Thursday, July 1, 2010

Research



Still on the Brisbane Character Code. This got through. Positioned between traditional Queenslanders.


I can see more than 3 traditional homes in a row there. Now how did that happen? Where's the required roof form? And if this is in a Demolition Control Precinct - where is the 'use of contemporary materials with character elements incorporated'? Can someone in the know please explain this to me? Do I have any Brisbane City Council readers?
A-M xx

Images Courtesy Australian Design Review

Addendum
Excerpts from the code. Unfortunately they do not apply to the river elevation. This is what I was querying.

"Street Context - Building form can detract from the character of the street if it conflicts with the established patterns of roof shape and pitch, the relationship between floor and ground levels, and the traditional concept of lightweight verandahs attached to a solid core". Refer to figure b.

"Materials and Detailing: The traditional character of a street can be diminished by styles that do not incorporate shade-forming elements and that present a flat facade to the street. These styles also have poor environmental qualities."

"P5 Performance Criteria: Roof form must reflect traditional roofs in that part of the Demolition Control Precinct
A5.1 Predominant roof forms will include one or more of a combination of pyramids, hips or gables of a similar pitch and proportions to those of pre-1946 houses nearby in the street."

"The purpose of this Code is to: encourage development in Demolition Control Precincts to reflect or strengthen pre-1946 housing character through compatible form, scale, materials and detailing; in conjunction with the Demolition Code, ensure that precincts of pre-1946 houses are retained and redevelopemnt in those precincts complements the pre-1946 houses".

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/bccwr/lib181/chapter5_rdcharacter_code.pdf 

42 comments:

  1. looks like a cereal box! actually it looks like one of those delightful collage things the kids bring home from kindy made from old cereals boxes.... can't see an egg cartons though, or any sticky tape, maybe they don't meet council code either!!!

    Rachael

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would say they argued that the use of the boards 'referenced' the old Queenslander materials. But you are right about the roof line. The mysteries of the local council. I will never understand.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, looks just like a Queenslander to me! Ridiculous. K xx

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is it a case of 'who one knows'?
    What I find appalling is the extemely close proximity some new builds/additions are to neighbours.
    Many properties we viewed were virtually on a boundary, so close you couldn't even walk between house and fence. Apparently all legal!
    Brisbane is certainly changing.
    x

    ReplyDelete
  5. Don't get me started on local councils... I live in Sydney, and there is no doubt in my mind that my local council are on the take and paid off for certain approvals etc. Grrrr

    Luckily I live in a 90 year old californian bungalow that I just love. It's so full of character.

    The plan is to one day inherit my grandparents home which is a double storey brick home. I'm Italian and use this phrase in good humour... "wog mansion!". There is going to be so much work to try and get the outside to look more my style. Will definitely need to come knocking on your door (Cape Cod's door) for advice when the time comes!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Councils are so tricky. You are so clever and wise to be checking all this out before you buy. Unfortunately we were very naive when we bought our home last year- heritage listed. Friends cringed when I said that but I shook it off and just thought it reflected a home with character. Our extension plans are in council now. After a visit this week from the heritage lady I understand their apprehension! Can't wait to see what you find.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A-M, I totally agree with you, that building should never have been approved by the Council. This is a true bug-bear of mine, I believe in retaining the character of old homes but unfortunately the Council breaks its own rules often. I have objected to many a dubious development within my own character zoned neighbourhood only to be told..."council sees merit in the development." Makes me see red! If anyone can make it work it will be you my dear!

    ReplyDelete
  8. All I can say is O.M.G what were they thinking??????

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's amazing what some people can get away with. maybe it is owned by a local councillor or MP
    Alison

    ReplyDelete
  10. Received this from a reader who does not wish her profile to be revealed:

    "Have you any of you actually read the Character Code? That might prompt someone (anyone) to query what this house looks like from the street.

    If you would like to have an intelligent discussion about the planning instrument it helps to fully understand it. Rightly or wrongly, the Character Code only controls the appearance of the house from the street (not the river).

