Vernacular architecture is a pure reaction to an individual person’s or society’s desire to inhabit a particular environment and it relies on local materials and resources to achieve comfortable living conditions. Typically vernacular architecture evolves over time to reflect the environmental, cultural, technological, and historical context in which it exists (Tasca, 2013). This reflection of society encapsulated within architecture is articulated through particular styles which are responsible for distinguishing places and imbedding cultural identity within society.
The search for a cogent Australian architectural style has been a concern of architecture in Australia since non-indigenous settlement in 1788. The desire to develop a national identity which recognised Australia internationally as independent of our British heritage has pushed our society to establish an architectural discourse which reflects a collection of individual ideas and aspirations. Modern contemporary Australian architects struggle with defining Australian architecture due to the escalating globalisation of society and an increasing appropriation of international construction methods and foreign materials. The idea of the vernacular is strong in Australian architecture however and is often defined in terms of the ‘city’ and ‘bush’, where the latter setting has an internationally developed character and generally receives more architectural attention. It is this distinction and bias which challenges our national identity, since the majority of Australia’s population inhabits the areas which would be considered ‘city’. There is an identifiable Australian style of architecture and it came about through an adaption of British colonial archetypes however it is not a realistic representation of Australian life, nor is it appropriate within all of Australia’s climatic conditions. This is the reason that contemporary architects struggle to define a singular Australian idiom. As a contemporary Australian I believe that my Australian identity is not represented through my immediate built environment but that it does embody, to an extent, Perth’s socio-political history. This essay explores the embodiment of the Australian identity within architecture through an understanding of Australia’s colonial history and an examination of Casey Brown’s ‘Mudgee Permanent Camping’ in contrast with a typical suburban house.
It is important to recognise the influence of our cultural history upon society as it represents the origin of our architectural discourse within Australia, and frames the ideals present in our colonys' foundations. Britain was seeking to expand their empire as a means of increasing their capacity (Rose, 2013), and the need to fulfil this goal escalated when the American civil war forced the rejection of Britain as its governing body. Prior to this event exploration had begun, with reports regarding Australia’s condition returning positive. Australia was illustrated through these reports as an exotic resource which was plentiful and untouched. The resulting settlement in Australia was focused on not repeating the mistakes of Britain’s failed American colonisation, and architecture was used as a participatory tool of power to assert ‘British’ ideologies. Settlement was initiated with the knowledge that it may well not succeed, resulting in an issue relating to the permanency architecture displayed. And the tent was at once a practical structure and also a lingering reminder of this. While the tent under colonial perception was interpreted as a negative circumstance, unbeknownst to them this archetype of settlement was similar to the way in which indigenous Australians inhabited the land. The tents underlying vernacular response contributed to the colonies success and can be evidenced in its extensive and prolonged use up until the 1840’s.
