CASE STUDY 3: THE TOWER OCTOBER 2011

Research Report: ‘What We Thought Would Kill Us’

Case Study 3: The

1. Introduction 2

2. The History of the Bell Tower 3

3. The Controversy, Design Response and Cost 6

3.1 The Controversy...... 6

3.2 The Design Response...... 7

3.3 The Cost...... 7

4. Community Opposition and Key Concerns 9

5. Summary and Conclusions 14

Appendix 1 16 Acknowledgements

Appendix 2 18 References

©This paper is copyright of the Committee for . While we encourage its use, it should be referenced as: What We Thought Would Kill Us, The Bell Tower, 2011, Committee for Perth, Perth.

Committee for Perth 1

“The Bell Tower project dominated public debate”

1. Introduction

The Bell Tower is a Perth landmark.

It is one of our major tourist attractions and has provided a focal point for Perth’s foreshore. Yet few of us will have forgotten the controversy that surrounded the Bell Tower at the time of its development.

Looking back, the level of public scorn heaped on the Bell Tower during its planning and construction seems a bit ridiculous.

At the time the project dominated public debate, with community members and government opposition accusing the government of wasting money which they said could be better spent on hospitals, policing or schools.

Then Premier Richard Court was accused of building a monument to himself and when construction on the site commenced some people abused workers on the site as they passed in their cars.

Yet by the time the structure was completed and opened to the public in December 2000, passing motorists were giving the thumbs up. The controversy had died down and sightseers queued outside to be the first people in the door.

Opinions on the Bell Tower are, to some degree, still divided however most of us appear to like the tower and debate has shifted from ‘why?’ to ‘why not bigger?’, ‘more iconic?’, ‘louder?’

This case study has been undertaken by the Committee for Perth to examine the then community’s concerns about the development of the Bell Tower; how this concern impacted on the ultimate design and outcome of the project; why, as a community, we have a tendency to undervalue investment in landmark places and spaces; and the difficulty governments face in investing in assets that do not have an immediate measurable benefit.

Committee for Perth 2

“The twelve of St Martin-in-the- Fields are recorded as being in existence from before the 14th century”

2. The History of the Bell Tower

Commemorating 's bicentenary in 1988, the twelve bells of St Martin-in-the-Fields, as well as five specially cast bells were presented to the University of , the City of Perth and to the people of Western Australia by the Cities of and Westminster.

The project was an exchange – Perth would be presented with the historic St Martin-in-the-Fields bells and in return Western Australia would provide the tin and copper for new bells at St Martins.

The London diocese of the Church of England and the parish of St Martin-in-the-Fields gave authority for the project to proceed.

The twelve bells of St Martin-in-the-Fields are recorded as being in existence from before the 14th century and recast in the 16th century by Queen Elizabeth I. The bells were again recast between 1725 and 1770 by three generations of the Rudhall family of bell founders from Gloucester in England, under the order of the Prince of Wales who was later crowned as King George II.

These bells were used to ring out historical occasions in for over two centuries, including victories over the Spanish Armada, Trafalgar and El Alamein as well as great voyages, including the return to England of Captain James Cook and the coronation of English Monarchs (Australian and New Zealand Association of Bellringers, 1999).

They are the one of only a few sets of royal bells in existence and are the only ones known to have left England (, 2011).

The five additional bells which made up the gifted set were cast by the in 1988 for the project and included two from the cities of London and Westminster, who each gifted one bell to the project, and a further three bells bestowed by a consortium of British and Australian mining companies (Swan Bells, 2011).

The University of Western Australia, which had been seeking a suitable project to celebrate its 75th anniversary, was to find a home for the bells. The original vision for the project was to develop a publically accessible bell tower and teaching facility with links to the university and its music program. The idea received strong early support from within the university, particularly from Sir Frank Callaway who had a leading role in organising the university’s 75th anniversary programme (Pickford, C, 2011).

