DOCSLIB.ORG

Addressing the Moral Rights of Design Consultants

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Addressing the Moral Rights of Design Consultants “From my cold, dead hands” – addressing the moral rights of design consultants Andrew Murray* After over a decade, the moral rights provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (the Act) still have not been the subject of significant judicial comment. High profile disputes have thrown up a number of issues about their application to the construction industry and yet, there is still no definitive guide for parties on how to address them – either during the drafting process or when substantive alteration or demolition of structures is contemplated. This article discusses moral rights in the context of the construction industry and provides some practical suggestions as to how the processes envisioned by the Act may work in practice. INTRODUCTION “The dead hand of an architect cannot stay clamped on a building forever. Buildings change, and can change back again.”1 – Betty Churcher, former director, National Gallery of Australia When ill-managed, moral rights entitlements of design consultants can harbour most of the properties of silent, ticking time bombs for building owners – a charge may be set before the contractual ink has dried, but its effects may not be felt for decades to come. One notorious casualty of such a device, as perhaps the quotation above attests, was the renovation proposal for the National Gallery of Australia in Canberra. In 2000, architect firm Tonkin Zulaikha Greer was engaged by the gallery to replace Colin Madigan’s original and allegedly “dysfunctional entry sequence”2 of the 1960s with a multi-level foyer through which visitors could access all floors of the collection. After years of wrangling and attempts to reconcile the creative intentions of the original and new design teams, the project was abandoned. The whole process repeated itself in 2005, this time with a new set of architects and Mr Madigan being paid a consultancy fee of approximately $40,000 before having his retainer terminated by a gallery director willing to chance the uncertainties of novel litigation rather than compromise his vision for the renovations.3 The practical effect of the moral rights provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (the Act) is to require building owners to give original architects a seat at the table whenever considering renovating, adjusting or demolishing the structure that sprang from their designs. Just how far owners are required to go, and precisely what an architect aggrieved about the treatment of his or her legacy can do to thwart their intentions, remains unclear. There has been no superior court consideration of the provisions in Australia.4 The legislation in question appears largely (almost unduly) prescriptive, but upon closer inspection contains a number of significant ambiguities. This article will consider the requirements of the Act for those contracting with design consultants. Its particular focus is: * BA (Hons), LLB (Hons) (Syd); Senior Associate, Colin Biggers & Paisley. In keeping with the moral right of attribution, the author would like to acknowledge the significant contribution of Avendra Singh to the preparation of this article. This article has been prepared for research and discussion purposes and does not constitute legal advice. 1 Meacham S, “Designs on his Landmark Leave Architect in Distress”, The Sydney Morning Herald (25 September 2006), http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/designs-on-his-landmark-leave-architect-in-distress/2006/09/24/ 1159036415563.html?from=rss viewed 8 February 2012. 2 Tonkin Zulaikha Greer, http://www.tzg.com.au/projects/national-gallery-of-australia viewed 8 February 2012 3 Martin L, “Gallery Defiant Over Redesign”, The Sydney Morning Herald (19 October 2005), http://www.smh.com.au/news/ arts/gallery-defiant-over-redesign/2005/10/18/1129401253238.html viewed 8 February 2012. 4 The legislation is referred to but not analysed in the cases of Wills v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 3) (2010) 89 IPR 252 (in which the court refused leave to rely on the moral rights provisions of the Act because of the stage in the (2012) 28 BCL 189 189 Please note that this article is being Should you wish to reproduce this article, provided for research purposes and is not either in part or in its entirety, in any medium, to be reproduced in any way. If you refer to please ensure you seek permission from our the article, please ensure you acknowl- permissions officer. © 2012 Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited edge both the publication and publisher for further information visit www.thomsonreuters.com.au appropriately. The citation for the journal is Please email any queries to or send an email to [email protected] available in the footline of each page. [email protected] Murray • the consultation regime, whereby owners of buildings are, subject to compliance with the statutory procedure, permitted to change, relocate, demolish or destroy any structure without infringing the moral rights of those individuals involved in its design; and • ways in which parties can contract out of the moral rights provisions of the Act. It is timely to examine these issues. Owners of many buildings completed prior to the enactment of the moral rights provisions (and before they could possibly have been dealt with contractually) will be considering renovation. Notwithstanding the fact that a building may have been constructed before moral rights had any force in Australia, the provisions will apply to such renovations. In many respects, Australian moral rights legislation renders Betty Churcher’s “cri du coeur” regarding the evolutionary properties of buildings more an article of faith (and a naïve one at that) than a legal truism. THE LEGISLATION A word on plans and buildings The