Cultural Intelligence

‘If the application were approved, and the Yarra Building demolished and replaced with the proposed building, it would result in an unacceptable and irreversible detrimental impact on the cultural and heritage significance of Federation Square’

Steven Avery

Executive Director, Heritage Victoria

The response on social media was swift. Many proclaimed that common sense had prevailed. The Apple store proposal had caused widespread outrage when it was first announced in December 2017. Shortly after this announcement Former Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu succinctly described the idea as ‘bananas’, a position that was shared and reflected in a huge number of petition signatures against the project. The idea was also immediately mocked by satirical website The Shovel who reported the demolition of Flinders Street Station for a ‘Flagship’ Starbucks store.

The proposal itself was backed by Apple, a trillion dollar company. It was designed by Foster and Partners, one of the most successful and awarded architects globally. It was welcomed by Federation Square Pty Ltd, the company responsible for acting as custodians of our premier public space. It was endorsed and approved by the State Government, after it received advice from various public servants and government departments. Yet despite all the resources, intellect and experience, somehow the ‘common sense’ understood by a broad section of the community was missed.

It seems those proposing the project had the answers, but it was the questions they had wrong.

There are many lessons to be learnt from this episode of recent history. For politicians of all stripes, there are big lessons still to be learnt around the importance of community consultation, due process and communication to stakeholders. Advisors can provide their opinion, but how the project is communicated to the public is really up to the political leaders of the day. Announcing a controversial project, which has not been publicly discussed, as a ‘done deal’ is rarely a good idea, or one that leads to a successful outcome. It emits a stench of arrogance, ignorance and contempt.

There is also a series of questions that must also be asked in regards to how architects operate in our globalised and interconnected world. Does the architecture profession have a blind spot when it comes to cultural intelligence? Do we have the necessary levels of empathy to consider other viewpoints? Are we too quick to jump at a solution and then provide an image to sell the idea?

In the business or military world, cultural intelligence is thought of in the context of working in different countries. In the architectural context we need to be even more specific. It is about reading the room. Even a local architect working within their immediate locality needs to ensure that they are attuned to the diverse perspectives of the community who will be seeing and experiencing the built outcome every day. Naturally it should also never be assumed that a community in Melbourne will view a project in the same way a community in Adelaide or Sydney might. Nor should architects homogenize a community into a single viewpoint either. Architecture will always mean different things to different people, and neglecting to attempt to understand those perspectives can only lead to alienating people from their built environment.

Arguably we have seen this play out recently in response to the fire at the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris. The fire was barely out when architectural ideas and concept images began raining in. This is perhaps the architectural equivalent of the ‘ambulance chasing’ lawyers, determined to sell a legal solution, blind to the emotion and humanity of the situation that is still unfolding. This invariably leads to a distrust and contempt that prohibits genuine communication and consultation.

In university, architecture students are introduced to the idea of an ‘honest building’. A building which is not pretending to be built from a different time. A building that is not dishonest in its structure. A building that is not a pastiche, a film set, or just a façade. Arguably though, a building designed without a culturally intelligent architect is just as dishonest. If a designer cannot see their work from other perspectives, they are designing blind.

Satirical thoughts from the twittersphere
Source: Twitter @BryceElder

For the Victorian State Government, there is also a large piece of homework that needs to be done in order to get better design outcomes.

The Premier Daniel Andrews often dismissed criticism of the Apple Federation Square proposal by saying that he didn’t want to see the project move to Sydney. Invoking the historical competition between cities sidesteps the key point that Federation Square seen as an inappropriate location for the flagship store. However it is interesting to ponder what would happen if the project did land up in Sydney.  Would they hand over a key public space the way Melbourne did? Would a floating iPad design be approved in a cultural precinct? Whilst we may not know definitely what might happen, it can however be said that they have a much stronger design policy position than Victoria.

The recently introduced Integrated Design Policy for the built environment of NSW was prepared by the NSW Government Architect and explains and enforces a robust set of objectives for built environment design in the State. Aptly named ‘Better Placed’, this document protects their communities from ill-fitting and poorly considered buildings and spaces. It not only highlights what should be delivered such as healthy, responsive, integrated, equitable and resilient design, but also specifically details what is not acceptable.

Point one on the list of unacceptable outcomes is poor ‘fit’ and not responding to context. This point is expanded as follows:

‘A community’s sense of place can be undermined and existing attractors devalued when design has little sense of the ‘local’ character, materials or landscape.’

Demolishing part of a local icon for an international branding opportunity would seem immediately at odds with this point.

Another section in the NSW Integrated Design Policy outlines the importance of a rigorous design process. Some of the key points highlighted in the design process are as follows:

DEFINE

• Establish a clear intent for the problem by finding the right questions to ask.

INVOLVE

• Involve relevant stakeholders and communities
• Engage the community and observe culture, habits, and lifestyles.

The design process for the Apple store in Federation Square clearly skipped these steps. If Apple does decide to grace Sydney with their fabled Flagship store, they will need to lift their design process game if they are to meet the required New South Wales standards. They also might not be as quick to sell off a piece of their identity.

If Victoria is to learn from the lessons of the Apple Flagship fiasco, it is time to work on implementing our own integrated design policy. One that reflects the values of our diverse communities and an ambition for high quality design. One that strengthens trust in those designing and approving projects in our built environment. One that exhibits cultural intelligence.

Architecture is for everyone.