However the university did not have funding for the project and fund raising would be required for it to proceed. An initial UK fundraising campaign was ‘stunningly successful’ largely due to the

Committee for Perth 3 personal commitment and contacts of then Agent General for Western Australia in London, Ron Davies and his staff. However subsequent fundraising campaigns within Western Australia attracted little support (Pickford C, 2011).

There was some significant early progress towards finding a home for the bells in proximity to the university with plans being substantially progressed for a modern, free tower on the Matilda Bay car park site. However, ultimately a lack of funding led to waning commitment from the then university administration and the project fell into abeyance (Pickford, 2011).

The Government of Western Australia then assumed responsibility for finding a suitable location to house the bells but were initially no more successful and as a result the bells sat in warehouses and the gift started to become a bit of an embarrassment to Perth and Western Australia (Smith G, 2000). When a visiting UK bell ringer saw the bells and rusty framework apparently neglected in a Clough yard in 1992, the issue of neglect of the bells was raised both locally and in the UK.

The acting Agent General in London wrote to the Premier’s office to report public concerns about the neglect of the gift noting that, “Questions are now being asked by the Chamberlain’s Office and by the Bishop of London as to what happened to the bells and it could be embarrassing if nothing is being seen to be done” (Pickford C, 2011).

Articles appeared in the UK in the Church Times and in the Ringing World in 1992 and in the Sunday Times in Western Australia (Pickford C, 2011). A petition was even started in London to have the bells returned (ABC, 2000). In response, the Western Australian Trustees of the St Martin’s Bells Foundation united to raise funds and obtain support for the project from the State Government and the Opposition (Pickford C, 2011).

The State Government, who had not been responsible for bringing the bells to Perth therefore came under increasing pressure to find a suitable home for the bells and Premier Richard Court moved to right the perceived wrong. In response, in the late 1990s a government appointed Steering Committee was established whose members included the Premier and the Lord Mayor of the time, UWA representatives and then President of and New Zealand Association of Bellringers, Laith Reynolds (Pickford C,2011).

A decision was made to build a new tower to house the bells and with the turn of the century approaching, the project became associated with millennium celebrations - the bells were to ring in the year 2000.

Associated with this decision, the Western Australian Government commissioned a sixth new bell to mark the second millennium, completing the ring of eighteen bells. The bell was to be inscribed with the name of then Premier Richard Court in keeping with ancient tradition of inscribing bells with the name of the person responsible for commissioning the bell.

Responsibility to identify a suitable location for the new tower was handed to the Steering Committee which identified as the most appropriate location for a new tower to house the bells. (It is noted that this decision was made by the Committee without public consultation or input.)

In June 1998 the then Department of Contracts and Management Services conducted a limited but paid urban design/architectural competition between four West Australian architectural firms to develop conceptual plans for the redevelopment of Barrack Square. The competition was promoted through the WA Tourism Commission as Western Australia’s millennium project and locating the bells within the Square was part of the brief.

The judging panel was commonly reported to consist of two senior architects, one a previous State President and National Councillor of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and the President of the Institute of Engineers and the other the Head of the Department of Tourism.

Hames Sharley developed a masterplan to revitalise Barrack Square and reconnect the city to the river. The centrepiece of the redevelopment was a bell tower to house the historic bells of St Martin- in-the-Fields. The concept for the bell tower was to develop a landmark building which would make an iconic statement for Western Australia, and which reflected the sophistication of design, engineering and construction at the time (Hames B, 2001).

Committee for Perth 4 Hames Sharley’s entry set about to be radical and visionary by focussing on a number of fundamental elements which included:

 Connecting the city and the river and creating a focal point to bond them;

 Bringing the water to the city;

 Hanging the bells at their historical height;

 Creating an identifiable iconic form;

 Integrating the ferry service;

 Placing the campanile at the crossing of the identified water and land axes; and

 Taking the water to the old river foreshore (Hames Sharley, 2000).