concepts adopted in the moral rights provisions of the Act substantially derive their nomenclature from the law of copyright. Accordingly, an appropriate starting point is to consider what sorts of works are the subjects of copyright under the Act. Relevantly, s 10 of provides: Artistic work means: (a) a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph whether the work is of artistic quality or not; (b) a building or a model of a building, whether the building or model is of artistic quality or not … Building includes a structure of any kind. Section 32(3) of the Act confirms that copyright subsists in: (a) an original artistic work that is a building situated in Australia; or (b) an original artistic work that is attached to, or forms part of, such a building. In the case of a completed building, copyright may therefore inhere in plans produced by an architect and in the structures created in accordance with those plans – provided such plans and structures are original works of the architect and not themselves copies of other material.5 Section 36 of the Act provides that: … copyright in a[n] … artistic work is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the copyright, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright, does in Australia, or authorises the doing in Australia of, any act comprised in the copyright. Section 21(3) of the Act provides that: … an artistic work shall be deemed to have been reproduced: (a) in the case of a work in a two-dimensional form – if a version of the work is produced in a three-dimensional form; (b) in the case of a work in a three-dimensional form – if a version of the work is produced in a two-dimensional form; and the version of the work so produced shall be deemed to be a reproduction of the work. It follows that if a person, without being the owner or licensee of copyright in a set of plans or in a building: • reproduces the plans; • reproduces the building; • creates a building from the plans; or proceedings in which they were raised) and Ogawa v Spender (2006) 151 FCR 228 (which discusses whether the doctrine of judicial immunity extends to infringements of moral rights). Two decisions of the Federal Magistrates Court relating to moral rights are discussed below. 5 For a discussion on the meaning of “originality” in the context of the Act, see Mirror Newspapers v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [1982] Qd R 305 at 307 (Connolly J). 190 (2012) 28 BCL 189 Please note that this article is being Should you wish to reproduce this article, provided for research purposes and is not either in part or in its entirety, in any medium, to be reproduced in any way. If you refer to please ensure you seek permission from our the article, please ensure you acknowl- permissions officer. © 2012 Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited edge both the publication and publisher for further information visit www.thomsonreuters.com.au appropriately. The citation for the journal is Please email any queries to or send an email to [email protected] available in the footline of each page. [email protected] “From my cold, dead hands” – addressing the moral rights of design consultants • creates plans from the building, that person infringes the owner’s copyright in those plans or in that building and will be liable to the owner for copyright infringement in accordance with the Act. Naturally, there are grey areas where questions of degree of reproduction will determine whether the provisions of the Act are triggered. As Street J (as he then was) said in Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Wooley Pty Ltd v Hooker Homes Pty Ltd: There is undoubted force in the contention that the field of architecture is traditionally one in which new ideas are constantly evolving and being developed. Applications of new architectural ideas and concepts by those who follow the leaders in their profession are legitimate, and will not be restrained by the copyright laws. There is a clear distinction between the protection which the law will afford to an architect’s plans on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the absence of any protection to the architectural idea or concept which may happen to be expressed in a given set of plans.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Australia's National Heritage
    High Court–National Gallery Precinct AUSTRALI A N C A PI TA L T E R R ITORY The High Court–National Gallery Precinct is significant as a group of public buildings and landscape conceived as a single entity. The complex is stylistically integrated in terms of architectural forms and finishes, and as an ensemble of freestanding buildings in a cohesive landscape setting. The Precinct occupies a 16-hectare site in the north-east corner of the Parliamentary Zone. It includes the High Court, National Gallery of Australia and the Gallery’s Sculpture Garden. The landscape brief from the National Capital National Gallery of Australia Development Commission required that the High Court, National Gallery and surrounding landscape become a chambers. A waterfall designed by Robert Woodward and single precinct in visual terms, with the High Court as constructed from South Australian speckled granite runs the dominant element to be open to views from Lake the full length of the entry ramp. Burley Griffin. The National Gallery is a complex building of varied The Precinct is a synthesis of design, aesthetic, social and levels and spaces arranged on four floors of approximately environment values with a clear Australia identity. This 23 000 square metres. Like the High Court, much of the is represented in the pattern of functional columns and building is made of reinforced bush-hammered concrete, towers in the architectural elements, the sculptures of the an example of the architect’s philosophy that concrete has national collection in a landscaped setting, and the high as much integrity as stone.
