THE SUPREME COURT SALAMANCA PLACE • BILL MEARNS PAINTING 1988
HOBART SUPREME COURT
CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
PREPARED BY PETER FREEMAN CONSERVATION ARCHITECTS + PLANNERS
MORUYA • CANBERRA • HOBART
FINAL MAY 2012 • VOLUME 2 APPENDICES
CONTENTS
APPENDIX A
Hobart Supreme Court Options Study 2011
APPENDIX B
Peter Partridge: A Brief Background to the Design Philosophy for the Supreme Court Complex
APPENDIX C
Peter Partridge: Initial Comment on the Options for Redevelopment
APPENDIX D
Peter Partridge: A Brief Personal Introduction and Outline of the PWD in 1969
APPENDIX E
The Supreme Court Complex and Tasmanian Public Architecture of the 1970s
HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • CONTENTS
APPENDIX A
HOBART SUPREME COURT OPTIONS STUDY 20111
1 This options analysis has been extracted from ‘Hobart Supreme Court Redevelopment: Investment Concept
Outline’, prepared February 2011, by Stephen Firth Architect. PFCA+P has made some editing and formatting to
allow incorporation within this Plan document
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE A:1
HOBART SUPREME COURT REDEVELOPMENT OPTION 1: ‘CONNECT BUILDINGS’
APPROACH
To provide the additional Courtroom accommodation required by the Brief, and to resolve issues of
zoning and security, it is proposed that a new infill building be constructed between the two existing
court buildings, linking them on both levels, thus increasing effectiveness and efficiency in the
management of them, and providing a centralised entry and security control and providing improved
disabled access to all facilities. The total accommodation is in the order of 6,500m2 plus a further
1,200m2 of car parking within the lower levels.
CONCEPT PLAN
The entrance to the building would be located at the Salamanca Place level which would provide a
controlled, single point of entry for the public and access for persons with disabilities into the building
complex and to the upper main building areas via a lift. Circulation throughout the redeveloped
building complex could be divided into three distinct zones, responding to the requirements of the
Functional Brief:
1
2
3
the Public Zone linking the Courts, Registry, reception area, waiting areas and Jury assembly
areas, with external access from Salamanca Place
the Restricted Zone linking the Judges’ chambers, Judges’ library and staff areas to the
Courts with external access direct from the secure car parks.
the Secure Zone linking the holding cells with the Courts via new lifts, with separate
external access directly from a separate entrance on Salamanca Place.
At the lower Salamanca Place level, the new infill building would house the entry and security functions,
to provide for the secure processing of all visitors and all goods delivered to the building complex. The
remaining areas created at the lower level of the infill building would provide much needed
accommodation for storage of exhibits, registry records and general storage. The new entry
arrangement would provide public access to the Inglis Clarke Law Library and adjacent meeting
spaces. At the upper level, the infill building would accommodate the required additional custody
Court and associated witness waiting, interview and Jury functions. It would also provide public waiting
areas and circulation spaces to connect the two existing buildings.
The new enlarged public waiting area would provide access to all the Courts and interview rooms, as
well as providing a number of discrete meeting areas, and could accommodate the estimated load of
up to 200 persons at any one time. A reception point would be located within this area providing
information to the public as well as public access to the Registry. A passageway along the St David’s
Park side of the infill building would provide a restricted access link between the Judge’s chambers and
the Courts, and administrative areas. To achieve the briefed requirements, the redevelopment would
include significant internal alteration to the existing buildings to address current functional problems,
particularly within the existing Courts, as well as providing disability access throughout the redeveloped
building.
The existing Courts would be modified to conform to the design parameters (to the greatest degree
possible) of the new Court, including substantially level floors with elevated areas only where absolutely
necessary. All furniture with the exception of the Judges’ benches and witness areas would comprise
loose furniture prompting flexibility in the arrangement and use of the spaces. This would include
movable screens such as the secure screens for the dock and the screens dividing the public from the
body of the Court. Adjacent storage would provide for loose furniture and Court exhibits.
ENGINEERING SERVICES
Given the age and condition of existing engineering services, in order to provide sustainable, effective,
systems to the redeveloped complex, and to ensure systems are in accordance with current safety,
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE A:2
FIGURE 1 • Diagram of Option 1: ‘Connect Buildings’, 2011 • Source: Stephen Firth Architect ‘Hobart Supreme Court
Redevelopment: Investment Concept Outline’
operational and energy efficiency standards, a significant amount of upgrade and extension works will
be required.
Air conditioning system main thermal plant would require upgrade to provide a more sustainable
heating strategy, remove inefficiencies in the existing cooling plant and provide additional capacity for
the new building. To maximise energy efficiency and flexibility of control, centralised main air handling
units would be replaced with multiple new systems. New air handling systems would also be required for
the new in-fill building. Existing air distribution systems would require modification and extension to suit
revised space requirements; toilet, car park and general exhaust systems would require upgrade and
extension to serve new facilities; and the automatic control and building management system (BMS)
would require upgrade and extension to serve the modified plant and allow for the implementation of
additional energy saving initiatives.
Electrical power infrastructure would require upgrade including provision of a new site Main
Switchboard with power supplies to the existing, upgraded, Civil and Criminal Court building Main
Switchboards. Existing floor distribution switchboards would also be upgraded and new distribution
boards provided in the new building. Lighting systems would require upgraded to high efficiency fittings
and switching strategies rationalised allowing for greater control and energy efficiency potential.
A new emergency evacuation lighting system would be required and voice/data communications
infrastructure upgraded to current standards. The existing access control and security services would
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE A:3
need to be extended into the new building and upgraded to suit revised requirements. In order to
provide essential services backup power installation of a new emergency generator would be required.
Existing fire systems would need to be extended to cover new and modified areas including integration
of existing buildings warning systems and fire trip facilities to suit the new site layout.
HOBART SUPREME COURT REDEVELOPMENT OPTION 2: ‘MAINTAIN SEPARATION’
APPROACH
To maintain the existing external fabric, the existing form of the buildings and existing pattern of
pedestrian circulation. In restricting any development to within the property boundary there is limited
opportunity to provide for additional accommodation. It is therefore necessary to utilise the existing
facilities in a different manner to reflect the Brief. In particular, it is necessary to reconfigure the existing
main Civil Court Room so that it can be used for both Civil and Criminal trials. This will require a secure
connection between the custody cells housed in the lower level of the Criminal Courts, and the (now)
multi-purpose Court. This connection needs to be at the lower level to enable the existing pedestrian
movement between the buildings to continue in its current manner.
CONCEPT PLAN
Essentially all major elements of the existing buildings will remain in their current position. The entrance to
the Criminal Courts and Civil Courts buildings will remain at their current location. External circulation will
be improved by the reconstruction of the Plaza paving level, lifting the level to enable complying
ramped access to each building entrance. Disabled access from Salamanca Place to the Plaza level is
to be made possible via an external lift within the landscape. The existing stairs are to be modified, but
are to remain in their current location.
Internal circulation will be improved by the introduction of a number of lifts to serve the differing
circulation streams. The Judges’ tunnel connection between the buildings will be improved by the
introduction of a lift at either end. The movement of defendants in custody will be improved with a
tunnel between the two buildings, which will enable access to the newly designated multi-purpose
Court. Access from the lower level to the Courts will be via new lifts leading directly to the docks in each
Courtroom.
The construction of the lower level link between the custody cells of the Criminal Courts and the lower
level of the Civil Courts will provide the opportunity of additional lower level storage/equipment space.
