Future Use of the Fitters' Workshop, Kingston › __data › assets › pdf_file › 0004 ›...

S T A N DI N G C OM M I T T E E O N E D U C AT I O N, TR A I N I N G

A N D Y O UT H AF F A I R S

Future Use of the Fitters' Workshop, Kingston

A P R I L 2 0 1 2

Report 8

F U T U R E U S E O F T H E F I T T E R S ' W O R K S H O P , K I N G S T O N

i

Committee membership

Amanda Bresnan MLA (Chair)

Jeremy Hanson CSC MLA (Deputy Chair)

Chris Bourke MLA (to 6 December 2011)

Mary Porter AM MLA (from 6 December 2011)

Secretariat

Secretary: Andrew Snedden

Administration: Lydia Chung

Contact information

Telephone 02 6205 0199 Facsimile 02 6205 0432 Post GPO Box 1020, CANBERRA ACT 2601 Email [email protected] Website www.parliament.act.gov.au

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.parliament.act.gov.au/

S T A N D I N G C O M M I T T E E O N E D U C A T I O N , T R A I N I N G A N D Y O U T H A F F A I R S

ii

Resolution of appointment

On the 9 December 2008, the Legislative Assembly for the ACT resolved to establish a Standing Committee on Education, Training and Youth Affairs to examine matters related to early childhood education and care, primary, secondary, post secondary and tertiary education, non-government education, youth services, technology, arts and culture.

Terms of reference

As its meeting on Thursday, 27 October 2011, the Assembly passed the following resolution: “That this Assembly: (1) notes that: (a) the ACT Government has allocated $3.8m in its 2011-12 budget for a

capital works project in support of an earlier decision to relocate Megalo Print Studio to the Kingston arts precinct, including the Fitters’ Workshop; a) there has been considerable public controversy over this initiative, particularly

from the music community, having discovered an unusual acoustic quality in the Fitters’ Workshop after the Government had made its decision to move Megalo; and

b) the Government has refused to review its decision in light of that later discovery; (2) refers to the Standing Committee on Education, Training and Youth Affairs for

inquiry and report to the Assembly by March 2012: (a) the best use of the Fitters’ Workshop, taking into account the acoustic qualities, heritage value, its location, cost and community demand of the building; a) options for alternative venues for use by a range of community music groups; b) options for alternative purpose built accommodation for Megalo Print Studio; and c) any other relevant matter;

(3) resolves that funds be provided by the Parliament to permit the engagement of

external expertise to work with the Committee to assist in the preparation of the report of the Committee; and

(4) calls on the Government to: a) suspend the capital works project until the Standing Committee has reported, the

Government has responded and the Assembly has noted the Government’s response; and

b) ensure that adequate temporary accommodation is provided to the Megalo Print Studio until permanent accommodation has been provided.”


iii

On 27 March 2012, the Assembly passed the following resolution:

That the resolution of the Assembly of 27 October 2011 referring the future use of the Fitters’ Workshop, Kingston to the Standing Committee on Education, Training and Youth Affairs for inquiry and report be amended by omitting the words “by March 2012” and substituting “by the last sitting day in May 2012” and inserting a new paragraph (2A): “(2A) If the Assembly is not sitting when the report is completed, the Speaker, or, in the absence of the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, is authorised to give directions for its printing, publication and circulation.”


iv


v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Committee membership .............................................................................................. i

Resolution of appointment .......................................................................................... ii

Terms of reference ..................................................................................................... ii

C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V I I

C O N C L U S I O N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V I I

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I X

Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................xi

1 I N T R O D U C T I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background .............................................................................................................. 1

Public Hearings .......................................................................................................... 4

Observations on the Inquiry ....................................................................................... 4

2 T H E F I T T E R S ’ W O R K S H O P , K I N G S T O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Current condition and significance ........................................................................10

Status of the Fitters’ Workshop ..............................................................................11

3 I S S U E S – T H E B E S T U S E O F T H E F I T T E R S ’ W O R K S H O P

… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . 1 3

Introduction .............................................................................................................13

Acoustic qualities ....................................................................................................13

Claims regarding Fitters’ Workshop acoustics ......................................................14

Testing of the Fitters’ Workshop acoustics ............................................................18

The KVDL Report ......................................................................................................19

The SLR acoustics report ..........................................................................................22

Comment on the KVDL and SLR reports ...................................................................23

Acoustic qualities – Committee comment and conclusion ........................................25

Conclusions ..............................................................................................................26

Heritage value .........................................................................................................26

Heritage value – Committee comment and conclusion .............................................31

Conclusion ................................................................................................................32

Location …………………………………………………………………………………….32

Other factors – cost .................................................................................................35

Other factors – community demand ......................................................................37


vi

Best Use of the Fitters’ Workshop ..........................................................................38

The best use for the Fitters’ Workshop – Committee conclusions ............................44

Conclusions ..............................................................................................................46

4 I S S U E S 2 – O P T I O N S F O R A L T E R N A T I V E V E N U E S F O R

U S E B Y C O M M U N I T Y M U S I C G R O U P S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9

5 I S S U E S 3 – O P T I O N S F O R A L T E R N A T I V E P U R P O S E

B U I L T A C C O M O D A T I O N F O R M E G A L O S T U D I O . . . . . . . . 5 1

Conclusions .............................................................................................................54

6 O T H E R M A T T E R S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7

Position of the old bus depot markets ...................................................................57

Construction timeline – Fitters’ Workshop conversion and construction ...................60

Conclusions ..............................................................................................................62

7 D I S S E N T I N G C O M M E N T S - M A R Y P O R T E R A M M L A . . 6 3

A P P E N D I X A : L I S T O F W R I T T E N S U B M I S S I O N S . . . . . . . . . 6 5

A P P E N D I X B : C O M M I T T E E P U B L I C H E A R I N G S . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7

A P P E N D I X C : L I S T O F E X H I B I T S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9

A P P E N D I X D : A N S W E R S T O S U P P L E M E N T A R Y

Q U E S T I O N S … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . … … . . … … … 7 1

A P P E N D I X E : R E P O R T S O N A C O U S T I C S O F T H E F I T T E R S ’

W O R K S H O P … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . 7 5


vii

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSIONS

Chapter 3

3.32 The Committee concludes that the Fitters’ Workshop, Kingston has acoustic qualities for musical performance, which justify a re-examination of the decision to convert the building for use exclusively as a print studio and workshop.

3.33 The Committee also concludes that the acoustic qualities appear to be suitable for the performance of particular forms of musical performance, particularly choral music, and that it is essential that consideration be given to the continuation of the building as a venue for the performance of music. This conclusion is subject to it being possible to make provision in the building for appropriate proper seating, equipment and other alterations and changes necessary to make it a modern and usable venue.

3.48 The Committee concludes that the planned changes to the Fitters’ Workshop will alter the building fabric and, if carried out as currently designed, prohibit musical performance in the main building space.

3.91 The Committee considers that the matter of the best use for the Fitters’ Workshop, Kingston should be re-examined and re-considered by the Government.

3.92 The Committee is convinced that Fitters’ Workshop is a unique space within Canberra’s premier arts precinct and that it should be considered for use as a facility with wider availability, especially as a musical venue to capitalise on its unique acoustics.

Chapter 5

5.11 The Committee accepts that Megalo has established itself as a facility for artistic expression, studio and printmaker of an exceptional standard and reputation.

5.12 It is important and essential that the money put aside for the Megalo conversion of the Fitters’ Workshop be applied to the purpose intended: a high standard studio, workshops and gallery space for Megalo.


viii

5.13 It is essential that two things occur if an alternative is to be found for the current proposal. The first is that funding available for the Fitters’ Workshop be retained for Megalo. The second is that immediate consideration be given to the identification of a site at Kingston Arts Precinct for an alternative building and that appropriate arrangements be made to assist Megalo to stay in its present location at Watson.

5.14 The Committee recognises that this conclusion and proposal will involve a re-think and re-configuration of the Megalo proposal. The Committee recognises also that Megalo is natural ‘fit’ for the Kingston arts precinct and it should be accommodated in a purpose-built facility to the value of the moneys available at present.

5.15 The Committee acknowledges that additional money would need to be appropriated for the Fitters’ Workshop so it may be optimised as a multi-use arts and performance venue. The Fitters’ Workshop, therefore, will stay in its current form until Government makes a decision about appropriate funding.

Chapter 6

6.14 The Committee considers the construction phase for the proposed changes to the Fitters’ Workshop to accommodate Megalo to be a significant issue. Information in submissions and given in evidence suggested construction would be completed much earlier.

6.15 It appears to the Committee that Megalo would not have been in the Fitters’ Workshop prior to their current lease at Watson ending and that, regardless of this inquiry process occurring, alternative accommodation arrangements would have been required.

6.16 It should also be noted that a third party appeal is currently before the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, it is the Committee’s view that a timeframe longer than previously noted publicly is more accurate.


ix

RECOMMENDATIONS

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N 1

3.95 The Committee recommends that the Fitters’ Workshop be used as a

multi-use arts and performance venue.


3.96 The Committee recommends that the Government suspend its decision to

make the Fitters’ Workshop, Kingston a print studio to allow the current master

planning process underway for the Kingston Arts Precinct to be re-opened

incorporating the Fitters’ Workshop as a multi-use arts and performance venue.


3.97 That the Government respond to recommendation 1 within 30 days giving

a timetable and terms of reference for the consultation recommended by the

Committee.


5.16 The Committee recommends that the current decision to convert the

Fitters’ Workshop for Megalo Print Studio be re-considered and that immediate

steps be taken to identify an alternative site for a purpose-built building at the

Kingston Arts Precinct.


5.17 The Committee recommends that the funding made available for the

conversion of the Fitters’ Workshop be retained for funding the construction of

the purpose-built building for Megalo at the Kingston Arts Precinct be retained

and applied for that purpose.


x


xi

Acronyms and Abbreviations CMP Fitter’s Workshop Conservation Management Plan 2011.

Prepared by Duncan Marshall, Keith Baker, Nicola Hayes (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants) and Brendan O’Keefe for Daryl Jackson Alastair Swayn Architects on behalf of the ACT Department of Land and Property Services.

ACT Arts Strategy

Arts facilities strategy – A framework for the planning, development and management of the ACT Government arts facilities. - December 2003 Published by arts ACT.

ArtsACT Arts and Cultural Services section, Community Services Directorate, ACT Government

CIMF Canberra International Music Festival. Held annually in Canberra in a number of venues and which held a number of performances and recitals until 2011 in the Fitters' Workshop. 2012 is the 18th time the CIMF has been held.

Conroy report Report on the Kingston Arts Precinct Study (for arts ACT and Chief Minister’s Department). - March 2011 Prepared by Susan Conroy, Cultural Planner in association with Susan Davis, Sue Kyte, Eric Martin, David Moyle and Claire Middleton.