    While you're at it, read the original article for the architect's interpretation:
    http://www.australiandesignreview.com/projects/14880-Bulimba-Boathouse-Owen-and-Vokes

    Also, the 'house' to the left in the image is the old sailing club in a state of demolition. But we'll leave the discussion about context and appropriateness for another day...."

    Dear Reader, yes I have read the Character Code... in detail... and I am not saying that there is anything illegal in what has been created here. I understand that the code applies to how it appears from the street only and not the river. I feel it's unfortunate that through 'technicalities' things can be exploited outside the spirit of the essence of the code, i.e. 'character'. The river elevation is more exposed than the street elevation. In my opinion, it's a pity that there is that loophole in the code which allows a house and it's aesthetic to be at complete odds with everything that is around it .... the designer blurb is irrelevant. The aesthetic is there forever. A-M xx

    ReplyDelete
  11. The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that the it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that the it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I didn't realise my profile was hidden - how do I turn it on! Ah well, my name is Sam.

    My previous post was in response to some of your reader's comments suggesting that money had changed hands in order for the house to be approved / built, when in fact the house fully complies with all of the applicable codes. You yourself also seemed to be confused and had requested 'someone in the know to please explain'.

    Feel free to dislike the appearance of the house on aesthetic grounds - personally I can't stand Chalets and Cope Cod Style houses, except for when they are in Switzerland and Cape Cod.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear A-M,

    I am just wondering why you have not posted my earlier comment, which can be found below this message. I understand that comments are subject to moderation, but there is no swearing in the text, and nothing that is any more offensive in what I have said than any of the first eleven posts are to me... The whole point of having a public blog is to get a cross-section of public opinion about the items that you post. At the moment, this 'cross-section' seems fairly limited to the opinions of people that share your point of view, with one exception, which you have made a huge point of going on to refute. Can you not deal with having comments on your page that are so well-stated about why they are in disagreement with your position? Are you going to continue with this kind of blatant censorship the entire time that you continue to maintain this blog? Seems quite sad that you obviously cannot deal with having an equally strong opposing comment posted on your blog site. I am quite happy to continue to send more comments in all day until my post, which I feel balances the field of opinion that you are presenting here, is published.

    Regards.


    "The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that the it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dear A-M,

    I am just wondering why you have not posted my earlier comment, which can be found below this message. I understand that comments are subject to moderation, but there is no swearing in the text, and nothing that is any more offensive in what I have said than any of the first eleven posts are to me... The whole point of having a public blog is to get a cross-section of public opinion about the items that you post. At the moment, this 'cross-section' seems fairly limited to the opinions of people that share your point of view, with one exception, which you have made a huge point of going on to refute. Can you not deal with having comments on your page that are so well-stated about why they are in disagreeance with your position? Are you going to continue with this kind of blatant censorship the entire time that you continue to maintain this blog? Seems quite sad that you obviously cannot deal with having an equally strong opposing comment posted on your blog site. I am quite happy to continue to send more comments in all day until my post, which I feel balances the field of opinion that you are presenting here, is published.

    "The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that the it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am just wondering why you have not posted my earlier comment, which can be found below this message. I understand that comments are subject to moderation, but there is no swearing in the text, and nothing that is any more offensive in what I have said than any of the first eleven posts are to me... The whole point of having a public blog is to get a cross-section of public opinion about the items that you post. At the moment, this 'cross-section' seems fairly limited to the opinions of people that share your point of view, with one exception, which you have made a huge point of going on to refute. Are you going to continue with this kind of blatant censorship the entire time that you continue to maintain this blog? Seems quite sad that you obviously cannot deal with having an equally strong opposing comment posted on your blog site. I am quite happy to continue to send more comments in all day until my post, which I feel balances the field of opinion that you are presenting here, is published.


