The Haven Committee’s (HAC) response to the Walter Burley Griffin Society’s (WBGS) critique
made 2012 of the The Haven Committee’s concept proposal to redevelop The Haven Amphitheatre
Mr Nick Tobin
General Manager
Willoughby City Council
Dear Mr Tobin
The Haven Amphitheatre Castlecrag Theatre Redevelopment Project
We refer to this project and attach a document setting out:
- list of issues extracted from a letter dated 12 December 2012 from the Walter Burley Griffin Society (WBGS) to the President, Richard Newton, of the Haven Amphitheatre Committee (HAC) and copied to various parties (WBGS letter), and
- response prepared by the HAC and its consultant team (HAC response) to address each of the issues raised in the WBGS letter.
The WBGS letter published without discussion or consultation with the HAC was in response to, and critical of, a concept document prepared on behalf of the HAC (HAC concept report).
The purpose of the HAC concept report had been to seek community support and to attract funding for the redevelopment of the Haven Amphitheatre. The HAC concept report had always only been intended as a starting point for developing a design solution that will
follow a DA process developed by WCC including seeking comments from the community.
Therefore despite the HAC considering the WBGS letter to be flawed in several key areas including Haven history, detail of the Haven site, heritage, materials technology and building practices, finance, architecture and engineering, the HAC had not until now thought it useful or appropriate to formally respond to the issues raised in the WBGS letter.
Following recent events the HAC has realised it is indeed necessary to respond to the issues raised in the WBGS letter.
BACKGROUND
Rationale for redevelopment
The Haven theatre is due for substantial repair and refurbishment. Weather, use and time have continued to ravage the existing largely timber structure built 38 years ago and rebuilt in 1992 by local residents.
In early 2012 the HAC asked a group of prominent architectural, engineering and building experts, namely Fitzpatrick + Partners Architects, ARUP Structural Engineers, and Rennew Constructions to assist in determining what would be required to take the facility into the future, its intention being to pass on to future residents of Castlecrag an enduring legacy of this wonderful unique community performance space unlike any other.
In August 2012 the HAC concept report for a proposal to undertake works to secure the Haven Theatre for future generations was prepared (pro bono) by fitzpatrick + partners architects on behalf of the HAC 2012.
Redevelopment proposal
The proposal is for the new stage to be reshaped and reoriented to optimise the existing audience sight lines and to accommodate a demountable lightweight weatherproof awning.
The proposal would address the code requirements but would not differ greatly from the current situation, except for presenting a cleaner and softer form nestled amongst the trees with the canopy of trees continuing to form the foreground and backdrop for which the Haven Amphitheatre is known and loved. Maintaining the essence and character of the space is crucial. The development of the design will carefully maintain and enhance these
qualities.
In honour of the late Howard Rubie, the HAC’s long standing past president and one who so generously gave of himself to our community for so many years, the HAC intends to name the proposed stage: ‘THE HOWARD RUBIE MEMORIAL STAGE’
Initial Consultation and Responses to the HAC Concept Report
In the first half of 2012 the HAC discussed the proposal with WCC officers, Mayor Pat Reilly and Castlecrag community groups, obtaining their in principle support before completing and showing them and also the Hon Gladys Berejiklian, State Member for Willoughby, the HAC
concept report for the redevelopment of the theatre. Many members of the community and friends of The Haven Amphitheatre sent letters in support of the proposal and their names are listed at the end of the HAC concept report.
The HAC concept report appeared to have been most favourably received by WCC officers, Mayor Pat Reilly and the Hon Gladys Berejiklian, with the Hon Gladys Berejiklian urging the HAC to apply for a State grant to assist in funding the project. The HAC understood at the time from conversations with the Member for Willoughby that she was strongly of the view that a substantive portion of a $100,000 grant may be available for this project given its
calibre and the initiative shown by the HAC.
The Walter Burley Griffin Society Response to the HAC Concept Document
Members of the HAC had a preliminary discussion of the proposal with Professor James Weirick, president of the Walter Burley Griffin Society (WBGS), in mid 2012 and then were finally able to meet with other members of the WBGS at the Haven Amphitheatre in November 2012 to discuss the project. The WBGS expressed concerns with aspects of the proposal, which concerns the members of the HAC thought they had satisfactorily addressed
at that time.
On 12 December 2012 the WBGS emailed the WBGS letter, a 24 page strong critique of the HAC concept report, to Richard Newton, president of the HAC, and openly copied the correspondence to: WCC General Manager Mr Nick Tobin, Mayor Pat Reilly, Hon Gladys Berejiklian, Councillor Gail Giles-Gidney, Secretary of Castlecrag Conservation Society, Secretary of Castlecrag Progress Association and President of WBGS.
Following community division occurring after the emailing of the WBGS letter:
- a significant sponsor of the project who had offered to assist in the design development and documentation of the project has withdrawn its offer due to verbal commentary it was receiving about its involvement in the project. This withdrawn offer constituted a loss of donation in the order of $100,000 of professional service to the project. Further, the potential loss to the community of this sponsor’s assistance in future projects is an unquantifiable tragedy, and
- the HAC’s applications for a State grant for the project were not successful. The attached HAC response includes a detailed list of some eighty eight comments on aspects of the WBGS letter. Included in annexure ‘A ‘ to this letter are just a few examples.