According to feedback provided to Hames Sharley at the time, their entry was chosen because, rather looking backwards for design inspiration, the design looked forward and reflected the dynamic future of Western Australia, while acknowledging the State’s history, agricultural and mining sectors.

Committee for Perth 5

“Public debate raged in the media questioning the purpose and benefit of the project”

3. The Controversy, Design Response and Cost

3.1 The Controversy

Upon announcement of the project and release of the Hames Sharley concept, controversy over the scheme erupted almost immediately.

This criticism was perhaps partially backlash against the release of what was perceived by the public to be a completed scheme without any prior consultation or public involvement. The timing of the announcement, which came when Premier Richard Court was away, and in a ‘slow news’ period close to Christmas also contributed to the level of negative coverage the scheme received, as did a general misconception about the cost of the project with costs of the total redevelopment scheme being perceived as the cost of the Bell Tower itself (Pickford C, 2011).

However, whatever the reason, critics derided the government for entertaining such a ‘grandiose’ and ‘outrageously extravagant’ plan at a time of ‘economic turmoil’. The government was accused of being out of touch with reality and irresponsible for spending on a ‘crazy’ and ‘incongruous’ project to house ‘second hand’ bells (, 1998).

The public debate raged in the media, questioning the purpose and benefit of the project and challenging the design of the Bell Tower for being too big, out of scale with Perth and disconnected from WA’s history, lifestyle and aspirations (The West Australian, 1998/99).

It was commonly asserted that the government was wasting money which could be better spent on essential services such as hospitals, policing or schools (The West Australian, 1998/99).

However it noted that the public did not universally oppose the redevelopment concept. While it certainly had a number of very loud detractors, some supporters of the concept were also audible - commending the government for its vision and highlighting the fact that the development of icons is never achieved without controversy (The West Australian, 1999).

Public consultation was undertaken on the project which determined that there was support for linking the city to the river; support for creating a pedestrian link to Barrack Square and support for the bells and other facilities proposed as part of the design (Hames Sharley, 2000).

However the public feedback questioned the length of the proposed Riverside Drive tunnel, the cost of the project and expressed concern about the design of the tower, suggesting that it needed to better reflect the historical context of the site (Hames Sharley, 2000).

Committee for Perth 6 3.2 The Design Response

The response was to scale back the redevelopment project and refine the Bell Tower design to reflect community comments and concerns.

The design of the Bell Tower and the surrounding landscape was amended to better reflect the historical context of the site and the function of the tower itself as a musical instrument. The site was historically called Union Jack square and contained the Perth Baths. It was also used for building boats (Hames B, 2001).

This history was reflected in the final design of the tower, with copper-clad sails similar to the type of sails in the boats built on the site in the early years and a tall glass spire (Hames B, 2000).

Construction of the tower commenced in 1999, and it opened on 10 December 2000, taking on the official name of the Swan Bells.

The structure of the tower is a series of fine tension rings which were designed to be barely visible, with the glass itself becoming part of the structural solution. The bell chamber is rounded to reflect the nature of a musical instrument and it is clad in copper tiles which will weather to a copper green/blue thereby producing a memorable built form (Hames B, 2001).

The Bell Tower is the biggest musical instrument in the world, containing the largest set of bells. The tower is also the first of its kind in the world - where the public can view the bells from a gallery while the bells are ringing.

The Bell Tower is 82.5 metres high (glass spire), with the bells located 23.5 metres above ground level. As a matter of comparison, the height of the Statue of Liberty is 93 metres and the Tower of Pisa is 56 metres.

The 18 bells are housed within a purpose-built steel lattice frame. Baffles within the structure control the sound level of the bells so that they can either be muffled or directed towards the city or the Swan River as required.

An essential component of the redevelopment was to restore the Barrack Square gardens in the original Paradise Garden theme to create a focal point for the CBD. The Bell Tower, surrounded by water was the centrepiece for the gardens.