    "The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that the it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dear A-M,

    I am just wondering why you have not posted my earlier comment, which can be found below this message. I understand that comments are subject to moderation, but there is no swearing in the text, and nothing that is any more offensive in what I have said than any of the first eleven posts are to me... The whole point of having a public blog is to get a cross-section of public opinion about the items that you post. At the moment, this 'cross-section' seems fairly limited to the opinions of people that share your point of view, with one exception, which you have made a huge point of going on to refute. Are you going to continue with this kind of blatant censorship the entire time that you continue to maintain this blog? Seems quite sad that you obviously cannot deal with having an equally strong opposing comment posted on your blog site. I am quite happy to continue to send more comments in all day until my post, which I feel balances the field of opinion that you are presenting here, is published.

    Regards.


    "The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that the it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am just wondering why you have not posted my earlier comment, which can be found below this message. I understand that comments are subject to moderation, but there is no swearing in the text, and nothing that is any more offensive in what I have said than any of the first eleven posts are to me... The whole point of having a public blog is to get a cross-section of public opinion about the items that you post. At the moment, this 'cross-section' seems fairly limited to the opinions of people that share your point of view, with one exception, which you have made a huge point of going on to refute. I am quite happy to continue to send more comments in all day until my post, which I feel balances the field of opinion that you are presenting here, is published.


    "The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that the it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am just wondering why you have not posted my earlier comment, which can be found below this message. I understand that comments are subject to moderation, but there is no swearing in the text, and nothing that is any more offensive in what I have said than any of the first eleven posts are to me... The whole point of having a public blog is to get a cross-section of public opinion about the items that you post. At the moment, this 'cross-section' seems fairly limited to the opinions of people that share your point of view, with one exception, which you have made a huge point of going on to refute.


    "The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that the it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  20. The whole point of having a public blog is to get a cross-section of public opinion about the items that you post. At the moment, this 'cross-section' seems fairly limited to the opinions of people that share your point of view, with one exception, which you have made a huge point of going on to refute. Can you not deal with having comments on your page that are so well-stated about why they are in disagreement with your position? Are you going to continue with this kind of blatant censorship the entire time that you continue to maintain this blog? Seems quite sad that you obviously cannot deal with having an equally strong opposing comment posted on your blog site. I am quite happy to continue to send more comments in all day until my post, which I feel balances the field of opinion that you are presenting here, is published.


    "The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that the it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  21. I am just wondering why you have not posted my earlier comment, which can be found below this message. I understand that comments are subject to moderation, but there is no swearing in the text, and nothing that is any more offensive in what I have said than any of the first eleven posts are to me...

    "The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that the it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  22. The whole point of having a public blog is to get a cross-section of public opinion about the items that you post. At the moment, this 'cross-section' seems fairly limited to mostly the opinions of people that share your point of view. I am quite happy to continue to send more comments in all day until my post, which I feel balances the field of opinion that you are presenting here, is published.


    "The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that the it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  23. The whole point of having a public blog is to get a cross-section of public opinion about the items that you post. At the moment, this 'cross-section' seems fairly limited to the opinions of people that share your point of view, with one exception, which you have made a huge point of going on to refute. I am quite happy to continue to send more comments in all day until my post, which I feel balances the field of opinion that you are presenting here, is published.


    "The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that the it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  24. The whole point of having a public blog is to get a cross-section of public opinion about the items that you post. I am quite happy to continue to send more comments in all day until my post, which I feel balances the cross-section that you are presenting here, is published.


    "The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that the it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  25. The whole point of having a public blog is to get a cross-section of public opinion about the items that you post. I am quite happy to continue to send more comments in all day until my post, which I feel balances the cross-section that you are presenting here, is published.


    "The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows’, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  26. The whole point of having a public blog is to get a cross-section of public opinion about the items that you post. I am quite happy to continue to send more comments in all day until my post, which I feel balances the cross-section that you are presenting here, is published.


    "The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows’, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  27. The whole point of having a public blog is to get a cross-section of public opinion about the items that you post. I am quite happy to continue to send more comments in all day until my post, which I feel balances the cross-section that you are presenting here, is published.


