COMM 2411 DESIGN

Collaborated  by:    Alex  Nugent:  s3283416  

 Bhavna  Tolani:  s3245375    Erni  Wijaya:  s3231067  

 Jenny  Mounas:  s3290836    Shuwen  Wong:  s3262055  

 

 

 

 

 

 

What better way than to commemorate a country’s centennial nationhood by

giving one of its central business districts a facelift with a structure designed to

encapsulate the kaleidoscopic cultures and heritage, capturing its distinctive landscape

of the desert and simultaneously making it a space immersed with festivals and

entertainment?

Despite it being voted one of the ugliest buildings in the world, the

ostentatious Federation Square speaks metaphorically about the city. Through its

gaudy and seemingly cavalier presence, it murmurs to its audience all that is

authentically Melbourne. Many symbolic features were incorporated into the design

of the Square, but how does a structure of regular raw materials translate the

importance of culture, heritage and explores even further than that? The Square is

accessible from all four corners of the street. It exudes indescribable warmth, a

welcoming presence; very much like the hospitable Australians. Its odd design,

synonymous with individualism that the locals are so fond of, is enough to kill the

curious visitor, and one would be bound to step inside to explore its splendor. The

expansive plaza paved with Kimberley sandstones of rich reds, maroons and gold

(Hamilton 2003, p. 3), signifies the desert of Australia (Dovey 2005, p. 103) and the

I. Federation Square

 

undulating surface of the plaza creates the illusion of sand dunes. Furthermore, the

paving is designed as a huge urban artwork known as Nearamnew that works as a

cache that stores the nine ground figures and nine visions that merge into one another.

As you walk, poems of forgotten language speak to you from beneath your feet. As

Rutherford1 (2005, p. 12) argues, ‘it is a strangely joyous promise of a different kind

of locality and a different way of thinking, writing and speaking into the impasses of

Australian place’.

The Federation Square is a mixture of conservative and contemporary design.

It is not merely a place built for the convenience of people meeting up, it is also the

old Melbourne meeting the new. It is not just a place for entertainment and activities

to be held, it is where lost cultures are preserved and reignited. The Square is an

integration of all things Melbourne, and the symbolic meanings manifests within the

design itself.

                                                                                                                 

 

References:

Booz Allen Hamilton, ‘Federation Square: A Case Study in Architectural Design’,

Dandolopartners, Victoria.

Dovey, K 2005, Fluid City: Transforming Melbourne's Urban Waterfront,

UNSW/Routledge, Sydney/Oxfordshire.

Rutherford, Dr Jennifer (2005) Writing the Square: Paul Carter’s Nearamnew and the art of Federation, in Portal: Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies. Special Issue: Strange Localities: Utopias, Intellectuals and Identities in the 21st Century.

 

Southern Cross Station, which will be discussed with reference to the design

discipline, was previously know as Spencer St Station has undergone a 300 million

dollar (Skene, 2007) renovation over the past couple of years and the new design is

eye catching, modern and supposedly Melbourne. As a design, intended to represent

the city’s futuristic outlook, this is flawed, as what it ended up doing was painting

Melbourne as wasteful and not green conscious when all over the world new railway

stations are made with solar panelled roofs and are self sufficient. Melbourne finds

itself with a wavey roof, which collapses with torrential rain and collapse[s] (The

Age, March 6, 2009). Arguably Melbourne’s main transport hub, the station connects

the inner city with the outer suburbs with a bus terminal, v-line train stations as well

as housing Metro’s train network. The station communicates consumerism with a

shopping centre situated in the enormous train station, futuristic glass and metal

design may look appealing and modern, but as a communication artefact, it fails to

promote Melbourne as the positive, urban environment it really is.

The concept of Southern Cross station as a transportation hub with over

60,000 commuters using it each day (Skene, 2007), acting as a microcosm of

Melbourne highlights the materialistic driven and future focused aspects of the people

and the town. With the shopping centre situated within the station allows the station to

actually become a trading centre. As a city that prides itself on being liberal

II. Southern Cross Station

 

politically, one of the strongest Labour voting states, would be more environmentally

conscious in a ‘Climate Change’ dominated age. However even in one of

Melbourne’s key transportation hubs lies a 800 bay cap park, which undermines the

government initiatives to produce a ‘green’ car and meet with Kyoto standards.

The renovations of the station shows Melbourne’s push towards the future, as

not unlike Federation Square, the city strives to find its own identity and place. To

compare the station to Flinders Street Station, with it’s old clocks, archaic design,

Southern Cross Station appears to be from another world. Flinders Street has food

stores, for the guilty snacks of the people heading home from work, whilst Southern

Cross houses a shopping centre, comprising of over 30 stores. Where Flinders Street

has bricks, Southern Cross has metal. Where Flinders has tin, Southern Cross has

glass. This exemplifies not only Melbourne’s attempt to recreate itself, to become

more and more like Hollywood’s image of the future, but this is also mirrored

throughout the world. As the world becomes more global, we see cultures blur,

privacy forsaken and the rise of consumerism, all of which Southern Cross Station

represents. The homely and warm aesthetics of Flinders Street juxtaposed by the cold

and corporate image of Southern Cross outlines the very real and imminent social

change we will face.