However, only Stage 1 was delivered. The northern half of the Union Jack garden design and the proposed connection of the water to the original old river foreshore were never completed. A change of government occurred and the new government refused to complete the project.

Ultimately the project delivered to the people and visitors of Perth:

 The world’s largest musical instrument which was visited by 254,000 people in the first four months of opening and currently attracts approximately 62,000 visitors per annum (Swan Bells Foundation, 2009/10).  A small but beautiful landmark structure which has become part of Perth and one of the city’s most recognisable structures.  An attraction which is highly rated by visitors.  A bell ringing facility that is among the best in the world.  One of British Airways’ 10 Best in the World – Millennium Projects for 2000. A significant award that achieved international recognition for the project and for Perth and which was compared against the likes of the $1billion Millennium Dome in London.

3.3 The Cost

The cost of construction of the Bell Tower was $5.5 million, with an additional fit out cost of $500,000, including professional fees, total costs for the building were estimated to be $6,825,000 (Walker E, 2001).

The land on which the tower stands is Crown Land, which had for some time been a short stay parking area, grassed area and turning roundabout adjacent to the Jetty. The

Committee for Perth 7 Government derived no previous income from the land, and public amenity prior to development of the Bell Tower was minimal.

However public controversy over spending on the project placed pressure on the government to ensure that the Bell Tower would be financially sustainable or even profit making.

In 2000, the Western Australian Tourism Commission (WATC) commissioned a ‘feasibility study’ of the Bell Tower, which was prepared by Ernst & Young and presented to the WATC in August 2000. The report estimated visitor numbers to the site and determined that the site could generate annual revenue of approximately $1,573,000 (Walker E, 2001).

However hindsight has illustrated that the projections made in the report were not accurate and suggest that expectations for a facility like the Bell Tower to be financially sustainable are relatively unrealistic.

Committee for Perth 8

“The controversy surrounding the project was partially a symptom of poor public recognition for the social and economic contribution that arts and cultural infrastructure make to the city”

4. Community Opposition and Key Concerns

Key Issues and Community Outcomes Concerns

Project cost Opponents of the project claimed that the money would be better spent on schools, police or hospital beds, however it is evident when considering budgets for these services that an additional $5.5 - $7 million would have had very little impact at all on service delivery in any of these sectors.

In 1999-2000 the State Government budgeted for an operating surplus of $171.3 million and provided for additional expenditure measures of $251.1 million predominantly in the key areas of education, health and law and order.

Total health expenditure was $1,793.5 million in 1999-2000. Total education expenditure was $1,388.4 million. Expenditure on law and order was $789.2 million.

The cost of Stage 2 of the project was estimated to be $3.5 million (2000 prices). Had Stage 2 been completed at this cost it is still evident that the impact of the project costs on essential service delivery in the state would have been insignificant.

Inadequate The Bell Tower controversy highlights the issue of inadequate value being value on arts placed on funding for arts and cultural infrastructure. funding It is evident from the issues raised publicly that the controversy surrounding the project was partially a symptom of poor public recognition for the social and economic contribution that arts and cultural infrastructure make to the city and the state in comparison with other social infrastructure.

Committee for Perth 9 Key Issues and Community Outcomes Concerns

This attitude is reflected in historic and current state government funding for arts projects. ABS figures from 2009/10 puts Western Australia fourth in total state arts funding and third in state cultural funding on a per capita basis, a position that has remained largely unchanged over the last decade (ABS 2000-01 to 2009-10).

However on a national scale, Western Australia suffers from inadequate federal arts funding, an issue which, along with state government funding has received recent media attention. According to the Chamber of Arts and Culture WA Inc, based on population alone Western Australia should receive 10% of total funding channelled through the Council however funding for WA has consistently fallen short of this mark.

Figures from the Australia Council for the Arts Annual Report 2009/10 indicate that across all Art forms, WA’s share of federal funding is $9.8 million less than our state should reasonably expect using population as the determining criteria. It also shows that in 2009/10 Western Australia received $3 million less funding than South Australia, despite having 600,000 more people (Chamber of Arts and Culture WA, 2011).

