external wall of a building fixed to the main structural frame but not supporting any part of the building. The Council had obtained comments from Mr Maron himself during the assessment process, and Mr Maron had noted that many architects had enquired about the construction and detail of the metal cladding for application in their buildings nationally, but that the curtain wall was a one-off design “we invented and developed from the ‘ground-up’ and it could not easily be copied as the sections were specially adapted for us.” He went on to state that curtain walls are not new in the world but the former AAA Building, while looking like a curtain wall, is actually unique in that the aluminium part was independently supported off the end of the slab with the glass ‘slung’ between them unlike traditional curtain walls. Mr Metcalf and other witnesses noted that, in the development of the design of the Building, the architect had considered two alternative façade materials – aluminium and asbestos cement (now fibre cement) – and that the association of metal with the client’s key business may have been the reason that aluminium was chosen. However in Mr Metcalf’s opinion, the Building “would have looked substantially the same if asbestos cement sheeting had been used.” In cross-examination, Mr Metcalf qualified this by saying that his opinion related to the Building when “viewed from Northbourne Avenue, which is one of the primary ways to look at this building, not close up because close up you would tell.” The Tribunal cannot easily accept the opinion of Mr Metcalf that the appearance of the Building would have been “substantially the same” with either asbestos cement or aluminium cladding. Mr Metcalf thought it unlikely that the materials and methods of construction would need to be changed were the façade to be covered in fibre cement sheeting. Mr Queale noted that “curves and aluminium cladding are direct and skilful references” to the functions of the Australian Automobile Association. He also stated that the ‘aluminium sheet façade is a creative solution…as a ‘space age’ type of material that allows an economic, seamless treatment of the exterior skin and its unique curvaceous form”. The Tribunal doubts that the sleek sensual façade and frameless glazing achieved by
The Tribunal does not think that the Council has demonstrated that the Building meets this criterion. The Building is evidence of the Late Modern style, it may be important as evidence, but on balance the Tribunal does not think that the evidence supports a finding that the Late Modern style is of exceptional, that is extraordinary, interest. I. Criterion (g) notable example Criterion (g) requires that the Building is: (a) a notable example, (b) of a kind of place or object, and (c) demonstrates the main characteristics of that kind. ‘Notable’ is not defined in the Heritage Act. The Macquarie Dictionary online defines it as “1. worthy of note or notice; noteworthy: a notable success 2. prominent, important, or distinguished, as persons”. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary also refers to “1. Worthy or deserving of note” and adds “esp. on account of excellence, value, or importance; remarkable, striking eminent.” An example which is worthy of note or notice for positive reasons, such as its importance, is required. This is a lower test than ‘exceptional’. The Tribunal is of the view that any one of the criteria can provide heritage significance, and that the terms of criterion (a) are not a basis for reading down other criteria, such as criterion (g). The decision of the Heritage Council stated that the Building is an example of the Late Modern Style, in particular because the shape of the building is determined by simple geometry, and the use of an aluminium curtain wall. The Council stated that it is a notable example because the design extends the style “with a supremely simple and elegant form and finish, expressing not just a high-tech quality but also considerable design skill.” I.1 Kind of place As noted above, the Tribunal is of the view that it is appropriate to treat the Building as of the Late Modern style, and that this is the relevant ‘kind of place.’ Mr Metcalf stated that in his view the ‘kind of place’ was an office building. The Tribunal does not think that Mr Metcalf’s is the appropriate way
Education Building in Perth. The Education Building in Perth is not curved like the former AAA building but uses the same materials in its external cladding - grey tinted glass and natural anodised aluminium. Taylor says that “the tight exterior skin…and its suppressed detailing indicate the designers’ interests in the minimal qualities of Foster’s buildings in England.” Taylor says the two metal-clad buildings of Nield are “more exploratory” than the Education Building in Perth. She writes that the Maddison Clinical Sciences Block in Newcastle presents “a progressive image attuned to the scientific nature of the activities housed” but, in her opinion, Nield’s Newcastle building “lacks the finesse of finish and detail of Cameron, Chisholm and Nicol’s building”. She notes that the cladding at Newcastle is not aluminium but stainless steel in response to the corrosive industrial and seaside location. Taylor describes the curving aluminium walls of Nield’s Mount Druitt Hospital as “quite sensuous”. She says this is a “satisfying work” that shares a “spirit of inventiveness” with the Newcastle building. Mr Queale gave evidence that the former AAA building “is notable as a skilful representation of Late Modern style architecture within the ACT.” He noted particularly that “the sculptural properties of the interconnecting building forms enhance the play of light over curved facades and are dramatic and sensual in effect”. He noted also the urban design response of the Building to the broader context of Northbourne Avenue, and the dynamic curved form of the Building as providing “a non-rectilinear internal environment of interest.” He also mentioned features referred to under the other criteria: the pilotis; the curved building form; the internal functions expressed in a mix of forms; the flush windows and aluminium sheet cladding. He noted again that the curved form is dynamic and reflects the function of headquarters for the Australian Automobile Association; and that the aluminium façade is a space age type of material that allows an economic, seamless treatment of the exterior skin and a unique curvaceous form. Mr Queale gave evidence that there is nothing to support the claim of Andrew Metcalf that the Callam Offices in Woden is a better representation of the Late Modern architectural style than the former AAA building, and he noted that the Callam Offices project was never completed. As to the former AAA building
notable example of Late Modern architecture not only in Canberra, but also in Australia as a whole. The Tribunal has noted previously the testimony of Mr Metcalf that the specificity of the former AAA building “is more relevant than the claim that it has status from the assertion that it belongs to any stylistic category.” The evidence before the Tribunal is nevertheless that the characteristics of Late Modern architecture in Australia are present in the former AAA building at a very high level of competence and integrity. The Tribunal finds that the former AAA building is a notable example of Late Modern architecture and that it demonstrates the main characteristics of that style. Accordingly the Tribunal finds that the former AAA building meets the requirements of criterion (g) for registration as a place of heritage significance. As the applicant correctly states, meeting one of the criteria does not mandate registration; it simply enables it. The Heritage Council argues that the refusal to decide to register a place which is of heritage significance should be rare having regard to section 3(2)(a) of the Heritage Act. Section 18(a) of the Act also provides that it is a function of the Council to conserve places with cultural heritage significance, and section 18(b) to encourage the registration of heritage places. The applicant argues that if the discretion under section 40(2) arises, it should be exercised to decide not to register the Building. No basis for doing so is set out in the applicant’s statement of facts and contentions. Given that the criterion is in the Tribunal’s view met, the Tribunal does not see a basis for deciding not to register. The Tribunal therefore decides to register the Building. ..................................... Senior Member R Pegrum for and on behalf of the Tribunal HEARING DETAILS