelling was used to shift our understanding of country and architecture.\u0000","PeriodicalId":445270,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand.","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116030340","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper focuses on the role of Brazilian architects in emancipating Modern Architecture from overly limiting orthodoxies. In particular, this study follows direct, if weak influences across the Pacific to Australia and stronger ones across the South Atlantic to Southern Africa, where Brazilian ideas found fertile ground without being filtered through Northern Hemisphere mediations. Official delegations of architects from Australia and South Africa went to Brazil seeking inspiration and transferable ideas achieved mixed success. Central to the theme of this essay is a recently discovered and unpublished manuscript. It is the work of Barrie Biermann who, upon graduation from the University of Cape Town sailed across to Brazil in 1946 to gain first-hand knowledge of the architecture that had achieved worldwide renown through the 1943 Brazil Builds exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York (MoMA). Biermann’s close observations and discussions with several of Brazil’s leading architects helped him develop a fresh narrative that placed recent developments in a continuum linked to Portuguese colonial architecture that had taken lessons from the ‘East’. Published in a very abridged form in a professional journal in 1950, it lost much of the charm of the original, which, in addition to imaginative theoretical speculation, is enriched by evocative, atmospheric sketches, water colours and photographs. This study shows that South-South connections were quite independent and predated the influence of ‘scientific’ manuals of ‘how-to build in the tropics’ that proliferated from metropolitan centres in the mid-1950s, preparing for decolonization but perhaps also motivated by ambitions of engendering other forms of dependence. Brazilian ideas and examples of built work played an important role in bringing vitality to some of the architectures of Africa. They also engaged with crucial issues of identity and the production of buildings celebrating values beyond the utilitarian.
{"title":"Healing Modern Architecture’s Break with the Past: Musings around Brazilian Fenestration","authors":"P. Guedes","doi":"10.55939/a3990prwvx","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55939/a3990prwvx","url":null,"abstract":"This paper focuses on the role of Brazilian architects in emancipating Modern Architecture from overly limiting orthodoxies. In particular, this study follows direct, if weak influences across the Pacific to Australia and stronger ones across the South Atlantic to Southern Africa, where Brazilian ideas found fertile ground without being filtered through Northern Hemisphere mediations. Official delegations of architects from Australia and South Africa went to Brazil seeking inspiration and transferable ideas achieved mixed success.\u0000\u0000 Central to the theme of this essay is a recently discovered and unpublished manuscript. It is the work of Barrie Biermann who, upon graduation from the University of Cape Town sailed across to Brazil in 1946 to gain first-hand knowledge of the architecture that had achieved worldwide renown through the 1943 Brazil Builds exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York (MoMA).\u0000\u0000 Biermann’s close observations and discussions with several of Brazil’s leading architects helped him develop a fresh narrative that placed recent developments in a continuum linked to Portuguese colonial architecture that had taken lessons from the ‘East’. Published in a very abridged form in a professional journal in 1950, it lost much of the charm of the original, which, in addition to imaginative theoretical speculation, is enriched by evocative, atmospheric sketches, water colours and photographs.\u0000\u0000 This study shows that South-South connections were quite independent and predated the influence of ‘scientific’ manuals of ‘how-to build in the tropics’ that proliferated from metropolitan centres in the mid-1950s, preparing for decolonization but perhaps also motivated by ambitions of engendering other forms of dependence. Brazilian ideas and examples of built work played an important role in bringing vitality to some of the architectures of Africa. They also engaged with crucial issues of identity and the production of buildings celebrating values beyond the utilitarian. \u0000","PeriodicalId":445270,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand.","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116177642","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Architecture culture inevitably revolves around the idea of leisure including its many connotations, such as recreation, reproduction, education, entertainment etc. As a concept, it not only corresponds to many spheres of everyday life, but also designates how time is being or should be spent via functions associated with architecture (such as leisure parks), through challenging architectural imagination (experimentation with pavilions or museums) as well as discourse built around particular examples of architecture. In the post-war world, leisure society was a prominent expression and had direct effects on architectural production through cultural centers, educational facilities and a vast range of public spaces that were meant to serve all individuals of society. On the other hand, leisure, arguably, is now being replaced by other ideas such as well-being or happiness. It is possible to observe a shift from a societal imaginary onto an individual one. This paper takes this shift in ideas around leisure and traces its possible extensions in the architectural culture via two trends in architecture: Megastructuralism and the tiny house movement. While the megastructralists of the 1960s imagined self-sufficient cities and communities, the tiny house movement of the past decade has been looking for self-sufficiency through singular houses/households. Departing from major texts such as Fumihiko Maki’s Collective Form (1964) or Reynar Banham’s Megastructures (1976) to old and new critical articles on the tiny house movement, this paper investigates references to leisure and ideas around it. It explores the tiny house movement and the megastructuralism; mapping their parallels in responding to crises of their era, their ways of experimenting and challenging architecture’s limits and finally aims to address what the two movements may display about one another as an attempt to enhance present architectural theory.
