Reading Response 4: The Architecture of Parliament House

Reading Response 4:

The Architecture of Parliament House  (Haig Beck.)

Beck spends time reviewing many of the architectural features of this wonderful building, but the underlying themes that the designers chose, or tried to communicate through the architectural design features, are a useful focus for this exercise.

He notes from the outset that there is a fascinating and deliberate paradox on the hill at the apex of the parliamentary triangle. “there is no building – just a flag, a hill and a wall”.

I agree that “The idea that ‘Australia’ is distilled in three quintessential signs: the flag, emblem of nationhood; the hill, embodiment of place; and the wall, mark of human inhabitation. These abstract yet highly representational signs prompt individual feelings about patriotism, place, people.”

People with different roles and expectations approach the building along the arms of the Parliamentary triangle. As they draw closer they take different paths depending on their roles and perceptions: visitors enter from the north, Members of the House of Representatives from the east; Ministers from the south and Senators from the west. Each entrance is different and have particular stylized status and meaning according to the experience of entry conventionally associated with it.

“Legibility” is essential in the building which is bigger than most small towns. When both houses are sitting upwards of 3,500 people will occupy nearly 4,000 rooms and some 5,000 visitors are expected daily. There are 148 members and 76 senators. Everyone needs to be able to find their way around this mini-metropolis so the building has to be legible in terms of its geography, its functions, and its symbolism. Whilst speeches are made, questions asked, motions debated and legislation enacted on the floor of the house the whole process is observed by a range of spectators from the curious public to the public servants with critical roles. Beck makes it clear that within this monumental hive of activity, voting is the crucial act...

Beck points out that: “The setting for Parliament’s public ceremonial functions is at the front, straddling Walter Burly Griffin’s imposing land axis – Canberra’s ceremonial spine focused on the War Memorial. Parliament and Memorial are locked in an urban-scaled symbolic dialogue about patriotism(memorial) and nationhood(Parliament). The sense of Australia as place is firmly embedded in the way that these symbols are seen to be rooted in the soil. The ceremonial axis is terminated in the land at each end, by My Ainslie and Capital Hill”.

I love Beck’s analogy that to enter Parliament – enter the hill – is to enter ‘Australia’. It is a wonderful connection to the land, our original and contemporary inhabitants.

The route into Parliament House emerges through the portico under a shady glazed roof. This transitional zone is immediately understood as the iconic Australian form: “a great veranda”.

Beck makes the point that: “Perception is always related to human experience and measure. We make sense of buildings by using ourselves and previous experience as yardsticks. The subliminal (and frequently anthropomorphic) associations automatically invoked to link experiences with the places they occur in, can be harnessed and directed to make buildings more legible – and therefore more memorable. There needs to be evidence of human scale, inhabitation, and craft”.

Seating in the chambers continues the familiar horseshoe arrangement of Provisional Parliament House. This layout for debating has antecedents in the democratic institutions of Classical Greece and its council houses.

In the new Parliament House the spectators have an unrestricted view of the proceedings below. In the new chambers, parliamentarians are at centre stage and visually engaged with an audience which now includes the public as well as other politicians.