Yours faithfully,
Richard Newton
President – Haven Amphitheatre
M: 0428 88999
richard@thehaven.biz
cc
Deputy Mayor, Councillor Gail Giles-Gidney
Willoughby City Council
The Hon. Gladys Berejiklian MP
James Weirick, president of Walter Burley Griffin Society (WBGS)
WBGS
| The following is the list of issues as submitted by the Walter Burley Griffin Society, (WBGS), to relevant parties in their letter dated 12 December, and the submissions as prepared by the Haven Committee and their consultant team | |||
| The concept document prepared by the Haven Amphitheatre Committee, (HAC), which the Walter Burley Griffin Society, (WBGS) uses as the basis of the objection to the HAC proposal, was for the sole purpose of seeking community support and attracting funding for the Redevelopment of the Haven Amphitheatre. At all times it has been made clear that whilst this document will act as the starting point for developing a design solution, should the project proceed, it would follow a process determined by the Willoughby City Council, including seeking comment from community groups, detailed studies of the heritage values of the site, detailed survey analysis of the existing conditions, environmental assessment of identification of issues etc. The final design solution would then be submitted as a Development Application allowing members of the public to comment further.As such, whilst it is considered that these WBGS objections are early in the project status, the detailed nature of the WBGS’s commentary requires correction and placement in an appropriate context so as to allow the project to proceed to the next phase with a clear understanding of the reality of the issues. | |||
| n | |||
| issue no | page | issue | response |
| 1 | 1 to 5 | statement of history | The following point on page 5, para 1 is not strictly correct: “Architect Robert Sheldon designed a timber stage based on triangular forms, a Griffin design motif.”Architect Robert Sheldon designed a timber stage based on the hexagonal form, a Griffin design motif. |
| 2 | 6 | “…,grant funding of $100,000 has been applied for through the Member for Willoughby….” | The WBGS was explicitly informed that the full amount of $100,000 would not be available through the grant funding discussed with the Member for Willoughby. |
| 3 | 6 | “Members of the HAC have informed the Society that a key potential sponsor will walk away from the deal if the project does not proceed now.” | The WBGS was informed at the onsite meeting that a key potential sponsor may abandon the project if it did not proceed much as described in the HAC Proposal and in a timely manner. This has since been confirmed in writing.Due to community division following on from the broadcast of the WBGS letter, a significant sponsor of the project who offered to assist in the design development and documentation of the project has withdrawn their offer due to a verbal commentary they were receiving about their involvement in the project. This withdrawn offer constituted a donation in the order of $100,000 of professional services. |
| 4 | 6 | “…..the scale and cost of the redevelopment needs to be assessed against the use of the site…..” | It is proposed that the community continues the current use of the site – that is a space which can be used by members of the community for the hosting of performances and community events. The proposal aims to provide a facility which will service current and future generations without the need for major maintenance, extensive community commitments of time and energy and ongoing costs to the wider Willoughby community. A solution is proposed that will address the issues of accessibility for all users, safety, equipment storage and handling, changing and preparation areas and weather protection. The proposal does not recommend a large increase in any of the current facilities, and the proposed modest increase in area is subject to detailed design, detailed assessment of the site constraints etc. |
| 5 | 6 | “A core issue is therefore the cost of the proposed refurbishment against the potential use of the amphitheatre” | The Haven Amphitheatre Committee has included a cost benefit index within the concept submission pack. The Haven Amphitheatre is generally used for about 6 theatrical performances per year and an unknown number of less formal meetings, parties, open air movies and gatherings. The costs relate to achieving a long term and permanent solution for the Haven Amphitheatre – to make sure the space never again becomes derelict due to its inability to be safely used by the community. |
| 6 | 6 | “…removing all the existing timber structure, the majority of which is in good condition and replacing it all with concrete would be a great deal more expensive than repairing the existing timber structure” | The assumption about repairing and making good to the existing timber structure being cheaper than the proposal of a constructing a new facility is possibly correct. Such repairs however do not address the other issues of patron and performer safety and facilities, capability of performances and events to continue in changing weather situations and the ongoing maintenance and repair costs of the existing facility – the majority of the works in the last 36 years having been undertaken by the existing Haven Amphitheatre Committee at their own time pro bono. |
| 7 | 6 | “Much less money would need to be raised to repair and renovate the existing stage.” | Whilst the existing stage could be repaired for a lower cost than that of the proposal, the proposal is not just a “make good” solution. It is a once in a lifetime opportunity to renew the Haven Amphitheatre for current and future generations. The funds generated now will remove the need for costly and undefined ongoing maintenance, achieve a performance space which can be used more safely in different weather conditions, provide appropriate safety upgrades to the stage and address the substandard facilities available to the operators, guests and performers alike. |
| 8 | 6 | “A structural Assessment of the existing structure prepared by an independent consultant would reveal the extent of deterioration to the structure and it would also assist in assessing the funds needed for ongoing expenses.” | Whilst such an assessment would correctly determine the state of the existing structure, it would not assist in assessing the costs of repair or any ongoing expenses as this would be outside the expertise of the consultant. Such a report would also be significant in cost, and add very little value, as the existing state of the structure is clearly visible. The existing structure has been viewed by the consultant team who have drawn the conclusions in the proposal. |
| 9 | 6 | “…the cost effectiveness of a heavily engineered concrete structure and repairs and modifications to the existing stage needs to be rigorously assessed.” | The proposed structure is appropriately designed to be fit for purpose. Its structural solution inventively allows the position of columns and other supporting structure to be modified such that it can avoid any existing structural impediments without damaging such (ie tree roots, major rock floaters etc.) A reinforced concrete structure is a highly cost effective construction technique, allowing construction to occur with minimal impact on the surrounding environment during construction and throughout its life. The completed structure will require minimal ongoing maintenance, and would be expected to have a lifespan exceeding 100 years.This material was extensively used by Walter Burley Griffin, such examples including all Knitlock construction, faux stone walls and many special function buildings such as incinerators. |
| 10 | 6 | “As the timber is now decades old very little of the residual treatment would be left on the outside surfaces of the timbers as a health risk” | Neither the Haven Amphitheatre Committee nor its consultant team have the skills, expertise or financial means to assess the current treatment levels to the structural timbers. This is considered to be an ongoing unacceptable liability for our community, noting that what today can be assessed as safe and acceptable, may not be for future generations. Moreover, appraisals* by the CSIRO, suggest that CCA treatment may extend the life of timber as used in the now 36 year old stage structure up to four decades or more. A new structure appropriately designed, removes these safety issues, as well as potential deterioration and pollution, providing a community facility that is safe for future generations. A concrete solution over timber or steel was proposed by the consultant team, as it addressed the brief requirements – that being a structure which would require minimal to no maintenance, and achieve a lifespan of up to 100 years. Others options would be explored during the design development phase, in response to the detailed brief for the project prepared by the Willoughby City Council. * “The Facts about CCA Treated Timber” CSIRO 28 Oct 2008 |
| 11 | 6 | “Decayed timber would need to be replaced, which would most likely be treated pine. Today, chemical treatment of treated pine is no longer such a health risk and is Australian Standards compliant.” | The Haven Amphitheatre Committee acknowledges that if a timber structure was considered, it could be constructed using timbers appropriate for the area and type of construction. The Committee and its consultants do not have the expertise to assess all the implications of treated timber, nor the risks to the surrounding environment or people that come into contact with it. As another more appropriate method of construction is available, it is considered that there is no need to assess such risk, or future unknown risk. A timber structure will not have the lifespan of a reinforced concrete structure, requiring further significant financial outlay by future generations. The proposed solution removes the financial drain, assuring the continuation of a performance space at The Haven. As the community is the long term owner of this asset which is managed by the Willoughby City Council, it seems a responsible solution to propose a long term, minimal cost outcome. |