Albert Hall Report

Albert Hall – A Heritage Context for Community Engagement. (April 2011). Report prepared for the ACT Department of Land and Property Services by Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd

KVDL Report Report prepared by KVDL Acoustics (Kimmo Vennonen and Duncan Lowe) for the Standing Committee as part of its inquiry – January-February 2012. (see Appendix E to this report)

May + Russell Report

Report described a 'scoping study' which was announced in a media release on 3 July 2009 and which was to be undertaken by May + Russell in conjunction with discussions with Megalo described as 'being considered as a potential tenant for the new arts facility'

Megalo Megalo Print Studio and Gallery, currently situated at Phillip Avenue, Watson ACT.

SLR Report Report prepared by SLR Engineering (Murray Neish) for the Standing Committee as part of its inquiry – January-February 2012. (See Appendix E to this report)


xii


1

1 I NT R O DU CT IO N

Background

1.1 In May 2008, the ACT Government announced, as part of the 2008-09 Budget, that a study would be undertaken to ‘scope an appropriate use for the historic Fitters’ Workshop’ The announcement continued that ‘the ACT Government hopes to find a use for the building that will benefit local artists and provide new opportunities for locals and visitors to engage with local arts activity.’1

1.2 In July 2009, the then Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope MLA, made several announcements which preceded the decision to allocate the Fitters’ Workshop to Megalo Print Studio and Gallery (Megalo): that work had commenced, following the initiative announced in the 2008-09 Budget, to undertake scoping work on the reuse of the Fitters’ Workshop as an addition to the arts and tourism precinct within the Kingston Foreshore; , that architects engaged to carry out this work would discussions with Megalo Print Studio as the organization being considered as a potential tenant for the new arts facility; and, that $200,000 had been allocated in the 2009-10 ACT Budget $200, 000 for the purpose of design and documentation for printmaking and potentially other visual arts uses in the heritage-listed Fitters’ Workshop building’.2

1.3 This announcement was followed by a decision by the ACT Government that Megalo had been selected as the proposed tenant of the Fitters’ Workshop and that refurbishment, conversion, - including a new annexe building – would be funded from the ACT Budget and that the necessary works would be funded to an amount of $3.6 million.3

1 Media Release, 2 Media Release, 3 Media Release, 3 April 2011


2

1.4 Since 2009, the Fitters’ Workshop has also been used during the Canberra International Music Festival (CIMF) for recitals, concerts and choral performances, of both professional and amateur standard. Comment from both performers and audiences have made claims that these performances revealed the Fitters’ Workshop as a building with unusual and exceptional acoustics. Several leading Australian musicians and composers have commented favourably on the building’s acoustic quality, although this view is not universal, with some musical commentators describing the building as unsuitable for musical performance compared to other Canberra venues.

1.5 The claims regarding the acoustics of the building have led to representations that the decision to allocate the Fitters’ Workshop to Megalo and to outlay arts funding on refurbishment and conversion, be reconsidered with a view to ensuring the continued use of the building for a number of uses, including musical performance.

1.6 As a consequence of such concern and representation, the current ACT arts facilities strategy, which incorporates planning, development and management of the ACT’s arts facilities, has been called into question, as has the future planning, use and configuration of the Kingston Foreshore Arts Precinct.

1.7 The reference of this matter to the Committee raises these matters for examination, inquiry and report.

1.8 This Report has six chapters. Chapters 1 and 2 deal with introductory matters and with a brief discussion about the Fitters’ Workshop, its characteristics and current status and condition.

1.9 Chapter 3 is a discussion of the best use of the Fitters’ Workshop, and includes an examination of the acoustic qualities, heritage value, location and other factors including issues of cost and community demand.

1.10 Chapter 4 deals with options for alternative venues to the Fitters’ Workshop which are available in Canberra for community music groups


3

1.11 Chapter 5 deals with options for alternative purpose-built accommodation to the current proposal for Fitters’ Workshop for Megalo studio.

1.12 Chapter 6 deals with other issues the Committee considers should be drawn to the Assembly’s attention.

1.13 Following referral of this matter to the Committee by the Assembly, the Committee advertised the referral of the matter in The Canberra Times and The Chronicle on 7 November 2011, and placed details of the inquiry on the Committee website. The Committee also approached organisations including ACT Government agencies, heritage, music and performance groups and craft bodies, institutions and the current users of the Kingston Foreshore arts precinct.

1.14 The closing date for submissions to the inquiry was 9 December 2011, by which date the Committee had received 30 submissions. An additional 26 submissions were received during the course of the inquiry, along with other material, including photographs, CD recordings of musical performances in the Fitters’ Workshop.

1.15 In view of the Assembly’s specific provision in the inquiry terms of reference allowing the Committee to seek any technical advice and assistance it may require to properly conduct its inquiry, the Committee identified and selected two acoustics consultants working in Canberra to assist and advise the Committee. Following discussions and specification of matters central to the inquiry, the Committee recommended two contractors for funding to enable an assessment of the acoustics of the Fitters’ Workshop. These two consultants carried out detailed assessments and modelling of the building’s acoustics in January 2012 and provide the Committee with their reports in early February 2012. These reports are reproduced in Appendix E and are discussed in Chapter 3


4

Public Hearings

1.16 The Committee held five public hearings as follows:

Wednesday, 8 February 2012 Thursday, 9 February 2012 Tuesday, 28 February 2012 Tuesday 6 March 2012 Tuesday 13 March 2012.

1.17 Witnesses who appeared at the hearings are listed in Appendix B

1.18 A number of questions were taken on notice by the Minister for the Arts, Ms Burch MLA at hearings on 28 February 2012 and further questions were taken on notice by Mr Barr MLA, the Deputy Chief Minister, appearing in his capacity as the Minister for Economic Development on 13 March 2012.

1.19 On 13 December 2011, the Committee conducted a site inspection of the Fitters’ Workshop accompanied by officers of the ACT Government and the acoustics consultants appointed by the Committee.

1.20 On 6 March 2012, the Committee had the opportunity to visit, with assistance and explanation by Megalo Board members and staff, the current space, working and printing arrangements and gallery of Megalo Print Studio and Gallery at Watson.

Observations on the Inquiry

1.21 The Committee’s report, as is accepted practice, is based on published material before it, principally submissions, oral evidence and other materials in the public domain, or published by the Committee as exhibits.

1.22 The Committee’s inquiry generated a high level of community interest and high quality written submissions on a matter, which is clearly of interest and commitment from important sections of the Canberra community. These submissions, all of which were strong in their advocacy and views, showed a degree of passionate dedication to other artistic endeavour – both visual and musical performance – and the best


5

possible use of the unique location and buildings in the Kingston Arts Precinct.

1.23 The submissions also, it should be observed, placed emphasis on the past and future planning and implementation of a well thought-out and workable arts facilities strategy for Canberra.

1.24 One aspect of this inquiry should be mentioned, however. In the course of the inquiry, the passionate and committed view of what might be the best use for the Fitters’ Workshop building, including its assessment by the Committee of its acoustics (the first such assessment made of the building) and the possible long-term use of the building, gave rise to comments and reflections from a number of groups of bias in either presentation or statements. In public submissions and evidence, there were assertions and allegations of, bullying and intimidation by officials and participants in the arts community. On close examination, these allegations and assertions were based on hearsay, or second or third hand advice. The Committee does not raise these matters in the body of its report for this reason.

1.25 The Committee thanks the Minster for the Arts, Ms Burch MLA and her Directorate officials for their cooperation in this inquiry, as well as the Deputy Chief Minister and Minister for Economic Development, Andrew Barr MLA and Directorate officials for their assistance.

1.26 The Committee thanks all groups and individuals who made submissions and gave evidence, including Megalo and Ms Helen Moore, and who took the time and trouble to put their views before the Committee on this issue. As stated earlier, the involvement of the Canberra community in participative arts activities – whether in visual arts or in choirs - is a hallmark of a community which places a high value on the development and fostering of artistic expression and enjoyment.

1.27 The Committee wishes to state that this inquiry in no way was about impacting on the reputation or contribution of Megalo, and strongly refutes any such claims. The Committee recognises the significant contribution of Megalo, not just to the ACT, but nationally and internationally.


6


7

2 T HE F ITT ER S ’ WOR K SHO P,

K I NG STON

History

2.1 The Fitters’ Workshop in Kingston is a building with a predominantly industrial past and is one of the first buildings constructed in Canberra following the selection and laying out of the city as the National Capital. The Fitters’ Workshop is one of a number of buildings identified as designed by the most important architect in the development of early Canberra and its public buildings, John Smith Murdoch.

2.2 The history of construction, and changes to the building between its construction in 1916-17 to date, and its current state and significance are an important element in the Committee’s examination of the future use of the Fitters’ Workshop. This chapter provides a brief account of the building’s history, its current condition and status, and the scope under current legislative and planning arrangements, for its future use.

2.3 The history of the Fitters’ Workshop between the time of its design and construction, and the present, is provided in detail in the major study and proposal for the building: ‘The Fitters’ Workshop Conservation management Plan’ (the CMP) which was published in 2011.4 The CMP has been accepted as a guide for the future planning and use of the building – within its heritage status – by the ACT Government.5

2.4 The Committee draws on the CMP for its account of the Fitters’ Workshop history, as have a number of submissions to the inquiry, as it is a detailed up-to-date and most comprehensive survey of the building, its relevance and its context as a heritage building.

4 Fitters’ Workshop Conservation Management Plan. Prepared by Duncan Marshall et ors for Daryl Jackson Alastair Swayn Architects on behalf of the ACT Department of Land and Property Services. 2011 (the CMP) 5 ACT Government submission, p. 2


8

2.5 In the Executive Summary to the CMP, this description of the Fitters’ Workshop is provided:

The Workshop is part of the Kingston Powerhouse Historic Precinct which is entered on the ACT Heritage Register under the ACT Heritage Act 2004. This listing protects the heritage values of the place, and imposes a number of obligations including the need to prepare a conservation management plan. The Fitters’ Workshop is located in the former industrial/engineering services area of Kingston between Wentworth Avenue and Lake Burley Griffin. The area contains a number of historic elements which reflect this former industrial/engineering use and character, notably the Kingston Power House and former Transport Depot. The Workshop dates from 1916 and is a large concrete building with a gabled tiled roof, and has an impressive single space within it. Notably the open area behind the building was the location for a number of other buildings which were related to the historical uses of the Fitters’ Workshop. This open area is not part of the registered Kingston Powerhouse Historic Precinct. The heritage values of the Workshop relate to its architectural style, design and setting, as evidence of its historical use, and for its strong and special associations. Some of these values make the Workshop of individual significance, and in other cases it contributes to the overall heritage values of the former industrial/engineering area of Kingston.6

6 CMP, Executive Summary, p. i.


9

2.6 The ‘Overview History’7 of the Fitters’ Workshop in the CMP traces the building from its planning and design stage to the present. In particular it contains an account of the building’s various forms, including additions, annex buildings, demolitions, re-modelling, and internal changes.