{"title":"A Transformation of Leisure in the Architectural Imaginary: Could the Tiny House Movement Learn from Megastructuralism?","authors":"Berna Göl","doi":"10.55939/a3983pl8u6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55939/a3983pl8u6","url":null,"abstract":"Architecture culture inevitably revolves around the idea of leisure including its many connotations, such as recreation, reproduction, education, entertainment etc. As a concept, it not only corresponds to many spheres of everyday life, but also designates how time is being or should be spent via functions associated with architecture (such as leisure parks), through challenging architectural imagination (experimentation with pavilions or museums) as well as discourse built around particular examples of architecture.\u0000\u0000 In the post-war world, leisure society was a prominent expression and had direct effects on architectural production through cultural centers, educational facilities and a vast range of public spaces that were meant to serve all individuals of society. On the other hand, leisure, arguably, is now being replaced by other ideas such as well-being or happiness. It is possible to observe a shift from a societal imaginary onto an individual one.\u0000\u0000 This paper takes this shift in ideas around leisure and traces its possible extensions in the architectural culture via two trends in architecture: Megastructuralism and the tiny house movement. While the megastructralists of the 1960s imagined self-sufficient cities and communities, the tiny house movement of the past decade has been looking for self-sufficiency through singular houses/households. Departing from major texts such as Fumihiko Maki’s Collective Form (1964) or Reynar Banham’s Megastructures (1976) to old and new critical articles on the tiny house movement, this paper investigates references to leisure and ideas around it. It explores the tiny house movement and the megastructuralism; mapping their parallels in responding to crises of their era, their ways of experimenting and challenging architecture’s limits and finally aims to address what the two movements may display about one another as an attempt to enhance present architectural theory.\u0000","PeriodicalId":445270,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand.","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127179140","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper examines the history within Australia of the ‘parklet’, a small architecturally-framed open space installed temporarily on an on-street car-parking space. The paper traces parklets’ varied and evolving forms, materials, production processes and functions. It examines how parklets have adapted to rapidly-changing social needs and priorities for economic activity, health, safety, socialising and on-street parking, and changes in street function. The contemporary parklet began in 2005 as a localised, grassroots activity to temporarily reclaim street space for public leisure, as part of the wider movement of ‘tactical urbanism’. Parklets rapidly became a worldwide phenomenon. Starting in 2008, parklets were absorbed into institutional urban planning practice, as a strategic tool to enhance community engagement, test possibilities, and win support for longer-term spatial transformations. From 2012, commercial parklet programs were developed in Australian cities to encourage local businesses to expand into street parking spaces, to calm traffic and enhance pedestrian amenity. A new generation of commercial ‘café parklets’ has emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic, facilitated by local governments, to support the heavily-impacted hospitality industry. Their design and construction show ongoing innovation, increasing scale and professionalism, but also standardisation. This paper draws on diverse Australian parklet examples to chart the emergence of varying approaches to their design and construction, which draw upon different materials, skills, local government strategies and international precedents. The findings also illustrate several convergences in the evolution of parklet design across different Australian cities, due to strong similarities in the spatial contexts, needs, risk factors, and technologies that have defined this practice.