On an international scale, Australia sits among the lower levels of culture and arts funding in the developed world, with per capita spending well below comparable countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany and the Netherlands (Mason J, 2001). This further suggests that culturally, Australia does not value arts and cultural investment as much as cultures internationally.

The design Much of the public comment centred on the design of the Bell Tower with some critics arguing that, while there might be room for the development of a distinctive architectural feature for Perth, the Bell Tower was not it. The development of the building as a landmark or iconic structure for the city and the location of the structure on the river foreshore were no doubt also significant contributors to this controversy. It is likely that any building in this location with distinctive or iconic architecture would have stirred public debate and criticism.

According to contractors who worked on the site, this sentiment continued into the construction phase of the project – but changed once people could see the tower taking shape. “When we started we would be abused by the public and motorists on a daily basis. But now they seem to love it and give us a ‘thumbs up’ as they go by” (WA Business News, 2000).

Ultimately once the Bell Tower was constructed, a groundswell of residents and tourists approved of the design and the media reported ‘compliments aplenty’ for the new structure (The West Australian, 2000).

This may reflect the process that was taken in amending and refining the design to respond to community concerns. However, it also possible that the real problem was not the design but the scale/size of the tower, its prominent location, iconic status and perhaps some fear of change.

However, whatever the reason, the controversy reflects the reality of developing iconic projects. There are few, if any examples of modern icons or landmarks that have been developed without significant controversy. Examples of highly controversial international icons include the Sydney Opera House as well as the Eiffel Tower and more recently, London’s ‘Gherkin’.

Committee for Perth 10 Key Issues and Community Outcomes Concerns It also reflects the status quo in Perth – we are a city without major built icons and one which has been largely unaccustomed to spending on major civic and cultural projects.

Purpose of the Opponents strongly questioned the purpose of the project. project? The outcomes of public consultation on the initial redevelopment concept suggested that community members could see value in the individual merits of the original proposal including linking the city to the river; creating a pedestrian link to Barrack Square; housing the bells and providing other public and commercial space as part of the redeveloped ‘Barrack Square’ (Hames Sharley, 2000).

What the public appeared to struggle with most was the Bell Tower design itself. Yet while the project did deliver a unique, landmark building to house the Swan Bells, few of the other objectives of the project which were supported by the community, were actually achieved.

The project did not link or bond the city to the river because Stage 2 was cancelled; it did not create a pedestrian link to the city and, while it improved the Barrack Square precinct, it did not strongly activate Barrack Square or the surrounding waterfront.

There is no doubt that this was a missed opportunity for Perth.

Too grand/ As previously outlined, public opposition to iconic structures, monuments and extravagant for redevelopment projects is not uncommon. Perth There are many examples of public controversy surrounding the development of iconic structures and buildings. Australia’s best and most celebrated examples are the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House but also include buildings such as Centrepoint Tower and the Victorian Arts Centre Spire.

What is uncommon and perhaps unique to Perth is for opposition to effectively halt development in the location and for the impact to be attribtued at least partially to the basis of public opinion, not that the plan is necessarily poor, but that it is too grand or perhaps ostentatious for the city.

The reasons for this are cultural, but in an international and national context they make very little sense.

Planning for the Sydney Opera House began in 1957 when the population of Sydney was less than 2 million people and its skyline was very different from the Sydney of today. Construction of the Eiffel Tower commenced when the population of Paris was about 2.3 million people and the Statue of Liberty was constructed in New York when the city was home to approximately 1.5 million inhabitants.

While these cities may have also been very big cities for their time, they were still cities of a size and scale commensurate to the Perth of 2000 and there is no discernable reason why Perth should be any less worthy of built icons than any other city in the world.

It is also evident that responses to the Bell Tower as being ‘grand’ and ‘out of scale’ with Perth were misguided.