    [Show full text]
  • The Garden of Australian Dreams: the Moral Rights of Landscape Architects
    EDWARD ELGAR THE GARDEN OF AUSTRALIAN DREAMS: THE MORAL RIGHTS OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS DR MATTHEW RIMMER SENIOR LECTURER ACIPA, FACULTY OF LAW, THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ACIPA, Faculty Of Law, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200 Work Telephone Number: (02) 61254164 E-Mail Address: [email protected] THE GARDEN OF AUSTRALIAN DREAMS: THE MORAL RIGHTS OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS DR MATTHEW RIMMER* * Matthew Rimmer, BA (Hons)/ LLB (Hons) (ANU), PhD (UNSW), is a Senior Lecturer at ACIPA, the Faculty of Law, the Australian National University. The author is grateful for the comments of Associate Professor Richard Weller, Tatum Hands, Dr Kathy Bowrey, Dr Fiona Macmillan and Kimberlee Weatherall. He is also thankful for the research assistance of Katrina Gunn. 1 Prominent projects such as National Museums are expected to be popular spectacles, educational narratives, tourist attractions, academic texts and crystallisations of contemporary design discourse. Something for everyone, they are also self-consciously set down for posterity and must at some level engage with the aesthetic and ideological risks of national edification. Richard Weller, designer of the Garden of Australian Dreams1 Introduction This article considers the moral rights controversy over plans to redesign the landscape architecture of the National Museum of Australia. The Garden of Australian Dreams is a landscaped concrete courtyard.2 The surface offers a map of Australia with interwoven layers of information. It alludes to such concepts as the Mercator Grid, parts of Horton’s Map of the linguistic boundaries of Indigenous Australia, the Dingo Fence, the 'Pope’s Line', explorers’ tracks, a fibreglass pool representing a suburban swimming pool, a map of Gallipoli, graphics common to roads, and signatures or imprinted names of historical identities.3 There are encoded references to the artistic works of iconic Australian painters such as Jeffrey Smart, Sidney Nolan, Arthur Boyd, and Gordon Bennett.
    [Show full text]
  • R084 National Gallery of Australia RSTCA
    Register of Significant Twentieth Century Architecture RSTCA No: R084 Name of Place: National Gallery of Australia Other/Former Names: Australian National Gallery Address/Location: Parkes Place PARKES 2600 Block B1.5 Section 29 of Parkes Listing Status: Registered Other Heritage Listings: Date of Listing: June 1993 Level of Significance: National Citation Revision No: Category: Educational Citation Revision Date: February 1993 Style: Late Twentieth Century Brutalist Date of Design: 1968-1972 Designer: Colin Madigan of Edwards, Madigan, Torzillo & Briggs Construction Period: 1973-1982 Client/Owner/Lessee: Commonwealth of Australia Date of Additions: Builder: Statement of Significance The National Gallery of Australia is one of the most forthright examples of Australian civic architecture of the 1970's. It is an important and prominent Australian example of Brutalist Architecture, and is the most decisive statement of the Brutalist philosophy as realised by Colin Madigan. It is a finely executed building reflecting great care and attention at all levels of detail throughout. His craft-based attitude to concrete construction is demonstrated in the quality finishes of the building. Madigan, working together with the landscape architect Harry Howard, has provided an outstanding landscape in which the building is sited with the sculpture garden on the lake side of the Gallery continuing the varied, spatial progression established within the building. It is difficult to describe the significance of the National Gallery and not mention the adjacent High Court building designed by the same firm in a similar style. The off form concrete masses, linking pedestrian bridge and strong, vertical elements at the entry of both the Gallery and High Court visually connect the two buildings.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2014–15