With the need to carry out significant changes to the plant rooms and equipment, this space will be
ideally suited to a centralised plant room to service both buildings. The existing plant rooms can be
converted to storage and staff amenities facilities.
The proposed works to the upper levels comprise mainly of reworking existing spaces to reflect the Brief.
The existing Courts would be modified to conform to current design parameters for a new Court,
including substantially level floors with elevated areas only where absolutely necessary. All furniture with
the exception of the Judges’ benches and witness areas would comprise loose furniture prompting
flexibility in the arrangement and use of the spaces. This would include movable screens such as the
secure screens for the dock and the screens dividing the public from the body of the Court. Adjacent
storage would provide for loose furniture and Court exhibits. Further works will see the modification of
existing spaces to provide improved Jury facilities and amenities for Judges and Staff, within the limits of
available space.
ENGINEERING SERVICES
Again, given the age and condition of existing Engineering Services, in order to provide sustainable,
effective, systems to the redeveloped complex, and to ensure systems are in accordance with current
safety, operational and energy efficiency standards, a significant amount of upgrade and extension
works will be required. Air conditioning system main thermal plant would require upgrade to provide a
more sustainable heating strategy and to remove inefficiencies in the existing cooling plant.
To maximise energy efficiency and flexibility of control, centralised main air handling units would be
replaced with multiple new systems. Existing air distribution systems would require modification and
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE A:4
FIGURE 2 • Diagram of Option 2: ‘Maintain Separation’, 2011 • Source: Stephen Firth Architect ‘Hobart Supreme
Court Redevelopment: Investment Concept Outline’
extension to suit revised space requirements; toilet, car park and general exhaust systems would require
upgrading; and the automatic control and building management system (BMS) would require upgrade
and extension to serve the modified plant and allow for the implementation of additional energy saving
initiatives.
Electrical power infrastructure would require upgrade including existing Civil and Criminal Court building
Main Switchboards and existing floor distribution switchboards. Lighting systems would require upgrade
to high efficiency fittings and switching strategies rationalised to allow for greater control and energy
efficiency potential. A new emergency evacuation lighting system would be required and voice/data
communications infrastructure upgraded to current standards. The existing access control and security
services would need to be extended and upgraded to suit revised requirements.
In order to provide essential services backup power installation of a new emergency generator would
be required. Existing fire systems would need to be extended to cover new and modified areas
including integration of existing buildings warning systems and fire trip facilities to suit the new site layout.
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE A:5
HOBART SUPREME COURT REDEVELOPMENT OPTION 3: GREENFIELD SITE
APPROACH
The size of a new building meeting the requirements of the Outline Brief is likely to be in the order of
6,500m2 with a further 1,200m2 of secure car parking. The building can be on a number of levels
provided the functional relationships and circulation/access requirements are not compromised.
A new Supreme Court facility needs to be located readily accessible to the Judiciary; to the public; to
the offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions and to the legal profession. As the existing public
transport system is focused centrally towards the Hobart CBD, the new facility should be located
reasonably close to the CBD.
Any new facility must be designed to meet the latest BCA, energy efficiency and NBRS standards. These
standards will equally apply whether the new facility is housed in new building fabric, or in an existing
refitted building.
The implications of the Supreme Court’s functions being relocated to a new facility, mean that the
heritage values and significance of the existing building in Salamanca Place may be compromised. The
buildings are in Government ownership and the Government has a responsibility under the Tasmanian
Heritage Act to protect the heritage values of the building. The listing of the buildings onto the
Tasmanian Heritage Register is understood to be imminent.
Part of the significance of the buildings is the fact that the complex has been purpose-designed and
purpose-built, and the association between the building and the occupants has now a cultural
significance. In addition, there has been very little change to the building’s fabric, both internally and
externally, over the life of the complex. The buildings would be difficult to alter for functions other than
courtroom-based functions, and it may be difficult to find a commercial owner able to utilise the
buildings in their current form.
ENGINEERING SERVICES
Engineering services to a new facility would be developed to provide highly sustainable solutions based
on current best practice. A new facility increases the potential for services designs, which are more in
tune with the building form and are not subject to the issues associated with refurbished systems.
Consideration could therefore be given to innovative solutions i.e. active chilled beams, displacement
ventilation, high efficiency thermal plant, zone air handling systems with economy cycle, heat reclaim,
passive cooling, thermal mass, high efficiency lighting and high level automation, control and
monitoring etc.
HOBART SUPREME COURT REDEVELOPMENT OPTION 4: DO NOTHING
This option proposes that the Supreme Courts complex continues without changes to the building fabric
or configuration. The buildings are over thirty years old, and the building fabric is showing evidence of
degradation, requiring an increasing maintenance budget to address such areas as stone and slate
restoration, floor finishes, and service areas such as toilets and staff facilities which will require
replacement. The buildings will become less energy efficient and cost more to operate. With no
alteration, the functional and security problems will continue and the buildings will continue to not meet
the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act.
ENGINEERING SERVICES
Given that existing engineering services have passed their economic life expectancy. Without upgrade,
the reliability of these systems can be expected to deteriorate resulting in an increase in maintenance
costs and the potential for ultimate failure and associated unplanned capital costs. Even if the decision
is made to do nothing to the complex, in order for the buildings to continue to operate an upgrade of
the engineering services will still be required. The scope of upgrade and associated cost estimates
would be in line with Option 2.
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE A:6
APPENDIX B
PETER PARTRIDGE: A BRIEF BACKGROUND TO THE DESIGN PHILOSOPHY FOR THE SUPREME COURT
COMPLEX1
1 This essay is based upon a talk that Peter Partridge gave to the Australian Institute of Architects Tasmanian Chapter
in December 2010 referencing the recently awarded ‘National Award for Enduring Architecture’. The talk provides a
brief background to the design philosophy that created the building. Some minor editorial amendments have been
made by PFCA+P
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE B:1
PETER PARTRIDGE: A BRIEF BACKGROUND TO THE DESIGN PHILOSOPHY FOR THE SUPREME COURT
COMPLEX
PART 1: CREATING THE NEW SUPREME COURTS
‘The Courts were always a very special commission, but to me the precinct they shared was equally as
important. To understand how the commission came about you need to know a little about where I
came from.
‘I completed my five years at a school of architecture in 1964, in England; a time when there was
considerable fine university architecture being built; new universities like Sussex by Basil Spence; new
colleges like St Catherine's in Oxford by Arne Jacobson; and Churchill College, Cambridge by Shepherd
Robson Architects. There were many stand-alone buildings like the History library at Cambridge by
James Stirling, but more importantly, there were many buildings and extensions that had a common
requirement, which was to fit into splendid precincts; places where tourists from all over the world would
go and look in awe.
‘In this context any new works not only had to be brilliant, they also had to be timeless. I was in
Cambridge the Sunday I left to return to collect the National Award in Canberra, so let's take as
examples a few projects that I admire in that city: George Thompson Building, Corpus Christie College,
by Arup Associates; Cripp's Court, Queen's College by Powell and Moya; and the Senior Combination
Room, Downing College, by Howell Killick Partridge and Amis.
FIGURES 1 & 2 • [above] George Thompson Building, Corpus Christie College, by Arup Associates • [below] Cripp's
Court, Queen's College by Powell and Moya • Source: Wikipedia website
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE B:2
FIGURE 3 • [above] The Senior Combination Room at Downing College, by Howell Killick Partridge and Amis,
Architects • Source: PHP archive
‘These architects, like many others, also completed some superb work at the Oxford campus, one of
my favourites in that city is Brasenose College by Trevor Dannatt. The list is endless, a ‘who's who’ of the
best firms in England; and they all achieved that common requirement, to be timeless and to fit into
splendid precincts that were invariably built of stone with all the intricate detail, mouldings, historic
orders, tracery that gives the old university towns their unique qualities.
