A

Urban housing: making the city WORDS Philip Thalis and Laura Harding

Guest editors Philip Thalis and Laura Harding introduce this issue of Architecture Australia, which

examines the architecture of urban housing.

From house to housing "If we want to raise the quality ofliving ... then the most effective way of all is to improve the quality of the house ... The physical state of the house reflects the economic state of the nation, directly and sensitively ... However ... its ability to uplift or depress: its design ­has practically no vested interests pushing from behind ... "•

Robin Boyd emphasized the "house," whereas today we might talk about "urban housing" and its specific architectural form, the apartment building. The need to share urban, cultural and transport resources is reinforcing compact collective living. Apartment buildings are becoming the urban signifier of the societal change that is reshaping the ways we live.

Along with the shift from suburban to urban densities, Australia has traded the innocent domesticity implicit in Boyd's "living" for the more glib construct of"lifestyle." Long understood to be the provision of necessary accommodation, today housing is seen through the narrow lens of "development" self-interest. As a fast track to profit via unearned income and asset inflation, housing is frequently conceived first as a market, with societal need a distant second.

The public sector involvement that has historically diversified hottsing choices has been in sustained decline for decades. The pervasive commodification of housing has inflicted a paralysing timidity on its architecture: the typology, planning, expression and diversity of mass housing has stagnated while ignoring our best urban housing traditions.

This commodification, as expressed in the lack of architectural quality and character in the majority of our collective housing, betrays a longstanding and deeply felt cultural resistance to urban forms of living.

Despite our perennial atftuence, Australian cities are not home to well-designed mass housing. Apart from singular exceptions that tend to miscategorize "architecture" as an indulgence reserved for the wealthy, most housing has scant architectural input. Furthermore, the architectural profession has shown limited engagement with crucial housing challenges.

Valuing housing Housing as real estate has dramatically shifted the way we define housing's worth. The value of apartments has become widely understood by estate agents' reductive formula: How many bedrooms? How many bathrooms? How many car spaces? What brand of European kitchen appliances? Add to this their insistence on airconditioning, regardless of environmental design.

In Livi11g in Australia, Boyd explored the character of housing through an examination of its surface, space, structure and spirit. Such qualitative and sophisticated readings of architecture's contribution to "living" are absent from today's public discourse about and understanding of mass housing.

The marketing of the architecture of mass housing is stripped of any sense of the qualitative lived experience of space. Generic interior perspectives abound, where the surface gloss of furniture and the view are given more weight than the architecture. Exterior perspectives monumentalize and isolate new development -exploiting each building's independence and novelty rather than its connectedness to place and society. Boyd's detested "featurism" has either been writ large in mega buildings or bypassed by "featurelessness" across our cities: the brazen and the bland.

MAYIJUN 201 .. 11

INTRODUCTION

The architecture of urban housing For centuries, architects have generated model projects that become generalized as housing types: the Adam brothers' Adelphi Terrace in London; Michie! Brinkman's Spangen Quarter in Rotterdam, stacked units with perhaps the first "street in the sky"; Le Corbusier's Unite d'Habitation, the monumental slab in Marseilles that presaged the deep floor plan; or Tadao Ando's inhabited, terraced hillsides in Rokko.

There are numerous parties looking after housing quantities, but it is architects who have to imbue these quantities with qualities­exploring social and spatial organization, providing generous access to light and air, calibrating privacy and outlook, crafting the project economically, providing release to and definition of garden spaces, form ing the block and defining public space.

When allied with street life, apartment buildings become tl1e city's connective fabric - supporting an engaged community life of socia.l facilities, shopping and exchange, and multiple transport options.

Aldo van Eyck considered that "Architecture needs no more, nor should it ever do less, than assist homecoming. "• Such a proposition can inform both typology and experience, describing the passage from the public street through the common areas to the feeling of welcome upon opening the front door. How does the architectural model tit and adapt to the confined dinlensions of the lot, intelligently occupying its site? What is the spatial sequence, the everyday promenade architecturale, the casual generosity of its social spaces? With in the unit, what promotes homecoming? Is it the relationship of rooms, the movement of sunlight, the flexible operation of modulated apertures, the opening to the terrace or balcony? Beyond the trifecta of view, finish and size, what is the spatial conception of the unit, its distinctive arrangement and sectional play? How are the selected unit types open to appropriation by successive inhabitants?

