[ad_1]
“You can’t always get what you want…”
Just what is it that makes anyone attend an Australian Architecture Conference? The list of speakers? Better if they are international or better if they are local or at least national? Those mandatory CPD points (a year’s worth in two days)? Catching up with out-of-state colleagues and friends?
Or is it the themes, the sessions, the topical topics that identify current and future trends, issues that must be discussed and taken on board by responsible architects? Exposure to new voices, new modes of operating in a profession that is constantly questioning its relevance and impact? A chance to confirm that what we do really does matter?
Not forgetting the most perennial of all conference questions: What is the format? Simultaneous sessions that preclude hearing it all? And how much is too much – or not nearly enough? The all-too-familiar? Or confrontations with the edges of an ill-disciplined discipline such as architecture?
Yasmeen Lari (Heritage Foundation Pakistan and Chair of INTBAU, Pakistan) in conversation with Esther Charlesworth (Architects without Frontiers, Australia).
Image:
Michael Pham
I’ll stop asking questions here. As this is a “review” of the 2024 Australian Architecture Conference (Melbourne, 10–11 May), let me lead by delivering a verdict and then an explication: The conference was a success.
But more on that later.
Since the 2023 Australian Architecture Conference (Canberra), the Australian Institute of Architects has initiated a commissioning process, rather than appointing creative director(s). This new model uses a steering committee to determine the keynote speakers, topics, themes and allied programs, along with proposals for fringe activities. This will be the structure for the forthcoming conferences in 2025 (Sydney) and 2026 (Brisbane).
Having been a co-creative director for the 2015 National Architecture Conference themed Risk, I can’t help but mentally adjudicate between the focus of a singular conference theme for keynotes, breakout sessions and discussions, and a diverse offering that ranges widely, juxtaposing different project scales, varying social and operational agendas, and divergent areas of attention and intent. The goal here is not to judge one format over another, but to identify the complexity of curation for a conference representing a profession that is multi-headed and often conflicted in where its priorities might lie.
While the 2024 conference was marketed as a two-day event, the program extended to four days. Commencing with the Wellbeing of Architects symposium on Wednesday and Thursday, and an extensive offering of brunches, tours, public debates, cocktails and a Fellows’ event on Thursday, the conference proper spanned Friday and Saturday. The question of format was answered with a bifurcation of presentations – in type, in themes and in location.
Day 1 was the big-ticket, all-in-this-together proceedings, including keynotes and prizes. Located in the large auditorium of Hamer Hall at Arts Centre Melbourne, a sequence of discrete sessions presented some recurring themes, some overlaps, discourse on research investigations and outcomes, appeals for social agency, and extensive portfolios of built work.
This was a commendable collection of relevant voices. Based on my own experience and appreciation of the offerings, I can only assume that each attendee came away with a different scorecard of hits and misses, noting moments of powerful alignment as well as timeslots that dropped in interest and relevance. Given the breadth of the Institute’s membership, this seems an appropriate curatorial mandate.
On day two, the range and mixture of topics and themes drew a substantial crowd.
Image:
Michael Pham
Day 2 shifted location – to the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre (MCEC) – and centred on three separate rooms, along with a minor trade show. Some groupings were defined as “Action Station Panel Discussions” while others were based on “Seminar Themes.” Sometimes the categories made sense; sometimes less so. The three rooms ran concurrently, allowing for a selection across 15 sessions on the day – of which an attendee had to determine which five sessions might be of most interest/relevance. All conferences confront this conundrum between offering enough variety and quantum of presentations/panels/debates to appear comprehensive, and the necessity of missing out on other options.
The metrics for the 2024 conference are worth noting, especially in comparison to 2023 and in respect of the new format. There was an increase in attendance from 2023 to 2024 (732 to 955), but this was still down compared to the last pre-COVID conference in 2019 (1017). As always happens with the architecture conference, host cities and states have significantly higher attendance than out-of-state (Victoria recorded 498, with New South Wales next at 172, Queensland at 144, and ACT at only 15). For 2023, with the conference in Canberra, the numbers were very different: Victoria 140, New South Wales 226, Queensland 174 and ACT 90. [note: this is not to slight the other states and territories, but the numbers were less significant across both years.]
On Day 2, four sessions had more than 200 attendees, and most of the rest had more than 100 – indicating that the range and mixture of this curation of topics, themes and people generated broad interest.
I shouldn’t forget to mention the Gala Dinner on Friday evening, held in the Regent Theatre Plaza ballroom – a fittingly eclectic venue for architects. The dinner was part of the package of fringe events and, on top of a two-day pass, makes the conference cost significant (though perhaps not relative to other professional conferences). I can only assume that the steering committees for 2025 and 2026 will calculate the economic balance between a potential increase in attendance with lower prices. It would be important to get more student and recent graduate architects to participate. The inclusion of an option for members to provide a sponsorship fee for students was a nice initiative for this conference.
Australian Institute of Architects CEO Cameron Bruhn.
Image:
Michael Pham
As noted, I would consider the conference a success. It was solid in the scope of works presented, the discussions held, the awards celebrations and the general networking. I didn’t come away astonished by any aspect, nor completely flummoxed either. Sessions ran smoothly and to time, and the Institute CEO, Cameron Bruhn, is to be congratulated for keeping things in line. The answer to my first question of why anyone would attend probably lies in what anyone hopes to get out of an annual architecture conference. As the Rolling Stones said, “You can’t always get what you want, but …”
Founder and director of Lab Architecture Studio, Donald Bates is the chair of architectural design at the Melbourne School of Design, University of Melbourne.
[ad_2]
Source link