{"title":"A Brief History of the Short-Term Parklet in Australia","authors":"Q. Stevens","doi":"10.55939/a4018pognw","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55939/a4018pognw","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the history within Australia of the ‘parklet’, a small architecturally-framed open space installed temporarily on an on-street car-parking space. The paper traces parklets’ varied and evolving forms, materials, production processes and functions. It examines how parklets have adapted to rapidly-changing social needs and priorities for economic activity, health, safety, socialising and on-street parking, and changes in street function. \u0000 \u0000 The contemporary parklet began in 2005 as a localised, grassroots activity to temporarily reclaim street space for public leisure, as part of the wider movement of ‘tactical urbanism’. Parklets rapidly became a worldwide phenomenon. Starting in 2008, parklets were absorbed into institutional urban planning practice, as a strategic tool to enhance community engagement, test possibilities, and win support for longer-term spatial transformations. From 2012, commercial parklet programs were developed in Australian cities to encourage local businesses to expand into street parking spaces, to calm traffic and enhance pedestrian amenity. A new generation of commercial ‘café parklets’ has emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic, facilitated by local governments, to support the heavily-impacted hospitality industry. Their design and construction show ongoing innovation, increasing scale and professionalism, but also standardisation.\u0000\u0000 This paper draws on diverse Australian parklet examples to chart the emergence of varying approaches to their design and construction, which draw upon different materials, skills, local government strategies and international precedents. The findings also illustrate several convergences in the evolution of parklet design across different Australian cities, due to strong similarities in the spatial contexts, needs, risk factors, and technologies that have defined this practice.\u0000","PeriodicalId":445270,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand.","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130578620","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The scientist and philosopher Michael Polanyi coined the term “tacit knowledge” in 1958 to describe a type of unconscious, embodied and social knowledge that could not be explicitly taught through rules or rote-learning. He argued, instead, that some knowledge relied on practice, critique, socialisation and personal biography. In this sense, something like tacit knowledge has long played an important role in architectural education — where skill is acquired through (re)drawing, writing and model-making, reviewed by teachers and peers — even before Polanyi named it. Yet, for all the affinities between design education and tacit knowledge, Polanyi’s epistemology has rarely been directly addressed in architectural theory. This paper considers two exceptions in the writing and pedagogy of Melvin Charney and Colin Rowe in the 1970s. Both figures used Polanyi’s philosophy to propose alternatives to the “ultra” positions of Modernism. Charney argued that Quebecois vernacular architecture reflected a tacit, collective building culture that was inseparable from the embodied construction practices of craftspeople. This could not be made explicit in construction manuals or histories; students had to discover it through drawing and building themselves. Meanwhile, Rowe credited Polanyi’s Beyond Nihilism (1960) in the gestation of Collage City (1978, with Fred Koetter). Polanyi’s essay argued that individual freedom was important in making new discoveries, but that individuals still had a responsibility to go beyond themselves by conforming to collective norms and standards. This, too, found a parallel in Rowe and Koetter’s rejection of Modernist utopianism. At the same time, a close reading of these minor encounters reveals certain continuities and misalignments between Rowe and Charney’s interpretation and Polanyi’s own position as a prominent anti-Communist and contributor to early neoliberalism. Ultimately, this paper aims to clarify the role of tacit knowledge in the theory of these two architect/educators and, in doing so, simultaneously clarify the relationship between tacit knowledge and architectural pedagogy more broadly.