What of the architecture's public face- the relationship of the building to the street? Questions of its scale and the relative urbanity of its street presence need to find a commensurate architectural register. What type of city does it anticipate? Whether urban or

14 AA MAY/JUN 2014

suburban, how docs the site plan mould the building to form positive external spaces that can be appropriately and delightfully landscaped?

Beyond the seemingly ubiquitous base palette of brick, aluminium louvres/ screens/ panels, tinted glazing and painted precast concrete, what durable and noble materials are available? These buildings will likely last a century, at least; how robust and flexible will they be?

Architects have long championed weU-designed housing for all. This was one of Modernism's most deeply held tenets. In closing Living in Australia, Boyd proclaimed, "architecture in the end is a ftmdarnental requirement ofliving." Boyd's challenge should embolden us to redress the marginalized contributions of our profession, the quality of our dwellings and the state of Australian cities.

The projects in this issue give cause for cautious optimism. Optimism, in that they are evidence that an informed architectural agenda can be pursued in the current housing climate. But also caution, because it is not until projects like these are tile rule, rather than the exception, tllat housing's role in the making of the city can be fully prosecuted. AA

1. Robin Boyd. l iving in Austrollo (Melbourne: Thames and Hudson, 2013), 22.

2. Herman Hert2berger, Addoe van Roijen-Wortmann and Francis Strauven {eds), Aldo van Eye/<: Huberrus Houso!Hubertushuis (Amsterdam: Stichting Wonen/Van Loghum Slawus. 1982), 65.

INTRODUCTION

The descriptions of new housing invariably list the riches that a particular new development will allow purchasers to leverage from the city- the proximity to a d iverse and rich cultural life, parks, open spaces, shopping, dining and views. Where is the quid pro quo? The question of what contribution these buildings make to the structure, quality and character of the city remains unanswered.

Scarcity and inequity A diminishing supply of housing and the vastly reduced investment in public housing has seen housing scarcity and equity become growing problems in Australia. A policy vacuum allied to crude financing and taxation practices has caused a housing atfordability crisis.

Our taxation system rewards existing wealth. The tax-free status of the family home combined with generous negative gearing and capital gain regimes are accelerating inequity, wedding the nation and its housing stock to the thrill of speculation rather than long-term investment in one of society's most fundamental needs.

The financial sector exacerbates this situation by imposing ill­conceived limitations on urban housing. The financial dictates that impose arbitrary ~fty-square-metre minimum apartment sizes, maximize pre-sale requirements, and limit forms of commissioning and title affect both housing providers and users. The combination of these blunt rules stymies genuine choice, dents atfordability and delivers mediocrity.

Politics and planning Planning controls often enforce suburban ideals and forms by stealth, stifling the emergence of a positive urbanity. Ziggurat height and setback controls, the requirement for buildin~ to be "contextual" in areas where change is desirable, and the blartket zoning of variously termed "heritage conservation areas" or "neighbourhood residential zones" are all symptomatic of a culture predicated on the belief that any change should be feared implicitly.

Today, the initial planning application for even a modestly sized apartment building typically requires input from perhaps a dozen

A

consultants. Appeals to court and independent planning tribunals are not uncommon. Canny applicants know better than to submit housing applications in the lead-up to local government elections, when their proposals risk becoming fodder for anti-development grandstanding -a trivial substitute for necessary and urgent policy debates about housing equity and change in our cities.

The ever-increasing costs associated with the complexities of compliance and regulation are either being deducted from the construction budget or passed on to the purchaser- impacting the quality of our building stock or affordability. While economy is a noble aim in urban housing, the limited investment in the material quality and character of urban housing undermines its role in city making.

Standards and legislation The portents of bad housing continue to reappear, irrespective of budget or market pretensions: the deep plan, internal rooms, low ceilings, inadequate light and air, miserable outlook, mean c.ommon spaces, residual open spaces, token landscape, substandard construction, perfunctory character and a deadening presence on the street. Enforceable minimum amenity standards are as essential as ever, which makes legislation to improve architectural quality in apartment building design all the more imperative.

