DOCSLIB.ORG

Featurism and the Fish Bowl: Robin Boyd's

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Featurism and the Fish Bowl: Robin Boyd's Philip Goad: University of Melbourne Featurism and the Fish Bowl: Robin Boyd’s ‘Drive-in’ Design for 1969 In 1960, Melbourne architect and critic Robin Boyd (1919-1971) coined the term ‘Featurism’ in his book, The Australian Ugliness. It was a term directed at an emerging tendency in the late 1950s towards what Boyd described as ‘cloak and camouflage’ in architecture, and with specific reference to the so-called Googie-style architecture of the American commercial strip, where signs, symbols and exaggerated forms in the form of advertising took precedence over function. Nine years later, Boyd’s 1969 design for ‘Neptune’s Fishbowl’, a drive-in takeaway fish and chips outlet on busy Toorak Road in South Yarra caused something of a sensation. It wasn’t just the flamboyant launch with a bare-breasted ‘mermaid’ on the back of an open truck that raised eyebrows. The building’s glazed polygonal form topped by a near geodesic blue fibreglass sphere drew criticism as being ‘Featurist’, an accusation laid at the term’s originator and against which Boyd had to defend himself in the press. This paper outlines Boyd’s design, its genesis within his own design preoccupations of the time, and its reception amongst the public and the profession. It argues that the Fishbowl was not only part of a new postwar architectural idiom designed specifically for the road but also that its design was part of an emerging acceptance that automobile-related architecture might play a decisive role in radically shifting opinions about the aesthetics of the late twentieth century city. On the 24 November 1970, a new take-away seafood outlet, Neptune’s Fish Bowl, opened to great fanfare at 312-314 Toorak Road in South Yarra, an inner and well- to-do suburb of Melbourne. The launch began with the arrival on an open truck of “Fred Asmussen, silvered and floating in blue and white chiffon, as King Neptune”1 together with blonde model Barbara Challinor, bare breasted (with ‘pasties’) and with 1 AHA 2018 Conference Proceedings a silver-covered mermaid’s undercarriage.2 Behind the striking new outlet with its blue, ball-shaped structure over the selling area, there was a marquee set up over the parking area, where a couple of hundred Melbourne socialites together with the press were packed in drinking champagne and eating from trays of seafood, with “not a dob of urky batter in sight”. Guests were given red goldfish in water-filled plastic bags as they left. MC of the event was hair-dressing empress and Toorak socialite Lillian Frank, whose husband, restaurateur Richard Frank and businessman Peter Shelmerdine were joint owners of the new fast food venture. Also at the opening was the Fish Bowl’s architect, the well-known Robin Boyd (1919-1971), who, when interviewed by The Age’s Max Beattie, said in an Oscar Wilde-like moment: Some people will hate it and some people will love it. This is better than not being noticed at all.3 Boyd’s remark was prophetic. Neptune’s Fish Bowl did capture the public’s attention. It was not only a challenge to the increasing phenomenon of roadside, drive-in takeaway food outlets springing up across Australia. It also was a challenge to Boyd’s own diatribe against visual pollution of the urban environment that he had so vehemently championed ten years before in his book, The Australian Ugliness (1960), and where he had coined the term, ‘Featurism’. This paper outlines Boyd’s design, its genesis within his own specific design preoccupations, and its reception amongst the public and the profession. It argues that the Fishbowl was not only part of a shifting post-war roadside landscape in Australia but also that its design sources ran counter to an emerging acceptance that automobile-related urban environment was playing a decisive role in radically shifting opinions about the aesthetics of the late twentieth century city. 2 AHA 2018 Conference Proceedings Fig. 1 Neptune’s Fishbowl, South Yarra, Victoria, Australia, 1970 Architects: Romberg and Boyd Photographer: David Watson Source: Private Collection The concept for Neptune’s Fish Bowl had been developed by émigré restaurateur Richard Frank and Peter Shelmerdine. Intent on putting the seafood takeaway business on an international footing and developing recipes adaptable to comparable seafood across the globe, Shelmerdine said bravely at the opening: It’s time Australia dealt out the franchises instead of buying them from America. We’ve already had enquiries from Honolulu.4 The plan was, given success in South Yarra, to open up a chain of Neptune’s Fish Bowls across Australia’s east coast, with figures like two hundred being mentioned. 