The current Bell Tower sits at 82.5 metres and while it is well proportioned, and is appropriate in scale with its immediate surroundings, it is also evident that the tower can struggle to gain attention in its wider setting and that there

Committee for Perth 11 Key Issues and Community Outcomes Concerns is a risk of the building being ‘drowned out’ by surrounding waterfront development in the future.

Recent coverage about the need for more bells for the tower and for the bells to toll louder also suggests that in the opinions of some, Perth has failed to capitalise on the Bell Tower as much as it could (The West Australian, 2010).

However community accusations regarding misplaced grandeur were not just limited to criticism of the Bell Tower, they were levelled at the overall design concept for the waterfront and similar criticism has been made of other proposals for redevelopment of the Swan River waterfront (historically and more recently).

As a result, while other Australian cities have embarked on major redevelopment and urban renewal projects for their waterfronts over the last three decades, Perth’s many waterfront plans have barely made it out of the pages of the newspaper.

Melbourne’s Southbank was redeveloped in the early 1990s and Brisbane’s South Bank and Sydney’s Darling Harbour were undertaken in the 1980s. These projects were not without controversy – but they were delivered.

This suggests that Perth’s community has undervalued investment in our city and urban spaces more than other cities in Australia. It also suggests that we have lacked the strong political leadership that is required to deliver major landmark and controversial developments particularly in waterfront locations.

This may also be linked to what media in 1998/99 referred to as our ‘common sense’ attitude and the associated belief that government expenditure should be limited to essential infrastructure and services (The West Australian, 1999).

However, whatever the reason, it is evident that, rather than having ‘misplaced aspirations for grandeur’ Perth has actually had excessively modest aspirations for the city - which have resulted in equally modest outcomes.

Financial self- At the time of development, the substantial controversy that surrounded the sufficiency cost of the project resulted in pressure on the government to ensure that the resulting development would be financially self-sufficient or even profit making.

The Swan Bells Foundation is not financially sustainable and does not return a profit, however this is not surprising when compared with other major public infrastructure in the state or other arts and cultural organisations locally, nationally and internationally.

Arts and cultural organisations worldwide are publically funded and most civilised societies strongly encourage their governments to support culture, arts and heritage.

Art and music are basic human functions. They communicate across cultures, tell stories of the past and present, inspire minds and provide happiness. But they are rarely money making ventures.

In 2009-10 government subsidies to the Swan Bells Foundation totalled $350,000 (Swan Bells Foundation, 2009/10). A small number in the context of overall government spending – and a relatively small figure to support one of the city’s premier tourist attractions and the largest musical instrument in

Committee for Perth 12 Key Issues and Community Outcomes Concerns the world. However the Bell Tower continues to consistently receive annual negative media attention for the shortfall, while other government funded cultural institutions are accepted for their contribution.

Despite this, there may be potential for the Bell Tower to attract more revenue by attracting more visitors in the future when it forms part of a larger redevelopment of the waterfront – similar to the original vision for such a structure.

This potential should be capitalised on by investment in the Bell Tower to ensure that the redevelopment capitalises on what we have as well as creating new opportunities.

Monument to The project attracted significant criticism in the media for being a ‘monument’ the then to then Premier Richard Court. This criticism was at least partially a Premier response to community perceptions that the project was being personally driven by the Premier, a perception that was heightened by the lack of consultation with or involvement of other stakeholders or community members in the project. It also appears to have been influenced by a lack of broad community knowledge about the bells themselves and the significance of the gifting of the bells to Western Australia, the historical significance of the bells or the pressure that the government was under to find a home for them.

Committee for Perth 13

“The strong community opposition achieved a ‘scaled back’ waterfront redevelopment that did not meet the wide objectives the project initially set out to achieve”

5. Summary and Conclusions

To some degree, whatever your personal views are on the Bell Tower, the controversy over its development appears like a bit of a storm in a tea cup.