    "The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows’, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  28. The whole point of having a public blog is to get a cross-section of public opinion about the items that you post. I am quite happy to continue to send more comments in all day until my post, which I feel balances the cross-section that you are presenting here, is published.


    "The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows’, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  29. The whole point of having a public blog is to get a cross-section of public opinion about the items that you post. I am quite happy to continue to send more comments in all day until my post, which I feel balances the cross-section that you are presenting here, is published.


    "The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows’, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  30. The whole point of having a public blog is to get a cross-section of public opinion about the items that you post. I am quite happy to continue to send more comments in all day until my post, which I feel balances the cross-section that you are presenting here, is published.


    "The blog about this house and the subsequent comments are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... The reason that this house was approved has nothing to do with 'who greased whoms palm', 'who one knows’, and it is certainly no 'mystery of local council'. If you had actually bothered to read the character code you would realise that it states that a traditional roof form is only required for the street frontage of a dwelling in the DCP... which this house has. It seems not to have crossed your minds that perhaps the architects that designed this actually did so understanding the regulations set out by the city plan, funnily enough, it is their job to know these things, because they could obviously not be as 'clever and wise' as the rest of you commenting here today...

    Considering that this house uses traditional materials and has clearly been designed to take advantage of the cool breezes that come off the river with the fenestrations and sliding doors to the rear (making it much more sustainable than the majority of new air-conditioned boxes popping up all over Brisbane), I would think that you could find something better to spend your time whinging about - there are plenty of examples of offensive and unsustainable architecture to take your pick from in Brisbane. This house has is quite clearly a very considered design, and yet the attempt here seems to be to skew the perception of it by only looking at it from one perspective - there are no front shots or internal perspectives seen here that would add to giving a complete picture of what the house is as a whole.

    I would hardly call this section of the blog 'research', since very little of this activity actually seems to have gone into your reconstruction of the design intent and the situation that led to its being. If any 'research' had been undertaken, you might have become aware of your lack of knowledge on these matters and held back from making public such unfounded and ignorant opinions."

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hi Bianca, A-M is currently coming home from her holiday and is without internet access until at least Sunday night/ Monday morning. However, if she happens to find some free internet access along the way, I am sure she will get to your comment and respond when she can. Thanks! Katrina (www.katrinaleechambers.com).

    ReplyDelete
  32. Katrina,

    How is it that other people's comments have been approved this morning then, i.e the one above your post that signs off 'A-M xx', which was approved as a comment only twenty minutes before my original post? If she has no internet, then she couldn't possibly write this, and if you have been approving comments for her, then surely you have the authority to approve mine too? I find this difficult to understand, particularly given that your blog links on the righthand side of yoru site have been updated continuously in the last couple of hours. A little ridiculous that you can't just put the post up, since you can obviously make comments under her id.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi Bianca, I am logged in to her account as I am designing her site and she has given me permission to do that (not approve or decide on her comments). Feel free to email me katrina_chambers@bigpond.com and I can explain when she left her computer this morning as she is travelling :)

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thanks for your comments Bianca. I was not available to publish your comments as urgently as you required them to be published as I have been travelling and have been in between hotels and hence away from an internet connection. Wow, and here I am facing a deluge of irate emails from you. Under normal circumstances I would be happy to engage in further conversation regarding our differing opinions, but in this case, I am the weighing up the merits of that, bearing in mind that the tone of your many emails already appears rather personal. This is not an architectural forum. I never claimed to have any special knowledge and in that respect I do not see what happens to be ‘dangerous’ about my personal opinion. If I think something looks like a box on the outside, and looks out of place and is not in the spirit of maintaining consistent character, I am entitled to say so. My personal opinions are actually not a reflection of what is or is not legally compliant with the code (obviously this house is legally compliant) and you have misunderstood my opinion. My ‘research’ can be whatever I want it to be as this is my personal blog. I am not intending to submit my ‘research’ (maybe I should have used another less technical word) for any academic journal or thesis in architecture. I am not in the habit of censoring comments, it just happens to be that most of my readers happen to like what I like. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Thank you for all of yours. A-M xx