It seems only natural that the settlers transported the Georgian style and construction methods, as they were, to the colony. And while the resultant structures succeeded in constructing particular social statements and asserting idealised ideologies they failed to withstand the physical forces of the Australian landscape. These archetypes were quickly moulded through some creative process to respond more appropriately to the environmental conditions. This is evident in the development of gestures such as the veranda. The initial verandas in Australia were added to existing buildings for shade and protection, with the first veranda being constructed in 1873 by Major Francis Grose, the Lieutenant-Governor for New South Wales. There were few to begin with, and they were maintained as symbols of wealth and power. From a practical perspective the veranda served to protect the internal spaces from the harsh Australian weather as well as promote ventilation and general coolness (Drew, 1992). The veranda represented a transition space in which the temporary quality of the early settlers’ experience was embodied. When viewed from the interior the veranda seems to extend the house into the landscape, framing its outlook and imparting a sense of protection, which was a necessary experience so as to protect the psychological wellbeing of the settlers. By the 1880’s the veranda had become the universal solution to the Australian
 |
| Collection Search, 1936 |
climate, applied as much as air-conditioning today. In fact they became so habitual in Australian society that verandas were added often without consideration for their function, suitability or orientation (Drew, 1992). Verandas, as an architectural motif, although not originally from Australia, have been recognised globally as Australian in style, and are also an example of the way in which our cultural history and environmental conditions have combined to inform an Australian archetype. However many contemporary architects have become disillusioned that verandas and galvanised roofs are a “prerequisite for Australian architecture” (Cox, 1984). Similarly, the issue with Australian architecture as it is currently identified is that it does not find itself in the suburban reality of our cities but instead in the rural areas which exhibit the outback landscape most commonly associated with our country. While verandas and the heavily romanticised outback shed represent one avenue of Australian architecture, in terms of vernacular and climate appropriateness, they are not applicable to each instance of domestic architecture. Each city is defined by different climatic conditions, different landscapes and typographies which each require a unique architectural response. This has been demonstrated through the unconscious, yet distinct differences between each Australian city’s approach to construction, materials, and landscape. As an example Sydney, as the first city of Australia, considers its architecture responsible for maintaining the legacy of the colonial Georgian style and as a result finds itself constantly contesting against natural climatic events including annual flooding. Melbourne’s moderate climate and reserved landscape sees no oppressing need to respond directly to climate. The architecture explores instead social and political discourse. Perth, with its extreme solar exposure and dry earth is relieved on a daily basis by the cooling wind of the ‘Fremantle doctor’. Consequently Perth responds with architectural gestures, including the veranda, which exploit the breeze and shade against the sun (Goad, 2001). The differences between each city’s built environment make it difficult, in my opinion, to develop and categorise an Australian architecture.
One factor that unites Australian architecture however is the geographical relationship between the manner in which space is inhabited and the growth of our capital cities. Philip Drew stated in his theory about Australians as ‘coast dwellers’ that Australia is dominated by peripheral rather than medial spaces and that this can be contributed to our underlying insecurities stemming from settlement. While there is truth present in his observations he neglects the idea of the city having a circumference. On a national scale it can be observed that each of our cities has been sited on the coast, and since then they have also experienced somewhat uncontrolled radial expansion, where our suburban environment constitutes the majority of our cities and is located on their periphery (Goad, 2001). On a more microcosmic level this is also reflected in the way architectural space is occupied. In an open space it is not often you will observe someone occupying the central space unless it serves function. More often you will find that people prefer to stand around the edges. Philip Drew (1994) notes that “the quintessential Australian architectural space is the veranda” for this exact reason. The fact that we return on a philosophical scale to the veranda when discussing the Australian identity emphasises its role in exemplifying Australian architectural style, despite that fact that its use is confined to appropriate climates.
 |
| Archdaily, 2013 |
It can be argued that Casey Brown’s ‘Mudgee Permanent Camping’ flawlessly embodies everything that represents Australian architecture, however the dispute lies in questioning how much of its ‘Australianness’ is constructed through the setting. The modern adaption of the veranda and the use of iron and timber frame construction to articulate it attempts to reflect the traditional colonial style of domestic architecture. Similarly the use of transparent walls along three sides of the building emphasises the veranda as a frame for the landscape, extending its effect to the exterior observer. The presence of a water tank conveys to the observer the concept of water as precious and in turn the experience of the landscape as dry and hot. Unconsciously the title of this instalment connects the place with the tents of the first British Australians and the inherent lack of permanency is heightened by the manner in which the space touches the ground. Although Cox identifies that an issue surrounding Australian architecture is the disillusionment of its prerequisites, I would argue that the siting of architecture within Australia is the greatest problem facing our identity. The rejection of the city as the site for domestic architecture has resulted in the acceptance of the prefabricated synthetic living of the consumer to prevail and for our identity in that manner to appear as if it is lost. The image of Brown’s design indicates its Australianness to me through the visual appearance of the native landscape, and this is because this architecture cannot be found in my built environment. If architects were to site their architectural manifests within the suburban environment, this challenge would identify a new architecture which realistically represents life in Australia. The house displayed in the second image is
 |
| Housing, 2013 |
available for purchase and construction anywhere within suburban Australia, and its design reflects its ambiguity. The eaves of the roof protect the walls from solar exposure in a moderate manner but define no clear space. Combined with the heavily sheltered and obscured view from the windows completely introverts the house and disconnects the inhabitants socially and also from the landscape – which has been removed in its construction anyway. This ignorant architectural gesture has enforced this social behaviour within Australia, where the contemporary Australian finds the concept of the Australian landscape a fantasy, the idea of physical social interactions confronting and the desire to inhabit vernacularly omitted. Although the second house does not respond appropriately or exhibit any recognisable Australian architectural style it represents the reality for the majority of Australian citizens. The architectural challenge for Australian architects lies in developing an Architecture which promotes a standard of living which we each want to represent Australia as well as incorporating the vernacular and those gestures which we already identify with.
