Canberra sites ~ sites in and around the national capital

---

Parliament House Courtyards & Precinct, Canberra

An Interview with Peter Roland

Ralph Neale interviews Peter Rolland of Peter G. Rolland &Associates, Landscape Architects for the new Parliament House in Canberra, Australia.

originally published landscape australia 2/88

Ralph: Aldo Giurgola, with his way of looking at the landscape and giving so much thought to the way the buildings will fit within it as a unified whole, seems to have a different approach to many architects - at least of the old school. This, combined with the Griffin plan, gives me (and perhaps others) the impression that all the hard decisions had already been made when your firm was invited to participate in the project.

Australian landscape architects are often accommodating, but all of them feel disappointed when asked by an architecture office to `do something' with the left-over spaces around a building. They believe that the client would get a much better result if they had been asked to help in the very beginning of the project, when their full talents and experience could have been used.

Is there anything in the suggestion that you were asked to do something with a lot of extremely awkward 'left-over' spaces?

Peter: You could not be further from the truth in such a suggestion. Our firm never accepts commissions anywhere if we are asked to come into a project when the building has already been sited and the `hard decisions' have been made and our services limited to 'shrubbing it up'. I hope that sooner or later the landscape architecture profession in Australia will also be less accommodating and will take a similar stance to the one which we have taken, and which is fairly common in the landscape architecture profession in the USA.

In fact we were in the Parliament House Competition right from the first day, over eight years ago. I don't now recall which decisions about the early concept were made by Aldo and which may have been made by ourselves - it was simply a collaborative approach.

The concept is only 10 % of the process, but in arriving at the concept various alternatives were put up, discussed and weighed in the balance. After this, it was not a matter of the difficult decisions having been made - early concepts and the ultimate execution are equally important.

Site design decisions have to be made constantly, even during construction, and we, the landscape architects have been involved in all of them. There were never any 'left-over' spaces. They were all carefully considered out-door rooms.

Aldo is a great man to work with - a catalyst in the process of design solutions - and we are gratified with our part in the process and hopefully the outcome.

Ralph: In your lecture in Canberra on 15 March 1986 (reported in Landscape Australia 2/1986 p.146) you referred to the lack of detail in Australian work. As a result of your experiences in Australia in the last two years, are you more sympathetic towards the problems that designers have in Australia because of continual cost ovet-runs, which usually mean the landscape budget is cut? The so-called 'Walsh cuts' to the Parliament House landscape must have given you some bad moments.

Peter: We didn't experience any cost over-runs - others did! In regard to the postponement of various landscape items, it was gratifying to see the general support received for the restoration of the landscape works. The public outcry and the support of the professions (including the AILA) pointed to the public's concern that the buildings should blend into the landscape. Questions generally asked were not about the cost of the landscape, but about where money had been used in the building which rightly belonged to the landscape budget. In this respect the project broke new ground in Australia, because of the public's concern.

Ralph: In that same series of lectures mentioned in my last question, Jim Weirick, who knows Canberra well, was very outspoken about the new Parliament House. He said, `We are building a temple to the illusion that we live in harmony with the land. The expensive landscape to be created, in place of the natural landscape that existed before, is "classical in spirit, proclaiming men to be the measure of all things" '. How do you react to the possibility that some Australians will see the green slopes in a brown summer landscape as out of place?

Peter: Look at the cities - people don't want them to be brown! We didn't introduce irrigation to Canberra; it was there, and it was as Griffin intended it to be - largely a green city. Jim's statement was one of basic planning philosophy with little relevance to the site or Canberra in general. The site was not a native landscape, it had been manipulated by the NCDC in past years.

Everything around the site was man­altered. God makes natural landscapes, which Man (more often landscape architects) tries to emulate. We are more concerned about the edges; on how the natural and the manmade meet.

Ralph: The irrigation system is very complex by any standards. In Europe they expend at least 10 % of the cost of the landscape capital works on landscape maintenance each year. This means that an elaborate design requiring continuous maintenance is going to be a financial burden on the public purse. What steps have been taken to minimise landscape maintenance costs at the new Parliament House?

Peter: The site is quite complicated, having to accommodate a wide range of usages, from the large public scale of a ceremonial entry to the privacy of the intimate courtyard. Remember, the complex of buildings accommodates over 3,000 people who are working there and with them come a variety of requirements.

The Forecourt provides a place where 100,000 people can meet. The inner courtyards allow for 1,500 people at, say, a Parliamentary Garden Party, yet, there also have to be places for a group of people to talk in private, or, just as likely, somewhere where one person can contemplate on making a decision which may be very important to us all. The landscape design accomodates this range of scales.

In spite of all this complexity, the irrigation is a relatively simple system. Bernard Peasley of IDC did a tremendous job on providing a'state of the art' system, allowing for the great number of varying ecosystems which exist around the building.

We tend to advise clients early about maintenance costs and this project was no exception. Maintenance will not be extraordinarily high, considering the overall quality of the complex.

We were presented the brief, the budget and the desired design quality. We concerned ourselves a great deal about materials. Our aim from the beginning was to establish a simple vocabulary of materials throughout the project which were tried and true, durable and with an ease of maintenance. As an example, this is why so much granite has been used as paving.

Ralph: Why wasn't the topsoil stock-piled somewhere (outside the limited site-works) for later re-use?