3 AHA 2018 Conference Proceedings At the time of the Bowl’s design and documentation, other sites targeted in Melbourne, included Burke Road, Camberwell, Burwood Road, Hawthorn, Kew, Balaclava, Notting Hill, Sandringham and Preston.5 The aim was to challenge the increasing presence of chains like Kentucky Fried Chicken and Red Barn, and refashion the common image of fish and chips in newspaper with smartly-named items on the menu like Lobster Capricornia, Horn of Plenty (chips) and Bimbi Apple Turnovers. Boyd’s design for the chain’s initial and signature outlet in South Yarra comprised a 14-sided polygonal sales kiosk sitting on a concrete slab with a broad-eaved polygonal flat roof, surmounted by an eye-catching blue fibreglass sphere, which acted like a giant sign and also formed a skylight over the counter and concealed preparation area behind. Norman Day, recently graduated and working in the Romberg & Boyd office, oversaw the documentation and construction of the project.6 Paraflood lights were arranged around the steel ring beam supporting the sphere to flood light into it at night. Customers could park at the rear and then make their way to the outlet’s single front door facing Toorak Road. The fully air-conditioned service area was carpeted, internal lights were golden yellow spheres, and there were three stools of white nylon steel based with Cordova vinyl ‘turquoise’ cushions from Concept Interiors and assistants wore outfits of Lemon Prestaline and Gold Gabardine. The sphere (or the dome) - which Boyd intended would symbolise the name of the chain - was the most sophisticated aspect of the design. After investigating Viking Industrial Plastics ‘K’ dome and a triodetic space frame dome covered with Alcan aluminium sheet roofing,7 it was decided to create a snub dodecahedron (not a geodesic dome) as a self-supporting structure, comprising 60 identical triangles, each approximately six feet (1.8 metres) by six feet (1.8 metres) by seven feet (2.1 metres). All the triangles were shaped to conform to the surface of the sphere. As the press release recounted: “When five triangles are joined they form a pentagonal segment of a sphere. Twelve pentagons form the sphere, which is 20 feet in diameter.”8 Computations for the sphere were undertaken by Dr Lewis Christian Schmidt, an expert in trusses and minimum weight structures from the School of Civil Engineering at the University of Melbourne and it was designed by computer 4 AHA 2018 Conference Proceedings analysis on the University’s $2million IBM 70-44 computer. The computer produced a drawing of the three-dimensional sphere, which could not be drawn by normal geometrical methods, thus enabling precise dimensions, angles, and a grid layout of the sphere structure. Made entirely of glass-reinforced polymer (fibreglass) and assembled off site by Trimview Polymarble and Fibreglass Pty Ltd in Ferntree Gully, it was then craned in and dropped gently onto the awaiting timber and steel framed kiosk structure below and bolted into place. In the months after its opening, reception to Neptune’s Fish Bowl was mixed. From the public, there was a mixture of mild outrage that Robin Boyd could have designed such a structure. But even before the Fish Bowl opened, Boyd had received a letter from Martin Elks, a fourth form schoolboy from Peninsula Grammar School in Mt Eliza, who had written to him quizzing him directly: But how can you distinguish a food shop made to look like a Red Barn from a fish shop made to look like a fishbowl? Surely both are examples of Featurism? ….your answer to this question would be most appreciated as our Art Master cannot give an answer.9 Boyd put some time into his response, saying