    ReplyDelete
  35. A-M, the large number of comments on my behalf was due to what I would definitely consider censorship and an ill set up posting system. Most blog sites do not require comments to be 'moderated' before they are submitted, since the point of having a blog is to put information out there for public opinion. I fail to see why 'moderation' is considered necessary on a web site such as this. How can you not realise that of course it comes across as censorship when other people's comments are 'approved' only 20 mins before I submitted mine, and then hours pass without mine going up? Additionally, I had no way of telling whether the comments were actually being submitted, received numerous error messages from your server. Obviously, only the first of these comments was meant to actually be posted, the fact that you didn’t realise this and put all of them up shows that you have as little knowledge about running a blog as you do about design and architecture.

    Aside from this, I would have to disagree with you not thinking that your opinion is dangerous. The kind of responses that you have provoked from your followers borderline slander, as they imply that someone must have been paid off for a house like this to be built. If you are going to moderate your blog, perhaps not allowing these defamatory comments to be published would be a good place to start...

    ReplyDelete
  36. A-M, the large number of comments on my behalf was due to what I would definitely consider censorship and an ill set up posting system. Most blog sites do not require comments to be 'moderated' before they are submitted, since the point of having a blog is to put information out there for public opinion. I fail to see why 'moderation' is considered necessary on a web site such as this. If you did not have this system in place then you would not have received more than one email. How can you not realise that of course it comes across as censorship when other people's comments are 'approved' only 20 mins before I submitted mine, and then hours pass without mine going up? Additionally, I had no way of telling whether the comments were actually being submitted, received numerous error messages from your server. Obviously, only the first of these comments was meant to actually be posted, the fact that you didn’t realise this and put all of them up shows that you have as little knowledge about running a blog as you do about design and architecture.

    Aside from this, I would have to disagree with you not thinking that your opinion is dangerous. The kind of responses that you have provoked from your followers borderline slander, as they imply that someone must have been paid off for a house like this to be built. If you are going to moderate your blog, perhaps not allowing these defamatory comments to be published would be a good place to start.

    If this is not supposed to be an architectural forum, then don't turn it into one. You are the one that requested someone that knew about the bcc city plan to write in and explain the design, and that is exactly what you got. You even received a link to the designer’s intentions behind the house, which you promptly dismissed as ‘irrelevant’. If you want to comment on architecture, then you should be prepared to deal with receiving feedback from people that obviously know more about it than you. If you can't deal with this, then try keeping your posts to things that are less antagonistic. It is like someone publicly stating about your home "I can't believe that ugly house made the cover of home beautiful, these people obviously have no taste", and expecting not to receive any protests to what they have written. I am all for people sharing their interests in a public forum, but I believe that this can be done without being insulting and slanderous about something that you, quite frankly, know nothing about.

    I am not also not saying that what you post on this blog can't be whatever you want, it is your blog after all, I am just pointing out that it is far from anything that could be considered research. While you make think that this is personal, I assure you that I had nothing to do with the design of this house. The only thing that is personal here is that I take a particular interest here in pointing out the ignorance of people that make ridiculous statements and allow malicious comments about the work of others in my field. And if you can't see the merit of engaging in a debate with someone that obviously knows more about this than you do, that is your loss, because you actually might learn something, regardless of whether or not you actually like the project.

    ReplyDelete
  37. ... And if this is not supposed to be an architectural forum, then don't turn it into one. You are the one that requested someone that knew about the bcc city plan to write in and explain the design, and that is exactly what you got. I saw that you even received a link to the designer’s intentions behind the house, which you promptly dismissed as ‘irrelevant’. If you want to comment on architecture, then you should be prepared to deal with receiving feedback from people that obviously know more about it than you. If you can't deal with the response, then try keeping your posts to things that are less antagonistic. It is like someone publicly stating about your home "I can't believe that ugly house made the cover of Home Beautiful, these people obviously have no taste", and expecting not to receive any objections to what they have written. I am all for people sharing their interests in a public forum, but I believe that this can be done without being insulting and slanderous about something that you, quite frankly, know nothing about.