{"title":"Explicitly Tacit: Polanyi’s “Tacit Knowledge” in the Architectural Theory of Charney and Rowe","authors":"Hamish Lonergan","doi":"10.55939/a4003p7gqw","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55939/a4003p7gqw","url":null,"abstract":"The scientist and philosopher Michael Polanyi coined the term “tacit knowledge” in 1958 to describe a type of unconscious, embodied and social knowledge that could not be explicitly taught through rules or rote-learning. He argued, instead, that some knowledge relied on practice, critique, socialisation and personal biography. In this sense, something like tacit knowledge has long played an important role in architectural education — where skill is acquired through (re)drawing, writing and model-making, reviewed by teachers and peers — even before Polanyi named it. Yet, for all the affinities between design education and tacit knowledge, Polanyi’s epistemology has rarely been directly addressed in architectural theory. This paper considers two exceptions in the writing and pedagogy of Melvin Charney and Colin Rowe in the 1970s. Both figures used Polanyi’s philosophy to propose alternatives to the “ultra” positions of Modernism. Charney argued that Quebecois vernacular architecture reflected a tacit, collective building culture that was inseparable from the embodied construction practices of craftspeople. This could not be made explicit in construction manuals or histories; students had to discover it through drawing and building themselves. Meanwhile, Rowe credited Polanyi’s Beyond Nihilism (1960) in the gestation of Collage City (1978, with Fred Koetter). Polanyi’s essay argued that individual freedom was important in making new discoveries, but that individuals still had a responsibility to go beyond themselves by conforming to collective norms and standards. This, too, found a parallel in Rowe and Koetter’s rejection of Modernist utopianism. At the same time, a close reading of these minor encounters reveals certain continuities and misalignments between Rowe and Charney’s interpretation and Polanyi’s own position as a prominent anti-Communist and contributor to early neoliberalism. Ultimately, this paper aims to clarify the role of tacit knowledge in the theory of these two architect/educators and, in doing so, simultaneously clarify the relationship between tacit knowledge and architectural pedagogy more broadly.\u0000","PeriodicalId":445270,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand.","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125158917","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
South of Campbelltown, wedged between Sydney’s two great rivers, where the Georges and the Nepean almost meet is Macarthur. In the early 1810s, to go beyond Campbelltown was to leave the authority of colonial Sydney - a colonial ultra vires frontier. Here are squarehouses that date from the mid-1810s, some were built during the height of Sydney’s frontier wars, before the 1816 Appin Massacre, which secured colonial control over all of Macarthur. These squarehouses are archaeologically intriguing as they are almost square, not large, have thick sandstone walls, some have ‘slot openings’ and others small openings. Were these squarehouses built with a defensive premise in mind, the openings for use as ‘gunloops’ as much as ventilation? If so they would be architectural evidence of the frontier wars. The suggestion is that these small squarehouses, often overlooked as just an outbuilding in the homestead aggregation, were among the first buildings built on a property. If built on contested land, its presence would have acted as notification of a land claim, while its physical structure provided a bolthole from which one could defend life and property - a private blockhouse. Blockhouses existed right across the British settler empire, with common standards constructed for defence in frontier areas from South Africa to New Zealand, Canada and the United States. So it should be no surprise to find them at the beginning of colonial NSW and yet it is, and this raises questions as to why this distinctive colonial structure is missing in Australia. The placement of these squarehouses and the prospect of their loops - their surveillance isovists over creeks and valleys, would provide historical insight into the colonial consolidation of these landscapes.