Peter: The relatively small amount of topsoil available from Capital Hill was removed and re-used. Final topsoiling, for good growth and ease of maintenance, was obtained by blending soil from other sites to suit a particular part of the Parliament House site.

Ralph: Would you like to comment about the performance of the landscape contractors who carried out the landscape construction?

Peter: The scale and presence of this project is unique. None of us had ever done a landscape for a Parliament House before, so we all lacked experience, particularly the small contractors. The `fast track' system meant that all landscape contractors had to work under extremely difficult site conditions. With a Construction Manager, we never had direct contact with a landscape contractor - the system didn't permit it. That was sad, because I'm not sure it ever allowed for satisfaction on the contractor's part. In general they have been most co-operative and willing, and the outcome satisfactory.

Ralph: There must have been great problems in co-ordinating landscape construction with the building construction, so that a large part of the works could be completed entirely by the opening day. Could you tell me something of these problems and how they were overcome?

Peter: The Authority had a project planner whose job it was to maintain the complicated scheduling systems required to keep us on the track. `Fast track' is always complicated. There had to be co-ordination of design professionals, suppliers and contractors in all trades.

Our first visit to Australia in August 1980, we were asked to establish the building levels (elevations), so that earth moving could commence even before professional contracts were finalized. By our second visit in November 1980 several hundred thousand cubic metres of stone had already been removed.

Ralph: Why were so many different species of indigenous trees and shrubs used in the Bosquet - as many as 60 different species?

Peter: I think there may be even more than 60. We were warned by those who knew about plants in the ACT that the hill site would be difficult for growing plants. The southern peripheral area was designated to be used as a test area, resulting from discussions with the National Capital Development Commission, the National Botanic Garden and City Parks. From this test area we learned about the soils, irrigation, time and growing sequence, planting methods and the plants themselves. It was an extremely helpful experience. We began with recommended lists which together totalled about 100 species, and these were reduced to about 60 according to results on the test site.

Ralph: No mention has been made by Roger Johnson about the lighting effects at night time. How is it proposed to light the landscape after dark?

Peter: If you mean street lighting, it's a fixture designed by Mitchell Giurgola & Thorp which was then co-ordinated into the overall plan with NCDC for the Parliamentary Triangle.

If you mean the building - the flag and the curved walls - it has been subtly handled with in-ground or built-in floodlights. This is also true of the House, Senate and Executive Building entries, as well as Forecourt walls.

The concept for the landscape lighting was a general low level of light relying on ambient light from the building itself, as well as various low level bollards along walkways. As with the specially designed street lights, the design of these bollards is a factor of their location. Careful attention was paid to their integration into their location, whether it was in the courtyards, entry drive walks or bosquet paths. There aren't any special lighting effects. We didn't feel it was necessary or appropriate.

Nature provides the landscape with moonlight; it's relatively reliable, cost effective and maintenance free.

Ralph: I understand the Parliament House Construction Authority directed that Australian products (and personnel) should be used in the works. Can you tell me of any difficulties you met in obtaining the required hard landscape items within Australia? Have any new industries been started or old ones revitalised because of the new Parliament House?

Peter: Yes, it's true, we were given that directive, it challenged us and we worked within those restraints. For example, once we had reached agreement to use rejected stone intended for the walls as paving, we had cleared a major hurdle. It was more durable, richer in quality and allowed for a variation of scale and a monitored finish better than almost anything else available. Yes, I think the stone industry has benefited greatly from the project.

We had problems overcoming technical hurdles which arose from ingrained local usage, such as concrete roadside kerbs.

A major recurring problem was obtaining quality plant material, even though we had placed orders years ahead. We had anticipated little in the way of problems in this area, largely because of local sources and the prestige of the project in general.

Ralph: Could you tell me something about your office organisation in Canberra and the staff members in your office there? You must have depended on them to accept a great deal of responsibility for the landscape works while you were looking after other projects.

Peter: I have always believed in hiring highly motivated, talented, design-oriented landscape architectural professionals and then giving them responsibility. It keeps them interested, they feel like contributing members of the team and they react favourably to it. I have to thank my partner Shavaun Towers and my Rye (New York) Associates and staff, who held everything together for me to spend the required time in Australia.

The staff in Australia has included the following members, all landscape architects, listed in order of their entry into the project design:

1. Andy Tung, Rye Associate - worked in the Rye office on the competition entry and came to Canberra to set up the Australian office in January 1981.

2. Peter Britz, Senior Project Associate - an Australian who previously worked in the USA for 14 years with Dan Kiley, landscape architect, headed the Canberra office from the beginning and continues on.

3. Mervyn Dorrough, Project Design Associate - previously worked in Harry Howard's office and had the experience of the High Court, the Australian National Gallery, and the Sculpture Gardens as an introduction to ACT sites.

4. Catherine Brouwer - a Queensland landscape architect who joined the staff during the early design phases and continued on throughout the documentation.

5. Richard Horsman, Rye Associate - involved during design and documentation stages.

6. David Kamp, Rye Associate - involved during the design and documentation stages.

7. John Michel, On-site Project Representative. A graduate of the Canberra CAE.

8. Keith Reece, Project Landscape Architect - a graduate of the Canberra CAE course in landscape architecture.

9. Stuart Mackenzie, On-site Landscape Architect - a graduate of the Canberra CAE course in landscape architecture.

These are a superb group of professionals and we had a common understanding of what was required - design quality - all achieved within the overall design team collaboration.

 

<< return to project introduction

---