New South Wales's State Environment Planning Policy no. 65 -Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65), introduced in 2002, was a noble attempt to require better practice through legislation. However, one of its primary mechanisms, the design review panel, has only "advisory" status and patchy coverage.

Design quality must have real legislative weight and follow­through. It is not sufficient for architectural quality to be assessed only at the planning stage-it remains at the mercy of the market following design approval, as is evident in the marginalized role th"at many architects find themselves serving during documentation and construction. Independent review during the construction process by a design review panel would do much to ensure the carry-through of the design in tent and improve the quality of the built environment.

MAY/JUN 2014 AA 13

URBAN HOUSING: DATA

03 04 05 06

01

GOODWOOD RESIDENCE BRIDGE POINT HABITAT IGLU CENTRAL NORTH MELBOURNE CONSTANCE STREET APARTMENTS TOWNHOUSES AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Architect WOHA Architects Colin Stewart Rothelowman Bates Smart Fread man White Cox Rayner Architects Architects

Location Singapore Kingston, ACT Southbank, Vic Chippendale, NSW North Melbourne, Vic Fortitude Valley, Qld

Site area (sqm) 24844.7 sqm 3681sqm 532 sqm 390sqm 185 sqm 1242 sqm

Urban typology Slab Courtyard/slab Tower Perimeter block Row housing Courtyard/perime$er

Apartment typology Market Market Market Student Market Affordable

95% flatfloor 82% flatfloor 100% flat floor 100% flat floor 100% maisonette 100% flat floor

5% maisonette 18% maisonette

Plot ratio 1.6:1 1.2:1 16:1 5:1 3.5:1 3.8:1

Ground footprint{%) 32% 84% 97% 65% 95% 78%

Upper footprint(%) 13% 40% 75% 65% 100% 52%

Commercial/ mixed N N Y - 1%ofGFA N Y- 17% ofGFA Y - 30%ofGFA

Number of apartments 210 44 145 98 {Student) 4 79

Split/mix 12.4%2 bed 15.9%1 bed 60.0%1 bed 16.3% studio 100.0%3 bed 70.0% studio

26.2%3 bed 29.5%2bed 40.0%2bed 83.7% 4+ bed 30.0%1 bed

56.7%4 bed 54.6%3bed

~.7%other

Apartments served 2:1 3:1 6:1 4:1 n/a 10:1 per core (typical floor)

Building depth 9.5m/15.2m 5.8m/19.5m 4.5m/9m 9.5m/ 12.5m 4.6m/ 6.8m 7.5m/7.5m (min/ max)

Split/orientation 100%dual 19% single 21% single 15%single 50% single 70%single 81% dual 79% dual 85% dual 50% dual 30% dual

Court appeal N N N N N N

Full documentation Y/ Y Y/ Y Y/ Y Y/ Y Y/ Y Y/ Y (envelope/interiors )

Architect's site role Full Partial Partial Full Full Partial

Construction period 48 months 18 months 20months 12 months 18 months 15 months

Construction cost/sqm SGD$4561 {AU$3914) nfp AU$2925 AU$2820 AU$2900 AU$2300

Highest sale price/sqm nfp unknown AU$8750 n/a unknown n/a

22 AA MAY/JUN 2014

URBAN HOUSING: DATA

01 Goodwood Residence, p. 92 02 Bridge Point Apartments, p. 88 03 Habitat, p. 31 041glu Central, p. 35 05 North Melbourne Townhouses, p. 48 06 Constance Street Affordable Housing, p. 24

/'

07 08

29-35 PRINCE STREET CRONULLA

07 29-35 Prince Street, Cronulla, p. 77 08 387 Tamaki Drive, p. 100 09 Brisbane Street Housing, p. 84 10 One Central Park, p. 38 11 Stella, p. 53 12 Monash Student Housing, p. 104

09 10

387 TAMAKI DRIVE BRISBANE STREET HOUSING

Architect Candalepas Associates I an Moore Architect s Morrison and Breytenbach Architects