2.7 Under a heading, ‘Revival and Transformation’, the CMP states that:

Accordingly, in 1995, the ACT government acquired the 37 hectare Kingston foreshores site from the Commonwealth and embarked on a community consultation as part of a process to decide how to redevelop the area. This led on to the holding of a national design competition for the site in 1997. The competition was won by the Canberra architect Colin Stewart who produced a master plan that included a cultural precinct which made use of two of the site’s heritage structures, the Power House and the Fitters’ Workshop. (Land Development Agency)

The beginnings of the community uses of the Kingston industrial area took place in 1998 with the opening of the Old Bus Depot Markets. After ACTEA’s successor ACTEW finally quit the Kingston site a few years later, the ACT government released its Arts Facilities Strategy in 2003 which expressly identified the Fitters’ Workshop as ‘a future hub for visual arts production.’ The Power House, too, was earmarked as a centre for the visual arts and, in 2007, the Canberra Glassworks opened in the building, supported by ACT government funding. In the meantime, the first three residential developments of the Kingston Foreshore project had been completed. (Canberra Times, 4 July 2009)8

2.8 The CMP provides an account of changes to the structure of the building, and specifically notes the extent of the ‘2006 Upgrade Works’ which, it

7 See CMP, ‘Overview History’, pp. 20-37. 8 CMP, ibid., p.20.


1 0

has been noted, may have gone some way (by hardening a number of surfaces and other features) to give the building its current acoustics features.

Current condition and significance

2.9 The CMP summarises the significance of the building, in its present state in the following way as a summary of the aims of its conservation:

Conserve the: Fitters’ Workshop generally, especially its industrial/engineering

character; architectural style of the building, especially the: • symmetrical façade, noting the later change of one window in

the northwestern elevation into a door thereby reducing the symmetry;

• division into vertical bays indicating classical origins; • vestigial classical entablature or cornice; • simple surfaces; • large, simple areas of glass; • impressive size of the building, internally and externally; • setting and planned relationship to the Canberra Glassworks; • remnant evidence of workshop/industrial/engineering use; and • the potential archaeological remains to the southeast of the

Fitters’ Workshop.9

2.10 In addition to this assessment, the CMP compiled a description of the attributes of the building against criteria required for recognition for entry on the ACT Heritage register.10In the submission to the inquiry from the choral societies, it was strongly argued that, in making this assessment, the CMP...’dismisses and radically understates music lovers’ interests in the FW.’ and that the Fitters’ Workshop had become significant to the Canberra music community, even if that significance had only emerged as a strong sense in the community following experience with the building as a performing music venue.11

9 CMP, p.54. 10 CMP, part 6, pp51-53. 11 Submission 36, Choral Societies.


1 1

Status of the Fitters’ Workshop

2.11 The status of the Fitters’ Workshop and its uses is subject to a number of legislative provisions, including

The ACT Planning and Development Act 2007 (ACT) The Territory Plan 2008 (ACT) The Heritage Act 2004 (ACT) Building Code of Australia

2.12 In its current management, the Fitters’ Workshop is an ACT Government property asset which is managed by the Land Development Agency (the LDA) which is responsible for the Kingston Foreshore development area which includes the Fitters’ Workshop. The area as a whole is currently the subject of master planning process covering the broader precinct. 12 The Committee deals with aspects of this process in Chapter 3.

2.13 The CMP notes that, as currently planned:

The ACT Government has decided the Workshop should be adapted to house the Megalo Print Studio. The ACT Department of Land and Property Services, which has portfolio responsibility for the LDA, is providing project facilitation to achieve this outcome.13

2.14 The CMP also identifies who it sees as stakeholders with an interest in the Fitters’ Workshop, namely:14

Megalo Print Studio ACT Heritage Council/ACT Heritage Council National Trust of Australia Australian Institute of Architects (ACT Chapter) Pro Musica ACTEW

12 CMP, p.59. 13 CMP, p. 59. 14 CMP, pp. 58-9.


1 2

2.15 The issue of how the future use of the Fitters’ Workshop may be examined depends on the view taken by stakeholders. The Committee deals with these issues in Chapter 3.


1 3

3 I S SU E S – THE BE ST US E O F T HE

F I TT ER S ’ WO R K S HO P

Introduction

3.1 The major question asked of the Committee is to make an examination of what it considers is the best use of the Fitters’ Workshop, having regard to the building’s acoustic qualities, heritage value, location, and other factors including costs and community demand.

3.2 In this chapter, the Committee considers each of the factors which have been put to the Committee for consideration, and makes its findings and recommendations on the question of what it concludes is the best use of the Fitters’ Workshop.

3.3 In following this course, the Committee considers these matters and assesses the evidence and submissions it has received on each issue and provides its conclusions.

Acoustic qualities

3.4 The most significant claim for the consideration for alternative uses to a print studio for the Fitters’ Workshop is the claim that its acoustics provide a unique space for musical performance, particularly of smaller ensemble groups and performers, and for singing and choral performance.

3.5 The submissions regarding this issue to the Committee stressed two aspects of the claim. The first is that the superior acoustic quality was detected following observation and experience from performance, by both performers and audiences, at concerts organised as part of the Canberra International Music Festival (CIMF) in the period 2009 to 2011. The second is that no assessment of the acoustics of the Fitters’ Workshop had been undertaken prior to the matter being referred to the Committee.

3.6 The reasons for this result are that the building has been used for musical performance for a relatively short time, and commenced being used in


1 4

that manner at much the same time that the 2009 decision was made to approve conversion of the building to a print studio.

3.7 As a consequence, submissions supporting the view that the acoustics of the Fitters’ Workshop are unique to music venues in Canberra, also argued that the decision to approve conversion of the building for use as a print studio was made without consideration of the importance of this quality (or before it was apparent), and that if a wider view of the building’s use had been taken, or is now taken, a different decision may be made.

Claims regarding Fitters’ Workshop acoustics

3.8 The Committee received a number of submissions which made specific claims for the quality of the building’s acoustics. Two submissions that formed the most comprehensive comments on the issue were from various Canberra choral societies and Pro Musica, the manager and presenter of the CIMF.

3.9 The choral societies15 contained a number of quotes from musicians, composers and performers describing the nature and special quality of the acoustics of the Fitters’ Workshop. A principal claim in these submissions was that one of Australia’s most prominent and respected composers, Peter Sculthorpe, AC was quoted a saying – in May 2009 – that the Fitters’ Workshop produced very high quality acoustics for music. This statement attracted a great deal of attention and comment at that time and since. Submissions to the inquiry also quoted comment from Peter Sculthorpe suggesting he had qualified his reported 2009 comments.16

3.10 The Committee was provided with a quotation from comment made publicly by Mr Sculthorpe on 8 May 2011 at the 2011 CIMF:

15 Submission 36, fr. Various Canberra choral societies, and other groups and individuals who are

particularly interested in music for the voice., (referred to in the report as the choral societies). 16 E.g.,submission 2, Megalo, p. 26.


1 5

I was thinking I don’t know of a performance space equal to this in the whole of Australia I mean does anybody know of a place to listen to sublime music with sun pouring in, and to have such a special feeling and to feel so uplifted.

It just seems tragic that these will be the last concerts in this place My Requiem then is like a requiem for the Fitters’ Workshop and I will always carry that thought with me 17…

3.11 The Committee sought confirmation from Mr Sculthorpe of the comments quoted above, and received written advice from him, which the Committee attaches in Appendix F:

The email that Christopher Latham sent to you yesterday [referring to the words quoted in paragraph 3.10], February 7, contains my spoken comments from Sunday May 8 2011. I stand by those comments. Certainly the Fitters’ Workshop is a truly splendid place for the performance of music.18

3.12 In its submission, Pro Musica described the acoustic qualities in this way

The acoustic is even across all frequencies, and supports low frequencies well, which gives unusual richness to the sound. The overwhelmingly most frequent response of listeners has been how warm the sound is. Pro Musica has programmed 29 concerts in the space over three festivals, all of which have been recorded.

Forces ranging from solo guitar, piano, voice, violin and cello, through to string quartets, vocal sextets, wind ensembles and percussion ensembles, chamber orchestras, jazz bands and choirs, all the way to orchestras, amplified large ensembles (40 players) and massed choirs (200 voices). In all cases, the building reproduced the sounds faithfully without distortion.

The acoustic of the building when empty is extremely resonant, bordering on unusable. (I suspect that when the building was in use

17 Committee Exhibit 3A. Copy of words spoken by Peter Sculthorpe at Fitters’ Workshop CIMF

concert, May 2011. 18 Committee exhibit 3A, fax to the Committee from Peter Sculthorpe dated 8 February 2012.


1 6

as an industrial space, the sound must have been unbearable.) This resonance is somewhat mediated by adding staging and chairs. But the building comes into its own only with an audience and the acoustic approaches more normal delays for a concert hall. With an audience of 100-400 people, the building enters an optimum acoustic range as people’s bodies soak up the sound and remove one of the buildings four reflective planes. The sound then becomes unusually clear, allowing an unusual amount of detail to be heard.19

3.13 Other submissions and evidence from composers, musicians and performers also spoke highly of the Fitters’ Workshop acoustics:

My experience of the hall is limited to several concerts and rehearsals I attended as Composer-in-Residence at the 2010 Canberra International Music Festival. This, however, was sufficient for me to gain a highly favourable impression. The music I heard, much of it my own, ranged from intimate instrumental chamber music to a very large choral work with brass, organ and percussion.

Contrary to what might be expected from reading the report, I found that the warm acoustic, while naturally suited to choral music, also provided – if unaccountably - the necessary clarity and immediacy for intimate chamber music. The complex counterpoint and fine detail of my string quartets were clearly audible as was the texture of some piano music, which would be expected to smudge in a reverberant acoustic. And in one very lively and intricate virtuoso piece for six voices, the parts were well enough defined and sharp edged to make its effect. (Ross Edwards AM)20

....

I am no expert as to acoustics or to architecture, but all I can say as a performer is that some of the most wondrous and joyous music that I have been involved in was in my experiences in the Fitters’ Workshop over the last few festivals. I cannot say what it is about

19 Submission 38, Pro Musica Inc, p.11. 20 Submission 41, Ross Edwards AM, p.1.


1 7

that acoustic, but it really feels as though the audience and the musicians are part of one sound. I have had people say that to me in the audience, that they have never felt so much part of a sound as they have in that building. As far as a performer goes, it is the unique opportunity of the performer not having to watch the conductor so much as listening to the sound we are all producing. (Ms Louise Page)21

....

In Canberra I am the Musical Director of the Canberra Choral Society, which, as Canberra’s longest-running choir, celebrates its 60th anniversary this year. Historic for Canberra. I have performed in the Fitters’ Workshop as a soloist and as a member of the Song Company, a professional Sydney-based vocal ensemble. I have also prepared choirs for performances there.

I feel I am qualified to judge acoustics. A basic requirement of musical performance is a good acoustic. Ideally, you want all of the audience—whether they are near the front, to the side or at the back—to be enveloped by the music. Expensive home sound systems aim to achieve this in your living room.