| 12 | 6 | “If this is still a concern regarding health risk, however, the timbers located near people movement could be sealed or clad to eliminate any chance of risk.” | The extent or potential of health concerns is unknown. Sealing any timber structure sets up a regime for the continual resealing of that material at regular intervals. This implies a significant maintenance regime and associated costs – which the proposed solution has minimised by constructing the works from a material requiring little to no maintenance. Cladding timber has the risk of “hiding” any problems, such as rot, white ant attack etc. This is not a recommended solution for timber structures in a bushland setting. Other issues of compliance with construction in bushfire prone zones may prohibit exposed timber construction – as is experienced in many areas of Castlecrag (Edinburgh Road, Sunnyside Crescent, Sugarloaf Crescent etc) |
| 13 | 7 | “What is proposed would change the site significantly” | The proposal would be a change to the current situation. It would create a visually simpler solution, able to be safely used by the community, and more accessible. It would address the code requirements which are considered the norms of society, such as equitable access for the disabled, safety in use, safety in the design of public structures etc. The aesthetic outcome would not differ greatly from the current situation, except presenting as a cleaner and softer form nestled amongst the trees, with the canopy of trees continuing to form the foreground and backdrop – for which The Haven Amphitheatre is known and loved. Maintaining the essence and character of the space is crucial. The development of the design would carefully maintain and enhance these qualities. |
| 14 | 7 | “…the impact of the proposal on the Haven glen, its rocks and landforms, the creek, trees and vegetation, appears to have been given a lower priority than other aims” | The concept to which this objection refers is not the final proposal as outlined at the top of this response. All the elements of rock, land form, the creek, trees and vegetation are critical parts of the essence and character of the site. The design concept presented to date nestles itself within these elements, creating a softer and visually lighter response to site than the current irregular stage. This is particularly clear when the Haven is viewed from lower in the gully looking up. The concept has the flexibility to be developed further to respond to its site, particularly as more heritage, environmental and landscape elements become defined through the process. |
| 15 | 7 | “It is the performances / events that should be tailored for the site rather than the site made suitable for all conceivable performances / events.” | Both performance and space are uniquely blended to allow any performance at The Haven Amphitheatre to be special. There is no intent to modify the performance space to allow it to cope with anything. The Haven Amphitheatre has unique qualities which define a production, whether visual, acoustic, scale, weather or patrons. This will not change. The proposal is to create a future for The Haven Amphitheatre as a performance space, not reliant on the force, energy and money of a few. It is for the future generations that this proposal is put forward. |
| 16 | 7 | “The heritage significance of the site is its unique setting in a natural glen or gully.” | The Haven Amphitheatre Committee agrees with this statement. It would also add that the heritage significance of the site is also related to its origination, the donors that made this possible, the people that have performed, managed, built, designed, rebuilt and maintained the facility at little or no cost to the community. The heritage of this space is rich in such stories, and these need to be recorded, reflected and maintained. They will be partly referenced by the proposal to create Smart Phone accesible Augmented Reality, (AR), icons embedded in places around the Haven such as the railings around the ticket platform (viewing platform). These will access the Haven web site and offer heritage value statements, film clips and history. AR will offer opportunities for referencing other weblinks on these plaques to direct interested parties to the stories and history not just of the Haven Amphitheatre but also of the wider community. The most important way to respect and reference the issue of place is to assure that the history will continue to be made as the Haven Amphitheatre’s future will be assured. |
| 17 | 7 | Therefore the creek needs to be left as natural as possible together with the natural vegetation and rocks which are integral to the site.” | The creek has been significantly deviated from its original course. Stories are told that this occurred originally at the time of the construction of the adjacent road and piping of the creek. Reconstructions of the theatre over time have further modified its location. One option identified was to enclose the creek in a culvert (as was done throughout Castlecrag) as it passes under the infrastructure. This is the current situation, where the enclosure is more in the form of timber hoardings, FC and rock walls. Other alternatives have been suggested such as modifying the basement planning to clear the current creek position, allowing the structure to span the current creek position. All these options are to be further assessed. The intent is that the extent of the creek which is visible will not be reduced relative to the current situation. There will be no further modification of the creek and its containment than history has previously provided. |
| 18 | 7 | “The indigenous trees with their random branches and glimpses of the harbour are a key to the uniqueness of this space – it is the only amphitheatre in the world exactly like this” | The Haven Amphitheatre is unique to its location, just as other external performance spaces around the world are unique to theirs. There is no intention to lessen these unique qualities. |
| 19 | 7 | “A key concern of the WBGS management committee is that the HAC proposal, as it stands, appears to be over-engineered for the site” | The solution is not over engineered but is a considered and appropriate engineering response prepared by one of the world’s leading engineering practices in response to a brief of flexibility, efficiency and longevity.The concept has not received any engineering input past basic conceptual sketches to allow for budgeting. The design solution prepared to date is sophisticated in its thinking, allowing a flexibility of structure to permit the installation of the supporting columns in the most suitable locations so not to disturb the natural elements of the site such as rocks, creek, tree roots etc. Further options are to be studied which include larger edge beam structures to minimise the number of columns, suspended lower level or lost form to minimise impact on the existing ground conditions. etc. |
| 20 | 7+8 | “The Society feels that the concept should be adjusted to include some irregular and idiosyncratic features like the tree through the stage to retain the natural character of the site.” | Such suggestions as these will further enhance the design solution, making it unique to its place. Care needs to be made not to “disney-fy” any such solutions such as with artificially created forms and shapes. |
| 21 | 8 | “….the impact of other construction activities has yet to be addressed.” | The impact of construction activities related to the project has been discussed at high level. The ideas around construction methodologies and materials were based on developing a thinking of how to reconstruct The Haven Amphitheatre facilities without causing an impact on the surrounding environment and heritage. This requires further rigorous consideration, and will form part of a final Development Application for the works. It would be expected that this would then form part of the tender for the works. |
| 22 | 8 | “…the use of concrete could result in potential damage to the site in constructing heavy formwork or spillage during concreting” | No heavy formwork is proposed. Other issues of environmental protection can be controlled with a detailed construction management plan and suitable site supervision. All these elements will be covered in the Development Application and most likely will form part of any tender for the works. |
| 23 | 8 | “…concrete needs large formwork sheets and steel reinforcing sheets to be brought in and initially stacked up on site in a 2 to 5 metre construction zone outside of the footprint of the concrete slab to be constructed and its scaffolding” | Formwork sheets will be of the size most efficient to carry out the construction works. These materials are limited in size due to manhandling and weight, generally 1.2m x 2.4 metres (standard sheet size). Reinforcement bars are more likely to be used than sheet reinforcement as used in residential construction.A detailed construction plan has not been prepared at this time. Different methodologies have been discussed such as defining a material handling zone outside of the site, or even the potential of a scaffolding platform being erected over the stone seating (both to protect and to provide a work area). All these elements will be covered in the Development Application and most likely will form part of any tender for the works. |