The cost of the building and the project overall was not significant; while it continued to suffer an image ‘hangover’ from the controversy, the community generally liked the tower once it had been constructed; tourists like it; it provides a focal point for Perth’s waterfront and it is by no means ‘out of scale, grandiose or extravagant’. It is a small, but unique building that has made a positive contribution to Perth’s waterfront and, looking at it today, it is hard to imagine what all the fuss was about.

But there was a fuss, a big one, and it did have a major impact on the project at the time. The strong community opposition achieved a ‘scaled back’ waterfront redevelopment that did not meet the wide objectives the project initially set out to achieve. Ironically these objectives were the very ones that public consultation suggested the community supported such as linking the city to the river and creating a pedestrian link to Barrack Square.

This suggests that the big losers from public opposition to the project were the public themselves. However it was also the Bell Tower which, as a small stand alone development in a half finished landscape, struggles to attract the tourist numbers that it deserves.

It is hard to ignore the possibility that the Bell Tower and its surrounds could have been Perth’s major attraction and a truly iconic focal point if the public and the government had got behind and supported a more comprehensive redevelopment project for the Barrack Square precinct.

This is not about limiting public input into projects it is about making sure that the public are involved early in developing ideas for major projects in a way that ensures that the wider community can embrace it as their own. However it is also about having strong leadership to ensure that major projects are not derailed unnecessarily by community criticism when there are also indications that the principle objectives of the project have community support.

In addition, it is evident that while cities and towns always have important and pressing social needs which require investment, governments also have responsibilities to make sure our city remains an attractive and interesting place to live and allocating funding to arts, culture and the improvement of public spaces – which are all fundamental contributors to our city, amenity, vibrancy and quality of life – is an essential part of this process.

Committee for Perth 14 Controversy surrounding the Bell Tower centred on the cost of the project and on the allocation of funds to cultural rather than social infrastructure and services, highlighting a lack of public support for arts and cultural funding at the time.

Funding for arts and cultural infrastructure in Western Australia has been relatively low on a national and international scale reflecting the low priority that has been placed on the sector by communities and governments in the past.

However this is changing. Recently there has been widespread media coverage of the deficit facing the arts sector in the state and the funding crisis faced by some of the state’s biggest cultural assets including the State Museum, Art Gallery, State Theatre Company and State Library.

Calls for increased arts funding have received widespread community support. It is therefore becoming evident that while West Australians may have been reluctant to support arts and cultural funding in the past, attitudes have shifted.

This highlights the need for us to learn from the past, because community attitudes and expectations change and what is controversial today is likely to be celebrated by the communities of tomorrow. It is also essential to ensure that decisions are made confidently about major improvements to the city and that development is not unnecessarily held hostage by an inability to overcome controversy over specific parts of a proposal.

However in the face of controversy like that experienced during the Bell Tower project there is no doubt that addressing community concerns and delivering a high quality outcome requires strong leadership, commitment and an effective and inclusive strategy for early public participation and input. If the public were involved early on in making decisions about the future of the bells they may not have reacted so negatively to the project.

In summary this report has concluded that while Perth did get a place to house the Swan Bells, a landmark, award winning building and a small scale waterfront redevelopment, public criticism ensured that it sat within a reduced, half completed landscape, and Perth deserves more.

Committee for Perth 15

“It is important for us to learn from the past, because community attitudes and expectations change and what is controversial today is likely to be celebrated by the communities of tomorrow”

Appendix 1: Acknowledgements

Committee for Perth members

Research work commissioned by the Committee for Perth is funded entirely through the contribution of our members. Our Foundation members are:

A full list of Committee for Perth members is available at www.committeeforperth.com.au.

Committee for Perth 16

Research Assistance

The Committee for Perth acknowledges the assistance of Mr Chris Pickford who is currently researching and writing a book on the history of the Swan Bells and who provided information in regards to the history of the Swan Bells project.