‘To succeed the new building had to be of its time, striking and as elegant as its surroundings; usually
relying on sensitively detailed concrete, glass and lead, sometimes stone, always simple, often brutal,
but always melding in perfectly with both site and neighbours. It was an architecture that didn't seem to
be too abundant in Australia, let alone Tasmania. But I was lucky, it had been all around me both as an
impressionable student and then as a young practitioner.
‘I'd been in Tasmania a little over two years when a proposal for a six-storey Supreme Court building in
Salamanca Place was turned down by the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Public Works due, I
believe, to the weight of public objection when the proposal was before the Committee. To my surprise
I was then invited to a meeting with the Attorney General Merv Everett, and everybody who was
anyone in the legal profession, or who had voiced strong opposition to the original proposal was
present. The outcome of the meeting was a resolution for a low building clad in sandstone. This was my
brief.
‘I was offered the project by the Chief Architect and to my delight, I was asked to communicate
directly to him, thus setting aside the hierarchy within the Tasmanian Public Works Department. I had
had no experience of court buildings, although I had observed that they often became one of a city's
higher profile buildings. Certainly, the Hobart Supreme Court features frequently on television news
broadcasts, and is often photographed by tourists and, I believe, is admired by much of the public.
‘The location was perfect, with St David's Park and Parliament House directly adjacent, in the context of
the wharves and the old sandstone warehouses. This was a location that deserved a building that
would become a lasting member of the precinct. I had never been in a court in my life but when one of
my staff visited the old Criminal Courts,2 and was not impressed by what he saw, I decided I didn't want
to see them.
‘I had seen too many carefully considered buildings extended or refurbished, with little or no sympathy
being given to their original design concept so, given that I reasoned that the basic functionality of the
Courts wouldn't change fundamentally in my lifetime, I was happy to create a design that would be
difficult to change both externally and internally; a design where every internal space would be
considered and detailed as a total design entity, including the circulation spaces, often some of the
largest and yet too often under regarded by architects. There would be no risk of any ‘happenstance
aesthetic’ anywhere in a solution that would be brutal in its directness.
2
At Campbell Street Hobart
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE B:3
‘The challenge was to create the dignity that the Courts deserved,3 and yet make them inviting and not
overpowering to the public.
‘The commission also included all the landscaping and street works, which were key to the concept of
de-institutionalising the development; the trees that were planted on the street-frontage have done
well; the walls which were built to display the old displaced headstones together with the masses of
slate, and the subtle way they and the paving led through the site to the entrances, all proved to be
successful. Completion was still required within the original time frame. The government only owned half
the new extended site and the most urgent need was for the Criminal Courts, they were to be built as
Phase One on the land already owned by Government.
‘The first design principle was to let the park flow through the site. This, along with careful close attention
to entrances and to detail, was essential in retaining a human scale; allowing the use of landscaping to
soften the perception, maximise the informality, minimise the institutional character of the complex, and
yet still allow the individual buildings to retain a classicism traditionally associated with courts.
‘The schema only took a day or so to produce; a simple solution comprising two separate buildings
linked below ground. Both blocks would have principal activities on the upper floor, the Criminal Courts
Building would become more secure as one moved clockwise around the central core, comprising the
courtrooms, which linked directly to the prisoners' holding cells below. The Civil Courts Building would
have distinct public areas related to the various Court and Registry functions on both levels.
‘The original design provided for the Park to flow past the Civil Courts Building through to Gladstone
Street. During construction of the Criminal Courts Building it was proposed to further extend the site the
full length of Gladstone Street, to the rear of the cottages on Harrington Street, to accommodate a
third building housing all of Governments legal departments and functions. In this proposal St. David's
Park flowed up to and around all three buildings and had two points of entry from Gladstone Street.
Later Government failed to acquire a major part of the site that was then occupied by a foundry. This
led to a redesign of the Civil Courts Building. On the boundary with the foundry I designed a threedimensional wall of large proportions, a vertical garden to act as a visual barrier to a private retreat for
the judges.
‘The second important design principle was 'randomness’. For all things visual, fenestration, ceilings, and
even the wall panelling, the random approach was the key to de-institutionalising the development.
The only non-random elements in the whole design were the courtroom ceilings that were symmetrical
around a front to back axis, i.e. from the public entry to the judge's bench.
‘The third design principle was that the design would be a showpiece for local materials and for local
craftsmanship. We needed sandstone so we researched, visited, and finally found suitable stone in an
old quarry near New Norfolk. We bulk cut and bought enough for both buildings. I chose slate for the
piano nobile and paving for two reasons. In my opinion it is one of the few materials that looks better
when it is wet and it is almost indestructible. It can be worked in much the same way as timber, and
graffiti can be removed by simply applying an oxy-torch. I was aware that in the north east of Tasmania
near Bangor, and I think also Lefroy, there were old disused slate workings. At the turn of the century
boats returned to England with holds full of Tasmanian roofing slates destined for London and Bristol.
‘When I visited the workings there were thousands of slates still stacked in the grass, in perfect condition,
but it would not be economic to reopen the workings so slate was imported from South Australia. The
roof-scape was also important as the Courts are looked down upon. A requirement was for the provision
of daylight in the courtrooms for security; my solution was to use another material that was produced in
Tasmania, copper, to clad a simple cluster of four hyperbolic parabolic roofs to each of the courtrooms.
The external palette was completed with white sand blasted concrete over entrances and the
generous use of lead. Again these were materials produced in Tasmania.
‘When it came to building materials in the nineteen-seventies, Tasmania was best known for its timber, in
particular for its speciality woods. Internally the building displays much Blackwood, Myrtle, Tasmanian
Oak and Huon Pine, even some Celery Top ply for courtroom light fittings. The interiors are a joiner's
delight, lots of panelling and joinery, superb workmanship, exacting detailing, not a cover mould
3
At that time I believe the death sentence still existed
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE B:4
anywhere. The joinery is particularly special in courtrooms. Sir Stanley Burbury, Chief Justice when we
started and soon to become Governor, had researched courtrooms and specified that the Courts be 'in
the round'. This demanded an additional level of skill and craftsmanship.
‘The fourth design principle was to accommodate two fundamental functional requirements of quiet
and privacy. Apart from the courtrooms and the judges' library most spaces do not require large spans,
so most walls are load-bearing. The walls were built from 200mm thick hollow concrete blocks filled with
dry sand to reduce sound transmission. Many walls are lined with timber panelling and where necessary
panelling was given sound absorbent qualities. To reduce any possibility of noise in the courtrooms,
even the ballasts for the courtroom's light fittings were located outside of courtrooms. The detailing for
acoustics was total and the 'in the round' design of the courtrooms was an important attribute that was
augmented with the reflective qualities of the splayed panelled walls, together with the open Huon Pine
leaves beneath a soft absorbent quilt in the ceiling. This aspect of the design received public
recognition from the judiciary after the opening.
‘Below-window return air was exhausted into ducts that ran around the perimeter below the floor slab
and external to the building, thus minimising possible transmission of sound between adjoining rooms. To
further minimise risk of sound transmission the space above each individual room ceiling was made a
sealed plenum under positive pressure, with treated air being forced down into each individual room
through perforated ceiling tiles.