Currently, the main performing venues for acoustic music in Canberra are Llewellyn Hall, Albert Hall and various churches, church halls, school halls and school chapels. From my experience, the acoustics of these places vary from ordinary to pretty good, but not one is exceptional. The Fitters’ Workshop has an extraordinary acoustic and is thus exceptional. (Mr Tobias Cole)22

3.14 The Committee also received submissions which did not agree with the judgment that the Fitters’ Workshop acoustics were superior. Professor Larry Sitsky in his submission, advised:

I have experienced the acoustic in this venue a number of times. I can see why singers in particular like the space, as it enhances their

21 Evidence, Ms Louise Page, 8 February 2012, p.24. 22 Evidence, Mr Tobias Cole, 8 February 2012, p.24.


1 8

voices. However, the claims made are exaggerated and are now getting silly.23

3.15 A submission from Mr Jim Cotter of the ANU School of Music made a similar point:

I have discussed the acoustics with many of my colleagues at the School of Music and there are as many ratings as there are respondents. While it may be seen as a fine acoustic by choral groups the weight of opinion expressed to me by instrumentalists who had performed there was that it was an extremely difficult acoustic space in which to work.24

Testing of the Fitters’ Workshop acoustics

3.16 As indicated in the introduction to the report, the Committee commissioned an assessment of the acoustics of the Fitters’ Workshop as part of this inquiry.

3.17 Following a process of inquiry and assessment the Committee engaged two Canberra acoustics consultants, KVDL Acoustics Consultants and SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd, to carry out acoustics assessment of the Fitters’ Workshop and make a number of other assessments.

3.18 The Committee gave the consultants the following reference for assessment and report:

• Investigate the acoustic qualities and characteristics of the fitters’ Workshop building, Kingston arts precinct

• Determine whether the building may have any identifiable unique acoustic qualities which make it a superior venue for live music and/or choral performance

• Advise of the possible or likely alteration to any unique existing acoustic qualities that could result from changes (such as fitting out) to the current ‘bare’ nature of the building

23 Prof Larry Sitsky, submission 43. 24 Mr Jim Cotter, Submission 12.


1 9

3.19 The consultants prepared and presented their reports to the Committee so the reports could be published by the Committee on the first day of its public hearings on the reference, 8 February 2012.

The KVDL Report

3.20 The report by KVDL Acoustics Consultants, which is in Appendix E, provides a detailed description of the process followed by KVDL together with their findings, in answer to the Committee’s questions . KVDL set out the parameters of its report as follows:

This report endeavours to test and discuss the musical acoustic qualities of the Fitters’ Workshop so that it may help frame the decision making process regarding its future use. It was found that the Fitters’ Workshop in its current bare state, does not measure up well against current subjective criteria. This is in part due to the nature of the subjective criteria, which are primarily aimed at describing the qualities of concert halls in an attempt to standardise subjective judgements based on acoustic measurements. It is also due to the completely unfurnished nature of the space when we tested it.

The Fitters’ Workshop, in its current bare condition, has a reverb time that is more than twice that of any of the other venues we tested for comparison. That fact alone means it is a unique acoustic space for music in Canberra.

3.21 KVDL has summarised its findings as follows:

The Fitters’ Workshop is undoubtedly a unique acoustic performance space in Canberra. In its empty state it is initially a curiosity and it is acoustically problematic, especially for speech. With at least chairs and audience present it is highly suited to slower, ambient, and sparsely instrumented forms of music. The


2 0

recordings demonstrate subjectively that for these genres it can be superior to local churches and other venues.25

and

Our modeling work in this report should be seen as indicative of directions worth pursuing. If a decision is made to retain the Fittersʼ Workshop in its current form, there needs to be an acceptance of its acoustics with a realism and clarity around what the space could be potentially used for. It is very likely that even after the proposed minimal alterations it can never be made to suit all forms of music, media or performance. Even with an audience it may have a longer reverberation time than other venues tested. Further acoustic modeling of the space should be central feature of any design process.

With a space having such sensitive acoustics as the Fitters’ Workshop we urge that any alterations should be made and assessed carefully. If it is retained the space may need to be tried out for a variety of uses and we need to learn from that real world experience. After a year or two it is quite possible that a second round of alterations would become advisable.

Finally, we have come to the view that the Fitters’ Workshop has merit as a venue for certain styles of music. If retained in its current form it could become a functional and complementary extension to the range and variety of venues in Canberra.26

3.22 In taking evidence from Kimmo Vennonen and Duncan Lowe of KVDL, the Committee sought some elaboration on the conclusions KVDL drew from their study, specifically as those conclusions relate to the effect of modifications to the building which would be necessary to allow for an audience on a more than occasional basis:

25 KVDL report, , p.9 26 ibid., p.9.


2 1

THE CHAIR: …I just want to ask a little bit further about the sort of modifications that you discussed—what alterations would be made. I appreciate that you said that that is not something you have been tasked with looking at. You made the point that you consider that it could also be used to accommodate other forms of music, apart from the choral which you mentioned. In terms of those modifications, are you able to give the committee a bit of an idea about what would be acceptable so you still retain those qualities?

Mr Vennonen: Sure. The first thing is that any modifications would need to have minimal impact on the acoustics, and it may be that some of those modifications would need to be movable—for example, chairs; and carpet you may consider as an option that you can put up or put down depending on the event. Obviously, putting a carpet down will dampen down the reverberation and therefore if you had a smaller audience in mind the carpet could make it acceptable. The same for curtains; we have discussed about whether we could have curtains that, for example, retract into boxes or are full length. That way you can have your cake and eat it too: you can have it used as is for venues like the International Music Festival, where all you need is 300 seats and a stage, or you can use some other devices to absorb sound to make it cater for a broader range of music.27

3.23 In answer to a question from Mrs Dunne, MLA related to other venues in Canberra, when compared to the Fitters’ Workshop, Mr Vennonen noted:

MRS DUNNE: I did not write down the term you used, but you were sort of saying “acoustics at the margins”; what you were saying by that was that it was a challenging acoustic, that it would challenge people to explore different things. Could you just elaborate a little more? You were saying that is a good thing, not a bad thing?

27 Evidence, 28 February 2012, p. 108.


2 2

Mr Vennonen: Correct. There are a few venues in Canberra already which are very standard. We are talking Llewellyn Hall, Sitsky Room, Uniting Church, Royal Theatre et cetera. There are plenty of standard venues where you can commercially fit 1,000 people in and make money and it is a reliable thing. Yes, you have to use amplification. Yes, you have to charge high-ticket prices. No, you cannot let community groups in because they cannot afford it et cetera, whereas this is a different venue. It is not a boundary where those conditions do not apply. Yes, that means you have to take on the acoustic. It is not neutral. You have to work with it. That is going to affect your work as a musician or an artist, and I believe that is a good thing as well as it could be to some people a problem. You would not put ‘The Police’ in there, because it would be a total mess…28

The SLR acoustics report

3.24 The report prepared for the Committee by SLR Consulting Australia (SLR) provided – as with the KVDL report – a detailed technical description of the Fitters’ Workshop, the measurements and assessments undertaken by SLR and a discussion on its findings. The report appears in Appendix E. The report ‘s ‘Discussion’ section notes that:

It can be said that in certain respects the Fitter’s Workshop is a rare if not unique place to make music. The more significant issue appears to be under what circumstances would a musician wish to use the building, and what kinds of music are the most advantageous to play there. The technical data suggests that the hall would be best suited to works which rely on a rich sustained sound, where the different notes blend together. Based on Beranek’s review of concert halls, this space is not suited to classical music due to the very long reverberation times.

28 Evidence, 28 February 2012, p.110.


2 3

If the building was to be fitted out for other uses, it is inevitable that the current reverberant (live) nature of the building will be diminished. This is because the introduction of furniture and partitions will segment the space and therefore decrease the effective volume of any single area within the building. The introduction of soft furnishings would also further decrease the liveness.

In view of the results obtained, the utility of the Fitter’s Workshop for musical performances appears to be limited to a very specific style of music or taste for the way the building will reinforce the sound. The consideration would then be whether this building should be set apart for this particular interest or be repurposed to address the needs of a broader cross-section of the community.29

Comment on the KVDL and SLR reports

3.25 In comments to the Committee on the KVDL and SLR reports, a number of submissions made detailed comment on the method and findings which resulted. In his submission, Mr Roland Peelman, who has conducted instrumental, vocal and combined performances in the Fitters’ Workshop between 2009 to 2011 stated, in his conclusion to a detailed commentary, that:

Overall, in my considered view, the different properties reported in the acoustic reports must be considered in relation to each other and to other non-acoustic factors. Those performers and audience members, including myself, who report outstanding experiences would appear to be responding to the way in which the high quality distribution and range of sound mitigates the long reverberation to deliver detail, warmth and richness. Another key factor that contributes to this experience is the simple architectural beauty of this open, airy light-filled space.

29 SLR Report to the Committee, p. 9.


2 4

The building also has an optimal seating capacity and ambience for concerts in a wide range of genres – both hard to find in Canberra. Without the building’s acoustic properties, these other features would be irrelevant in regard to music. Combined, these features make the Fitters’ Workshop a performance space that needs minimal alterations. My experiences in the FW indicate that, no matter what the disagreements over its suitability, and despite some limitations, the space is sufficiently versatile to be a viable and valued space for a wide range of music performances.30

3.26 In his submission, Bill Risby, a pianist with experience of a variety of music in the Fitters’ Workshop, said that both reports highlighted the qualities of the building that are valued:

After reading the two acoustic reports on the room in question I wish to comment on my experience from performing there and listening as a member of the audience. Both of the acoustic reports were done using the Fitters' Workshop as a bare room, i.e., no furnishings and no people. I would suggest that both the outcomes seem fairly accurate based on these testing methods, but of course at a concert there is (usually) an audience and chairs and furnishings which greatly vary the outcome of the sound — both how it is reflected and absorbed, thus determining whether the room generates a "pleasing" or "cohesive" sound. These opinions are of course subjective, but as an acute and avid listener my opinion is based on the Fitter's Workshop's standing in relation to all the other rooms I've played in, such as the Angel Place Recital Hall in Sydney, and the Sydney Opera House concert hall.31

30 Submission 42, Roland Peelman, p.7. 31 Submission 40, Bill Risby, p. 1.


2 5

3.27 On a different level, the Minister for the Arts, Ms Burch, MLA noted at the Committee’s hearing that the reports may not be all that helpful due to the limited range of music that might be suitable for the building:

Ms Burch: The new information is still coming forward, and that is certainly held in the two acoustic reports that have been provided through this committee and are online, as I understand. My interpretation of those is that there is very limited musical use and that there is a good swag of music that would just not be appropriate. So the new information that has come to light is that it is a clear sublime musical venue; that has been found not to be correct if you read and interpret, as I have, those acoustic reports, which show the limited nature of the benefits of those venues.32

Acoustic qualities – Committee comment and conclusion

3.28 The Committee has ensured that it has made a careful assessment of the claims regarding the acoustic qualities of the Fitters’ Workshop within the time it had available.

3.29 It notes that a number of assertions regarding ideal, unique and outstanding acoustic qualities are a matter of judgement, and always affected by a hearers or an audience’s experience of music, of comparative performance venues and often subjective assessments. This was the principal reason for the Committee arranging for an objective and technically sound acoustic testing of the Fitters’ Workshop during this inquiry.

3.30 The claims by the choral societies and by highly experienced and qualified musicians and composers are predominantly of the view that the Fitters’ Workshop appears to be an outstanding venue acoustically for some – but not all – musical performance. It should be noted that the types of music and performances at the building, which formed part of the CIMF programs, have accentuated the outstanding qualities claimed.