    Annual Report 2014–15 Annual Report 2014–15 Published by the National Gallery of Australia Parkes Place, Canberra ACT 2600 GPO Box 1150, Canberra ACT 2601 nga.gov.au/aboutus/reports ISSN 1323 5192 © National Gallery of Australia 2015 All rights reserved. No part of this publication can be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Prepared by the Governance and Reporting Department Edited by Eric Meredith Designed by Carla Da Silva Pastrello Figures by Michael Tonna Index by Sherrey Quinn Printed by Union Offset Printers Cover: The 2015 Summer Art Scholars with Senior Curator Franchesca Cubillo in the Indigenous Urban gallery, 14 January 2015. 16 October 2015 Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield Minister for Communications Minister for the Arts Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Government Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Minister On behalf of the Council of the National Gallery of Australia, I have pleasure in submitting to you, for presentation to each House of Parliament, the National Gallery of Australia’s annual report covering the period 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015. This report is submitted to you as required by section 39 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. It is consistent with the requirements set out in the Commonwealth Authorities (Annual Reporting) Orders 2011, and due consideration has been given to the Requirements for Annual Reports approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit under subsections 63(2) and 70(2) of the Public Service Act 1999 and made available by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on 25 June 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Committee Hansard
    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Official Committee Hansard SENATE ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ESTIMATES (Budget Estimates) WEDNESDAY, 25 MAY 2005 CANBERRA BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE INTERNET The Proof and Official Hansard transcripts of Senate committee hear- ings, some House of Representatives committee hearings and some joint committee hearings are available on the Internet. Some House of Representatives committees and some joint committees make avail- able only Official Hansard transcripts. The Internet address is: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard To search the parliamentary database, go to: http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au Wednesday, 25 May 2005 Senate—Legislation ECITA 1 SENATE ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Wednesday, 25 May 2005 Members: Senator Eggleston (Chair), Senator Lundy (Deputy Chair), Senators Bartlett, Con- roy, Santoro and Tchen Senators in attendance: Senators Carr, Eggleston, Fierravanti-Wells, Lundy, Marshall, Moore and Tchen Committee met at 9.07 am COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS PORTFOLIO Consideration resumed from 24 May. In Attendance Senator Kemp, Minister for the Arts and Sport Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Executive Ms Helen Williams AO, Secretary Ms Fay Holthuyzen, Deputy Secretary, Communications Dr Rod Badger, Deputy Secretary, Information Economy Ms Lynn Bean, Acting Deputy Secretary, Arts and Sport Corporate and Business Mr Frank Nicholas, Chief
    [Show full text]
  • MASTER AIA Register of Significant Architecture February2021.Xls AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE of ARCHITECTS REGISTER of SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS in NSW MASTER
    AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS REGISTER OF SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS IN NSW MASTER O A & K HENDERSON / LOUIS A & K HENDERSON OF MELBOURNE, 1935 1940 1991, 1993, T&G Building 555 Dean Street Albury Albury City 4703473Card HENDERSON rear by LOUIS HARRISON 1994, 2006, 2008 H Graeme Gunn Graeme Gunn 1968-69 Baronda (Yencken House) Nelson Lake Road, Nelson Lagoon Mimosa Rocks Bega Valley 4703519 No Card National Park H Roy Grounds Roy Grounds 1964 1980 Penders Haighes Road Mimosa Rocks Bega Valley 4703518 Digital National Park Listing Card CH [architect not identified] [architect not identified] 1937 Star of the Sea Catholic 19 Bega Street Tathra Bega Valley 4702325 Card Church G [architect not identified] [architect not identified] 1860 1862 Extended 2004 Tathra Wharf & Building Wharf Road Tathra Bega Valley 4702326 Card not located H [architect not identified] [architect not identified] undated Residence Bega Road Wolumla Bega Valley 4702327 Card SC NSW Government Architect NSW Government Architect undated Public School and Residence Bega Road Wolumla Bega Valley 4702328 Card TH [architect not identified] [architect not identified] 1911 Bellingen Council Chambers Hyde Street Bellingen Bellingen 4701129 Card P [architect not identified] [architect not identified] 1910 Federal Hotel 77 Hyde Street Bellingen Bellingen 4701131 Card I G. E. MOORE G. E. MOORE 1912 Former Masonic Hall 121 Hyde Street Bellingen Bellingen 4701268 Card H [architect not identified] [architect not identified] circa 1905 Residence 4 Coronation Street Bellingen Bellingen