that he didn’t see any inconsistency between the two buildings and further elaborating: I have never objected to advertisements, if they are well designed, or to having a bit of fun in the design of buildings, if it is appropriate. I look mainly for an idea – that is, one main idea per building – instead of the more usual assortment of little ideas which are shaken up together to make a building; typically, the ‘Featuremarket’, with its many loud, stale ideas mixed together. On the other hand, Red Barn is not a Featurist so much as an “idea” building and I don’t dislike it as much as I do a shambles like the New World Supermarket. The thing that I do find slightly objectionable is that its idea is pretty weak: the stage-setting it creates is so unimaginative, nostalgic, foreign, gaudy and unamusing.10 5 AHA 2018 Conference Proceedings Boyd went on to argue that his design was never intended to imitate a real fishbowl but instead the sphere was intended to be “a memorable emblem which may be associated with the idea of fish”.11 He finished his letter, concluding: If you don’t agree, if you think it looks as gaudy and silly as a New World Supermarket, that is a matter of taste; but I hope you will agree that it has only one idea, simply carried through, and that you can see that the thinking behind it and the New World started out from opposite end of the span of architectural motivations.12 Boyd’s private response coincided with some public negative press.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cross-Section
    UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE CROSS-SECTION Issue No. 205 December 1, 1969 complex will give us a second chance. Let us hope it is not wasted on talking solely about function. Archi- tects: Bates, Smart & McCutcheon with Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. Builders: E. A. Watts Pty. Ltd. Engineers: Bates, Smart & McCutcheon. Cost: $20,000,000. ¶ Commonwealth architects a-plenty are expected to enter a competition to design a new U.K. parliamentary building sited near the Palace of Westminster, London. The competition is being conducted by the Ministry of Public Building and Works in association with the R.I.B.A. The Australian representative on the panel of assessors is Robin Boyd. The 2-stage competition and its draft conditions have been discussed by the panel for release by the end of '69. Ala -INN"10 lUtlU{U10 +y. ülifllf6lt{ifl( NI IH UUOtllkir, ■ 6. Photo: Adrian Crothers The 26-storey A.M.P. Tower and its adjacent 6-storey St. James building, Melbourne, is now being occupied. Unwittingly or not, the complex introduces delicious mannerist effects that altogether distract one from the simple aesthetic of the clean and the efficient. From William Street the Tower appears to be a monolithic peg that has been driven too far into the ground. The massive piers and the near eye level plinth of the tower facade combine to give this instantaneous thrill. The infamous facade of the St. James building has moved architecture into the territory of op-art sensa- tion. From some angles it creates a bewilderment that can generate nausea.
    [Show full text]
  • Robin Boyd's the Australian Ugliness, Ugliness
    RMIT DESIGN ARCHIVES JOURNAL | VOL 9 Nº 2 | | VOL JOURNAL RMIT DESIGN ARCHIVES 9 Nº 2 RMIT DESIGN ARCHIVES JOURNAL VOL 9 Nº 2 | 2019 ROBIN BOYD REDUX ROBIN BOYD REDUX BOYD ROBIN RDA_Journal_21_9.2_Cover.indd 1 27/11/19 4:58 pm Robin Boyd’s The Australian Ugliness, ugliness, peer reviewed and liberal education essay John Macarthur Robin Boyd’s graphic style in The Australian Ugliness owes much to the British journal The Architectural Review (ar) and in particular to Osbert Lancaster and Gordon Cullen in their critical and frequently humorous depictions of the vernacular built environment and the fancies of popular taste.1 On this basis it is reasonable to assume that Boyd’s account of ugliness also has sources in the ar’s discussion of architecture and ugliness, which Boyd references. But this is not the case; or, rather, there is an ambiguity here. Boyd writes with a quite patrician distain for popular but Australian featurism is particularly repulsive because it misunderstandings and ignorance of architecture, and