2 6

3.31 The Committee accepts that the acoustics of the Fitters’ Workshop are of sufficient quality and have attracted such a degree of favourable comment, which are also borne out by the two acoustics assessments. carried out at the Committee’s request .

Conclusions

3.32 The Committee concludes that the Fitters’ Workshop, Kingston has acoustic qualities for musical performance, which justify a re-examination of the decision to convert the building for use exclusively as a print studio and workshop.

3.33 The Committee also concludes that the acoustic qualities appear to be suitable for the performance of particular forms of musical performance, particularly choral music, and that it is essential that consideration be given to the continuation of the building as a venue for the performance of music. This conclusion is subject to it being possible to make provision in the building for appropriate proper seating, equipment and other alterations and changes necessary to make it a modern and usable venue.

Heritage value

3.34 The heritage value of the Fitters’ Workshop is dealt with in Chapter 2, in which the Committee provides details of the current heritage status of the building.

3.35 Submissions to the Committee, and evidence taken by the Committee has focussed on the important element of the heritage value of the Fitters’ Workshop, in light of the current plans for the conversion and refurbishment of the building, including the insertion of a mezzanine ‘pod’, and the construction of an annexe to the building. The current design plans provide for a free-standing structure within the Fitters’ Workshop’ designed to leave the walls of the building free.

3.36 The architect of the plans, Alastair Swayn described the reasons for the ‘pod’ in this way:


2 7

Mr Swayn: It is done first of all because we need some accommodation that is enclosed—as office accommodation, as a meeting room. There is a screen washing room and a screen coating room. Those spaces need to be enclosed. It is done for a functional reason. When we actually addressed the function, we also then addressed the question of the acoustics. So it is doing two things. Then conceptually the pod is seen as a sort of sculptural object within the space. In some ways if you went in there and just saw this object in there, it would appear like an art gallery. That is the conceptual idea behind it.33

3.37 In its submission to the Committee, Megalo noted that:

Megalo will bring a new lease of life to this long empty building and create a significant landmark within the cultural precinct which, in time, will become a visual arts icon in Australia and internationally.

With Megalo, the workshop heritage of the building will be retained and celebrated and made the most of allowing visitors to see the remarkable transition from industrial facility to creative art centre in the heart of a major visual arts precinct.

The current, approved architectural designs proposed by the government architects are respectful and a very well resolved solution to the adaptive reuse of such a remarkable building which, if implemented, could allow Megalo to flourish in the new Kingston Arts Precinct for many years to come.34

3.38 In his submission to the Committee, Mr Eric Martin, of the ACT Division of the National Trust of Australia spoke on the Trust’s reservations regarding the current plans for the building:

It is quite clear to the National Trust that the building has significance and the key issue that is concerning us is the space—the volume or the appreciation of the space. In the various conservation

33 Evidence, 28 February 2012, p.122. 34 Submission 2, Megalo Print Studio, p. 20.


2 8

plans and studies, particularly the conservation management plan that was prepared for the place, one of the things that come out quite strongly in the significance of the building is the impressive size of the internal space and the appreciation of it. It is interesting to point out that the appreciation of that space seems to be fundamental in maintaining the significance of it. This does come out in the conservation policies. It also comes out in the ACT Heritage Council citation of the place. One of their criteria refers to “the internal alterations and additions will respect the proportions of the space”.

So it is the issue of the intrusion of the mezzanine that is of the greatest concern to us. We believe that that mezzanine and the proposed changes will have a high impact on the heritage values of the building and therefore adversely affect the significance of the place.

The conservation management plan does talk about issues of prudent and feasible alternatives and in the context of the arts precinct development I do believe that there may well be some feasible improvement alternatives in the context of what may happen on the whole site. It is also interesting to note some of the earlier comments on the sketched plans—I am quoting from a 2010 document—that the mezzanine would have a high impact on the interior space, and this is the sort of issue that is of great concern to the National Trust.

In summary, the issue is that the proposed fit-out, which includes the mezzanine, destroys a fundamental aspect of the significance of the building, which is the appreciation of the fullness of the space, and that is the primary issue that is of concern to the National Trust. While you may be able to appreciate the ceiling or some part of the volume at each end, you will never be able to appreciate the true volume of the space with the intrusion of a mezzanine, and that is the fundamental issue that the National Trust is concerned about. It is inconsistent with the Heritage Council’s citation and guidelines, it is inconsistent with the conservation management plan and therefore


2 9

it adversely affects the significance of the place, and that is of concern to us.35

3.39 In evidence to the Committee, Mr David Whitney, Director, artsACT provided this view on the proposed conversion design:

Mr Whitney: If I can make a comment here, if we look at the sister building, if you like, the Canberra Glassworks, the adaptive re-use of that building, completely abiding by all the heritage regulations and requirements, has resulted in a building that has received national recognition. The design work for Megalo to move into the Fitters’ Workshop—although I cannot predict it is going to win the same national recognition—is certainly taking into account issues of heritage that were recognised and, as the minister was saying, it is certainly following the line of Duncan Marshall’s conservation management plan that any work done for Megalo within the Fitters’ Workshop is done with a sensitive understanding of the heritage qualities of the building.36

3.40 In his evidence to the Committee, the design architect for the conversion, Mr Alastair Swayn, answered a question from the Chair on the impact of the current design:

THE CHAIR: On that issue, one of the things that Eric Martin [of the National Trust] said too, in terms of those conservation issues, related to the space of the building and actually retaining that space. I appreciate what you say that by having that sort of pod in the mezzanine you can allow people still to see that space, but have those sorts of concerns been taken into account in the design and the heritage factor—that it is a quite unique building in terms of the actual space of it?

Mr Swayn: There has been nothing in the conservation management plan, which has driven us to preserve that space without anything in it. So in actually developing the design, we have developed it as

35 Evidence, 28 February 2012, p.p. 113-114. 36 Evidence, 28 February, 2012, p.90.


3 0

what I might describe as politely as possible to the building and as referential to the building as possible, so that all the external walls are maintained in their visibility and the actual pod itself is as small as we can make it, such that the screen printing workshop at this end of the building is at the full volume of the building, full height of the building and substantial length of it. It is obviously by its very nature a sort of single space. I mean, there is a space with an object in it.37

3.41 In answer to questions from Ms Porter MLA, Mr Swayn gave the Committee further detail:

Mr Swayn: In terms of the pod itself, it is very much an object sitting in a space, but in talking with the heritage unit and the Heritage Council they have been very particular about preservation of both the exterior and the interior surfaces and as far as I am concerned that is fine; that is what we should be doing.38

3.42 In relation to the planned annexe to the building, Mr Swayn noted that, an annexe or annexes had been attached to the building previously

Mr Swayn: The annexe will be in corrugated metal. The intention is to actually express it as an industrial building, as consistent with what would have been there before. There had been a variety of brick and metal sheds before, so the idea of this being still seen as an industrial piece of building is very consciously in the design. The 1991 Peter Freeman conservation management plan, which only dealt very lightly with the Fitters’ Workshop, indicated a parallel building through here, which is different to the actual history of the site.39

3.43 The view taken on heritage values of the building, by the choral societies, is one which sees the Fitters’ Workshop being retained free of insertions and annexes:

37 Evidence, 28 February 2012, p. 124. 38 Evidence, 28 February 2012, p. 125. 39 Evidence, 28 February 2012, p. 125.


3 1

The splendid combination of light, sound, space and elegant proportions is what makes the Fitters’ Workshop so special. It is absurd to argue that these unique values will be preserved when this space is sub-divided as offices and a print workshop, has a mezzanine floor inserted, and everything possible is done to deaden its vibrating sound. It is specious to propose that, because these alterations will not touch the exiting walls, they are sympathetic and respectful of the building’s heritage values.40

Heritage value – Committee comment and conclusion

3.44 The Committee provides extracts from the Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for the Fitters’ Workshop in Chapter 2. These extracts emphasise the need that, as part of a sensitive heritage treatment of the building, design and construction of future works involving the Fitters’ Workshop should strive to meet CMP criteria.

3.45 The CMP, by putting some emphasis of the industrial past of the Fitters’ Workshop as its primary heritage significance, suggest that continuing use as a building in its historical mode is an aim. On this view, as Megalo states in its submission, a continuing industrial-type activity (such as print-making) could be argued to carry on the building’s tradition as a place of: ‘industry, labour, machinery, production, dirty hands, aprons and overalls’.41

3.46 This is not the view of the National Trust, as provided earlier in this section.

3.47 The Committee has examined the plans, viewed a model for the proposed conversion and additions to the Fitters’ Workshop building, and are concerned that these changes will act to completely alter the current nature and heritage character of the building. In particular, the insertion of a ‘pod’ into the building as described, will detrimentally impact on the open, light nature of the building.

40 Submission 36, Choral Societies, p.10. 41 Submission 2, Megalo, p. 19.


3 2

Conclusion

3.48 The Committee concludes that the planned changes to the Fitters’ Workshop will alter the building fabric and, if carried out as currently designed, prohibit musical performance in the main building space.

Location

3.49 In discussions on this aspect of the terms of reference, submissions and evidence have focussed on the location of the Fitters’ Workshop in relation to the powerhouse building, the Old Bus Depot Markets and the place of the building in the Kingston Foreshore Arts Precinct.

3.50 The ACT Government submission highlights this aspect in its submission and notes that:

The Land Development Agency (LDA) currently has jurisdiction over the greater area known as Section 49. This includes the proposed Kingston Arts Precinct encompassing the Canberra Glassworks, Fitters' Workshop and the Former Transport Depot, as well as all of the undeveloped land bordered by Wentworth Avenue, Eastlake Parade, Giles Street and Lake Burley Griffin.42

3.51 As the Government submission notes, the Kingston Arts Precinct developed from an artsACT strategy document, the arts facilities strategy in 2003 which identified the Kingston Foreshore area as a visual arts production precinct. Included in its description of the Kingston Foreshore Precinct was the observation that the heritage buildings (including the Powerhouse and the Fitters’ Workshop) were:

Buildings which are suited to conversion for contemporary visual arts use (consultant studies have confirmed this) and which would symbolically link with the site’s historical uses (electricity generation and distribution, carpentry and printing)43

42 Submission 1, Minister for the Arts, p. 2. 43 ‘Arts Facility Strategy’, A framework for the planning, development and management of ACT

Government arts facilities, artsACT, ACT Government, 2003., p. 19.


3 3

3.52 Following the establishment of the Canberra Glassworks in 2006-07, the first step in implementation of this aspect of the Kingston Arts Precinct was put in place. The selection of the Fitters’ Workshop as a print studio and gallery, and the allocation of the space to Megalo followed in 2008-09.

