Serene and stunning, this beloved concrete slab has its own security guard

In 1889, a temporary tower was designed and constructed in Paris to mark the World’s Fair. At the time, the plan was to dismantle it within 20 years, but Parisians fell in love with the Eiffel Tower, and 136 years on, it remains an iconic symbol of the city.

Today, Melbourne is facing its own Eiffel Tower moment.

MPavilion 10, by Japanese architect Tadao Ando. Credit: John Gollings

The MPavilion 10, designed by renowned Japanese architect Tadao Ando, is an exquisite work of creativity. Located within the Queen Victoria Gardens, opposite the National Gallery of Victoria, it has attracted over 300,000 visitors in two years and grown into the hearts and minds of the city.

Despite that, it is now slated to be moved or, most probably, demolished.

Since the MPavilion series’ inception in 2014, the Naomi Milgrom Foundation (which funds the program) has sponsored the construction of each pavilion, and overseen events within the space during its year-long residency in the Gardens. In most cases, the pavilions have been permanently relocated once their 12 months are up.

MPavilion 1, designed by Sean Godsell was moved to the Melbourne Hellenic Museum, while MPavilion 2, by Amanda Levete, now sits in the Docklands, and Pavilion 3, by Bijoy Jain, can be found at the Melbourne Zoo. Pavilions 4 and 5 reside at Monash University campuses, while 6 is at Melbourne University, and 9 is at RMIT’s Brunswick campus. Only MPavilion 8 is yet to find a permanent home, and Pavilion 7 did not eventuate due to COVID-19.

Though MPavilion 10 was expected to follow a similar plan, its residency was extended to two years. Now past its used-by date, the structure is stuck in limbo while the City of Melbourne (which owns Queen Victoria Gardens) and the foundation try to find a way forward. But relocating a solid concrete structure formed in-situ cannot be done easily. It is, in effect, stitched to the site.

Like most of Ando’s work, MPavilion 10 is meditative and calming. It achieves this not least through its uncomplicated materiality – concrete walls, solid paving, a simple umbrella roof – and the composition of direct entry paths, viewing slits, daylight under the roof canopy and sedative reflections over the ponds.

It nestles into the garden, nursed by the grass and protected by a canopy of trees. It is unassuming and modest, which befits Melbourne. As an object, it is a considered reflection of the NGV itself, with classical and functional zones contained inside rectangular spaces.

Beyond the visceral experience, it can be engaged with at an intellectual level. The Sydney Opera House is a genuinely complex building that attracts diverse levels of delight – is it a flotilla of yacht sails, a scrum of nuns or a school of fish? Ando’s pavilion contains that same enigmatic quality. Is it a mini gallery? A temple? A refuge?

Tadao Ando’s concrete pavilion at the Queen Victoria Gardens has been offered to the City of Melbourne.Credit: John Gollings

Detractors of the pavilion becoming a permanent fixture of the Gardens note that the trade-offs to achieve this resilient, abstract, serene architecture come at a cost, namely in terms of sustainability (concrete contributes about 8 per cent of all global emissions of carbon dioxide, and holds large amounts of embedded energy). But the obverse also applies. If we keep the building, that energy equation swings the other way.

There are also concerns about the open and accessible design of the pavilion, which requires 24-hour security, and the open pond could be a safety issue if not monitored. But maintaining any building comes at a cost, as we see with similar buildings, such as the follies in the nearby Botanic Gardens, which also require care and protection.

The technical issues in relocating the pavilion ignore what really matters, which is its intrinsic value. Ando’s skill has been to locate the building in our country, our culture, our history and our city in a way that makes it feel as though it was always meant to be here. Its worth supersedes previous demolition plans at many levels.

For it to remain, there will need to be a commitment to look after, maintain and protect the pavilion long-term, and Heritage Victoria must approve the deal because the Gardens are under its planning control.

Should the City of Melbourne assume ownership, it would likely be required to assume any associated costs, though the foundation may continue to contribute. But that investment would be well spent. It is a robust building constructed using sturdy building materials. There are no lightweight elements likely to develop problems over the years. With normal care the wearing could be managed, it is built to last.

The value of keeping the building in its current location would be to add to our city’s collection of fine, small public buildings, where open access and simple magnificent spaces can continue to be enjoyed into the future.

In that reflective mood, we can celebrate the imagination of one of the world’s finest architects and their sublime creation. Melbourne must not lose this MPavilion. It should stay where it is.

Norman Day is a practising architect, commentator, and educator.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.