this is cheerful, hygienic and taken to signify modernity when it is at odds with a certain condescending fondness for the is its exact opposite. The idiom of Australian featurism plays Opposite foolishness of bad building that we see in his drawings, out in a sequence of attractive novelty of form, materials Robin Boyd, which are closer to the AR. Boyd’s ambivalent ugliness and ornaments, each making their own plea for attention, The Australian Ugliness, (Melbourne: F.W. shares with the AR a strategy of deploying ugliness to ask one after the other, feature columns, supporting feature Cheshire, 1960), what role architectural expertise ought to have in a liberal porches, with plasticised silky-oak front door alongside RMIT Design Archives, society where all have a right to express their taste.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientists' Houses in Canberra 1950–1970
    EXPERIMENTS IN MODERN LIVING SCIENTISTS’ HOUSES IN CANBERRA 1950–1970 EXPERIMENTS IN MODERN LIVING SCIENTISTS’ HOUSES IN CANBERRA 1950–1970 MILTON CAMERON Published by ANU E Press The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at http://epress.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Author: Cameron, Milton. Title: Experiments in modern living : scientists’ houses in Canberra, 1950 - 1970 / Milton Cameron. ISBN: 9781921862694 (pbk.) 9781921862700 (ebook) Notes: Includes bibliographical references and index. Subjects: Scientists--Homes and haunts--Australian Capital Territority--Canberra. Architecture, Modern Architecture--Australian Capital Territority--Canberra. Canberra (A.C.T.)--Buildings, structures, etc Dewey Number: 720.99471 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design by Sarah Evans. Front cover photograph of Fenner House by Ben Wrigley, 2012. Printed by Griffin Press This edition © 2012 ANU E Press; revised August 2012 Contents Acknowledgments . vii Illustrations . xi Abbreviations . xv Introduction: Domestic Voyeurism . 1 1. Age of the Masters: Establishing a scientific and intellectual community in Canberra, 1946–1968 . 7 2 . Paradigm Shift: Boyd and the Fenner House . 43 3 . Promoting the New Paradigm: Seidler and the Zwar House . 77 4 . Form Follows Formula: Grounds, Boyd and the Philip House . 101 5 . Where Science Meets Art: Bischoff and the Gascoigne House . 131 6 . The Origins of Form: Grounds, Bischoff and the Frankel House . 161 Afterword: Before and After Science .
    [Show full text]
  • City of Port Phillip Heritage Review
    City of Port Phillip Heritage Review Place name: B.A.L.M. Paints Factory Citation No: Administration Building 8 (former) Other names: - Address: 2 Salmon Street, Port Heritage Precinct: None Melbourne Heritage Overlay: HO282 Category: Factory Graded as: Significant Style: Interwar Modernist Victorian Heritage Register: No Constructed: 1937 Designer: Unknown Amendment: C29, C161 Comment: Revised citation Significance What is significant? The former B.A.L.M. Paints factory administration building, to the extent of the building as constructed in 1937 at 2 Salmon Street, Port Melbourne, is significant. This is in the European Modernist manner having a plain stuccoed and brick façade with fluted Art Deco parapet treatment and projecting hood to the windows emphasising the horizontality of the composition. There is a tower towards the west end with a flag pole mounted on a tiered base in the Streamlined Moderne mode and porthole motif constituting the key stylistic elements. The brickwork between the windows is extended vertically through the cement window hood in ornamental terminations. Non-original alterations and additions to the building are not significant. How is it significant? The former B.A.L.M. Paints factory administration building at 2 Salmon Street, Port Melbourne is of local historic, architectural and aesthetic significance to the City of Port Phillip. City of Port Phillip Heritage Review Citation No: 8 Why is it significant? It is historically important (Criterion A) as evidence of the importance of the locality as part of Melbourne's inner industrial hub during the inter-war period, also recalling the presence of other paint manufacturers at Port Melbourne including Glazebrooks, also in Williamstown Road.
