Norman Day railed in today's paper against proposed alterations to the Harold Holt Memorial Swimming Pool by Peddle Thorpe architects, accusing it of gimmickry and arrogance."The very qualities that make the Harold Holt pool a significant building are to be subsumed into a comfortable and relaxed architecture of mediocrity." (The article is not yet online).
The Mayor of Stonnington said in July that, the redevelopment plans take into account the historical significance of the site, the style of the existing buildings and the local area. We particularly want to retain the unique character, friendly environment and its reputation as the pool in the park."
Judge for yourself, PDFs of the proposed design can now be downloaded from the project website
HERE.
The pool, in Melbourne's Glen Iris, was designed by Kevin Borland and Daryl Jackson and completed in 1968. In July this year the brutalist building created a stir in the news by being admitted onto the Victorian Heritage Register.
PROJECT WEBSITE
UTAS TIMBER PAGE
WOLFGANG SIEVERS PHOTOS
HERITAGE REGISTRATION THE AGE 17.07.06
PLANS OLD AND NEW
VIEW FROM NORTH (source: council website)
Tip: pH architects
Comments
Another letter was published from Councillor Steve Stefanopoulos of the City of Stonnington, defending the council's position. He says he, "expressed a desire for council to consult Daryl Jackson. However [...] seeking advice can be expensive and beyond what a budget allows."
It would be interesting to know what the council considers a reasonable design advice fee, and what their budget was for this - $500?, $1000?, $5000? Presumably Daryl's hourly rate is a bit more than they're used to.
THE AGE LETTERS 07.12.06 (scroll to bottom)
I'm getting flashbacks of the proposed renovations at the NGA in Canberra, and original architects Col Madigan's use of the then new Moral Rights law to get a say in the process. A bitter saga that resulted in Tonkin Zulaikha Greer losing the job to Andrew Andersons from... Peddle Thorp!.
BUTTERPAPER JUNE 2001
GRAVESTMOR 2004
RALLY FLYER
The matter popped up in the Age again on the weekend, in a fairly obviously titled article - ""Architects in brutal battle over Harold Holt pool". I think they got a bit confused about who was doing what at in the NGA saga. Now even Col Madigan has swung on into the argument: ""Why didn't they get Daryl to do it? ... He wouldn't do anything to that pool that wasn't quality."
THE AGE 09.12.06
Stonnington City announced last week that Daryl Jackson has been employed to "help Peddle Thorp rework its plans." Crikey.
Public information sessions will be held this week.
June 2007 Plans
STONNINGTON
With permission I have copied this update into the forum.
What about McIntyre's work after his widely valued '50s work ? Are they diminished by his offsprings even lesser works ? Do the sins of the father return ?
it does.
the Harold Holt Pool is proof.
Consider the building in the 70s.
For a brief moment in time it was magnificent - (spoken from first hand experience)
You could see Borland's sense everywhere.
The drafting office that participated in the original work then went on to carry out changes through the 80's which demonstrated precisely the nature of their contribution to the project originally.
It makes any call by a segment of the profession to have that drawing office or its owner involved further an embarrassment.
The building was all ready gone 25 years ago.
Calls for its preservation recently have been misguided.
What do they think they are preserving?
Nothing less than a full restoration to its original state as completed (when Borland clearly had involvement) should be acceptable.
Or demolish it.
For instance Frank Loyd Wrights stuff of the late 1950's and 1960's when he was in his 90's, which is atrocious in my meagre estimation; I think It could not be sustained that that 'horrific' work would diminish any of his previous work. The only thing that diminishes his previous work was his descision to ignore his engineer when designing 'Falling Water" which now faces prohibitively expensive remedial work and makes one wonder about his other stupendous cantilever's.
The idea that an 'author' is attached intrisically and inevitably to thier work logically suggests that all thier structures should be demolished and buried with them upon the death of the author. Both unfair and egotistical on the part of an audience that requires anyone to constantly out perform their previous attemps when they are already only as good as their last piece.
Letting any piece of art stand alone and on it's own merits is the same as not allowing ones children to be tared with ones brush.
But my post says clearly the author did not do the changes to the work in question.
I noted that Yobitch asked if an authors previous work was diminished by current horribilis and your answer was yes.
I am sorry I didn't see that as clearly as you intended but on a second reading I can see you are quite , um...., the office who did the original work botched it the second time they had the chance to do something with it?
Are you saying that Borlands drafting office thought they could do it better and independantly tendered for the job on Borlands credentials? Bloody cheek if that's the case and I can understand your sentiments re preservation.
Back to irrelevancies. If a Van Gogh was overpainted by a studio assistant would that make it as valuable as it would be if the master underneath was recognised as the author even if they couldn't be seen? NO! It would be verging on fraud wouldn't it.
I have a piece of furniture that has been restored in the 19th century rather unsympathetically, but the original carcass and joinery was made in the 1760's. It is valuable now because of it's age but it will be more valuable when it's 'make over' is removed and it's integrity restored. But restoration means adding materials that are 21st century in origin.
It is hard to be faithful when you are not the author, but it is harder still to be unfaithful.
And I notice that the Peddle Thorpe site has a little essay by Peter Brook about the criticism they got from late 2011. I spose thats understandable, but not sure i agree with his opinions.
BTW Looks like it's by a similar hand to whoever wrote their wikipedia entry.
http://www.pta.com.au/blog/?p=3309
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peddle_Thorp