‘The fifth design principle was to detail construction to assist the contractor. To reduce glare, window
reveals internally are splayed and for ease of construction, each reveal was a precast concrete column
supporting a precast concrete ring beam over. The random nature of the design largely disguises the
rigid dimensional co-ordination that rigorously related to component materials to eliminate cutting
wherever possible.
‘As well as the landscaping and street works the commission also included all furnishings; some built as
part of the joinery subcontract; some refurbished from the original judges chambers and the majority
purchased; including soft furnishings such as curtains and linen and all the trivia from cutlery to crockery,
even ash trays. The project encapsulated a single total design philosophy.
PART 2: THE RECENT PAST
‘When the Courts were built they did not win an award. The only recognition for the Courts was that
they feature on commemorative stamps on envelopes franked in July 1981, celebrating the 21st
Australian Legal Convention, which was held in Hobart. However after thirty years the Courts have been
recognised by the architectural profession at state level and nationally. I have often wondered how
long it would be before someone determines the Courts have passed their use-by date and what
weight, if any, would be given to their intrinsic qualities.
‘Now that national recognition has happened, the situation is creating a great opportunity for the
Courts as both a building and as an institution. When the Courts were opened the then Governor, Sir
Stanley Burbury was quoted in The Mercury on 15th March 1975 as referring to the Courts as, ‘the newest
and best of Her Majesty's Courts of Justice’. Now is an opportunity to bring the Courts up to date, and
again make them ‘the newest and best’. This should be achievable by balancing the use of modern
technology, not only in the building, but also in the way the Courts function, and using the need for reevaluating the functional adequacy of the building fabric as a catalyst for the continued re-evaluation
of the Courts function as a body.
‘In his Annual Report of 1998/1999 the Chief Justice noted that new rules of the Supreme Court would
be introduced in the year 2000. These rules provided for case management and mediation. In the same
report the Chief Justice commented favourably on the Courts use of information technology, and
technology generally. As early as 1996 video-conferencing was introduced which: saved prisoners in
custody having to be transported to the Courts for remand; allowed evidence from witnesses outside
the Court area; and allowed short hearings and pre-trial conferences.
‘Although I am proud to have the building win the national award I also think that it is sad that we have
an award category for 'Enduring Architecture' for buildings a mere 25 to 30 years old. On October 29
2010, under a headline ‘Tasmania's Architectural Excellence Coming to the Fore’, the then Premier,
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE B:5
David Bartlett, put out a media release which included the statement that ‘…our designers help to
produce an attractive and sustainable lifestyle for Tasmanians, and a dynamic, authentic image for our
island. Their work will be admired for generations to come,’ he said. ‘…I want to congratulate the three
Tasmanian winners on their success, and thank them for their contribution to Tasmanian culture. It is
particularly pleasing to see the Tasmanian award winners recognised for their innovation, and the
sustainability and authenticity of their creations. Those qualities are at the heart of the Government's
vision for Tasmania. I believe they are values the Tasmanian community also holds dear.’
‘On November 8 2010, I wrote to the Premier thanking him for his congratulatory message referred to
above, saying that I was delighted with the extract from the judge's comments that he had quoted and
adding ‘…I recall in my acceptance speech saying words to the effect that today, thirty-five years on,
the Courts are being recognised nationally. I hope that the City of Hobart, the state of Tasmania and, in
particular, everybody who contributed to achieving the project's design and construction will share the
enormous pride that I feel in accepting the award.’
‘I continued ‘…unfortunately I was in Europe when the Courts won the State Award that I understand
you collected. I hope that this has resulted in you feeling a close association with the building and that
you, and your Government, will ensure that together with the precinct it shares, the Courts will be
allowed to continue to age gracefully. After all it is arguably the older sandstone buildings, particularly
those around the wharves, which give Hobart much of its unique ambiance and character.’ The
Premier never saw fit to acknowledge or reply.
‘Of one thing I'm sure. In an urban environment one cannot create ‘enduring architecture’ in isolation.
Just as with the universities at Oxford and Cambridge, quality and timeless enduring architecture owes
much to its neighbours, present and future, and fundamental to its needs is an informed and caring
owner who will champion the building's intrinsic qualities and defend them at times of demand for
change.
‘I have often compared Australia to France, Australia as the 'brash and over-confident teenager' to
France as the 'old man with much baggage and history who has lost his way'. France might well be past
its prime economically and strategically but it enjoys a culture that proudly retains endless beautiful
examples of enduring architecture that the French public are happy to use, even though they may be
a little imperfect functionally. To me its paradoxical that while more and more Australians flock to
Europe to enjoy and photograph architecture that has survived for centuries, from humble rural houses
and villages, through to mansions and palaces, even vast urban areas as in Paris and Bath, while here,
back home in Australia, the same image-focused people seem to respond to architecture that is rapidly
becoming a ‘photo-byte’ in character, often purporting to include the 'latest European design', if only in
their fixtures or fittings. In our land of opportunity, the long-lasting qualities of materials are now giving
way to the immediacy of coated surfaces that invariably take the form of crisp computer generated
photogenic images. Patina is no longer something to be treasured. Since the Courts were built the
conflict between fashion, which by definition is short lived, and endurance, has intensified.
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE B:6
APPENDIX C
PETER PARTRIDGE: INITIAL COMMENT ON THE OPTIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT1
1 2012 comments by Peter Hugh Partridge on the draft ‘Redevelopment Investment Concept Outline’, April 2012.
Comments relate to the options identified in the Redevelopment Investment Concept Outline, Draft 0.M dated
February 2011, and to Appendix A of this Plan. Some minor editorial amendments have been made by PFCA+P
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE C:1
PETER PARTRIDGE: INITIAL COMMENT ON THE OPTIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT
GENERAL COMMENTS
When the Courts were opened, the then Governor, Sir Stanley Burbury, was quoted in the Hobart
‘Mercury’ as referring to the Courts as ‘the newest and best of Her Majesty’s Courts of Justice’. There is
now an opportunity to bring the Courts Complex up-to-date and to again make them ‘the newest and
best of Her Majesty’s Courts of Justice’. My involvement in the existing buildings only came about after
much effort was wasted on previous proposals, clearly identified in Volume 1 of the Conservation
Management Plan, due to the lack of stakeholder involvement prior to the publishing of completed
designs.
The Investment Concept Outline Section 9, Appendix C, identifies a ‘Rationale for inclusion of a robust
stakeholder engagement process’, however I understand that normal processes will not enable this to
occur until the project has achieved ‘real’ project status. As a result, during the briefing process and
previous workshops, stakeholder’s representation has largely been restricted to occupants, users and
managers. That is, only interested government agencies have been involved, thus consideration of the
project at this time has denied the views from a wider group of minds that can only look forward. Since
completion of the Criminal Court Building, some 37 years ago, the world has changed beyond
recognition and yet the building complex still functions, albeit with diminishing effectiveness. Hopefully
the Courts Complex once it has been redeveloped will function effectively for a further 40 years.
The Outline Functional Brief 6.1; ‘Aim of the Redevelopment’ includes provisions for enhancing the
public experience of justice; supporting contemporary approaches to justice; improving efficiency;
improving functional / operational access to ensure that justice can be available for all and to improve
security. To facilitate these enhancements I would hope that from the beginning of the detailed
briefing process, a key participant would be a first class electronic and media specialist.
Any redevelopment will not long have been completed before it will be occupied by a generation of
practitioners and judiciary who will have been raised from preschool age with computers at their finger
tips, and who type as fast as typists. In their pockets they will carry what we now call ‘smart’ phones,
which with the advent of ‘nano’ technology will be miniaturised and more powerful than any of us can
imagine. Amongst many other things this technology will enable every lock to be selectively made
accessible to selected individuals. They will also be able to access or store the content of all the leather
bound books in all the law libraries around the world, and the paperwork related to the largest cases
that come before the courts. I would suggest that the next generation will take all of this in its stride and
will demand to be able to maximise its use in practising the law.