    I am also not saying that you can't post whatever you want on this blog, it is your blog after all, I am just pointing out that it is far from anything that could be considered research. While you make think that this is personal, I assure you that I had nothing to do with the design of this house. The only thing that is personal here is that I take a particular interest in pointing out the ignorance of people that make ridiculous statements and allow malicious comments about the work of others in my field. And if you can't see the merit of engaging in a debate with someone that obviously knows more about this than you do, that is your loss, because you actually might learn something, regardless of whether or not you actually like the project. Then maybe it could be considered research.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Also, just to let you know, the error that your blog is giving upon posting a comment at the moment, I'm guessing once a certain number of characters is reached, is that the message is too large and cannot be handled. After looking through all of the comments, I can see that all of the messages that I attempted to post, most of which your server informed me were not being processed, have made it into your blog comments. Hence, many of the same thing with a slightly different introduction as I was attempting to cut down the words. Another good reason for removing the moderation function from this blog, but even if you are not prepared to relinquish this control, it is something you might want to look into fixing so that you have a blog that functions preperly. And if you could remove the duplicates of my posts, it would be appreciated and probably make for better reading for your followers, and generally come across as looking more professional.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Gosh totally flabbergasted by all that ranting above. Bianca I see your point, but it's a personal blog. Why would you be so focussed on the timing of comments being approved etc? Make your point and move on. It's a blog. You don't have to keep coming back and getting yourself agitated. I have headache reading that stuff and am feeling agitated myself now. I can only imagine how you feel, and how the owner of this blog feels. We blog because we love it. We love our supporters and we love comments. We also love debate - but this is bordering on something else. Please take a chill pill and relax. It is the weekend. Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Comment from anonymous reader.

    Oh dear, what a shame that healthy and open debate can so quickly degenerate .... Bianca, your passionate reply might well have been more delicately constructed but come on AM "I thought I knew everything 26 years ago when I was at Uni..." is getting a bit silly, Bianca might be doing her PhD at 75 for all we know!!

    As a friend of the owners and a follower of Am's blog throughout my own renovation all I can say is that as much love, passion, blood, sweat and tears went into both your projects. Now a wonderful family committed to amongst other things sustainable living and innovative architecture live here.

    They "greased" no one palms they are not "councillors" and the tone of the debate is both offensive and hurtful. Perhaps people need to reflect that and a moderator needs to "moderate"...my two cents worth!

    (Please withhold my full email address...not sure how this works!)

    ReplyDelete
  41. With all the misconceptions that have ensued during this discussion, please let me be clear about what my initial position was and still is. I am NOT having a go at the design merits of the property, the standard of building, the nature of the materials or the people who live in it… for all I know and care, this property might be the most liveable, brilliantly designed and sustainable building in Brisbane. This however was not my point. My point was purely in relation to context and consistency of a buildings appearance in relation to the houses around it and how that relates to the code. So let me be clear again that I have nothing against the house, the owners, the architects, its sustainability, its interior or how lovely it is to live in!!!!???? I would have actually appreciated the ‘experts’ opinion about what I perceive as anomalies with the code and its interpretation….a position of curiosity, I ,like every other lay person am entitled to have without the need for professional qualifications in order to comment. After this experience, I am still none the wiser. As this is going nowhere, and I can’t get my answers from the ‘experts’, I think we might call this a day. I have had an offer from a lovely, rational Brisbane town planner (thank you Simon) who has offered to sit down with me and discuss the Character Code with me.
    Back to pretty pictures and ramblings about my boys! A-M xx

    ReplyDelete
  42. Oh my A-M I step away for a few days (as do you) and stuff comes out of the woodwork. Love hearing debate on both sides to a certain point. Allons-y A-M, on we go.

    XXOO, A.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to leave me a comment. I love hearing from you. A-M xx