• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

DESIGN-BY-DIALOGUE: THE ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAMMING OF THE ROYAL MELBOURNE HOSPITAL 1935 – 1945 Catherine Ann Tate Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2016 Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning The University of Melbourne Printed on Archival Paper In memory of my mother and father, Winifred (Win) and John (Jack) Tate We shall not cease from exploration. And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. TS Eliot (1943), Little Gidding V, Four Quartets. Catherine Tate ABSTRACT This dissertation argues that the dialogue between expert clients and expert architects is critical to the creation of a general hospital – arguably the most programmatically complex of all building types. Using the third realisation of the Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH), the initial structure on the Parkville site, 1935-45, as an historical example, this dissertation provides significant insights into rarely recorded programming interaction between the clients, the RMH, and the architects, Stephenson Meldrum/Turner (SM/T). The RMH was (and still is) a premier health, teaching and research facility within Australia. In 1935, the RMH’s goal for the new hospital was to create a modern teaching hospital on a par with the world’s best. This clearly was achieved as, in 1945, the hospital buildings had gained significance within the Australian hospital architectural milieu for being the first general public hospital to be completed in the vertical typology and implementing the modernist principles of functionality and the minimalist aesthetic. It was also particularly significant within the hospital oeuvre of SM/T as it was their first general hospital and one which became the exemplar for their later hospital work. These facts are well recognised by architectural historians but this is the first time the programming methodology implemented to achieve this important building complex has been explored. Architectural Programming officially emerged as a professional discipline in the 1960s. In doing so, it replaced the traditional briefing process and, ostensibly for the first time, recognised and advocated the role of the client in the Programming process. However, documentary evidence clearly reveals that SM/T not only practiced programming, they were using the relevant terminology in the 1930s for the new RMH – 30 years prior to its formalisation. The expertise of both the client and the architects has been established in order to examine their roles within programming process for the new RMH. In 1935, the RMH was a composite of three major institutions: a general public hospital; the University of Melbourne Faculty of Medicine and Surgery Clinical School; and the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Research, Pathology and Medicine. The fact that the RMH was a public hospital meant it was under the jurisdiction of the Victorian State Government and its i Catherine Tate appointed body, the Charities Board of Victoria. Hence the client comprised of five entities. The RMH Committee of Management was the principal authority and therefore all the decisions were ultimately their responsibility. They appointed three committees for the new building: the Organisers – to organise the requirement lists from Heads of Departments and the Medical Staff; the Special Advisory and New Building Committee (NBC) to act as their ‘working client’; and the Board of Reference to act as the quick decision making committee. The standing Honorary Medical Officers Committee (HMOs) was also to play a major role in the programming process. Most of the committee members were medical professionals whose expertise lay in the knowledge of their individual discipline, the requirements for their departments and in the general operation of the hospital. By 1935, SM/T had ten years experience as specialist hospital architects. They operated their practice on a business-like footing with three principals, Arthur Stephenson, Percy Meldrum and Donald Turner and a staff of thirty-seven including seven qualified senior associates. However, the RMH presented a challenge to SM/T as they had not previously undertaken a project of this magnitude or complexity. The architects implemented the methodology of Design-by-Dialogue where programming and design were interlinked. It was the client’s responsibility to furnish the architects with a detailed list of their requirements. By developing schematic sketches which were presented at meetings with the client committees, the architects were able to closely interact with them throughout the protracted and difficult process of six iterative schemes, A, B, C, D, G and J for the six buildings: the Main Block, Outpatients Department, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Nurses Home, Resident Medical Officers Quarters and the Service Block. This dissertation is an empirical study of the RMH’s development 1935-45. It was possible as all the meetings between the client committees and the architects had been diligently minuted and preserved – along with correspondence, reports and architectural drawings – in archival repositories. Consequently, this work has provided new knowledge into rarely recorded programming interaction between clients and the architects. This dissertation is grounded in history and contributes significantly in the disciplines of architectural history and the history of architectural programming. ii Catherine Tate DECLARATION This to certify that i. the thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD, ii. due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all materials used, and iii. the thesis is less than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices. Catherine Ann Tate January 29 2016 iii Catherine Tate ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge my friend Jane Touzeau who suggested I investigate the architecture of Stephenson & Turner. In 1999, Jane expressed to me her concern that the architecture of her grandfather, Sir Arthur Stephenson, was largely being ignored. Her concern was prompted by the illness of her father, Mr Peter Stephenson who, in 1967, had inherited his father’s role as principal architect of the firm, Stephenson & Turner. My interest in the firm resulted from the interview I undertook with Peter and his wife Ethel, also a former architect with Stephenson & Turner. In 2000, I was admitted to the University of Melbourne, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning to undertake a Masters Thesis (part time) to research the contribution of the principal, Sir Arthur Stephenson, to the firm of Stephenson & Meldrum 1920–1937. I would like to thank Dr Angela Hass, my Principal Supervisor who, in 2007, encouraged me to convert to a PhD. However, my Masters topic was considered too broad for a PhD. My interest in investigating the complexities of one building was inspired by Dr Jeffrey Turnbull and his PhD, ‘The Architecture of Newman College’. From Stephenson & Turner’s vast oeuvre, I selected the Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH) as it was a building complex I knew well from my nursing experience in the early 1960s – when the original scheme was completed and prior to subsequent extensions. I would like to thank Dr Turnbull who, as co-supervisor, suggested I explore the architectural programming methodology implemented for the RMH. However I must admit that, during my nursing days, at no time did I ever give a single thought to the architects who designed the hospital. I am greatly indebted to Dr Christopher Heywood without whose support and advice this dissertation would not exist. Dr Heywood assumed the role as my principal supervisor after Dr Hass’s retirement in 2010 and his previous experience as a hospital architect and his knowledge of programming methodology have been invaluable. Thank you, Chris. I received encouragement, support and advice from many people including architects and medical practitioners and I appreciate the time they so generously gave me. They were Mr John Castles, Principal, Castles Stephenson & Turner; Mr Tony Broughton, formerly of v Catherine Tate Stephenson & Turner, Castles Stephenson & Turner; Mr John Miller, Principal, Health Care, Hassel Architects; and Dr Noel Cass, former anaesthetist at the RMH. I also wish to express my gratitude to Mr Peter Stephenson for granting permission for me to photocopy and reproduce any documents held in the Sir Arthur Stephenson Collection at the National Library and to Mr Richard Cameron, Director, Stephenson & Turner Architects, who granted me permission to copy and reproduce material concerning Sir Arthur Stephenson, his architectural firm and any other material considered copyright. I particularly wish to thank my friends from the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning whose support and encouragement never faltered especially during a very difficult period of my candidature. A special thank you to Jane Trewin and to the Faculty librarians whose cheerful encouragement keep me going. I would also like to thank the staff at the State Library Victoria and, in particular, to thank Gabriel Haveaux, the archivist of the RMH, for organising all the relevant documentation for me to explore. I especially want to thank my wonderful long-suffering family and friends, in particular, my partner Colin Smith. vi Table of Contents Catherine Tate TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction 1 The Goal for the new Royal Melbourne Hospital 2 The Site 3 The Royal Melbourne Hospital Client Composition 4 The Architects

Load more

  368

Copy Link