3.53 In 2010-11, artsACT commissioned a study by cultural planner, Susan Conroy, leading to the development of the Kingston Arts Precinct Strategy.44 The study report (the Conroy Report) made a number of findings and recommendations regarding the Kingston Arts Precinct and, in relation to the Fitters’ Workshop, noted that:

Megalo will be in the Fitters’ Workshop but with additional space, in order to meet Megalo’s overall needs, in a proposed new building.45

3.54 In addition, the Conroy Report identified the need for a new stand-alone building to house a number of organisations and for various visual arts requirements, including ‘likely to be housed in this area….Megalo (for needs not met in the Fitters’ Workshop)’.46

3.55 The LDA is currently undertaking a master planning strategy for the Kingston Arts Precinct (Section 49) to ‘achieve good economic, cultural and social outcomes for the Territory’.47

3.56 The Committee was interested, in light of the history of the planning for facilities in the Kingston Arts Precinct, to ascertain the extent of the exercise, being conducted for the LDA by Purdon and Associates, who have conducted ‘community consultation workshops, public consultations at the Old Bus depot Markets and selected industry and focus groups’.48

44 Kingston Arts Precinct Strategy, Susan Conroy, Cultural Planner in association with Susan Davis,

Sue Kyte, Eric Martin, David Moyle & Claire Middleton; for artsACT, Chief Minister’s Department. March 2011 (Conroy Report).

45 Conroy Report, p.14. 46 Conroy Report, ibid. 47 Submission 1, Minister for the Arts, p. 3. 48 Ibid.


3 4

3.57 At its public hearing on 13 March 2012, the Committee asked whether the proposal for Megalo to move into the Fitters’ Workshop was a ‘given’ condition of the Purdon review. Mr Reynolds, the Executive Director of the LDA, advised the Committee

Mr Reynolds: There was a range of fixed not negotiable. Government had made a decision on that. We went to a great extent to be very clear to all participants that we had to work within the boundaries of some not negotiable. That was something that we saw as an opportunity or a constraint that needed to be accommodated.49

3.58 The Committee also sought advice on the scope of the community consultation process undertaken in the Purdon review, and the parties identified as stakeholders.

3.59 Ms Cantamessa of the LDA advised the Committee that

Ms Cantamessa: We consulted all the key government agencies, the developers who were on site at Kingston foreshore, the bus depot operators, the glassworks. We did public consultations as well. So we ensured that we went out to a large group of people. We conducted the public consultations at the bus depot markets on Sundays and we also did two workshops. We invited people to attend if they wished, so we tried to broaden the scope. As well, we did some workshops where we used a marketing firm to actually canvass people who wished to attend. So we tried to do a broad community consultation where we not only had people and involvement from the inner south but we tried to extend it into the greater community of Canberra.50

3.60 The Committee was interested to see whether stakeholders engaged by the Purdon review included the stakeholders in the future of the Fitters’ Workshop which were identified in the CMP for the building (the Committee has referred to this group in Chapter 2); and, in particular, Pro Musica. Ms Cantamessa told the Committee that, ‘If Pro Musica

49 Evidence, 13 March 2012, p. 160. 50 Evidence, 13 March 2012, p. 167.


3 5

were consulted, they would have come as members of Pro Musica to the public consultations.’51 Pro Musica were not listed as stakeholders.

3.61 The Committee should add that the Purdon review and master planning strategy have not been completed or acted on to date.

3.62 In answer to a question on notice taken at the Committee’s hearing with Minister Barr on 13 March 2012, the Minister advised that, in relation to the question of how stakeholders in the future of the Fitters’ Workshop were identified, - in particular Pro Musica - that:

The Conservation Management Plan’s (CMP) author, Mr Duncan Marshall, has advised that material relating to Pro Musica was drawn from secondary sources such as websites and public/news reports. Pro Musica had no direct involvement in the CMP.52

Other factors – cost

3.63 In this context, submissions to the Committee focussed on the cost of the proposal and the likely range of costs which might be generated should the planned use of the Fitter’s Workshop be altered from the Megalo studio proposal to an upgrade venue for public use.53

3.64 In its submission, the ACT Government noted that these costs would be in a number of categories, namely:

• capital cost of an upgrade which would be essential for public use, including power connections for lighting and all other power needs.

• Venue hire and management costs, including appropriate rental and management costs.

• If the Fitters’ Workshop were to be considered as a venue and Place of Public Entertainment, other costs would be raised, including

51 Evidence, 13 March 2012, p. 167. 52 Letter to the Committee dated 30 March 2012. 53 Submission 1, Minister for the Arts, p. 6.


3 6

Performing Rights Association licensing; public liability insurance, liquor licensing and issue such as fire regulations and standards.

3.65 In evidence, Mr Whitney, Director, artsACT also provided the Committee with considerable detail:

Mr Whitney: The first part is the study that was undertaken in fact related to relocating Megalo and their existing operation. So the business model is established. They are applicants to the arts fund and a key arts organisation. From artsACT’s perspective, we understand how their business works and their business model is strong and sound. So to transfer from one physical location to another physical location, there is a business model that is clearly articulated for them.

The other issues are issues that are of concern to us. I am not sure if I need to note a personal background of being a theatre manager for 25 years, including managing the Canberra Theatre Centre. There are lots of regulations and issues around places of public entertainment that would need to be considered in the event that Fitters’ Workshop were used as a place of public entertainment.

Our sort of cursory overview of some of those Building Code of Australia requirements and fire and safety audits that would need to be conducted indicate that there is a lot of cost involved in actually creating that within the Fitters’ Workshop. Currently it has no emergency services associated with the building. The exits are not suitable for fire exits. There are no immediate toilets nearby—all those sorts of practical questions.

But very importantly after that, there are a lot of other issues around how the place will be managed, how it would be worked. I guess that Albert Hall is an example where the territory recently has undergone quite a large consultative process with a firm from Sydney, Eltons, to look at how to best manage the Albert Hall. It is quite a complex exercise if you want to avoid the building becoming a carpet sale venue, which is what the Albert Hall, sadly, had


3 7

become. I think there is a renewed vigour now to have a look at Albert Hall being something different from a carpet sale venue.

From our perspective here, what we are trying to point out is that there are a lot of issues that, because of the informal use of the Fitters’ Workshop by the music festival, the building was made available without some of these formal and legal requirements being factored through. If they were to be researched to make it a performance venue, I think you would find it would be a very expensive exercise to create that in the first place for the building and then how you would manage and make the building available for concert use.54

The ACT Government has allocated $3.9 million in funding to redevelop the Fitters’ Workshop for Megalo.

Other factors – community demand

3.66 The level of community demand regarding the future of the Fitters’ Workshop appears to be, at this stage, a matter of conjecture.

3.67 In its submission, the ACT Government noted, in this respect that:

To date there has been requests for use of the Fitters' Workshop by elements of the community music fraternity in Canberra. These groups were able to access the Fitters' Workshop during the Canberra International Music Festival when there was no venue rental fee and regulatory standards were not required due to the temporary nature of the use.

The venue has also been used in recent years for one-off launches and exhibitions on an ad hoc basis.55

3.68 The Committee has not looked beyond these unreliable measures of community demand. The Committee notes, however, that a number of

54 Evidence, 28 February 2012, p. 87. 55 Submission 1, Minister for the Arts, p. 4.


3 8

submissions couched their expressions of a community interest in the Fitters’ Workshop and its future use - and demand - in terms of a request that the Fitters’ Workshop be assessed as a multi –use facility, available for a wide range of community uses.

Best Use of the Fitters’ Workshop

3.69 The Committee has, during the course of this inquiry, regularly been directed to the question of what is the best use of the Fitters’ Workshop: the current proposal which was generated in 2009 to scope the Fitters’ Workshop as a building for use by Megalo and alternative proposals or understanding, which featured in early planning for the Kingston Arts Precinct, that the building would be suitable as some form of multi-use facility.

3.70 The Committee received several substantial submissions, and took evidence from a number of architects who had formulated plans on these options.

3.71 In his evidence to the Committee, Colin Stewart, an architect of the original plan for the Kingston Foreshore area told the Committee that:

Mr Stewart…I always imagined—rightly or wrongly—that the Fitters’ Workshop would be a multi-use space for markets or anyone. It is now claimed it has good musical attributes, which is interesting but adds to the property idea that maybe it is valuable as a shared space. I do not know anything about the funding or the design of what is proposed, actually. I have not looked at it in detail. Funding may be a difficulty, to add an annexe, but if funding was available I think it would be wonderful if it was kept as a space for everybody rather than just one group. As I say, I have got no idea of the funding, the restraints or the special needs of Megalo. I am sorry if I am intruding on their ambitions or expectations, but I am just


3 9

explaining the background as I saw it as the original sort of originator of the design of the foreshore.56

3.72 In responding to a question from the Committee chair, Mr Stewart added to this advice:

Mr Stewart: We did not know who was going to be in it. It was a long while before we even knew who was going to go into the Powerhouse. It was always thought of as a huge precinct with amazing opportunities for industrial-type buildings for entrepreneurial uses, but owned by the government and through a board of the different community groups that would be there, plus others. It was a self-funded place. That is what I always thought. I still think it is a good idea. It was presented for many, many years that way. Every time the LDA wanted to sell blocks of land in that site I would always say, “No, leave it till later.” I was just trying to keep it open so that at some stage clever people might see the opportunity to build a unique cultural hotspot.

3.73 In his evidence to the Committee, Mr Graham Humphries, an architect observed that the scoping study for the Fitters’ Workshop (the May+ Russell study) was not asked to comment or put forward ideas for any alternative use for the building. Mr Humphries told the Committee:

Mr Humphries: - This big picture overview is important to keep in sight as the detailed circumstances of the present and future participating organisations can change over time, but any investment now in the precinct must be based on solid, long-term planning principles which can provide a solid structure for the future as well as detailed flexibility to cater for changing circumstances.

So what of the Fitters’ Workshop? There have been many submissions to this committee supporting the continued use of the Fitters’ Workshop for some types of music performances. It is clear that the unusual characteristics of the workshop’s interior space offer



4 0

something unique and are worth retaining. To date, there has been no study similar to the May + Russell study to properly investigate what would be involved in maintaining the Fitters’ Workshop as a multi-use space, including musical performances and other uses, and to understand both the cost and the potential impacts on the building for such a use.

A business case in support of retaining the facility as a multi-use performance exhibition facility is also required. Clearly, appropriate toilet facilities as well as green room functions would be required, and the opportunity to provide up-to-date toilet facilities for both the bus depot markets as well as the Fitters’ Workshop audiences should be considered.

The delay in finalising the master plan for the area does provide an opportunity for the information gathered by this committee to inform the master planning process and to provide an informed view of all the options and opportunities available. Inevitably, if the Fitters’ Workshop is converted to another use, the chance of having a unique, flexible performance and exhibition space in the Kingston foreshore precinct will be lost. It is important, however, that the final decision on the use of the Fitters’ Workshop should be informed by the master planning process and not excluded from that process.57

3.74 In answer to other questions from Committee members, Mr Humphries reiterated the view that the master planning process for the Kingston Arts Precinct was not yet finalised, and that the opportunity still existed to examine the best future for the Fitters’ Workshop. 58

3.75 In its submission and evidence, the choral societies proposed that the Fitters’ Workshop was perfectly suited to be a multi-use performance and exhibition space, with estimates of musical performances for some 29 weeks per year, and for other events, including arts groups, and others.