| 24 | 8 | Photographs of an Angophora in The Haven and a building site. | The Angophora pictured in the top photograph on page 8 of the WBGS letter is well away (many meters) from any proposed concrete structure of the proposed slab. Moreover concrete columns can be positioned so as to avoid any interference with the tree. The lower photograph of the construction site bears no resemblance to the HAC Proposal in size or scope and is therefore not relevant and appears to be misleading. |
| 25 | 9 | “…while concrete may have a longer life than treated timber, it will eventually deteriorate with time. When that time comes, its replacement in such a location poses a large burden on a future generation. It would all have to be jack-hammered into blocks and craned out, which would potentially be very destructive of this natural site.” | The structure is being proposed to be built with a 75 to 100 year life span. Concrete structures such as the Pantheon have lasted much longer. Cutting or breaking concrete up into manageable pieces is a practice used around the world for demolition of structures in difficult locations such as high rise office towers, city spaces and sensitive sites. Craning is not required and besides is not the most efficient methodology. This allows the components to be simply removed from the site, by carrying them out. Smart design of structure such as minimising columns etc also assists in this (ie less footings). |
| 26 | 9 | “The rocks….need to be protected as they are an important aspect of the glen’s amenity and the amphitheatre’s heritage significance” | This statement is correct. It is the intent that all visible rocks, or major rock outcrops not be destroyed, perhaps even revealed in the planning of the eventual solution. |
| 27 | 9 | “The proposed excavation of the undercroft area of proposal (p15) poses the risk of damage to the Prometheus Rock, and the creek bypass.” | The rock pictured on page 9 of the WBGS letter does not appear to be the rock referred to as the Prometheus Rock by Marion Mahony Griffin (MM). The rock on page 9 of the WBGS letter is on the far western side of the creek and under the existing stage whereas the Prometheus Rock (shown in the photograph on page 3 of the WBGS letter) was on the eastern side of the creek in the area MM used for a stage. |
| 28 | 9 | “The stage drainage is not indicated nor is ventilation for the undercroft.” | The proposal at this time is conceptual, and has been prepared to harness community and funding support. The engineering systems will be developed as part of a Development Application. The drainage and ventilation systems will appropriately address the historical, contextual and environmental issues. The drainage (storm water run off) is not considered a major issue, as the stage footprint is only a small increase on the current situation. Appropriate solutions will be developed to maintain the ground water flows, and not create spot peak loads often created by the “dumping” of run off in a single concentrated spot. |
| 29 | 9 | “The two young trees and tree ferns near the existing stage would not survive the construction.” | Any trees not within the actual footprint of construction, and considered worthy or retention by an appropriately qualified person, would be appropriately protected during the construction phase. This includes their root zones. |
| 30 | 9 | “The magnificent large mature and healthy angophora close to the southern corner of the stage, is outside the current plans for the stage area, but even so may not survive the proposed concrete construction.” | Any trees not within the actual footprint of construction, and considered worthy or retention by an appropriately qualified person, would be appropriately protected during the construction phase. This includes their root zones. The major anaphora referred to is especially significant and its protection is of particular concern to the HAC. |
| 31 | 9 | “Any construction needs to touch the earth lightly. The existing timber structure does that but the proposed insitu concrete would not.” | “touching the earth lightly” is a phrase used throughout history to refer to different construction methodologies. It is most often referenced to the works of Australian Architect Glenn Murcutt.The Aboriginal proverb – ‘touch the earth lightly’ – plays a central role in the inception of his designs, solidifying the intimate relationship between the built and natural environment (Murcutt 2003, 7).This approach is not defined by materials, but by approach to site, construction methodology and detailing. Any material can achieve this relationship with the natural environment. The existing stage structure was defined by an ease of construction and materials. It used the constraints of the site where it could, and it modified others where it could not. It visually sits in, across and over the land. It does not technically touch the ground lightly, nor visually. The concept proposed has the ability to right the thinking of previous times, and physically touch the ground at lesser points, but more importantly to visually be at balance with the natural environment. |
| 32 | 9 | “Achieving the HAC’s objective requires a solution that ‘more lightly touches the landscape’, so a less damaging option is required.” | The intent is to provide a solution which is appropriate for the site and function.“touching the earth lightly” is a phrase used throughout history to refer to different construction methodologies. It is most often referenced to the works of Australian Architect Glenn Murcutt. The Aboriginal proverb – ‘touch the earth lightly’ – plays a central role in the inception of his designs, solidifying the intimate relationship between the built and natural environment (Murcutt 2003, 7).This approach is not defined by materials, but by approach to site, construction methodology and detailing. Any material can achieve this relationship with the natural environment. The existing stage structure was defined by an ease of construction and materials. It used the constraints of the site where it could, it modified others where it could not. It visually sits in, across and over the land. It does not technically touch the ground lightly, nor visually. The concept proposed has the ability to right the thinking of previous times, and physically touch the ground at lesser points, but more importantly to visually be at balance with the natural environment. |
| 33 | 10 | “The two distinct groups of tiered sandstone seats are part of the historic heritage of the site. Joining them together with new seats would confuse the heritage and understanding of the original 1930s seating on the western side and the group of 1970s and 1990s seating on the northern side.” | The timber overflow seating is to provide further seating to performances where required. It is also to provide protection to people sitting in these seats, whether young children or elderly members of the audience. Similarly the seating provides protection at the stage level to the drop off into the creek. It is felt this light weight bridging between the stone seats maintains this separation and resolves the safety issue. There is not an alternative to do nothing, and a railing of any sort would disturb the lines of sight to the stage as well as be visually intrusive and inappropriate. The sight of any barrier between a section of the audience and the stage precisely damages the intimacy developed in the audience/actor relationship. The concept of timber seating is appropriate and the success of the solution will be delivered by careful design and delivery of these seats.It is the intention to preserve the tree ferns in the region of the proposed seating. |
| 34 | 10 | “The HAC proposal does not present a rationale for increasing the number of seats. Increasing the seating would change the whole visual character of the amphitheatre and impact on its heritage.” | The timber overflow seating is to provide further seating to performances where required. It is also to provide protection to people sitting in these seats, whether young children or elderly members of the audience. Similarly the seating provides protection at the stage level to the drop off into the creek. It is felt this light weight bridging between the stone seats maintains this separation and resolves the safety issue. There is not an alternative to do nothing, and a railing of any sort would disturb the lines of sight to the stage as well as be visually intrusive and inappropriate. The sight of any barrier between a section of the audience and the stage precisely damages the intimacy developed in the audience/actor relationship. The concept of timber seating is appropriate and the success of the solution will be delivered by careful design and delivery of these seats.It is the intention to preserve the tree ferns in the region of the proposed seating. |
| 35 | 10 | “…the creek is a particularly important element and needs to be respected in its natural state.” | The creek today barely resembles the creek of the 1920s. Increased runoff, changing weather patterns and various building programs have dramatically altered not only the shape and flow of the creek but also its flora and fauna ecology. Regardless of this, nature has again demonstrated its ability to overcome such impediments and the creek presents as a natural waterway in its visual zones. This will be protected. |