    [Show full text]
  • Grounds, Boyd and the Philip House
    4. Form Follows Formula: Grounds, Boyd and the Philip House Figure 4.1 Philip House, view from north-east Photograph: Ben Wrigley, 2011 John Philip was brought to Canberra as part of Frankel’s ambitious postwar recruitment program, and was appointed head of a new agricultural physics group at the CSIRO. Regarded as Australia’s leading environmental physicist, he was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science in 1967. His wife, Frances (‘Fay’), was an accomplished artist who was related to the Boyds via the Mills and à Becketts, and had attended the Murrumbeena State School in Victoria with Mary and Arthur Boyd. Many of Frances’s portraits of Australia’s leading scientists and academics—including Sir Mark Oliphant, Doug Waterhouse, John Jaeger, William Rogers, Patrick Moran and Manning Clark—are held in the collections of the Australian Academy of Science and The Australian National University. The Philip House, at 42 Vasey Crescent, Campbell, is one of three adjacent houses by Grounds, Romberg and Boyd that are known collectively as the Vasey Crescent Group. The other two houses in the group are the Blakers House and the Griffing House. Grounds and Boyd were both involved with these houses. All three were designed by Grounds, who arranged initial briefings, recorded 101 Experiments in Modern Living the clients’ requirements and prepared sketches from late 1959 through to early 1960. Boyd met with the clients in January 1960, and took control of the houses from May of that year as Grounds prepared for a three-month overseas trip.1 The Philip House is important for two reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • AIA REGISTER Jan 2015
    AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS REGISTER OF SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURE IN NSW BY SUBURB Firm Design or Project Architect Circa or Start Date Finish Date major DEM Building [demolished items noted] No Address Suburb LGA Register Decade Date alterations Number [architect not identified] [architect not identified] circa 1910 Caledonia Hotel 110 Aberdare Street Aberdare Cessnock 4702398 [architect not identified] [architect not identified] circa 1905 Denman Hotel 143 Cessnock Road Abermain Cessnock 4702399 [architect not identified] [architect not identified] 1906 St Johns Anglican Church 13 Stoke Street Adaminaby Snowy River 4700508 [architect not identified] [architect not identified] undated Adaminaby Bowling Club Snowy Mountains Highway Adaminaby Snowy River 4700509 [architect not identified] [architect not identified] circa 1920 Royal Hotel Camplbell Street corner Tumut Street Adelong Tumut 4701604 [architect not identified] [architect not identified] 1936 Adelong Hotel (Town Group) 67 Tumut Street Adelong Tumut 4701605 [architect not identified] [architect not identified] undated Adelonia Theatre (Town Group) 84 Tumut Street Adelong Tumut 4701606 [architect not identified] [architect not identified] undated Adelong Post Office (Town Group) 80 Tumut Street Adelong Tumut 4701607 [architect not identified] [architect not identified] undated Golden Reef Motel Tumut Street Adelong Tumut 4701725 PHILIP COX RICHARDSON & TAYLOR PHILIP COX and DON HARRINGTON 1972 Akuna Bay Marina Liberator General San Martin Drive, Ku-ring-gai Akuna Bay Warringah
    [Show full text]
  • RMIT Design ARCHIVES JOURNAL Vol 1 Nº 2 2011 S T EN T N CO ADDITIONS ANATOL KAGAN to the COLLECTION COLLECTION Anatol Kagan (1913–2009) Architect Michael Bogle 4–7
    RMIT DesIgn ARCHIVES JOURnAL Vol 1 Nº 2 2011 s T en T n CO ADDITIoNS ANATol KAGAN To THE COLLECTIoN COLLECTIoN Anatol Kagan (1913–2009) architect Michael Bogle 4–7 WILLIAM NANKIVELL COLLECTIoN William Nankivell (1928–2002) architect Harriet Edquist 8–13 Towards A histoRy of stuDENT activism IN LandscapE ArchitectuRE 14–15 Michael O’Connell: RESEARCH The Lost Modernist Harriet Edquist 16 icamAustralasia Symposium 2011 16 rmit design archives journal Journal Editor Editorial Assistance Design Harriet Edquist Kaye Ashton Letterbox.net.au contact [email protected] www.rmit.edu.au/designarchives issn 1838-9406 Published by rmit Design Archives, rmit University Text © rmit Design Archives, rmit University and individual authors. This Journal is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of Cover Image research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, Anatol Kagan, no part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted National Opera House, by any means without the prior permission of the publisher. Sydney, perspective, 1956. 2 EDIToRIAl Two collections representing the work of well-known local architectural practices have recently been donated to the rmit Design Archives, adding significant depth to our existing holdings. The Anatol Kagan Collection includes material relating to the Russian-born émigré’s Melbourne practice in the 1940s and early 1950s, and his subsequent Sydney practice from the 1960s. His post-war domestic architecture can be directly compared with that of other émigré architects whose work is represented in the Archives, including Frederick Romberg (rda Newsletter #1 2008), Ernest Fooks (some of whose drawings and books were donated to rmit a number of years ago by Noemi Fooks) and Frederick Sterne (rda Newsletter #1 2008).