This essay has explored the embodiment of the Australian identity within architecture through an understanding of Australia’s colonial history and an examination of Casey Brown’s ‘Mudgee Permanent Camping’ in contrast with a typical suburban house, in order to identify if there has ever been an Australian architecture. And I would argue that yes there has, and it came about through a creative process involving the adaption of colonial archetypes.The issue with defining an Australian identity through architecture lies in the fact that our country is so naturally diverse in economic, political, social and environmental conditions. It is difficult to identify a single response that is correct and “Australian”. I do not think that we should be building in search of our Australian identity as our Australian identity is evident in our built environment regardless. Despite this it is clear that the architectural challenge for future Australian architects lies in developing an Architecture which promotes a standard of living which we each want to represent Australia as well as incorporating the vernacular and those gestures which we already identify with.
References
ArchDaily. 2013. Permanent Camping/ Casey Brown Architecture. http://www.archdaily.com/339400/permanent-camping-casey-brown-architecture/
Broadbent, James. 1997. The Australian Colonial House: architecture and society in New South Wales 1700-1842. Potts Point, N.S.W. : Hordern House.
Collection Search. 1936. The verandah, old home, Potts Point. http://artsearch.nga.gov.au/detail-lrg.cfm?irn=40882&view=lrg
Cox, Philip. 1984. “Australia’s architectural identity”. ArchitectureAU. http://architectureau.com/articles/philip-coxs-as-hook-address-from-1984/
Cox, Philip. 2008. “Building a cultural identity”. The Drum. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/37180.html#comments
Dovey, Kim. 1992. “Model houses and housing ideology in Australia”. Housing Studies 7(3): 177-188. doi: 10.1080/02673039208720734
Drew, Philip. 1992. Veranda: Embracing Place. Pymble, N.S.W. : Angus and Robertson.
Drew, Philip. 1994. The Coast Dwellers: Australian Living On the Edge. Australia; Penguin Books Australia.
Freestone, Robert, and Stephen Hamnett. 2000. The Australian Metropolis: a planning history. St Leonards, N.S.W. : Aleen & Unwin.
Goad, Philip. 2001. New Directions in Australian Architecture. Balmain, N.S.W. : Presaro Publishing.
Goad, Philip, and Julie Willis. 2008. “A Bigger Picture: Reframing Australian Architectural History”. Fabrications 18(1): 6-23. url: http://web.ebscohost.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/ehost/ delivery?sid=1f366302-9720-4ee5-b48f-22fb3c737a8e%40sessionmgr110&vid=3&hid=120
Housing. 2013. Housing. http://www.army.gov.au/Army-life/Housing
Ostwald, Michael J., and Steven Fleming. 2007. Museum, Gallery and Cultural Architecture in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Region: Essays in Antipodean Identity. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.
Tasca, Alice. 2013. “Vernacular Architecture and Passive Systems”. Accessed on 26, August. http://www.academia.edu/2120612/VERNACULAR_ARCHITECTURE_AND_PASSIVE_SYSTEMS
No comments:
Post a Comment