| 36 | 12 | “Concrete requires maintenance in the long term and ultimately comes to the end of its workable life.” | Appropriately designed concrete structures minimise the need for maintenance. Concrete structures can have an exceptionally long life if properly designed and constructed using present day concrete technology. The examples of failure cited were poorly built with outdated concrete technology. The methodology related to demolition of concrete or any structure is discussed above. |
| 37 | 12 | “Reinforced concrete rectification works at the MLC Centre in the city costing millions of dollars are currently under way to this building that opened only 34 years ago, due to the concrete cancer in the pre-fabricated exterior reinforced concrete elements.” | Structures fail for many reasons. Generally spalling occurs where corrosion of the reinforcement causes internal pressures in the matrix through the expansion of materials. Whilst there are many technical papers related to the MLC situation, none are appropriate to this situation, as the construction methodology proposed is very different, not requiring layered coatings and decorative mixes. The final engineered solution will use and will be based on World’s best work practice and knowledge. |
| 38 | 12 | “Given this uncertainty over the life of a concrete structure and the potential impact on the site of its eventual removal, an alternative such as timber with a 25 year asset life deserves more serious consideration.” | There is no uncertainty related to the design life of the structure. |
| 39 | 13 | “Nevertheless, members of the committee felt that the proposed folding awning over the stage would be very large.” | The awning is appropriately sized to create cover for the back of stage zone. It will also have the potential to support a small lighting rig. |
| 40 | 13 | “…its impact on tree limbs and branches in its path, such as the large graceful limb of the Angophora that creates a bower over the stage, or of the concrete foundations for the pivoting awning on the natural rocks, have yet to be addressed.” |
The WBGS committee members were shown on site just where the proposed awning would be situated and it was clear that no significant trees were in the proposed awning’s range, particularly the Angophora mentioned.Through design development, if it was found that any significant trees or branches were to be affected, the design solution would be adjusted to resolve this conflict. |
| 41 | 13 | “The Society is concerned that the awning’s storage box/balustrade around the stage would be a permanent visually solid obstruction to the views of the bushland and glimpses of Middle Harbour that can be seen now through the existing stage balustrade.” | A compliant balustrade solution is required for this edge. The current handrail does not comply with the relevant codes. The design suggestion for the awning enclosure element used its width and sloping top to minimise the height so to comply with the codes, but achieve a visually lower solution than the current installation. However while a simple and honest visual test on site demonstrates that the eye tends to look over the current railing and not through it, any design which places the storage box out of sight would be preferred. |
| 42 | 13 | “…the folding awning as currently proposed is considered to be a complex mechanical device that appears out of place for a little bush theatre to use a few times each year.” | The proposed awning is a simple, manageable and demountable device which will serve the Haven theatre going community well for generations to come. It will be lightweight and easily / rapidly assembled by the committee members and stage operators. With rain insurance hard to achieve if not financially restrictive, such an awning is critical for the financial health of the Haven Amphitheatre and any community groups that wish to use the facility, in turn taking on any financial risk or obligation related to a function, or performance. |
| 43 | 13 | “The Society appreciates the need for capacity to protect the instruments of small string groups from rain and it is not opposed to a temporary roof that touches the earth lightly and does not have a visually solid storage box/rail.” | Such a weather protection awning will be useful for all equipment and in particular for the extensive electronic equipment used in modern theatre, music and lighting. Moving such equipment out of the rain quickly and keeping water off a section of the stage greatly improves safety issues for performers and crew alike. The need for a code compliant handrail as a non negotiable safety issue is discussed above. The awning support structure is subject to further detailed design, and may in fact not be required to touch the ground at all. |
| 44 | 13 | “There seems to be no assessment of useful life / maintenance of awning, nor viability in wind both with regard to stability and flapping sound when the awning is raised.” | The proposal is at concept stage only. Similar awnings are used around the world for such enclosures and more significant scale ones such as stadiums, theatres etc. They are also extensively used for housing enclosure. The membrane and therefore design of the fabric in tension results in a rigid but flexible structure. It is proposed that the awning would be raised when the weather was too inclement to have performers or their equipment on stage unprotected. The fabrics generally have a warranted lifespan between 25 to 50 years depending on the specification and budget. This lifespan is for a fully external structure. As such, it is considered that such a protected system would have a lifespan of at least a similar or longer period. The rigid supporting structure for the membrane would have a longer life than the membrane. |
| 45 | 13 | “HAC has not commented on the possible restrictions on stage visibility when the awning is raised.” | The awning is designed to protect the backstage area. The fore stage, or primary performance space is not protected. Viewing from fixed seating to either the backstage or fore stage is not and will not be hindered. |
| 46 | 14 | “The proposed concrete stage is quite a large surface” | The current proposal prepared to seek community and funding support shows a small increase in area over the existing stage. This is primarily through defining a geometric form that nestles within the arch of the existing seating – therefore defining the back curve. The oval format is constructed by the placement of two equal diameter circles, to create the fore stage and back stage. This pure geometry is then related to the form of the folding awning structure, and the prefabricated and uniform sections of handrail/awning enclosure.The geometry and area of the stage will be further refined during design development. In terms of a performance space, the stage area which incorporates the side stage and back stage zones is considered to be small – appropriate for the context. |
| 47 | 14 | How is it proposed to be drained with the drain between the stage and the seating carrying all the stage and seating water and where does the run-off water go | The final engineering design of the storm water system is not yet resolved. The small amount of water this stage collects will be appropriately dispersed back into the landscape and the creek as it has done for the last 37 years. |
| 48 | 14 | “How is it proposed to make the sewerage connection for the shower, toilets and green room facilities?” | The proposal at this time is conceptual, and has been prepared to harness community and funding support. The engineering systems will be developed as part of a Development Application. The existing WC and waste systems are already connected to the sewerage line and further drainage and waste systems will appropriately address the historical, contextual and environmental issues. |
| 49 | “Will any concrete component elements be washed off into surrounding landscape or watercourse?” | The project construction team will be required to prepare a detailed construction management plan to their methodology of construction. This will include specifying operational safety guards to stop such events from occurring, and systems to action should any such event occur. This will form a part of the tender assessment and selection of the preferred contractor. The consultant team advised that systems can be put in place to stop such issues from occurring. | |
| 50 | 14 | “The Society seeks an alternative to the concrete block wall and concrete slab floors, which would be detrimental to the retention of the rock boulders.” | The concept scheme to date has discussed several options for the walls around the lower level. Concrete floor systems remain the preferred solution. Systems such as formwork have not been determined as yet. Such systems will limit any damage to the existing landform, particularly major rocks and outcrops. It is the intent of the design team wherever possible to integrate the landform and rock outcrops into the design solution, becoming part of the solution, and adding another layer of contextualism to the proposal. This will be part of the concept development up to Development Application, but it is noted that the design solution will be flexible enough to work within unidentified opportunities and constraints as determined once the demolition and new construction commences. |