3.76 The submission suggested that: 57 Evidence, 28 February 2012, pp. 139-40. 58 Evidence, 28 February 2012, pp. 141-3.


4 1

Minimal resources are required to make the FW as a year-round multi-purpose performance and exhibition space: power, heating, adjustments to existing doors, adjacent toilet and green room facilities (which could be quite basic); and chairs, movable stage fixtures and display frames (stored in an adjacent storeroom). If further resources became available, through fund-raising, ticket sales or government grants, some further minor additions would extend access to more performance groups, for example, removable modules for a sprung dance floor.59

3.77 In its two submissions to the Committee, and particularly in its supplementary submission, Megalo have strongly criticised the concept of the Fitters’ Workshop as a multi-use facility. Megalo highlighted is objections in these terms:

There is no evidence of demand for such a facility, no sensible business case for one and comparable facilities in other cities have large operating budgets and staff cohorts.

Like the nearby multi-purpose Albert Hall, the Fitters’ Workshop will be idle and empty for many years to come pushing out into the far distant future the Kingston Arts Precinct’s ability to fulfill its potential as a vibrant centre of participatory cultural activity.60

3.78 Ms Alison Alder, the Artistic Director of Megalo, gave evidence to the Committee in relation to this question and highlighted the limitations on a multi-use facility, based on Megalo’s experience in the Fitters’ Workshop, and whether Megalo saw its organisation using the building as a multi-use arts facility:

Ms Alder - First of all, as a general exhibition facility, it has severe limitations. Megalo had an exhibition in there in 2010. We purpose-built three boxes that were 3.6 meters high by 4.8 by 3.6, which enhanced the space. It needed something really grand. It needed something really big. It needed to be tough and strong. If you are

59 Submission 36, Choral Societies, p. 4. 60 Submission 45, Megalo supplementary submission, p. 1.


4 2

thinking about having exhibitions there and one of the things is that you can hang the picture wires off the gantry, the gantry is eight meters high. You would need a cherry picker just to adjust your wires that are going to be hanging eight meters, to hang a little painting like that on the wall space. As an exhibition venue, it is incredibly problematic. I am speaking very honestly here. It is very difficult. Not to mention the cost!

So who is going to be paying the government rent on this facility? Who is going to be managing it? Do we already have key arts organisations that are being funded to manage exhibition spaces? Pro Musicas submission suggested $1,500 a week and had Megalo down for four slots—without consulting Megalo whether we would like to be included in that, I might add—at 41⁄2 thousand dollars each, $18,000 a year. Frankly, it is ludicrous. Nobody could afford it. Plus we have our own exhibition program which we manage for 10 to 13 exhibitions per year in our own space. So it has really got big drawbacks.

As to the cost, you are still going to have to find at least 1.5 million dollars to bring basic services to the building. You are still going to have to build an extension with a green room. You are still going to have a concrete floor that is going to be cold to sit on in winter when you are having a concert. Do you move the exhibitions on the partitions that are in there in and out every time there is a performance? How many people would you need to manage that sort of workload?

There are other examples. In Brisbane, I think the Brisbane Powerhouse has a staff of about 20 people. It would be so expensive. It just is not a feasible option. So you either need to have it as a concert venue that is empty most of the time where, maybe occasionally, somebody might want to get some funding to build


4 3

something like what we did for our exhibition there in 2010, which, I might add, cost $12,000 to mount. So, really, no.61

3.79 When asked for the Government’s reaction to the idea of the Fitters’ Workshop as a multi-use venue, the Minister for Arts, Ms Burch told the Committee:

Ms Burch: But I think there are different costs associated—we have costed and there is close on $4 million for the relocation of Megalo. Any change to that brings an additional cost and an additional expectation of use, whether it is a gallery space—and I know there has been commentary here about the cost to put in a gallery space. Also, while I do not have it in front of me, I remember recalling one of the submissions that had the shared space where it had gallery space by day and entertainment by night. For the life of me, I cannot quite work out how you would do that—how you would decant the gallery and turn it into a performance space with all the obligations about OH&S, fire safety and centre management as well.62

3.80 During its inquiry, the Committee was provided with examples of multi-use facilities for arts, including musical performance, in Canberra. The principal venue established and run in this manner is the Albert Hall.

3.81 In its submission, the ACT Government noted that the Albert Hall is now major venue for and performance:

The Territory has recently completed capital upgrades to the Albert Hall in order to restore this performance venue. Many community groups use the Albert Hall, including the Canberra International Music Festival, Cultural Missions, local choirs and instrumental groups, and from Sydney, the Song Company- one of Australia's premier a cappella ensembles. The Albert Hall is a major venue for music presentation in

Canberra and has been the principle venue for the Canberra International Music Festival for many festivals.63

61 Evidence, 9 February 2012, pp 6-7. 62 Evidence, 28 February 2012, p. 89. 63 Submission 1, Minister for the Arts, p. 4.


4 4

3.82 In evidence to the Committee, Mr Whitney, Director, artsACT pointed to the Albert Hall as an example of a workable multi-use facility:

Mr Whitney: I guess that Albert Hall is an example where the territory recently has undergone quite a large consultative process with a firm from Sydney, Eltons, to look at how to best manage the Albert Hall. It is quite a complex exercise if you want to avoid the building becoming a carpet sale venue, which is what the Albert Hall, sadly, had become. I think there is a renewed vigour now to have a look at Albert Hall being something different from a carpet sale venue.64

3.83 The Committee notes theta the Conroy Report has provided a discussion on multi-use venues in Australia, such as Abbottsford Convent in Melbourne, Federation Square, Melbourne and Brisbane Powerhouse. 65

3.84 The example of the Abbotsford Convent was summarised as:

Dr Raymond - …I am not very familiar with it but I have heard of the Abbotsford Convent and, as I said, I had a look at the website. I suspect that is an example of the kind of multi-arts precinct which could, with much advantage, be established at Kingston. At all events, it is not clear why it was presupposed that the range of arts in the Kingston precinct should be just visual.66

The best use for the Fitters’ Workshop – Committee conclusions

3.85 The Committee’s inquiry indicates that a number of decisions regarding the Fitter’s Workshop, and the Kingston Arts Precinct more generally, have been made on the basis that the future use of the building is to be as a setting for visual arts activity, and specifically as the Megalo studio and workshop.

64 Evidence, 28 February 2012, p. 87. 65 See Conroy Report (op. cit.), Report volume, p. 30. 66 Evidence, Dr O Raymond, 9 February 2012, p. 48.


4 5

3.86 In its survey of attitudes and concerns regarding the Kingston Arts Precinct, the Conroy Report held discussions with a number of stakeholders in the area’s future, including Megalo.

3.87 The Conroy Report noted that responses and attitudes regarding the Fitters’ Workshop, and the decision for Megalo to become its user, were mixed:

There is concern that a cultural precinct of visual arts organisations with a focus on making and learning with some exhibition would not sufficiently activate (animate) the precinct. It was seen as vital that complementary arts and cultural activity be included.

There were mixed views about locating Megalo in the Fitters‘ Workshop. The building‘s central location in the precinct, also its open and flexible space mean it is seen as being well- suited to being a multi-dimensional facility for all future tenants and other arts and performative practice. There were suggestions the building should be used for showcase exhibitions for future tenants, for artistic events such as cross-art form and installation, small to medium scale acoustic activity and for entities such as the embassies, when they require quality venues for special cultural events and exhibitions.

There was also concern that the opportunity to think about the precinct as a whole was prevented if there was no option to reconsider the Fitters‘ Workshop and its potential role for the precinct. It was noted that there are very few locations where art forms can come together and that there are very few spaces which will accommodate large-scale art works that are as atmospheric in Canberra.

It is important to note that there is strong support for Megalo to be in the Kingston Arts Precinct but it was perceived as an opportunity lost if Megalo is in the Fitters‘ Workshop: that ―destroys the open and beautiful features of one of the older buildings in Canberra.

It was recognised that if Megalo is to be in the Fitters‘ Workshop, as already proposed, then the design and siting, scale and management of the new building is highly important. It needs to contribute


4 6

significantly to achieving vitality, energy and opportunity in the Kingston Arts Precinct.67

3.88 The Committee is of the view that the decision to prevent any examination for the decision to put Megalo in the Fitters’ Worksop in the Conroy review process, and the continuation of the approach in the instructions to the Purdon consultations on a master plan for the Arts Precinct reflects an approach which ignores the principal change in the view and possibilities of the Fitters’ Workshop resulting from the unexpected discovery of the acoustics of the building presented a different possibility for use.

3.89 The Committee considers that the current master planning process for the Arts Precinct presents an opportunity to review the decision taken to allocate the Fitters’ Workshop to a print studio, and to take views and submissions on what form of alternative use the building might be possible and practical.

3.90 The Committee believes the Fitters’ Workshop is a unique space in Canberra’s principal arts precinct, and it should be used as a community or multi-use facility.

Conclusions

3.91 The Committee considers that the matter of the best use for the Fitters’ Workshop, Kingston should be re-examined and re-considered by the Government.

3.92 The Committee is convinced that Fitters’ Workshop is a unique space within Canberra’s premier arts precinct and that it should be considered for use as a facility with wider availability, especially as a musical venue to capitalise on its unique acoustics.

3.93 The Committee considers that when the decision was taken to approve the Fitters’ Worksop as a print studio in the period 2008-09, it was a

67 Conroy Report, ‘Consultation and Engagement – Arts community’. Report, p. 32.


4 7

decision taken without awareness of the building’s unique acoustics and possibilities as an arts hub of a wider use and role.

3.94 The Committee concludes that the master planning process which is currently underway on the Kingston Arts Precinct (the Purdon consultation) be commissioned to take views, from the stakeholders named in the Conservation management Plan for the Fitters’ Workshop, and from a wide range of community organisations and other stakeholders.


3.95 The Committee recommends that the Fitters’ Workshop be used as a multi-use arts and performance venue.


3.96 The Committee recommends that the Government suspend its decision to make the Fitters’ Workshop, Kingston a print studio to allow the current master planning process underway for the Kingston Arts Precinct to be re-opened incorporating the Fitters’ Workshop as a multi-use arts and performance venue.


3.97 That the Government respond to recommendation 1 within 30 days giving a timetable and terms of reference for the consultation recommended by the Committee.


4 8


4 9

4 I S SU E S 2 – OP T IO N S FO R

ALT ER N ATIV E V EN UE S FO R US E BY

C O MMU NIT Y MU S IC G R OUP S

4.1 A concern expressed in the Committee’s terms of reverence is the availability of alternative venues to the Fitters’ Workshop for the use of music groups.

4.2 The ACT Government advised the Committee of a list of some 40 venues for music performance, ranging in size form Llewellyn Hall to small venues such as community halls:

There are many venues for community music presentation in Canberra. The Canberra International Music Festival in recent years has presented interesting music in public venues as varied as Old and New Parliament House, the High Court, Embassies, Cathedrals and on Mount Ainslie. The recently commissioned Larry Sitsky Recital Room at the ANU and the recently promoted performance space at the Ainslie Arts Centre, the James Ainslie Recital Hall, provide new options for venues for the presentation of community music.68

4.3 In their submission, the choral societies and Megalo provided a collation of information on music venues in the ACT.69 This, along with other information was provided to the Committee in varying degrees of detail.

4.4 The Committee is satisfied that a wide range of venues of varying sizes and standard are available for musical performance in Canberra.