    [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]
  • Building Citation
    Camberwell Conservation Study 1991 BUILDING CITATION House, [oan Gillison was a biographer and historian who 43 Kireep Road, Balwyn began writing after the death of her husband. .She first published the story of her grandfather's family. Later she published the history of, Melbourne's Lyceum Club and Margaret Cunningham of Finiona. The latter history was commissioned in 1976 and was a history of Fintona Girls' School and the life of the founder Miss Margaret Cunningharn'. Joar and Douglas Napier had a son and two daughters . The architect, Robin Boyd was a nationally famous architect and writer (see 666 Riversdale Road citation). Description Contemporary accounts noted the 4"X1" timber Study Grading: A window mullions used on the diagonal as Construction Date: 1952 structural framing and the remote upper-level First Owner: Gillison, D & J box-like writer's 'perch' with its Ned Kelly slot to Architect: Boyd, Robin selectively view the then rural landscape. Then a two-storey block, with two window-wall modules History facing north, the main house stood at the corner of Douglas Napier & [oan Mary Gillison the lot. Connected to it via a slim glazed link at commissioned the building of a nine roomed, 2 ground level, only, were another four bays of 'weatherboard' house on this site in 1952 . The diagonal glazing. Above it, isolated from the other Gillisons lived here until after 1962, probablY3until upper levels was the writer's study with a the time of Douglas Gillison'~ death in 1%5. By horizontal window slot which allowed a view only 1974 J.T.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision About Registration of 12 Marawa Pl, Aranda) Notice 2008 (No 1
    Australian Capital Territory Heritage (Decision about Registration of 12 Marawa Pl, Aranda) Notice 2008 (No 1) Notifiable Instrument NI 2008 – 421 made under the Heritage Act 2004 section 42 Notice of decision about registration 1. Revocation This instrument replaces NI2008 – 121 2. Name of instrument This instrument is the Heritage (Decision about Registration for 12 Marawa Pl, Aranda) Notice 2008 (No 1). 3. Registration details of the place Registration details of the place are at Attachment A: Register entry for 12 Marawa Pl, Aranda, 4. Reason for decision The ACT Heritage Council has decided that the 12 Marawa Pl, Aranda meets one or more of the heritage significance criteria at s 10 of the Heritage Act 2004. The register entry is at Attachment A. 5. Date of Registration 11 September 2008. The Secretary ACT Heritage Council GPO Box 158 CANBERRA ACT 2602 ………………….. Gerhard Zatschler Secretary ACT Heritage Council GPO Box 158, Canberra ACT 2602 11 September 2008 Authorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY HERITAGE REGISTER For the purposes of s. 33 of the Heritage Act 2004, an entry to the heritage register has been prepared by the ACT Heritage Council for the following place: • 12 Marawa Place Block 6, Section 31 ARANDA DATE OF REGISTRATION Notified: 11 September 2008 Notifiable Instrument: NI2008–421 Copies of the Register Entry are available for inspection at the ACT Heritage Unit. For further information please contact: The Secretary ACT Heritage Council GPO Box 158, Canberra, ACT 2601 Telephone: 132281 Facsimile: (02) 6207 2229 Authorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au IDENTIFICATION OF THE PLACE • 12 Marawa Place, Block 6, Section 31, Suburb of Aranda, ACT.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Garden History Society Max Bourke Am