{"title":"The Sandstone Squarehouses of Macarthur: The Ultra Vires Blockhouses of Sydney Basin’s Dispossession","authors":"S. Deane","doi":"10.55939/a3997pwac2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55939/a3997pwac2","url":null,"abstract":"South of Campbelltown, wedged between Sydney’s two great rivers, where the Georges and the Nepean almost meet is Macarthur. In the early 1810s, to go beyond Campbelltown was to leave the authority of colonial Sydney - a colonial ultra vires frontier. Here are squarehouses that date from the mid-1810s, some were built during the height of Sydney’s frontier wars, before the 1816 Appin Massacre, which secured colonial control over all of Macarthur.\u0000\u0000 These squarehouses are archaeologically intriguing as they are almost square, not large, have thick sandstone walls, some have ‘slot openings’ and others small openings. Were these squarehouses built with a defensive premise in mind, the openings for use as ‘gunloops’ as much as ventilation? If so they would be architectural evidence of the frontier wars.\u0000\u0000 The suggestion is that these small squarehouses, often overlooked as just an outbuilding in the homestead aggregation, were among the first buildings built on a property. If built on contested land, its presence would have acted as notification of a land claim, while its physical structure provided a bolthole from which one could defend life and property - a private blockhouse.\u0000\u0000 Blockhouses existed right across the British settler empire, with common standards constructed for defence in frontier areas from South Africa to New Zealand, Canada and the United States. So it should be no surprise to find them at the beginning of colonial NSW and yet it is, and this raises questions as to why this distinctive colonial structure is missing in Australia. \u0000\u0000 The placement of these squarehouses and the prospect of their loops - their surveillance isovists over creeks and valleys, would provide historical insight into the colonial consolidation of these landscapes. \u0000","PeriodicalId":445270,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand.","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126236928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Going to bed each night in a sleepout—a converted verandah, balcony or small free-standing structure was, for most of the 20th century, an everyday Australian experience, since homes across the nation whether urban, suburban, or rural, commonly included a space of this kind. The sleepout was a liminal space that was rarely a formal part of a home’s interior, although it was often used as a semi-permanent sleeping quarter. Initially a response to the discomfort experienced during hot weather in 19th century bedrooms and encouraged by the early 20th century enthusiasm for the perceived benefits of sleeping in fresh air, the sleepout became a convenient cover for the inadequate supply of housing in Australian cities and towns and provided a face-saving measure for struggling rural families. Acceptance of this solution to over-crowding was so deep and so widespread that the Commonwealth Government built freestanding sleepouts in the gardens of suburban homes across Australia during the crisis of World War II to house essential war workers. Rather than disappearing at the war’s end, these were sold to homeowners and occupied throughout the acute post-war housing shortage of the 1940s and 1950s, then used into the 1970s as a space for children to play and teenagers to gain some privacy. This paper explores this common feature of Australian 20th century homes, a regional tradition which has not, until recently, been the subject of academic study. Exploring the attitudes, values and policies that led to the sleepout’s introduction, proliferation and disappearance, it explains that despite its ubiquity in the first three-quarters of the 20th century, the sleepout slipped from Australia’s national consciousness during a relatively brief period of housing surplus beginning in the 1970s. As the supply of affordable housing has declined in the 21st century, the free-standing sleepout or studio has re-emerged, housing teenagers of low-income families.
{"title":"The Sleepout","authors":"Nanette Carter","doi":"10.55939/a3999pm4i5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55939/a3999pm4i5","url":null,"abstract":"Going to bed each night in a sleepout—a converted verandah, balcony or small free-standing structure was, for most of the 20th century, an everyday Australian experience, since homes across the nation whether urban, suburban, or rural, commonly included a space of this kind.\u0000\u0000 The sleepout was a liminal space that was rarely a formal part of a home’s interior, although it was often used as a semi-permanent sleeping quarter. Initially a response to the discomfort experienced during hot weather in 19th century bedrooms and encouraged by the early 20th century enthusiasm for the perceived benefits of sleeping in fresh air, the sleepout became a convenient cover for the inadequate supply of housing in Australian cities and towns and provided a face-saving measure for struggling rural families. Acceptance of this solution to over-crowding was so deep and so widespread that the Commonwealth Government built freestanding sleepouts in the gardens of suburban homes across Australia during the crisis of World War II to house essential war workers. Rather than disappearing at the war’s end, these were sold to homeowners and occupied throughout the acute post-war housing shortage of the 1940s and 1950s, then used into the 1970s as a space for children to play and teenagers to gain some privacy.