    [Show full text]
  • The Report of the Inquiry Into Unresolved Recognition for Past Acts of Naval and Military Gallantry and Valour
    Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal THE REPORT OF THE INQUIRY INTO UNRESOLVED RECOGNITION FOR PAST ACTS OF NAVAL AND MILITARY GALLANTRY AND VALOUR THE REPORT OF THE INQUIRY INTO UNRESOLVED RECOGNITION FOR PAST ACTS OF NAVAL AND MILITARY GALLANTRY AND VALOUR This publication has been published by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. Copies of this publication are available on the Tribunal’s website: www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au © Commonwealth of Australia 2013 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. Editing and design by Biotext, Canberra. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL INQUIRY INTO UNRESOLVED RECOGNITION FOR PAST ACTS OF NAVAL AND MILITARY GALLANTRY AND VALOUR Senator The Hon. David Feeney Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Dear Parliamentary Secretary, I am pleased to present the report of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal’s Inquiry into Unresolved Recognition for Past Acts of Naval and Military Gallantry and Valour. The Inquiry was conducted in accordance with the Terms of Reference. The Tribunal that conducted the Inquiry arrived unanimously at the findings and recommendations set out in this report. In accordance with the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal Procedural Rules 2011, this report will be published on the Tribunal’s website — www.defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au — 20 working days after
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2018–19 Snapshot of the National Gallery of Australia
    Annual Report 2018–19 Snapshot of the National Gallery of Australia Who we are What we do The National Gallery of Australia The Gallery provides opened to the public in October 1982 exceptional experiences of and is the Commonwealth of Australia’s rich visual arts Australia’s national cultural institution for the culture. Through the national collection, visual arts. Since it was established in 1967, it exhibitions, educational and public programs, has played a leadership role in shaping visual outreach initiatives, research and publications, arts culture across Australia and its region and infrastructure and corporate services, the continues to develop exciting and innovative Gallery is a model of excellence in furthering ways to engage people with the national knowledge of the visual arts. The Gallery art collection. makes art accessible, meaningful and vital to diverse audiences, locally, nationally and internationally. Our purpose and outcome Our staff As Australia’s pre-eminent visual staff at 30 June 2019. The Gallery arts institution, the Gallery provides 326 has an inclusive workforce, social and cultural benefits for the employing people with a disability and people community and enhances Australia’s with culturally diverse backgrounds, including international reputation. The Gallery’s one Indigenous Australians. Women represent outcome, as outlined in the Portfolio Budget 67% of the Gallery’s workforce and 50% Statements 2018–19, is ‘Increased of its Senior Management Group. Detailed understanding, knowledge and enjoyment staffing information is on pages 72–7. of the visual arts by providing access to, and information about, works of art locally, nationally and internationally’. Our collection Our supporters Over nearly half a century of The Gallery nurtures strong collecting, the Gallery has achieved relationships with external extraordinary outcomes in acquiring stakeholders, such as artists and and displaying Australian and international art.