 

References:

The Age, 2009, ‘Storm causes mayhem’, The Age, 6 March, viewed 7 April 2010, www.theage.com.au. Peter Skene 2007, 'Southern Cross Station', Southern Cross Station, vol. 1, no.1, pp. 1-7. Wilfred J. Ethier, Elhanan Helpman, J. Peter Neary, 1995, Theory, Policy and Dynamics in International Trade, 1st edn, Press syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

 

Dominating Melbourne’s CBD (Central Business District) skyline, the Eureka

tower’s design (completed June 2006) not only signifies one of Victoria’s chief

history i.e. Eureka Stockade rebellion (1854) but the juxtaposition of the tower amidst

the CBD’s background establish Melbourne’s urban modernity.

One of Melbourne’s many architectural progression, at first glance the 984ft

tall structure might awe its viewers. Nonetheless the same goes with Melbourne’s

other modern architectures such as ‘Federation Square’ and ‘Southern Cross Station’.

It is the tower’s feasibility for Melburnians, which would distinguish it as a strong

Melbourne’s ‘intellectual brand’. (Donald & Gammack, 2007)

Rushing up to the 88th floor in less than a minute you are brought to their

observation deck. Through the Edge’s glass cube viewers experience a 360 degrees

cinematic view of Melbourne. From the highest public vantage point Melbourne

unveils its ‘secrets’. From the outlines of the Hoddle grid, narrow laneways loses its

mystery. The illusion of a separate world vanishes; the laneways blends with the city

unnoticeably developing the present Melbourne that we live in.

III. Eureka Tower

 

Designed to stand tall and relate with Rialto Towers as sentinels to

Melbourne’s river its strong profile, luxurious face, and environmentally sound design

structure defines one of Melbourne’s unique precinct. Southbank- made up of a

populated community of diverse cultural backgrounds, interests and fields of work

(City of Melbourne, 2006)

Nonetheless there were debates whether the design contradicts Melbourne as a

place of ‘hidden beauty’. Critics might say that the tower stands out so much that it

seems to detach itself from the city.

Dr. Wyatt expresses his concerns of the ‘legitimacy’ of the design.

‘Melbourne’s policy formulators are as keen, as wide-awake, and articulate as will be

found anywhere’ (Dr. Wyatt, 1978 p.p 1). However, questions of whether the design

is relatable to Melbourne’s population were highly controversial.

Voted the ‘Most Livable City in the World’ twice in the last four years by

various international travel agencies Melbourne has a reputation of a pre-eminent

global city (City of Melbourne, 2006). On the other hand, it has also been mentioned

as one of the world’s most expensive cities to live in. One might censure that this

might derive from the Tower’s exclusivity. It created separate identities in

Melbourne’s communities.

Designed to be an ‘architectural practice’; the design brief by Grocon (the

constructor), Tab Fried (a Melbourne investor), Nonda Katsalidis and Karl Fender

(the architects) claims to defy the regular boundaries of a normal building. The

experimental development acknowledged the need of high density living and is highly

regarded for it (Australian Institute of Architect, 2007). The question of whether it

provides sustainable living for Melbournians, is still unanswered.

 

References: Australian Institute of Architect, Australia, viewed 24th May 2010, from http://www.architecture.com.au/awards_search?option=showaward&entryno=200703 0307 City of Melbourne 2006 (Precincts and Suburbs Section), Suburb Profile: Southbank City of Melbourne, Melbourne Australia, viewed 17th April 2010, http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutMelbourne/PrecinctsandSuburbs/suburbprofiles/Pages/Southbank.aspx Donald, S, Gammack, J.G 2007, ‘Branding the City’, in Tourism and the Branded City: Film and Identity on the Pacific Rim, Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT : Ashgate, p.p 45- 49 Dr. Wyatt, R.G 1978, ‘ Melbourne’s Metropolitan Strategy: The Search for Legitimacy, research paper no. 35, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, p.p 1- 20

 

The presence of graffiti in Melbourne’s art culture has existed since the early

80’s. Melbourne has then progressively become a well-known graffiti city of

Australia and thus it is undeniably that graffiti is becoming one of major tourist

attractions in Melbourne. They are mostly found in laneways and back alleys such as

in particular Hosier Lane, and others such as Flinders St Lanes, Centre Place, Little

La Trobe St, Duckboard Place, and Fitzroy.

