Reconciliation Place
I believe that the review of the Reconciliation Place competition by SueAnne Ware (AA September/October 2001), glossed over the issues raised by the NBC submission. These issues ultimately reflect an omission in Australia’s reconciliation process that led to negative press regarding the Reconciliation Place project.
The review fails to reflect that the intention of the NBC submission was to raise awareness that the reconciliation process requires a significantly greater understanding of how the development of infrastructure in Australia effects Indigenous culture and society. Many Aboriginals still consider that their culture is being painted into a corner by the continuing implementation of infrastructure (developed from non-Indigenous technologies) that does not accommodate Aboriginal heritage.
This begs the question: “Is it time to acknowledge the Government’s commitment to the ongoing reconciliation process when its programs continue to push solutions to develop Indigenous communities that are created by a culture that is foreign to Aboriginals in Indigenous communities?” ›› The virtual nature of the NBC submission demonstrates that, unless a stronger consultation process is undertaken to “hear” the true needs of Aboriginals, it is perhaps not yet time to acknowledge the Government’s commitment. It suggests that if something were to be built, the intentions of reconciling Australian cultures may not be realised (as alluded to in the reviewer’s suggestions of what would become of the NBC scheme if it were to be realised). In any case, the outcome of this competition may well be a step backwards from reconciliation if these issues are not addressed.
Matt Price
Shelter And Society
Re: Radar Shelter (AA July/August 2002).
Recently, somewhere along Toorak Rd, two X-generation, “latte society” hostesses were overheard in conversation:
Susie: “Trish, look at this headline: ‘Bench shelters for the homeless’! What an attractive idea darling – hope the wind is blowing in the right direction – poor dears?” ›› Trish: “How do some of our talented, really celebrated young architects find the time to devote their invaluable expertise, so unselfishly, to such worthy, not for profit, causes?” ›› Susie: “Well you know darling, perhaps, who said it ? ‘Even small thoughts are beautiful’ and after all, Minimalism in everything, from government to sofa beds, is the rage these days!
However, I do know for a fact, that Jamimah and Rodney, who have worked so hard for their rewards, are getting a bit fidgety with the delays in moving into their awesome new beach house.” ›› Trish: “Right. Yes, professionals should get their priorities sorted out!”
Carl Rees, Sydney
Fixes
• Our state awards round-up in the last issue (AA September/October 2002) failed to record one of the Queensland Awards. A High Commendation for Residential Architecture went to Cois Fharraige by Robert Riddell Architect. Our apologies.%br% • Simon Kringas has pointed out an error in Radar Headlines (AA March/April 2002), which attributes High Court to Col Madigan.
Simon Kringas writes: “The High Court of Australia was designed by Christopher Kringas. Christopher Kringas led the architectural team in Edwards Madigan Torzillo Briggs for the winning competition design, design development, and contract documentation and construction tender for the High Court. Christopher Kringas died just prior to the commencement of construction in 1975.”
