Content
The University Has Responded to an Environmental Theme
5 February 2005
I arrived back from holiday last week and in catching up with
the local news, I saw that the University had come in for some
criticism with respect to its buildings. I thought some of the
criticism was a little cynical and uninformed, so I'd like to
clarify a few basic points about how we've developed this
University with an emphasis on 'environment'.
In the earliest planning phase some community focus groups
stressed the need to plan an environmentally sensitive university,
and as we had a renowned local architect on our Council at the
time, we took advantage of his expertise with respect to buildings.
We were persuaded that creating sub-tropical buildings that were
naturally ventilated, just as he had done successfully with
residential buildings, was worth trying on an institutional
scale.
We had, however, to complete the first buildings at break-neck
speed, with limited capital, and with no large-scale precedents, in
order to open in 1996. It was an attempt to further a Sunshine
Coast school of architecture and resist the brick, air-conditioned
imports from temperate climates. The theme of being an
'architectural laboratory' and trying to develop an environmentally
friendly sub-tropical set of buildings has permeated all our
construction phases since that time.
The designs have been influential internationally and there have
been numerous efforts to develop further the axial alignments
relative to sun and wind, the cavity walls, the louvres, the sun
shades, the heat chimneys and so on.
I know full well that we have not succeeded completely and that
on very hot and very cold days, these temperature extremes are
trying for staff and students - as they are to most people in their
own homes.
Our most recent plans attempt to address these extremes by
providing heat or air-conditioning on a more limited scale, only
when needed, only for those people who need it.
It is also important, for example, to recognise that although
there are critics of the current buildings' performance, there are
also people who welcome not being in traditional air-conditioning
all year round.
In addition, to imagine that we could somehow transform the
current buildings into completely air-conditioned environments all
year round, is quite unrealistic.
Architects designed these buildings, and have legal moral rights
over the designs. Also, the cost of enclosing open roofs, for
example, would probably cost millions, quite apart from all the
associated costs. Where would that money come from?
Certainly we can and will make more air-conditioned spaces
available, but we cannot and should not start again on an
environment which a great many visitors say is a wonderful and
unique architectural environment which is continuing to evolve.
Despite the views of cynics, we have had an extensive list of
successes on the environmental theme generally. Consider, for
example, the difference in the way Claymore Road has been built
with kangaroo underpasses and fencing, influenced by University
pressure, compared with some other roads featured in the press over
recent times, which post-date our exemplar, yet are devoid of
environmental features and kangaroos and other animals are dying as
a result,
We have not perfected our environmental theme, but we have made
a genuine attempt on a range of fronts to be in the vanguard of
new, sustainable approaches in the sub-tropics and I wish our
critics could be a little more even-handed on these topics.
Professor Paul Thomas is Vice-Chancellor of University of
the Sunshine Coast