Hosier Lane is really a ‘beautiful mess’ for those who have ever witnessed its

creation. It has become a vivid canvas for those wanting to express their ideas and

thoughts through tools of graffiti. Some could even call these walls of the laneway the

voice of Melbourne. This way of protest culture created by urban artists is effective

and can even be called striking for capturing viewers’ imaginations with their political

and social messages (Stewart, J 2008). In the past, the rich used graffiti as a mean of

advertisement while the poor used it as a mean of a fight. This shows the political use

of graffiti is able to show people’s difference in personality and therefore in the

identities as well as their demands or the challenges they are facing. It can be seen

that street art might be also used as an act of violence and it is interesting in that this

symbolizes that graffiti more than just a ‘work of art’, but it is able to make a group of

people feel violated. Furthermore, these artworks on walls are also used to create

IV. Graffiti

 

particular claims of ownership. Such use of graffiti is able to convert space into one’s

own territory through gestures and evoking of violent expressions. (Tonkiss, F 2004).

Many say that graffiti in Melbourne is unique in term of design so it will be an

advantage if Melbourne authorities preserve and give more support to local graffitists.

It also helps to promote Melbourne as a rich city of art forms thus its art design is

worth publishing. While on the other hand, some might see graffiti is a negative art

form that only destroys the city value and consider it as merely vandalism. Mr

Hilditch, the head of not-for-profit group Graffiti Hurts Australia, mentions that there

is no any good point allowing graffiti in certain laneways even if it may be a tourist

attraction. He also adds illegal graffiti is costing Australian taxpayers hundreds of

millions of dollars a year to clear up the area. (Trembath, B 2009).

Graffiti adorns many of the laneways walls in Melbourne CBD that certainly

entices everyone in and attracts publicity and people, including tourists. It is, in fact

appreciated by wider audiences since Melbourne is only among few cities around the

world that has great development of street art such as a wide range of genres for

instance throw-ups, stencils, murals, stickers, posters, plaques and sculptures.(Lunn,

M, 2006).

 

References:

Lunn, M 2006, Street Art Uncut, Craftsman House, Victoria, Australia.

Tonkiss, F 2004, ‘Urban Cultures: Spatial Tactics’, in Jenks, C Urban Culture: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies’, Routledge, New York, pp. 236-248.

Trembath, B 2009, ‘Graffiti-buster combs Melbourne's laneways’, viewed on 12 April 2010, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/13/2541339.htm>.

Stewart, J 2008, Graffiti Vandalism? Street art and the City: Some considerations, UNESCO Observatory E-Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, October 2008

 

Melbourne’s laneways effectively communicate as a media artefact, and

depict the city as a unique place. One of the most renowned laneways is the Central

Place Laneway, located just off Flinders Lane. Various laneways are hidden

throughout the city: they are places that ‘invest the city with idiosyncratic style and

character’ (Rhodes 2010) and many tourists and locals alike find themselves

immersed in these laneways. Being in a laneways alludes to being in a “hidden

world”, and this idea, essentially, is what draws people to visiting the laneways.

Typical features of Melbourne’s laneways include street art, or graffiti, coffee

shops and boutiques, suitable for a ‘cavalcade of characters’ (Rosenthal 2005, p58).

The street art is arguably of the most recognized features of the laneways in

Melbourne, and is admired by many. Originating in the 1980s after it was seen on

MTV from New York hip-hop music videos, street art influenced many young

Melbournians to take up “decorating” the city with their own form of street art. These

people had ‘a thirst for new ways to express themselves’ (Curilo, Harvey, Stamer

2009). They did so at various locations throughout not only the city of Melbourne

itself, but in the city’s inner suburbs too, particularly in St Kilda, Richmond and

Collingwood.

V. Laneways

 

The street art found in the laneways communicates an inclusion of everyone –

those on the outskirts of society and those heavily involved. Stereotypically, street art

is associated with people who may be engaged in other minor crimes. Essentially,

street art does not have many positive connotations to its name. However, being a

major draw card in the laneways, and as a result, this decreases street art’s tarnished

reputation.

Melbourne is a city that thrives off its “coffee culture”. Coffee shops, cafes,

even fast food outlets, all sell coffee. This association linking coffee to Melbourne is

depicted in Melbourne television programs, such as Underbelly, and it is very rare,

when walking through the streets of the city of Melbourne, to not see someone

holding or drinking a coffee. This has been recognized and used to promote the city.

Melbourne’s laneways are lined with coffee shops, each providing what they believe

to be the finest coffee, and each selling endless cups of coffee throughout the day, to

both locals and tourists.

The laneways evoke a sense of superiority to the people in there, who feel as if

they have uncovered a great, hidden treasure when they are in the laneways. This

communicates the city of Melbourne as a “hidden treasure”. In a sense, it defines how

what Melbourne has to offer is covered by the “flashiness” that Sydney emits.

 

References: Curilo, D; Harvey, M; Stamer, K 2009, Kings Way, The Beginning OF Australian Graffiti: Melbourne 1983-93 (Chapter: The Writing Scene) 1st Ed. The Miegunyah Press, Melbourne Rhodes, J in press, ‘Landscapes of Desire’ Til You Drop Shopping: A Melbourne History, viewed 9th March, 20th May, 2010 Rosenthal, L.S 2005, Schmattes: Stories of Fabulous Frocks, Funky Fashion and Flinders Lane, (Page 58) 1st Ed. Shannon Books, Australia