The Tasmanian Supreme Court has the opportunity to become a leader in the use of emerging
technology to meet its stated aims. My experience in change management suggests that the biggest
hindrance to change comes from those who have to endure it. Compared to larger states, for
example Victoria with just under 60 Supreme Court Judges, Tasmania is well placed. A major
advantage of being a small entity is that change can be achieved relatively easily. Perhaps the early
inclusion of an experienced change management facilitator would also assist in achieving an effective
outcome.
I am aware of and have modestly been involved in the development of the Conservation
Management Plan and have recently seen the Outline Functional Brief. To my surprise my copy of the
Investment Concept Outline was marked ‘confidential’. I’m convinced that my contribution would only
have been enhanced had I been able to discuss and seek opinion on various matters with others.
There is an obvious awareness that redeveloping the existing complex will create considerable interest
and the commissioning of the Conservation Management Plan was a positive move. However, I would
recommend that before the project proceeds any further, every effort should be made to involve all
stakeholder groups, including the public. Apart from the fact that beneficial comment and ideas may
be received, the risk of resistance later will be reduced. As with change, it is much easier for those
involved in its formulation to adopt and if need be compromise, than for those who feel they were left
out of the process.
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE C:2
In the Outline Functional Brief, there are examples of statements that are of themselves ‘solutions’; and
assessments of spatial need that do not identify any factual basis; there are also many examples where
briefed requirements differ from existing by relatively modest amounts seemingly disregarding the
inherent inflexible nature of the existing structure. The impact and cost of achieving such increases
would be enormous whereas the alternative of continuing to operate in slightly more modest existing
areas in most cases is probably feasible.
With respect to Court security issues, the question must surely be asked as to what degree are the
extracts quoted from the U.S Courts Design Guide [and quoted in the Investment Concept Outline]
appropriate to this court complex? One presumes that instances of inadequacies in security and
incidents have been well documented and that the security provisions are in response to a competent
professional Risk Management Study. Having recently inspected the Victorian Supreme Courts in
Melbourne, in the company of a Victorian Supreme Court Judge, the security arrangements in Hobart
would appear to be at least on a par and in many aspects superior to those in Melbourne.
DESIGN OPTIONS
Discussions with the author of the HSC Concept Outline have clarified that the options are not provided
as solutions, but are provided to assist in determining appropriate general direction, likely budget
implications and implementation issues. There are obviously further alternatives that will be worthy of
consideration.
OPTIONS 1 & 2
In my view, Options 1 and 2 as stated are too simplistic to allow detailed consideration at this stage,
however it is fair to observe that Option 1 would appear to impact many of the fundamental design
principles behind the existing buildings including scale, landscaping and approaches to the building.
Theses are the very qualities cited by the Australian Institute of Architects as contributing to significance.
Option 2 would appear to impact less on these significance values, however the success of Option 2 will
rely on its detail.
After my involvement to date I am reasonably confident that a solution should be possible that allows
the following basic principles:
•
The HSC buildings to remain separated with minimal impact on the main courtyard;
•
Provision for another court larger than the No 1 Civil Court;
•
The development has minimal impact on the external fabric of the buildings;
•
Provision for a single secure access with more space for foyers and for jury assembly;
•
Accommodate the other lesser internal upgrades as well as any other modification
proposals given the need to respect the inherent inflexibility of the existing structure, and
provided efficiencies are sought from change and use of digital technology.
I am more concerned that the disruption that would be caused in achieving either of the options has
been given sufficient consideration.
OPTION 3
No comment.
OPTION 4
In his last Annual Report 2009-2010 the Chief Justice makes reference to budgetary restrictions and to
the Operating Account that shows expenditure on ‘repairs and maintenance’ as being $139,164, the
previous years expenditure being $82,537. The Option 4 estimate of $6,652,500 is only for engineering
services and excludes other maintenance works identified to stonework, slate floor finishes etc. It would
seem sensible to continue with minimal maintenance expenditure until a detailed redevelopment
proposal has been developed to minimise the potential for waste.
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE C:3
IN SUMMARY
Perhaps the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and those city’s fathers have learnt that
championing worthy buildings and precincts is a worthwhile cause. The result is certainly appreciated
by Tasmanians in tourism mode.
Perhaps the Courts and the State Government can agree to be shown that now is an opportunity not
only to bring the Courts Complex up to date, and but to again make them ‘…the newest and best of
Her Majesty’s Courts of Justice’, by balancing the use of modern technology, with the need for reevaluating the functional adequacy of the building fabric as a catalyst for the continued re-evaluation
of the Courts function as a body.
It would be a shame and a loss for Hobart, Tasmania and indeed Australia, if Premier Bartlett’s media
release previously referred to: ‘…an exemplary, enduring piece of public architecture that makes a
poised, urban contribution to the city of Hobart …Here is a reminder that investment in public
architecture has a lasting effect on the city,’ is allowed to become just another convenient,
opportunistic piece of political spin.
The Supreme Courts Building needs a champion to make and plead its case, lest history repeats, and
leaves it to the public to have its say before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE C:4
APPENDIX D
PETER PARTRIDGE: A BRIEF PERSONAL INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE OF THE TASMANIAN PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT1
1 Text extracted from the Peter Partridge resume for Henty House RMPAT Hearing on Henty House listing, 2012. Some
minor editorial amendments have been made by PFCA+P. Appropriate illustrations sourced from the PHP archive
and other sources have been introduced into the text.
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE D:1
PETER PARTRIDGE: A BRIEF PERSONAL INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE OF THE TASMANIAN PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT
Peter Partridge completed his five years at the Southend School of Architecture and gained his Diploma
in Architecture with Distinction in 1964. He spent the summer before starting his architectural course
cycling around France where he visited Le Corbusier’s L’Unité de Habitation in Marseilles, France. His
1964 thesis design was for a Students’ Halls of Residence at Southend-on-Sea using pre-cast concrete,
which was an architectural study exploring its use in a University context.2 After graduation he worked in
London before opening his own practice in Colchester England.
FIGURES 1 & 2 • Peter Partridge 1964 thesis ‘A Student Residence at Southend-on-Sea’, First Floor Plan and Elevations
showing the precast construction • Source: PHP archive.
Clearly the architecture of Le Corbusier’s L’Unité de Habitation in Marseilles, influenced PHP in his design thesis, refer
sectional drawing at Figure 5 below.
2
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE D:2
FIGURES 3 4 & 5 • Peter Partridge 1964 thesis ‘A Student Residence at Southend-on-Sea’, Model, Site Plan and typical
Section showing the precast construction. Note the sculptural ‘pilotis’ to the base of the building • Source: PHP
archive.