\u0000\u0000 This paper explores this common feature of Australian 20th century homes, a regional tradition which has not, until recently, been the subject of academic study. Exploring the attitudes, values and policies that led to the sleepout’s introduction, proliferation and disappearance, it explains that despite its ubiquity in the first three-quarters of the 20th century, the sleepout slipped from Australia’s national consciousness during a relatively brief period of housing surplus beginning in the 1970s. As the supply of affordable housing has declined in the 21st century, the free-standing sleepout or studio has re-emerged, housing teenagers of low-income families.\u0000","PeriodicalId":445270,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand.","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126278853","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 1968, the Housing Commission, Victoria, built a series of high-rise towers in response to an identified metropolitan planning issue: urban sprawl and the outward growth of metropolitan Melbourne. This “solution” precipitated a crisis in urban identity. The construction of the first of a series of these modern high-rise towers at Debney Park Estate, Carlton and Park Towers, South Melbourne displaced significant immigrant communities. This became the impetus for the formation of Residential Associations who perceived this project a major threat to existing cultural values pertaining to social and built heritage. This paper examines the extremely polarising events and the positions of both the Housing Commission and the Residential Associations over the course of fifteen years from 1968. The research is grounded in an historical review of government papers and statements surrounding the social housing towers, as well as scholarly articles, including information gathered by Renate Howe and the Urban Activists Project (UAP, 2003-2004). The historical review contextualises the dramatically vocal and well-publicised positions of the Residential Associations and the Housing Commission by reference to the wider social circumstances and the views of displaced community groups. Looking beyond the drama of the heated debate sparked by this crisis, the paper exposes nuances within the positions, investigates the specifics of the lesser known opinions of displaced residents and seeks to re-evaluate the influence of the towers on the establishment of an inner urban community identity.
1968年，维多利亚州住房委员会(Housing Commission, Victoria)建造了一系列高层塔楼，以应对一个明确的大都市规划问题:城市扩张和墨尔本大都市的向外扩张。这种“解决方案”引发了城市认同的危机。在Debney Park Estate, Carlton和Park towers，南墨尔本的一系列现代高层建筑中的第一座建筑取代了重要的移民社区。这成为住宅协会形成的动力，他们认为该项目对与社会和建筑遗产有关的现有文化价值构成了重大威胁。本文考察了自1968年以来的十五年间，房屋委员会和住宅协会的极端两极分化事件和立场。这项研究的基础是对有关社会住房塔的政府文件和声明的历史回顾，以及学术文章，包括Renate Howe和城市活动家项目(UAP, 2003-2004)收集的信息。这份历史回顾参考了更广泛的社会环境和流离失所社区群体的观点，将住宅协会和房屋委员会的高调和广为宣传的立场置于背景之下。透过这场危机引发的激烈辩论，本文揭示了立场的细微差别，调查了流离失所居民不太为人所知的观点的细节，并试图重新评估塔楼对建立城市内部社区身份的影响。
{"title":"Beyond the 1968 Battle between Housing Commission, Victoria, and the Residential Associations: Uncovering the Ultra Positions of Melbourne Social Housing","authors":"E. Telford, Akari Nakai Kidd, U. De Jong","doi":"10.55939/a4022pplql","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55939/a4022pplql","url":null,"abstract":"In 1968, the Housing Commission, Victoria, built a series of high-rise towers in response to an identified metropolitan planning issue: urban sprawl and the outward growth of metropolitan Melbourne. This “solution” precipitated a crisis in urban identity. The construction of the first of a series of these modern high-rise towers at Debney Park Estate, Carlton and Park Towers, South Melbourne displaced significant immigrant communities. This became the impetus for the formation of Residential Associations who perceived this project a major threat to existing cultural values pertaining to social and built heritage. \u0000\u0000 This paper examines the extremely polarising events and the positions of both the Housing Commission and the Residential Associations over the course of fifteen years from 1968. The research is grounded in an historical review of government papers and statements surrounding the social housing towers, as well as scholarly articles, including information gathered by Renate Howe and the Urban Activists Project (UAP, 2003-2004). The historical review contextualises the dramatically vocal and well-publicised positions of the Residential Associations and the Housing Commission by reference to the wider social circumstances and the views of displaced community groups. Looking beyond the drama of the heated debate sparked by this crisis, the paper exposes nuances within the positions, investigates the specifics of the lesser known opinions of displaced residents and seeks to re-evaluate the influence of the towers on the establishment of an inner urban community identity.\u0000","PeriodicalId":445270,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand.","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133076710","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：