We also acknowledge Hames Sharley who provided information on the design development and history.

Interviews were also held with Swan Bells Foundation Chair Dr Ian Macleod and Board Member Mr Richard Offen who we would like to thank for their time.

Researcher Profile

This research has been prepared by Gemma Davis, a consultant for the Committee for Perth. Gemma has an Honours degree in Urban and Regional Planning and has over ten years experience in research, strategic planning, policy development and urban planning.

This has included the preparation of strategic planning documents for government agencies in Australia and the Republic of Ireland in her role as a Senior Planner for Environment Resource Management Ltd (ERM); the preparation of development applications and social and environmental impact assessments of proposed housing and industrial developments in her role as Senior Planner for ERM and Senior Planner with Tom Phillips + Associates (Republic of Ireland); undertaking research, preparing policy and managing production of member services in her role as Manager of Research and Policy for the Urban Development Institute of Australia (WA); and preparing strategic planning and policy documents for Queenstown Lakes District Council (New Zealand) in her role as Senior Policy Analyst.

Committee for Perth 17

“Recently there has been widespread media coverage of the funding deficit facing the arts sector in the state”

Appendix 2: References

Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) ,2000, Bell Tower Opens in Perth this weekend, Transcript from interview with Premier Richard Court Saturday 9 December 2000, AM Archive, ABC Perth

Australian Bureau of Statistics ,2010, 4183.0 Cultural Funding by Government Australia, http://www.abs.gov.au/

Australia Council for the Arts ,2009/10, Annual Report, http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/about_us/annual_report/annual_report_2009-10

Australian and New Zealand Association of Bellringers, 1999,The Swan Bells, Frequently Asked Questions http://www.anzab.org.au/WA/SwanBells_faq.html

Chamber of Arts and Culture WA Inc, 2011, Media Release – Western Australia deserves a fair share of arts funding – Wednesday April 28 2011

State Government of Western Australia ,1999, State Budget 1999/2000, WA State Government, Perth

Hames, 2001, The Swan Bells Project: a personal view, Architect Magazine, Spring 2001 Edition, Perth Western Australia

Hames Sharley (2000) Swan Bells Presentation for Public Consultation and Information, unpublished

Mason J, 2001, An International Glimpse of Public Spending on the Arts, published on line in The Millennium Fool April 9, 2001

The Australian, 2010, Mining Boom Fails to Turn Into Gold for Cultural Groups, March 30 2010

The West Australian, 1998, Riverside Project Deserves Support, Tuesday 20 October 1998

The West Australian, 1998, Letters to the Editor, Thursday 22 October 1998

Committee for Perth 18 The West Australian, 1999, Court Fiddles in Bell Tower Farce, Tuesday 12 January 1999

The West Australian, 2000, Crowds Sing Bells Praise, December 11 2000

The West Australian, 2009, Lord Mayor has the Vision, October 6 2009

The West Australian, 2010, Tunley still in tune at grand old age of 80, Tuesday May 4 2010

The West Australian, 2010, Top library starved of funding, Wednesday April 14 2010

The West Australian, 2010, Library funding cuts strike at our cultural heart, Wednesday April 14 2010

The West Australian, 2010, Arts and Music in Perth?, Monday April 12 2010

The West Australian, 2010, Perth behind Brisbane in Arts funding, Thursday May 6 2010

Smith G, 2000, A Response to Heritage Needs: The Swan Bells in Perth, Western Australia, Curtin University of Western Australia

Swan Bells Foundation, 2009/10, Swan Bells Foundation Annual Report 2009/10, available on Swan Bells Foundations website: http://www.thebelltower.com.au/

Swan Bells Foundation, 2011, Information from website: http://www.thebelltower.com.au/

Walker E, 2001, Never send to know for whom the bell tolls- ask how much it costs to toll it, Curtain University of Western Australia

WA Business News, 2000, For the Record: Bells Ring with the sound of profit, 30 May 2000

Committee for Perth 19