    [Show full text]
  • Determination 2018 (No 2)
    Australian Capital Territory Public Place Names (Taylor) Determination 2018 (No 2) Disallowable instrument DI2018–213 made under the Public Place Names Act 1989, s 3 (Minister to determine names) 1 Name of instrument This instrument is the Public Place Names (Taylor) Determination 2018 (No 2). 2 Commencement This instrument commences on the day after its notification day. 3 Determination of place names I determine the place names as indicated in the schedule. Ben Ponton Delegate of the Minister for Planning and Land Management 06 July 2018 Authorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au Schedule (see cl 3) Division of Taylor – Architects, town planners and urban designers The location of the public places with the following names is indicated on the associated diagram. NAME ORIGIN SIGNIFICANCE Arney Close Peter Arthur Architect Brent Arney Peter Arney trained in architecture with the Perth (c.1927 – 1996) based firm Oldham Boas Ednie-Brown, commencing in 1946. Mentored by Colin Ednie- Brown, Arney rose to become one of the firm’s lead design partners. He is remembered as a key driver of the firm until his retirement in the 1990s. Early in his career he designed the distinctive Parmelia Hotel in central Perth and was involved in many office building projects. He won acclaim for his design of the Cable Beach Club resort in Broome in the 1980s. The international resort’s architectural style uniquely drew upon Broome’s built heritage and associations with the pearling industry. Arney also specialised in the field of medical architecture, designing and building hospitals and homes for the elderly and disabled.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2002–2003 Annual Report
    annual report 2002–2003 annual report 2002–2003 NATIONAL GALLERY OF AUSTRALIA Annual Report 2002–2003 © National Gallery of Australia ISSN 1323-5192 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Produced by the Publications Department of the National Gallery of Australia, Canberra Editor: Alistair McGhie Designer: Kate Shackleford Printer: Paragon Printers Australasia National Gallery of Australia GPO Box 1150 Canberra ACT 2601 www.nga.gov.au Cover and left: David Moore, Parachute troops in training, Aldershot, UK 1953 gelatin silver photograph Gift of David Moore 1983 19 September 2003 Senator the Hon. Rod Kemp Minister for the Arts and Sport Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Minister I have pleasure in submitting to you, for presentation to each House of Parliament, the National Gallery of Australia’s Annual Report covering the period 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003. The report is submitted to you in accordance with the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 and the National Gallery Act 1975. The Report of Operations has been prepared consistent with the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies (Report of Operations) Orders 2002. The fi nancial statements have been prepared in accordance with the Finance Minister’s Orders made under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. Yours sincerely Harold Mitchell Chairman
    [Show full text]
  • Romaldo Giurgola in Australia and the ‘Other’ Modern Tradition
    The University of Adelaide Romaldo Giurgola in Australia and the ‘Other’ Modern Tradition Stephen G. Schrapel Aldo Giurgola, 2005 by Mandy Martin. Ochre, pigment and oil on linen. Collection: National Portrait Gallery, Canberra. Commissioned in recognition of Giurgola’s life-long contribution to architecture and funded by voluntary donations from members and friends of the architectural profession. Gift of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects 2005. A thesis submitted to the University of Adelaide in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2015 Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................... v Declaration ............................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 11 Romaldo Giurgola: A brief portrait ..................................................................... 15 Overview of post–Parliament House (1983) works ............................................. 18 Structure ............................................................................................................... 26 Chapter 2 Situating Giurgola ....................................................................................... 29 Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Institute of Architects Register of Significant Buildings in Nsw Master
    AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS REGISTER OF SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS IN NSW MASTER O A & K HENDERSON / LOUIS HENDERSON A & K HENDERSON OF MELBOURNE, rear by circa 1935 1940 1991, 1993, 1994, T&G Building 555 Dean Street Albury Albury City 4703473 Card LOUIS HARRISON 2006, 2008 H [architect not identified] [architect not identified] 1912 Wilton House 105-109 Katoomba Street Katoomba Blue Mountains 4700146 Card S [architect not identified] [architect not identified] undated Korvette Store Katoomba Street Katoomba Blue Mountains 4700147 Card S [architect not identified] [architect not identified] 1909 1940 (1925 Interior of The Paragon Cafe 63-69 Katoomba Street Katoomba Blue Mountains 4700148 Card Nos 65-67 H&E Sidegreaves) C [architect not identified] [architect not identified] 1905 Kanowna Hostel 26 Wascoe Street Leura Blue Mountains 4700152 Card MM [architect not identified] [architect not identified] 1938 Kingsford Smith Memorial Park Gates Katoomba Blue Mountains 4700153 Card S [architect not identified] [architect not identified] undated Shop Buildings 33-44 Katoomba Street Katoomba Blue Mountains 4700154 Card B [architect not identified] [architect not identified] undated Commonwealth Bank 68-72 Katoomba Street Katoomba Blue Mountains 4700155 Card S [architect not identified] [architect not identified] undated Shop Building 98 Katoomba Street Katoomba Blue Mountains 4700156 Card S [architect not identified] [architect not identified] 1921 Soper Chambers 118-120 Katoomba Street Katoomba Blue Mountains 4700157 Card S [architect not
    [Show full text]