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE D:3
FIGURES 6 & 7 • [above] Le Corbusier’s L’Unité de Habitation in Marseilles • Source: Great Buildings website • [below]
St Catherine's College, Oxford, by Arne Jacobsen architect, 2007 photograph • Source: Wlikpedia website
This had been a time when there was considerable fine university architecture being built; new
universities like Sussex by Basil Spence; new colleges like St Catherine’s in Oxford by Arne Jacobson and
Churchill College Cambridge by Shepherd Robson. There were many stand-alone buildings like the
History Library at Cambridge by James Stirling, but more importantly there were many buildings and
extensions that had a common requirement, to fit into splendid precincts; places where tourists from all
over the world go and look in awe. Here any new works not only had to be brilliant, they also had to be
timeless.3
The economy in England was no longer so conducive to capital investment and building, so Peter
decided to look elsewhere to continue his career, and came to Sydney in 1969 where he worked briefly
as office manager in a small practice before coming to Tasmania in June 1969. He recalls that there
was little work available and that Charles Crawford,4 was the only person who offered him any work,
but not wanting to live in Launceston at the time he refused. Later he surprised himself by accepting a
position with the Public Works Department [PWD]. He was very much a private practice person but
found working for Government to be ‘great, it actually gave more freedom to create good
architecture.’ When Peter joined government in 1969 he joined the Architectural Branch of the PWD.
The main function of the PWD was the design, building and maintenance of the State’s roads and
bridges, largely using its own workforce.
3
4
Refer also Appendix B above
The father of the AIA Tasmania’s recent Chapter President
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE D:4
FIGURES 8 & 9 • [above] The History Faculty Library at the University of Cambridge, by James Stirling • Source:
Wlikpedia website, 2007 photograph • [below] The view of the Criminal Courts under construction [c1974] from the
PWD offices in the State Office Block [10 Murray Street Floor 7] • Source: PFP archive.
Most design work was carried out in house at head office in Murray Street, Hobart in one of four
Divisions: Education, Health, Offices and Public Buildings.5 Private architects were sometimes engaged
to prepare working drawings. Once tenders were called and contracts were let, the projects were
supervised through four district architect’s offices; Metropolitan for the Hobart Area, and three regional
offices, in Glenorchy for works in the South East, in Launceston for works in the North, and in Burnie for
works in the North-West. All construction was tendered to the private sector. The method of splitting the
design and supervision was archaic and it is fair to say the quality of architecture was not very inspiring.
Peter started off designing extensions for several schools around the State and in 1970 prepared the
Triennial Submission for Capital Grants for the Tasmanian University. This involved preparing schematic
and sketch designs for all proposals for the next three years and included the Stanley Burbury Building,
the Law building and many others. Shortly after completing the study Peter researched and designed a
‘flat pack’ Type “M” Building System that was used principally for school buildings.
Peter was influential in breaking the split between Design and Construction by creating and heading up
project teams that replaced the old design divisions. The teams were self-sufficient groups that
researched, briefed, designed, documented and supervised major projects, and each group included
its own contract clerical administration functions. Thus each team was a small self-contained practice.
5
Refer Figure 8 above.
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE D:5
In 1972 Peter was appointed Project Architect for the Supreme Court Complex in Salamanca Place.6
Peter also prepared several major studies including the Launceston Area Offices Study [1979] that
followed the abandoning of the original proposed ten-storey building that the ‘Henty House’ State
Government Offices, in part replaced. The Launceston Study was completed for the Public Offices
Committee [POC], which was chaired by the Director General of Lands [Doug Doyle], and the
Committee had representatives from PWD, Treasury, and the Public Service Board. The Committee
oversaw all proposed expenditure on Government Offices and made recommendations to
Government.
Peter Partridge’s recommendations for development following the aborted tower proposal were for
four buildings: a smaller building at the corner of Cameron and Charles Streets containing only those
departments requiring a CBD presence; a building of four or five stories ‘a more ambassadorial’
building,7 a two level car park in Cornwall Square completed in 1981; a low level office development at
Prospect for all non CBD departments [completed in 1982;8 and also at Prospect a new Supply and
Tender Warehouse that was never built.
Peter established a design team with contract staff. The team liaised closely with the City Architect and
jointly designed the Square with the consultant Don Goldsworthy. In order to prepare the contract
documentation, and be closer to the specialist consultants the team moved to the top floor of the
Government Offices in Hobart at 10 Murray Street,9 where it was able to take in a number of
draftspersons, some of who came from the PWD. In 1979 the AIA Tasmanian Chapter also recognised
Peter’s design for bringing back to life and renovating terraces of houses as offices in Cameron and
Wellington Street Launceston with an award for environmental design.
On November 11 1981 the Mercury newspaper published an article under the headline ‘High praise for
State’s architects’ with a photograph of Mr Jamieson Allom, then President of the Tasmanian Chapter of
the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, talking with the distinguished British architect and planner, Mr.
Fred Pooley. Pooley was reported to have said that ‘…the public architects in Tasmania are on the right
track and the important thing is that they get the end product done on time and within cost controls.
The Department of Construction is lively, enthusiastic and has imagination and taste.’ Mr. Pooley said
that, although he had not had time to inspect many Hobart buildings, he was impressed with the
Supreme Court buildings in Salamanca Place: ‘…they have simplicity, are timeless and are weathering
well,’
In 1984, Peter Partridge completed one of his favourite and enduring projects, the Lake Barrington
Rowing Centre. Peter made comment that this project ‘…was achieved with an impossibly small
budget and only ever gets better as the landscaping matures.’10
Peter’s skills as a project manager impacted on many of the State’s major projects. These buildings
included the Derwent Entertainment Centre, 1987; the Tasmanian University Arts Centre; the IXL Building
refurbishment in Hunter Street, Hobart 1986; the Stage 2 redevelopment of the Launceston General
Hospital; the redevelopment of the Mersey General Hospital; the redevelopment of the Burnie General
Hospital; and the development of the Claremont Education Park.
Peter also completed other Major Strategic Studies including; the Hobart Area Office Study in 1980; the
Hobart TAFE Strategic Study in 1982/83; the Henry Jones and Environs Planning Committee in 1982/83,
and he was involved with the ongoing Royal Hobart Hospital Strategic Redevelopment. In 1983 he
made a Major Submission to the Review Committee into the Construction Division. In May 1984 he
exhibited both his Supreme Courts and Henty House at the Royal Institute of British Architects [RIBA]
‘Festival Exhibition of Architecture Overseas’ celebrating the RIBA’s 150th anniversary. Peter was one of
over 200 members from 54 countries invited to display their work in the Art Gallery of the Guildhall in
London.
Refer detailed summary of this project by PHP at Appendix B above
Completed in 1983 as State Governments’ presence in what was designated to be the Civic Square, which had
been completed in 1982
8 This was a development that would allow for expansion over time and not require expense such as air-conditioning
9 Floor 11 of the Government Offices
10 Refer Figures 10, 11 and 12 below.
6
7
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE D:6
FIGURES 10 11 & 12 • [above & below] The Lake Barrington Rowing Centre • Source: PHP archive.
Barry McNeill and Leigh Woolley, in their publication ‘Architecture from the Edge’, in discussing the
impact of the many British architects who joined the Department state that ‘…perhaps the most
significant of these [British] migrants is Peter Partridge’.11
By 1984, Peter was a part of the Department’s executive where he continued to develop improved
project management strategies as Assistant Director. He was the final Head of the Agency and in the
agency’s budget proposed to move to a ‘cost-recovery’ basis. In 1989 the Department of Construction
[DoC], as it was then known, took on through amalgamation the responsibilities of road building and
maintenance; housing, and the Education Department’s maintenance. The Department increased
from 190 to 2,000 staff. As a divisional head with line responsibility for all of Governments buildingrelated functions; and principal policy adviser on the building industry, capital works and facility
management, Peter found himself with some 630 staff. During the period 1984 to 1993, Peter chaired or
was a member of various Government strategic, policy, and project committees. In that role he
attended upon, and made presentations to various parliamentary committees.12 Peter also prepared
cabinet submissions and annual departmental and State’s capital works expenditure budgets, and
attended upon Ministers and Cabinet.