| 51 | 15 | “Productions need to be catered for within the limitations of the site and its natural setting” | In the 1930s the Griffins covered the western side of the gully with hewn stone blocks to cater for the Haven Amphitheatre seating. In the 1970s and the 1990s the local residents constructed stages and further seating. The site has been modified to cater for theatre productions throughout its entire known history. The proposed re-construction of The Haven Amphitheatre continues this pattern, upgrading the asset in line with contemporary needs – safety, access, performance, equipment, durability and the minimisation of ongoing maintenance of any public owned asset.Productions will continue to respond to the site and its natural beauty. The Haven Committee does not consider this a limitation, but an asset to be treasured and protected. |
| 52 | 15 | “Developing the Haven Amphitheatre into a fully operating quasi indoor theatre with state-of-the-art productions appears inappropriate given its scale and context and its historical and cultural heritage significance.” | The Proposal is to replace a deteriorating community asset with a modest concrete stage that will have a long life span, require minimal maintenance and address the contemporary issues of access and safety. The proposal does not seek to create a state-of-the-art facility. The facility will be of its place, responding in scale to its locale and its community. The equipment level carefully procured by the Haven Committee over a significant period of time will not be replaced or lost as part of this proposal. The solution will in fact help with the protection of these assets, extending their useful life well into the future.The theatre will not be an indoor theatre of any form. The folding awning provides weather protection to performers and equipment in inclement weather only. The issues or historical and cultural heritage are discussed above, and will be further studied during the design development phase of the project. As discussed, the proposal seeks to continue the historical and cultural heritage uses of the site, carefully recording and protecting what has gone before, and creating the framework for a future of the site.Continuing its patterns of use must be considered one of the most appropriate ways to respect the historical and cultural heritage of place. |
| 53 | 15 | “An important part of the Haven amphitheatre is its limitations and it is this difference which makes it so special. The proposal in respect of this aim appears to be overly ambitious for a community resource that should remain understated.” | The HAC is committed to preserving not just the environmental amenity that it has nurtured for the last 36 years but also the Haven’s cultural heritage in its performances and functions. Limitations are continually remedied and that has been the case since the early 1930s. The addition of seating, then the stages in 1976 and 1992 together with the addition of underground lighting, power and audio cabling in the last few decades have remedied “limitations” so called and allowed the Haven’s cultural history to continue to be written. |
| 54 | 16 | “The estimated maintenance cost of $782,000 over next 10 years appears to an over-estimation particularly given “The stage and undercroft are generally in a fair state of repair …” (p10).” | There is no statement in the HAC proposal about the estimated maintenance costs for the next 10 years. The NPV figure of $782,000 is quoted in the Proposal. The notion of Net Present Value has been widely used since the 1950s to offer an index of the value of a cash stream over time, in today’s money. In this case the figure represents the Net Present Value of the stream of costs, including the previously freely given labour of the HAC, (now expensed), of maintaining the existing structure for the next 20 years and its inevitable replacement with a new structure. In this context the figure shows that it is worth more to the Council, even without the community contributions, to do the job now rather than to postpone it. |
| 55 | 16 | “In its (HAC) view, today’s new residents are not prepared to put in time on voluntary building work, nor are there new faces coming forward to help with the planning and staging of events at the venue.” | The HAC has made the point that while in the past residents had the time and were prepared to carry out building works at the Haven, this is no longer the case. This is not only because the present committee has aged and new residents have little time for these matters but more importantly because current legislation and insurance requirements prohibit all but licensed specialists from carrying out such works. |
| 56 | 16 | ..”nor are there new faces coming forward to help with the planning and staging of events at the venue.” | At no time did the HAC state that new residents were not prepared to assist with the planning and staging of events. The point referenced refers to the need to create other ways for the community to be involved that do not require significant outlays of time and labour. It is clear that the contemporary lifestyle with its pressures on time related to work, family and other commitments does not leave as much time for people to “give” to their communities. The proposal seeks to remedy the issues inherent with the current structures at The Haven, which require continual checking, maintenance, and repair, as well as significant time commitments for a few to prepare for productions. By easing the workloads required by members of The Haven Committee, it is hoped to attract more people from the community to become actively involved in this facility. |
| 57 | “The estimated maintenance cost of $782,000 over next 10 years appears to an over-estimation particularly given “The stage and undercroft are generally in a fair state of repair …” (p10) “ | Refer to response point 54 above. | |
| 58 | 16 | “As discussed above, concrete will also deteriorate with time and possibly more quickly if it gets concrete cancer.” | Refer to response above, particularly to response points 36, 37 and 38. |
| 59 | 16 | “The challenges of a reinforced concrete construction on this site also need in-depth assessment. Concrete reinforcement needs to have at least 25mm of concrete covering it. If the reinforcing gets too close to the surface there is a propensity to decay. To achieve this in the small steep and uneven gully would be considerably more difficult for a builder than in a regular site or off site prefabrication.” | The structural solution will be designed to all relevant standards and codes. These address the issues of reinforcement protection and coverage. The location causes no limitations to the concrete insitu type of construction, and is in fact the most appropriate, requiring the placement of small light weight components (formwork and reinforcement) and with the concrete being able to be simply pumped onto the form table. This construction methodology in fact provides the potential for the least amount of impact on this site.Prefabrication is inappropriate for a site of this type, due to the requirement to crane building elements into position. This would potentially damage existing trees, branches, surrounding pavement etc. |
| 60 | 16 | “The concerns that HAC have about new residents not being prepared to put in time on voluntary building work, nor with the planning and staging of events, could equally apply to audience numbers which could also dwindle. If that happened, under this proposal the glen would be left with a decaying concrete bunker.” | The HAC is not concerned about new residents not being prepared to put in time on the planning and staging of events. See Points 55 and 56 above. The HAC believes that audience numbers will almost certainly dwindle if the theatre function of the Haven Amphitheatre is not nurtured and made relevant to the needs of modern patrons.The proposal seeks to ease the time and effort required to consider any use of The Haven, making it again the obvious choice for impromptu, formal or casual community events.The proposal is not to build a bunker, but a community performance space, consisting simply of a stage, a lightweight folding awning, and an undercroft housing storage, changing and bathroom facilities. |
| 61 | 16 | “Accordingly, whatever is constructed should be easy to remove in order to leave the glen in its beautiful natural state undamaged.” | It is not intended that the facility be removed, breaking with the history and patterns of use of the site. Should this unforeseen event occur, the facility could be adapted to an unknown use, or could as proposed be simply demolished and carried out of the location. A similar consideration of site could be used against any Griffin designed residence in Castlecrag. Just because one may not be used for its intended use as a house in the future, would not suggest it should be removed. (eg the Incinerator) In any case, such removal would require significant site works to be undertaken to re mediate the site to its original context. Neither option is thought to be worth considering. |
| 62 | 17 | “The Griffins had a deep respect for the landscape. This respect was clearly shown at the Haven Amphitheatre where they left the bush and “little stream” intact, used the rocks as stage platforms and didn’t build a stage.” | The Griffins did not leave the bush intact. They built over the western side of the gully with stone seating and walled the northern edge with stone. One could ask why the Griffins did not build a stage. It may have been because they poured all their resources into building the roads and had few funds available. In the period that the Griffins were involved directly with the development of the Haven, the company had sold a great deal of the land but the Griffins had sold only a handful of dwellings. They were continually facing financial problems, problems with their shareholders and backers and even court cases. Moreover they faced increasing resistance from potential clients to their rigid building restrictions. It seems inconceivable that their backers would have approved the expenditure for a theatre stage. Sandstone on the other hand was plentiful, inexpensive and the labour to construct with same was freely given.The creek today barely resembles the “little stream” of the 1920s. Increased runoff, changing weather patterns and various building programs have dramatically altered not only the shape and flow of the creek but also its ecology. |
