Talking Point: Put the height and style wars aside — we can build a better Hobart

SHAMUS MULCAHY: The simple height limit has gone, now let’s look at the bigger picture

LOBOTOMISING our city with height limits based on populist polls is no way to foster a better built future for all.

A single low-rise height limit was never going to stamp out inappropriate development; instead it would have become a tacit approval system for a swath of bad low-rise developments.

To stack up financially these developments would need to be cut-price, bottom dollar constructions, unforgiving and mean to the back teeth — to our streets, public spaces and to people that inhabit them or simply pass by.

Unfortunately, a few recent proposals for inappropriately high buildings have been the catalyst for a divisive, narrow debate about our city and its architecture.

Appropriate heights are one aspect of good architecture, but there are many others. The Australian Institute of Architects support the excellent report, “Building Height Standards Review”, by expert local urbanist Leigh Woolley. Woolley thoughtfully maps a future Hobart with maximum building heights between 45m and 75m. Importantly, he identifies exactly where to locate tallish buildings (not skyscrapers) so that the city’s skyline and important views, such as to kunanyi, are protected. It’s a ripper and I encourage everyone to read it.

Now that the City of Hobart has voted against a single height limit, I hope we can focus on the qualities that make our city great and consider the sorts of developments that should be encouraged.

I’m happy to throw the first stone … When built, the sandstone warehouses of Salamanca place were the largest buildings in Tasmania — utilitarian structures, designed to house the wares of the state’s merchants.

CHANGE: Salamanca warehouses. Picture: SAM ROSEWARNE

They were the Georgian equivalent of the bland industrial parks that now ring our cities.

Over the next 180 years they would devolve into a series of junk stores and low-rent artist studios, punctuated by the odd drinking hole oozing with ill-repute.

Today Salamanca’s warehouses are the backdrop to Tasmania’s money shot; home of the legendary market, restaurants, bars, galleries and shops. Salamanca is our festival epicentre, a place of protest and repose, and an after-dark playground, where on any day you can buy artisanal sourdough or a vial of fairy dust.

Cities constantly evolve, and new buildings will always be pushing the envelope of that which came before. The future is inevitably coming, and it will be different.

Hobart’s unique character comes from its diverse mix of buildings of very different eras and uses, oodles of public space, but importantly its location: Hobart sits tentatively in a beautiful and dominant landscape wedged between lapping waters and craggy peaks, at the edge of the world’s last ancient rainforest. Isolation has ensured steady economic growth and gentle cultural development and has allowed the city to evolve in an organic, gentle manner.

Constructing a building takes time and developing a cityscape of good architecture takes much longer. Major changes to our city, such as the development of Macquarie Point, need to be thought about and planned for in generational terms. Let’s put the height and style wars aside, broaden our thinking and seriously consider what our children might be seeking from the city.

My two young children have a range of interests: space, ballet, Lionel Messi, Star Wars, cycling, riding on escalators at Myer and eating vast amounts of sushi served by a miniature train. Neither show any interest in cleaning or driving themselves around, so I imagine that in the future they will want small, low-maintenance houses close to friends and family. A city with a wealth of opportunities for employment, culture and exchange.

They will want a sustainable city where public transport is prioritised over cars, where waste is minimised and recycled, and where the air is clean and trees verdant. A city with quality public spaces where locals and visitors mix. A smart, artistic and vibrant city with access to services, information, and meaningful employment. A city staunchly proud of its heritage yet brave and progressive. A city you can leave but never leaves you, and one that you long to return to.

This is starting to look like our city! Hobart should be left to evolve in the natural way it has for 180 years.

The planning system is working and the fact that recent inappropriate proposals have been knocked back is proof. We must trust the custodians of the city: our planners, councils, architects, and of course Hobart’s outspoken and passionate community.

They system is not without fault — we must learn from our mistakes — and the future isn’t going to be perfect. We will all have to take a stand against the occasional shocker development, but we also need to be brave, rather than seeking to control Hobart’s evolution with retrogressive systems. The city can accept a diversity of built form. Larger buildings and smaller buildings where appropriate. Buildings with various purposes and from diverse eras. Historic buildings, if skilfully and sensitively adapted, can sit comfortably alongside mid-century and well designed modern buildings. Public spaces, parks and landscaped spaces need to be protected and nurtured.

There is plenty to be excited about. Tasmanian architects are among the best in the world. If you don’t believe me (I’m biased), look at how many national and international awards our small community of architects has won. Let’s open the debate to consider good design broadly — we deserve and should demand quality buildings and public spaces. But most importantly, don’t look back, don’t look down — look up and forward bravely and don’t blink!

Shamus Mulcahy is president of the Tasmanian Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects and co-director of Bence Mulcahy Architects.

The Australian Institute of Architects organises Open House Hobart and Hobart’s Architecture & Design Month in November. See openhousehobart.org.