11
12
The book makes reference to the Supreme Courts complex
For example, Accounts, Budget, Public Works
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE D:7
Peter also represented the Department of Construction or Tasmanian Government with professional
bodies, business groups, industry, industrial [union] bodies, local governments, state and federal
governments and public; and attended upon various industrial tribunals / commissions. In 1992 / 1993
Peter also project-managed the commercialization of the department before leaving the DoC in June
1993.13
A PICTORIAL POSTSCRIPT14
FIGURES 13 & 14 • [above] PHP site photographs, c1972, showing the buildings on Salamanca Place prior to the
construction of the Criminal Courts. No 15 Salamanca and the Vacuum Oil building were used for PWD and
contractor’s site sheds • [below] PHP: ‘…The building on the corner of Salamanca and Gladstone Street …an ugly
building, and I have no regrets about demolishing it to make way for the Criminal Court buildings’.
RELEVANT MEMBERSHIPS
Member of the Tasmanian Chapter Council, Royal Australian Institute of Architects [1984/1986]
Represented Tasmania at the Australian National Public Works Council and on various Strategy Groups [1984/1993];
Member of National Trust of Australia [Tasmania] Classification Building Advisory Committee [1986];
Represented Tasmania on the National Committee on Rationalised Building [1987/1990];
Member [and from 1989 Chairman] of the Tasmanian Government’s Construction Tender Board [1988 /1994];
Member of University of Tasmania Faculty of Design [1992/1993]; and
Member of the National Construction Industry Development Council [1992/1993].
RELEVANT FUNCTIONS AND ACHIEVEMENTS
Completed Program for Management Development at University of Tasmania;
Presented key-note paper ‘State of the Construction Industry’ to a joint National Public Works Council and National
Building Construction Council forum in Adelaide;
Presented paper in Canberra ‘Continuing Education Within the Public Works Australia’;
Presented paper ‘The changing Culture’: Asset management for the Future, a Key Issue,1992;
Presented paper ‘Procedures and Practices for Building Construction Maintenance Works: a guide to assist achieve
best value for money from capital investment through efficient asset management and planning whilst maintaining
probity on the part of all participants concerned in the procurement process’ 1993; and
Completed research in France and published a paper, ‘Guarantees, Security of payment, Performance and Surety
Bonds; the French Situation’, 1993.
14 Prepared by PFCA+P from notes and photographs provided by PHP during the preparation of this Plan.
13
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE D:8
FIGURES 15 16 & 17 • [above] PHP site photograph, c1972 and the Supreme Courts brochure prepared and
published at the time of the completion of the Courts complex in 1980 • [below] The proposed Law precinct on
Salamanca Place showing the final Law Building on Gladstone Street [not pursued] • Source: Plan prepared c1975,
and displayed at the opening of the Courts complex in 1980 • Source: PHP archive.
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE D:9
FIGURES 18 19 & 20 • [above] Diagrammatic plan of Court 2 • Source: Plan prepared c1975, and displayed at the
opening of the Courts complex in 1980 • [below] Commemorative envelope for the 21st Australian Legal Convention
held at the Supreme Courts in 1981 and the 2010 AIA Awards brochure • Source: PHP archive.
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE D:10
FIGURES 21 22 & 23 • [above] Peter Partridge receiving the Enduring Architecture award at the 2010 AIA Awards and
a congratulatory letter to the Hobart ‘Mercury’ in November 2010 • [below] Hobart artist Bill Mearns depiction of the
Supreme Courts complex in 1988, one of a series of commissioned paintings celebrating the public buildings of
Hobart • Source: PHP archive.
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE D:11
APPENDIX E
THE HOBART SUPREME COURTS AND CONTEMPORARY TASMANIAN ARCHITECTURE1
1 This essay prepared by Paul Johnston of Paul Johnston Architects in 2012, specifically for this Plan. Minor editorial
change has been made throughout the essay.
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE E:1
THE HOBART SUPREME COURTS AND CONTEMPORARY TASMANIAN ARCHITECTURE
PREAMBLE
It is important to appreciate that the post WW2 period was a time when ‘…the cultural
environment underwent dramatic transformation…because of radical changes to the way
we lived, worked and viewed the world’. In Australia ‘…we embraced American popular
culture, rediscovered the Aboriginal past and looked to Europe as a source of immigrants.’2
Whilst architecture of the 1950s could be categorised by the embracing of American culture
and the adoption of the ‘International architectural Style’, as represented by the popularity
of glass façades and the tall city building, the early 1960s saw a universal departure from this
dominance across much of the western world.
This new aesthetic challenged the predominance of the International Style and became
increasingly established throughout the 1960s in Australia as a regional modernism that came
to be know as ‘Brutalism’. Brutalism was a term used to describe the use of materials that
were not embellished with applied finishes. The term developed from the commonly used
descriptor ‘New Brutalism’, which was used by the influential British writer Reyner Banham to
describe the architecture of prominent European architects, such as Team X and Alison and
Peter Smithson.
This essay examines the place of the Hobart Supreme Court complex in relation to
contemporary Tasmanian [and European] architecture.
BANHAM AND THE NEW BRUTALISM
In his article ‘The New Brutalism, published in the 1955 ‘Architectural Review’, Reyner Banham
describes the new brutalist architectural style as alluding to the later work of Le Corbusier with
the term 'le beton brut', and the art of Jean Dubuffet as 'art brut'. Banham summarised the
three qualities of this new architectural approach as being a formal legibility of plan; a clear
exhibition of structure, and the valuation of materials for their inherent qualities 'as found'.3
Banham described the characteristics of this ‘new brutalism’:
‘...the building should be an immediately apprehensible visual entity, confirmed by
the experience of the building in use. Further, that this form should be entirely proper
to the functions and materials of the building, in their entirety ...the demand that this
form should be apprehensible and memorable is the atypical un-commonplace
which makes good building into great architecture.’4
AUSTRALIAN ‘BRUTALIST’ ARCHITECTURE
Professor Jennifer Taylor, in her seminal history ‘Australian Architecture since 1960’, states that
the influence of brutalism was ’far reaching’ and that ‘Australian examples were deeply
based on the building ethic of brutalism and in certain cases this was extended to embrace
the urban consideration.’5 Professor Geoffrey London writing in ‘The Encyclopaedia of
Australian Architecture’, offers two distinct ‘brutalist’ variations within Australian architecture
of the mid C20th. These two variations extended between the social concerns generated by
the british ‘new brutalism’ progenitors Alison and Peter Smithson, and the aesthetic concerns
Stropin essay in Marsden 2004.
Banham 1955: pps. 357 & 358.
4 ibid.
5 Taylor1990, p.79.
2
3
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE E:2
of Le Corbusier.6 This assessment thus indicates two strands of architectural ‘brutalism’; an
aesthetic concerned with materials and local identity, and an ethic and aesthetic
concerned with urban interactions.
TASMANIAN ‘BRUTALIST’ ARCHITECTURE
In Tasmania, the aesthetic interest of materials and landscape was developing throughout
the late 1950s. The architectural critic and historian Peter Dermoudy, when writing the
editorial to ‘Tasmanian Architect’ journal, in a issue devoted to the tenth national convention
of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects held in Hobart in 1960, called for ‘…a Tasmanian
architecture inspired by the unique qualities of the Tasmanian landscape. In describing the
pervasive introduction within Tasmania of the curtain wall façade he wrote: ‘…the disease [of
universalism] will find more natural enemies in Tasmania than perhaps it will find in the larger
cities of the world, in that here, we have raw masculine nature …mountain-scapes and seascapes that demand stone and brick, materials which bespeak the strength of man.’