| 63 | 17 | “A core concern of committee members is that the core concept that any man-made structures in the glen/ dell should respect its natural landscape with sympathetic construction that touches the earth lightly. In 20 years time or 100 years time when the structure and stage decay, it should be able to be repaired or removed without damage to the natural beauty and ecology of the site. In short, te delicate and sensitive nature of the glen should not be disfigured by an unsympathetic structure and /or construction methods.” | The responses to this point are discussed above, particularly in response points 31,32,50 and 52. |
| 64 | 17 | “The top of the Prometheus rock is just evident at the same level as the existing stage in the eastern corner. Accordingly, a particular concern is that the proposed concrete structure, and also the western footing of the proposed canopy, would necessitate the destruction of this very significant rock.” | There is no rock evident at the same level as the existing stage at the eastern corner. “The proposed concrete structure, and also the western footing of the proposed canopy”, will NOT “necessitate the destruction of this very significant rock.” The Prometheus rock is far from the western footing of the proposed canopy. The caption on the photograph is similarly incorrect in that it indicates that the Promtheus Rock is at the “southern end of the stage”. MM and early photographs describe the Prometheus rock as being on the eastern side of the creek. See also response point 27 above. |
| 65 | 18 | “Also of concern is the proposed channelling of the creek. Council has proposed a box drain rather than concrete pipes for the creek under the stage but even a box drain would cause damage to the natural beauty and ecology of the “little stream”. Under the 1970s timber stage and the existing extended timber stage, the creek runs along its natural rocky course. It is desirable that this should remain.” | The sides of the creek under the stage were reshaped when the stage and uindercroft were rebuilt in 1992. The creek today barely resembles the “little stream” of the 1920s. Increased runoff, changing weather patterns and various building programs have dramatically altered not only the shape and flow of the creek but also its flora and fauna ecology.The proposal to date is only a concept to attract community and funding support. Detailed engineering has not as yet been undertaken. Several options are possible related to the creek. The concept is to protect the asset and its contents, make sure the visual parts of the creek are not disturbed, and that that other major elements of rocks, trees and roots are also not disturbed. The most appropriate methodology to address these issues will be the most appropriate solution. |
| 66 | 18 | “The proposed bridging of the two groups of seating (the original 1930s group and the 1970s/90s group) with connecting seats is too unsympathetic to the Haven valley and not visually appropriate. It would necessitate the removal of the grouping of tree ferns that add considerably to the amenity of the Haven Amphitheatre. It was suggested at the site meeting that an alternative might be to place the control desk across the creek in a smaller intrusion.” | The HAC feels that such seating can be made to look visually appropriate in the detailed design stage of the project and does not necessarily require the removal of the tree ferns. Timber seating can be built around objects. The placement of the control desk over the creek serves no purpose for the theatre operation, may not enhance the safety of the stage and looses the benefit of the extra rows of prime seats.As discussed above, the timber overflow seating is provide further seating to performances where required. It is also to provide protection to people sitting in these seats, whether young children or elderly members of the audience. Similarly the seating provides protection at the stage level from the drop off into the creek. It is felt this light weight bridging between the stone seats maintains this separation and resolved the safety issue. To do nothing is not an option, and a railing of any sort would disturb the lines of sight to the stage as well as being visually intrusive. The concept is appropriate and the success of the solution will be delivered by careful design and delivery of these units. |
| 67 | 18 | “… at the Society’s Management Committee meeting it was agreed that the creek should not be physically or visually interrupted by any structure.” | This is noted as a comment. The solution proposed addresses the need for further seating and safety. The solution will address the issues of context and history.A large portion of the creek has been occluded for 36 years by the stage. The proposal anticipates up to 6 rows of timber seats at some 2 meters above the creek itself. |
| 68 | “In its presentation, the HAC showed a copy of Marion Griffin’s Deed of Gift for the foreshore land of the estate. They said this document expressly mentions the use of concrete for structures that might be erected in the reserve, evidently based on shelters and other small structures in Lane Cove National Park in the Ryde Municipality. HAC’s implication was that Marion Mahony Griffin would approve of the current concrete proposal. However, the Society believes the same Deed states “The Council shall take all reasonable steps to prevent interference with or the destruction or removal of any native flora fauna bird life or natural features in the reserves …” and that ”…the Council shall not nor shall it knowingly permit or allow any person in or upon the trust lands:- … (b) to destroy damage remove or take away the native flora fauna or bird life or the natural features;” This suggests Marion Mahony Griffin would not have approved of the current HAC proposal.” | Whilst the Deed of Gift is an important historical document which sets out controls to define the use and construction typography of any built structures within the site, its main intent is clearly to protect the elements of place which make the location so special and memorable.An appropriate design solution which addresses the issues of heritage and significance of place is responding appropriately to this formal document. It is considered that the choices of construction materials need not respond to this Deed of Gift word for word, but it is considered that materials used should respond to the heritage materiality or palette of Castlecrag – as well as the respect for the method of construction and honest expression of materials. As such, the proposal of the use of concrete, stone and painted surfaces (stage) all relate directly to the Griffin palette, and historically can be demonstrated to have addressed the issues of respect of site, lightness of touch, of place – in a similar manner as did the works of Walter Burley Griffin.It is conjecture to assume what Marion Mahony Griffin would or would not approve.The Deed of Gift makes council the responsible approval authority. | |
Annexure A
Examples of the HAC comments on the WBGS letter
History
The WBGS letter claims that the Griffins had little impact on the Amphitheatre site. This is
obviously not the case. The Griffins built a 30 metre by 2 to 3 metre stone wall along the
northern side of the gully to support a roadway and covered much of the western side of the
gully with stone seats to support the function of the theatre.
These modifications to the site contradict any assertion that the Griffins felt that the Haven
theatre function should be essentially subservient to the landscape. The Griffins by their
actions heavily modified the landscape to serve the function of the theatre. However the
concept proposed will physically touch the earth at fewer points and will be visually at balance
with the natural environment. Further, The Haven Amphitheatre which can only be seen from
the roadways at its curtilage, would not, after the proposed rebuild, be visible from Middle
Harbour and the adjoining neighbours support the HAC proposal.
The WBGS letter states, “The Griffins had a deep respect for the natural landscape. This
respect was clearly shown at the Haven Amphitheatre where they left the bush and “little
stream” intact”. Despite the rhetoric, the Griffins used the creek as a storm water channel and
changed it dramatically when The Scarp and The Bulwark roadways were built. The creek
through The Amphitheatre is fed through two concrete drains, one from under the Scarp, (the
original watercourse) and one which picks up the storm water from The Scarp and The
Bulwark roadways for several hundred meters to the west of the Haven and from the
substantial escarpment above. Video of these drains after rain shows that this road-collected
storm water is by far the greater water flow. This flow appears to be increasingly torrential
and has significantly altered the creek banks and bed. The HAC proposal would in no way
exacerbate this.
Also the WBGS letter records that the Griffins did not build a stage at that time but then fails
to mention that when they were building the theatre the Griffins were in financial disarray.