Location Cronulla, NSW St Heliers, Hobart, Tas Auckland, NZ

Site area (sqm) 2398sqm 1214sqm 1975sqm

Urban typology Row apart ments Perimeter courtyard Courtyard/adaptation

Apartment typology Market Market Affordable

100% flat floor 100% flat f loor 100% flat f loor

"' Plot ratio 1:1 1.9:1 1.4:1

Ground footprint(%) 33% 93% 61%

Upper footprint(%) 33% 83% 59%

Commercial/mixed N Y- 48%ofGFA N

Number of apartments 12 5 35

Split/mix 100%3 bed 20.0% 1 bed 20.0%1 bed

40.0%2 bed 80.0%2 bed

40.0%3 bed

Apartments served 2:1 3:1 3.3:1 per core (typical floor)

Building depth 10m/28m 11.5m/21.8m 9.8m/12m (min/max)

Split/orientation 100o/odual 100%dual 100% dual

Court appeal N y N

Full documentation Y/N Y/Y Y/Y (envelope/ interiors)

Architect's site role Full Partial Full

Construction period 12 months 18 months 20 months

Construction cost/sqm nfp NZ$4830(AU$4515) AU$2466

Highest sale price/sqm nfp NZ$11790 (AU$11020) n/a

n/a not applicable nfp not for print Currency conversions calculated in March 2014.

11

ONE CENTRAL PARK STELLA MONASH STUDENT HOUSING

Ateliers Jean Nouvel I Tzannes Associates BVN Donovan Hill PTW Architects

Chippendale, NSW Victoria Park, NSW Clayton, Vic

6060 sqm 1914sqm 17000 sqm

Tower Perimeter block Courtyard/slab

Market Market Student

100% flat f loor 48% flat floor 100% flat floor

48% cross-over

2% maisonette

11:1 4:1 1.3:1

72% 64% 35%

44% 64% 35%

Y- 24%of GFA Y- 2.6% of GFA N

623 70 604 (student)

15.9% studio 51.4%1 bed 99.3% studio

42.4%1 bed 45.7%2 bed 0.3%2 bed

37.2%2 bed 2.9%3 bed 0.3%3 bed

4.5%3 bed

9/20:1 8/16/22:1 20:1

25m/32m 2m/18m 9m/15.4m

35%single 100%dual 96o/osingle

65%dual 4o/odual

N N N

Y/Y N/N Y/Y

Partial Partial Partial

30 months 18 months 18 months

n/a nfp AU$2954

n/a unknown n/a

MAY/JUN 2014 AA 23

LOCATION

Chippendale, NSW

SITE AREA PLOT RATIO

390sqm '

5:1

HUMBER OF APARTMENTS APARTMENT TYP!

98 Student

36 AA MAYAAJN 2014

FIRST FLOOR P1.AN 1:500

GROUND FLOOR PlAN 1:500 012 5 10m ~

01 lglu Centraloo a student ~builc!>ng

located en a compact site in Chippendale, Sydney.

02 Tile L·shape<l plan pn>onde students w.th • Shelt<!te<l oounyan:l on tho ground Ill

03 Perlofmo<f Corten panels allow light into the commu spaces end bedrooms, white maintaining pc"ivacy.

04 Tile etght•storoy builcfong is buitt to the •treet tdge. with a Conen !'Jkin that lellf it a strong vlsuol identity.

SECTION 1:500

EASTELEVATION 1:500 012 5 10m

IGLU CENTRAL

ARCHITECT

Bates Smart

Project team: Guy Lake, Natalie Lane-Rose. Sylvia Vasak. Bianca Heinemann, Tonie Maclennan, Nikolay Pechovski. Basil Richardson. Justin Cawley. Tereza Goyarrola

FACADE CONTRACTOR Ounsteel

BUILDER

Grindley Construction

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

Aspect Studios

ELECTRICAL, HYDRAULIC AND MECHANICAL CONSULTANT

EMF Griffiths

BCA CONSULTANT

Steve Watson and Partners

QUANTITY SURVEYOR

WT Partnership

ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT

Acoustic logic Consultancy

MODEL MAKER

Architectural Images

TOWN PLANNER

JBA

LIGHTING CONSULTANT

Point of View

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

Taylor Thomson Whitting

P ROJECT MANAGER

Pyramid Pacific

MAY/JUN 2014 AA 37