    AUSTRALIAN GARDEN HISTORY SOCIETY NATIONAL ORAL HISTORY COLLECTION ACT MONARO RIVERINA BRANCH Interviewee: MAX BOURKE AM Interviewer: ROSLYN BURGE Date of interview: 20 NOVEMBER 2019 Place of Interview: CAMPBELL, ACT Details: TWO AUDIO FILES – TOTAL 2 HR 36 MIN Restrictions on use: NIL All quotations: SHOULD BE VERIFIED AGAINST THE ORIGINAL SPOKEN WORD IN THE INTERVIEW SELECT CHRONOLOGY / AGHS FOR A MORE DETAILED CHRONOLOGY- SEE RESUME ATTACHED 1941 Born - 18 December, Chatswood, NSW 1976-83 Australian Heritage Commission (founding CEO) 1981-87 ICOMOS (International Vice President 1984-87) 1990s Max joined AGHS - is a member of the ACT Monaro Riverina Branch 2000-2002 Branch Chair 2001-2007 National Management Committee 2005-2007 Vice-Chair (Chair, Colleen Morris) 2002 Announcement about Studies in Australian Garden History - Call for papers 2004 Editorial Advisory Committee 2004 AM Member of the Order of Australia: for service to heritage and arts organisations and to the development of government policy for the preservation of Australia’s historic and cultural environment 2007 Meandering about the Murray, national conference held in Albury, hosted by ACT Monaro Riverina Branch 2009 The English Garden, Yarralumla 2013 National Arboretum Canberra opened 2016 The Scientist in the Garden, national conference held in Canberra, hosted by ACT Monaro Riverina Branch When interviewed Chairman of Friends of Australian National Botanic Gardens SUMMARY Max Bourke spoke briefly about his childhood responses to his family’s interests in gardens and growing orchids and vegetables, and his own Canberra garden and the impact on gardens of climate change. His was first aware of the Society before it was formed, when working at the Australian Heritage Commission (AHC - of which Max was Foundation Director) and he, David Yencken and Reg Walker in 1976 first discussed how the Commission could strengthen not-for-profit organisations, including those involved in industrial archaeology and public history.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Deranging Oneself in Someone Else’s House Hannah Lewi Image credit: All images in this paper by the author, Manning Clark House visit, 2011 Such a house, killed by its very emptiness and the superstitions that have built up in the region, is a haunted house [une maison visionee]. The devil comes there in the night. (Anthony Vidler 1992) The following piece of writing is part of a larger project that reflects on iconic or significant houses that have, in some mode or another, been transformed into a genre of image-object that architecturalises and disseminates historiography, primarily through the art of mnemotechnics. The research asks how we come to know and experience houses that are not necessarily our own, but that we have more than limited access to because they have been retained as embalmed ob- jects of shared interest? Of particular concern to my study are twentieth-century houses that have been preserved in a suspended or memorialised state of semi- newness because of their importance to the historiography of Modernity: a history intimately bound up with elevating the domestic and the private to the realm of architectural significance. The writing teases out claims made about the po- tency of shared memories residing in museum-houses, and the roles they play as document-objects. I have set myself the research program of attempting to stay for extended periods in a range of these modern heritage or museum-houses. The rationale is to chart the unfolding experience of sites that are on the one hand still homes, yet also acknowledged as public places.
    [Show full text]