They had an abundance of “free” stone and during the Depression, cheap labour but with no
funds and very unhappy backers, building a stage out of any materials at that time would not
appear to have been an option.
The WBGS letter also proposes that any structure should be removable so as to ” leave the
Haven glen intact as the Griffins found it.” This would mean removing the rock wall
supporting The Scarp roadway, the drainage, all the stone seating on the western side of the
gully and from early photographs and reports from long time residents, probably the tree
ferns.
Incorrect detail of the Haven Site
The WBGS letter displays a surprising lack of detail of the Amphitheatre site itself. For
example the rock named by Marion Mahony Griffin as the Prometheus Rock is variously
described in the WBGS letter as being at the eastern, western and southern sides of the
stage. These cannot all be correct. Marion Mahony Griffin and an early photograph describe
the Prometheus rock as one of their stage elements on the eastern side of the gully. It is not
the rock shown in the colour photograph that was made much of in the WBGS letter and
neither this rock nor the Prometheus is under threat from the proposed new stage.
Heritage
The WBGS letter displays a very narrow and unusual view of heritage. The word ‘heritage’ is
mentioned seventeen times in the WBGS letter. In twelve of those times ‘heritage’ refers
exclusively to the physical landscape aspect of heritage. Of the other five times, it is used
twice as a quote from the HAC concept report and three times in a blanket label for heritage
reports to be prepared. WBGS completely ignores the value of the human behavioural aspect of
the historical, social and cultural heritage and hence the value of Marion Mahony Griffin’s
theatre legacy. This ignores the last 80 or more years of the Haven Amphitheatre’s community
service, which includes over one hundred theatre productions and countless community
functions.
Materials Technology and Building Practices
WBGS letter does not take account of modern building practices and techniques. For
example, concrete does not have an uncertain life, is not prone to failure when properly
installed and is the material of choice for most long life construction the world over. It is also
a material that was greatly favoured and extensively used by the Griffins.
The HAC believes that the WBGS letter is incorrect in relation to both the total carbon
footprint of timber used in construction and also the problems associated with the Copper
Chrome Arsenic (CCA) treatment of the Haven stage’s structural in-ground timber posts. At
one point the WBGS letter recommends sealing or cladding the CCA treated posts as a way of
minimizing any residual risk of poisoning, having already stated that most of the poison would
have leached out of the timber surface after nearly forty years in service. If there is no poison
remaining on the surface of the timber posts then what deters the termites, fungi and rot so
prevalent in that gully? More importantly sealing the posts sets up a difficult and costly
maintenance regime and cladding would remove the possibility of visual inspection for such
attacks.
Of even greater concern is the view in the letter concerning the life of CCA treated posts in
the ground. The WBGS letter states that, “….the existing timber structure, the majority of
which is in good condition..” The paper “The Facts about CCA Treated Timber” CSIRO Oct
2008, states that the application of CCA treatment to in ground pine posts may extend the
effective life from a few years to four decades or more. Given that many of the more than 30
posts have been in the ground for 37 years, the remaining service life is considered to be an
unacceptable ongoing liability for our community, particularly noting that what today may be
assessed as safe and acceptable, may not be so for future generations.
A new structure appropriately designed, removes these concerns, as well as any potential
deterioration and pollution, thereby providing a community facility that is safe for future
generations.
Finance
In the area of finance the letter does not address term Net Present Value, (NPV), but seems
to have confused it with maintenance costs for an arbitrarily nominated period of ten years.
The NPV of the project includes the cost of the replacement of the stage itself as well as the
cost of trying to maintain it until it inevitably fails. The notion of NPV has been widely used
since the 1950s to offer an index of the value of a funds stream over time, in today money. In
this case the figure represents the NPV of the stream of costs, including the previously pro
bono labour of the HAC, (now expensed), of maintaining the existing structure for up to 20
years and its inevitable replacement with a new structure. In this context the NPV suggests
that it is worth more to WCC, even without the community contributions, to undertake the
project now rather than postpone it.
Architecture
The WBGS letter proposes a solution to the problem of waterproofing the stage to stop water
leaks to the undercroft by way of pavers on a waterproof adhesive. HAC considers that this
WBGS solution is simply poor architecture. The waterproofing of this structure is not achieved
by pavers. Waterproofing is achieved through the application of a membrane over the surface,
whether a welded sheet product or paint system. This element is missing in the WBGS
proposal. Flexible base surfaces such as Compressed Fibre Cement, (CFC), sheet (like the
current stage) require a flexible sheet membrane to achieve a true durable and flexible
waterproof surface. The failure of paint on systems or screeds is well known in residential
apartment buildings throughout Australia. Sheet membranes then require a wearing surface
over the top of them. Pavers provide a wearing and aesthetic surface only.
Furthermore, as the existing structure is moving, the CFC sheets making up the stage surface
are tearing the existing membrane at their edges. The addition of pavers would make such
tears very difficult to locate and require the increasingly frequent removal of the pavers to find
such leaks and then repair them. Even a new membrane would likely eventually tear as the
movement continues. The introduction of material such as tiling or pavers would seem to be a
most inappropriate and visually unappealing solution.
Engineering
Engineering-wise the WBGS letter proposes adding further timber posts and cantilevered
beams to the existing structure as a way of reshaping the rear of the stage, a reshaping that
is not opposed. Such an asymmetric load would probably increase the structural movement
already apparent and add to the already extensive impost on the ground underneath from the
30+ existing posts. Moreover, that the WBGS letter proposes structural renovation, in timber,
in a potential bushfire zone seems short sighted. Again the HAC considers this to be a poor
engineering solution that would be likely to exacerbate the waterproofing problems through
increasing structural movement and compromise the possible storage space underneath with
increased structure. It is also contrary to the Griffin view that “wood is not a proper structural
material since by nature it is bound to change in size and form whatever precautions may be
taken in its seasoning.” (The Magic of America Marion Mahony Griffin p113 Section III p742 of
923 Page Citation IV.129)
Of further concern are certain photographs and statements. For example, the photograph in
the WBGS letter purporting to show the size of a typical construction zone around a building
site, in the view of the HAC bears no relation in style or scale to the Haven situation and
refers to a massive, complex residential construction now completed.
The WBGS letter also includes the word “small”, (which does not appear in the Deed of Gift) in
its comments on Marion Mahony Griffin’s Deed of Gift and the inclusion changes the meaning
of that part of the Deed of Gift.
The WBGS letter further complains that the HAC proposal was not discussed with the WBGS
early in the concept development process. This is simply not the case. The HAC made a
presentation of an early draft to WBGS president, Professor James Weirick, in July 2012 and is
in receipt of an email from the WBGS dated October 2012, apologising for not responding to
HAC calls for further meetings for two months.
The WBGS letter, published without discussion or consultation with the HAC, was followed by
the loss to the project of its largest sponsor and community division which will likely result in a
greater financial burden than otherwise to complete the rebuild of this significant and valuable
community asset.