Tasmanian architects had been exploring such qualities through the use of materials and an
awareness of setting. The work of the Dutch émigré architect Dirk Bolt, in particular,
highlighted an integration of landscape with built form.
In 1960 Dirk Bolt designed a residential college for the Anglican Church known as Christ
College to be built on the hills overlooking the Sandy Bay campus of the University of
Tasmania. Four buildings were arranged to form an internal courtyard linking dormitory,
dining, warden and library wings. The buildings were constructed with ‘off-form’ concrete
and concrete masonry, with unpainted Huon Pine windows and copper roof plumbing. The
building employed limited applied finishes and was intended to age with a patina. Christ
College is [and was] widely acclaimed as ‘…one of Tasmania’s best post war C20 Century
buildings,’7 and was selected as one of the top 43 Australian buildings by the Royal Australian
Institute of Architects. This list was compiled in order to determine a selection of Australian
buildings for nomination to the International Union of Architects [UIA].8
FIGURE 1 • Christ College Sandy Bay by the architects Hartley Wilson and Bolt 1960, stage 1 • Source: photograph by
Frank Bolt [Dirk Bolt’s brother].
London 2011, p.110.
McNeill, Woolley 2002, p.81.
8 Martin 2001, p.22
6
7
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE E:3
Importantly, Christ College demonstrates a sensitive appreciation of the context of the
building in its landscape. The placement of the Christ Church buildings to form a sequence of
courtyards as they climb the hill, and the orientation of the apertures to both create an entry
and connection with the Derwent River, displays a conscious design intent to relate the
building with its landscape. In the opinion of Hobart architect and planner Leigh Woolley, the
building adopts a classical stance in the landscape.9
CHRIST COLLEGE & THE HOBART SUPREME COURTS
Christ College provides a useful comparison between buildings designed during this period of
the ‘brutalist’ architectural approach.
The College, designed by Dirk Bolt is brutal in its use of materials and the expression of
structure. This is evident in the face-finished masonry used in a variety of configurations for
both the exterior and interior, and off form concrete structure exposed to the exterior as a
frame for the structure. Copper roofing and plumbing, unpainted Huon Pine window frames
and timber joinery compliment this approach. Importantly though, it is the articulation of
buildings to form a sequence of external spaces that orientate towards the immediate and
distant landscape as the building climbs the hill, that provides a strong awareness of its
topographic context. It is a classical stance of building and landscape.
The materials of the Hobart Supreme Courts are much more refined and challenges the
definitions of brutalism as both expressive of structure and use of materials as found. The
structure of the Courts is reinforced concrete with a combination of in situ floor slabs, masonry
internal walls and pre cast columns to the perimeter. While the structure is represented in the
façade, they are expressed in facing materials of stone. Stone is used as an ordering material
between the levels of plinth and pavilion, slate and sandstone respectively and while this
provides for an additional ordering of the banding of elements and coursing of components,
it is used more as a contextual device rather than an expression of structure. The expression of
function in the pyramidal roofs of the courts and the repeating façade are elements of a
‘brutalist’ aesthetic as is the systematic approach to planning. It is however the proportional
ordering of the facades that provides a classical relationship with the colonial buildings of the
precinct. The incorporation of the landscaped courtyards is related to the articulation of
buildings of Christ College and the Courts complex, and both respond intimately and subtly
to their specific topography as well as their settings.
The use of Tasmanian materials is a important element in the design of both building
complexes. In the Courts, this use extends to the interior where the extensive use of timber to
the court rooms and slate lining to the foyers are evident of an approach to reveal natural
qualities rather than applied finishes. Concrete surfaces of the structure are however lined in
a fabric wallpaper. The extent of detailing throughout the building provides a totality to the
design and timber and slate are found in tables, clocks and notice boards. The selection of
locally available materials is an important element in the design and represents a period in
Tasmanian design culture where the specific qualities of materials were valued for their
distinctive Tasmanian character.
THE INFLUENCE OF ENGLISH ‘BRUTALISM’ IN THE TASMANIAN PWD
Professor Philip Goad, writing in the ‘DoCoMoMo’ journal10 provides an account of the
influences of modernism in Australian architecture. He considers travel, exhibition,
9
King & Johnston 2011, p.95.
‘DoCoMoMo’ journal no. 29.
10
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE E:4
publication, education and migration as the key sources for the Australian development of
international architectural ideas. Describing this influence as ‘the critical filter’, Goad states:
‘…the experience of migration enriched Australian architecture and the experience of the
place in turn affected those émigré architects own works.’11
The Tasmanian Public Works Department had, since the late 1960s, seen an influx of émigré
architects from Britain, specifically brought to Tasmania by the Tasmanian Government to
work on the substantial building and engineering projects throughout the 1970s. The tertiary
educational buildings created by the PWD within this period generally display the English
sense of materials used in a formal manner. The buildings also provide evidence of the English
tradition of systematic planning of building complexes. This approach demonstrated the
influence of the architects Alsion and Peter Smithson, who became well known for their
planning work on English schools. Their Hunstanton School in Norfolk, completed in 1954
prompted Reyner Banham to apply the descriptor ‘the new brutalism’.12
The Tasmanian College of Advanced Education at Mount Nelson in Hobart, is an important
complex of buildings as the first CAE constructed in Australia. The complex is distinctive for its
raw use of concrete combined with brickwork throughout the campus of several buildings.
Designed by the PWD following a master plan prepared by American consultants, the design
engaged Hobart architectural practices in the design of specific buildings. The PWD went on
to complete other educational buildings with some similarity in the use of materials and
planar geometric forms in the architecture, but none were to achieve the elaboration of cast
concrete and brickwork to the extent evident in the TCAE. Importantly, the ‘brutal’ aesthetic
use of materials in these buildings typifies a common theme of tertiary educational buildings
constructed throughout Australia in the 1970’s.13
FIGURES 2 & 3 • The Tasmanian College of Advanced Education at Mount Nelson in Hobart • Source: PJ 2011
photographs.
THE TASMANIAN ‘BRUTALIST’ CIVIC BUILDINGS
While brutalism characterised the architecture of the tertiary educational buildings within this
period, it was also used for Government buildings of a civic importance. Importantly, the
design of the Tasmanian State Offices at 10 Murray Street in Hobart14 is significant as.
11
12
13
14
Goad 2003, p.66
Curtis 1996, p.530.
Refer Figures 2 and 3 below.
Hartley Wilson and Bolt, PWD 1967
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE E:5
collaboration between the private and government architects, the two strands of brutalism
as described by Geoffrey London. However, it was the two major projects of Peter Partridge
for the Government of Tasmania that were most influential; the Supreme Court in Hobart and
Henty House in Launceston. With these buildings a civic awareness extended beyond formal
statements of Government importance to incorporate a concern for context and create an
interaction with public spaces.
In this respect, these two buildings demonstrate both the ‘aesthetic’ and ‘ethic’ of brutalism
in both the ‘honest’ use of materials and the civic ‘responsibility’ of the city. In the Tasmanian
publication ‘Architecture on the Edge’, Peter Partridge is described as ‘…perhaps the most
significant’ of the English migrant architects.15
FIGURES 4 & 5 • [left] Henty House, the government offices designed by Peter Partridge / PWD for the Launceston
Civic Square • [right] Detail of the off-form concrete to Henty House. • Source: ‘Australian Modern’ magazine
February 2010
15
McNeill, 2002, p.31.
HOBART SUPREME COURT • CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE E:6