4.5 The Committee also notes that the CIMF which used the Fitters’ Workshop for a number of concerts in the 2009 to 2011 festivals, will use a number of other venues (not all of which are usual music venues) in the 2012 festival.70

68 Submission 1, Minister for the Arts, pp. 4-6. 69 Submission 36, Choral Societies, p. 10 and esp. Appendix E., pp 40-46. 70 See ‘Canberra International Music Festival program for 2012 festival; especially un-numbered centre

pages showing performance venues.


5 0


5 1

5 I S SU E S 3 – OP T IO N S FO R

ALT ER N ATIV E PU R POS E B UI LT

AC C OM O DAT ION FO R MEG ALO

ST U DIO

5.1 The Committee has been asked to examine and report on possible alternative venues to the Fitters’ Workshop for purpose built accommodation for the Megalo Print Studio.

5.2 This question has required the Committee to make an assessment of Megalo’s role in the visual arts community and as leading printmaking studio, not only in Canberra but also in the wider Australian community. This is necessary, as any alternative accommodation for Megalo will need to ensure a number of criteria are met namely:

• The current undertaking in ACT arts policy to provide Megalo with a new, purpose built venue for its activities

• Given the history of the Kingston Arts Precinct, and Megalo’s involvement and role in development in that area, that the facility for Megalo be in the precinct

• That a purpose-built facility utilise the funding approved in April 2011 for the conversion of the Fitters’ Workshop be applied to any alternative building for that purpose

5.3 In its submission, the ACT Government has indicated it remains committed to pursuing the current proposal for Megalo:

Consistent with the 27 October resolution of the Assembly, work on the Fitters’ Workshop site has ceased. However the government is awaiting approval of a Contamination Management Plan for the site and further information on an underground fuel storage tank, and


5 2

will undertake all necessary work to remediate the site when that information becomes available.71

5.4 In its submission, Megalo made it clear it had no preference for a purpose-built facility, other than the Fitters’ Workshop and had concerns about the uncertain state of its current tenancy arrangements at its studio in Watson.72

5.5 In its submission, the choral societies advocate an alternative purpose-built accommodation for Megalo:

We propose that the funds currently allocated to relocating Megalo Print Studio to the Kingston Arts Precinct be almost entirely devoted to providing the Studio with a purpose-built facility within the Precinct. From the draft Master Plan on display at the latest public consultation, it was clear that creating this facility is entirely feasible.73

5.6 This view was repeated by both Helen Moore appearing as the author of the choral societies’ submission and by Chris Latham of Pro Musica.74

5.7 In the Conroy report on a Kingston Arts Precinct strategy the consultants engaged to conduct the study highlighted a recommendation for a new building in the precinct east of the Fitters’ Workshop, which would be available as high quality space available for showcase exhibitions, and other related functions.75

5.8 The Committee considers this alternative site, and the concept of other building configurations lends itself to a proposal for consideration of an alternative purpose-built building for Megalo given that there is no view that the Committee is aware of, which supports any result other than Megalo becoming an active participant in the Kingston Arts Precinct.

71 Submission 1, Minister for the Arts, p.6. 72 Submission 2, Megalo, pp. 15-17. 73 Submission 36, choral societies, p. 11. 74 Evidence, 9 February 2012, pp. 22 & 35. 75 Conroy Report, pp. 14-15.


5 3

5.9 A principal concern regarding the proposal for an alternative building is the question of funding and its provision by the Government.

5.10 In its discussions with Mr Andrew Barr MLA, the Deputy Chief Minister, on 13 March 2012, this question arose:

MR HANSON: …Given that constraint, this committee is yet to work out what it is going to recommend. But one of the options that we are looking at and that has been put to us is that Megalo would move to another location on that site and have a purpose-built facility and that the Fitters’ Workshop would remain a community space available for a variety of uses, including musical and gallery uses and so on. The Purdons work, if it were to be recast in that light—I assume that a lot of work would not need changing. I mean, that would be a change of a constraint. It might be difficult to give this answer now, but if that were to be the committee’s recommendation—

Mr Barr: Hypothetically speaking.

MR HANSON: It might be. It has been put to us, but we all understand the implications if we were to recommend that

Mr Barr: Sure, yes.

MR HANSON: Obviously, the master plan to be recast in that light. Do you have a view of how long that might take, how feasible it would be to just get that done in the short term? Obviously, whichever decision we make out of this committee, we want to get on with this.

Mr Barr: I can give you an answer as Treasurer. I would want to know how much it would cost.

MR HANSON: Certainly.

Mr Barr: So I would need that scoped. If there were additional costs on top of the existing appropriation, I would have significant concerns.

MR HANSON: Yes.


5 4

Mr Barr: I would need to go through a budget process—

MR HANSON: That is understood, yes.

Mr Barr: and priorities.76

Conclusions

5.11 The Committee accepts that Megalo has established itself as a facility for artistic expression, studio and printmaker of an exceptional standard and reputation.

5.12 It is important and essential that the money put aside for the Megalo conversion of the Fitters’ Workshop be applied to the purpose intended: a high standard studio, workshops and gallery space for Megalo.

5.13 It is essential that two things occur if an alternative is to be found for the current proposal. The first is that funding available for the Fitters’ Workshop be retained for Megalo. The second is that immediate consideration be given to the identification of a site at Kingston Arts Precinct for an alternative building and that appropriate arrangements be made to assist Megalo to stay in its present location at Watson.

5.14 The Committee recognises that this conclusion and proposal will involve a re-think and re-configuration of the Megalo proposal. The Committee recognises also that Megalo is natural ‘fit’ for the Kingston arts precinct and it should be accommodated in a purpose-built facility to the value of the moneys available at present.

5.15 The Committee acknowledges that additional money would need to be appropriated for the Fitters’ Workshop so it may be optimised as a multi-use arts and performance venue. The Fitters’ Workshop, therefore, will stay in its current form until the Master Planning process is completed and the Government makes a decision about appropriate funding.

76 Evidence, 213 March 2012, pp. 160-161.


5 5


5.16 The Committee recommends that the current decision to convert the Fitters’ Workshop for Megalo Print Studio be re-considered and that immediate steps be taken to identify an alternative site for a purpose-built building at the Kingston Arts Precinct.


5.17 The Committee recommends that the funding made available for the conversion of the Fitters’ Workshop be retained for funding the construction of the purpose-built building for Megalo at the Kingston Arts Precinct be retained and applied for that purpose.


5 6


5 7

6 OT HE R M AT TE R S

6.1 A number of other matters arose during the inquiry, which the Committee believes should be drawn to the attention of the Assembly.

Position of the old bus depot markets

6.2 The Old Bus Depot Markets (OBDM) made a submission and presentation to the Committee on matters related to the future use of the Fitters’ Workshop, and the impact the currently proposed building design will have on the OBDM, especially the annexe building to be attached to the Fitters’ Workshop on its south-eastern corner. As stated in the OBDM submission:

It is this proposed Annex that, once construction starts, and forever more, will impact negatively on another building already operating on the site. It is not that it is a badly designed building, but there is a complete lack of integration with the Markets building, and currently no context for the whole of the precinct.

The construction of an Annex is not giving our business the opportunity to develop, and in building a new building within the precinct, consideration should have been given to this. We are running a successful business that the Canberra community supports and patronises in large numbers.77

6.3 In addition, the OBDM submission makes several points:

Operational Impacts - We have been told that during an 18 month construction phase, the back, northerly area to the markets will not be accessible at all. This situation would have an enormous negative impact on our business, and the businesses of many stallholders when an area so intensively used on Sunday is no longer available. There is no other area that can handle the necessary

77 Submission 44, Old Bus Depot Markets, p. 4.


5 8

intensity of use of space to service the loading and off-loading of goods at the beginning and ending of each Sunday, and the constant deliveries during the day (e.g. fresh deliveries of bread, access to refrigerated vans for produce etc.). The only alternative, the northern courtyard between the Markets building and the Glassworks, is already overloaded and becomes the scene of intense “tempers” during the Christmas season. It is not a possible contingency.

Aesthetic impact - The present plan has an Annex adjoining the Fitter’s Workshop in a perpendicular angle to that building. The Annex would run parallel to the back area of the Old Bus Depot Markets, less than 8 meters from the building which includes a long set of 8 triple paned windows on the lower level. Thousands of patrons and stallholders would look out of the only windows on the lower level, to a six meter high wall of metal sheeting. Aesthetically, it could not be more uninviting as an immediate view. This view could be permanent.78

6.4 In evidence to the Committee Ms Whiting and Ms Hinds, the principals of the OBDM advised the Committee that:

We are also here to stabilise our relationship with the government, which has been inconsistent over the years. We have never had a secure, long-term licence. We have been waiting for a very long time for an outline for the arts-cultural precinct to come to light, so that we can achieve that. The government consultation about the future of the building has been sporadic at best, and not a lot has happened in 18 years, other than the glassworks, in terms of a readily identifiable plan for where we are going. We have to say we have had wonderful support from the government over the years, but our relationships with some government officers, bureaucrats, have been a bit patchy.

The other question I will finish with is that if a large sum of money is being spent on refurbishing the Fitters’ Workshop and building an

78 Ibid.


5 9

annexe, we wonder how long it will be until some further funds might be available. How many years down the track will it be before we see other purpose-built buildings for other arts organisations and very basic upgrades to the building we are in, such as toilets and kitchen facilities, to allow it to be used more by other groups at different times of the week? That is a question we ask. How long will it be? How long do we have to wait? We see that as a threat to our business.79

6.5 OBDM representatives also told the Committee that the operational aspects of the OBDM could be significantly affected in the long term by the annexe construction:

Ms Whiting: As we have said, that was not the issue for us; it is the annexe that is the issue. We understand that they need space, but if there was another alternative—to make that a lovely courtyard where you could have music; the markets building opens up; Megalo is right there; there could be a whole happening there. But by putting that barrier the other side of it becomes a very difficult space that cannot be accessed from the rest of the site really.

Ms Hinds: We really want to say that we feel Megalo is a wonderful organisation that has a lot to offer to the arts cultural precinct. It is just that Megalo cannot fit within just the Fitters’ Workshop. We are not sure that anyone has really looked at the implications of the annexe on the building—on our business and the opportunities for our business next door.80

6.6 The OBDM also told the Committee that it considered the master planning process for the arts precinct was essential before any further work could proceed on the site.81

6.7 In answer to a question form Mrs Dunne MLA, Ms Whiting told the Committee that the timetable for the conversion and construction at the Fitters’

79 Evidence, 6 March 2012, p. 148. 80 Evidence, 6 March 2012, p. 150. 81 Evidence, 6 March 2012, p. 153.


6 0

Workshop was to be 18 months and that this advice had been received from the LDA.82

Construction timeline – Fitters’ Workshop conversion and

construction

6.8 As a follow up to the advice the Committee received from the OBDM, the Committee asked officials of the LDA about the 18-month construction timeline for the works at the Fitters’ Workshop.

6.9 Mr Reynolds, the Executive Director of the LDA told the Committee that:

Mr Reynolds: The 18 months time line does, in my opinion, seem reasonable for construction. However, there is a precursor prior to that, which is dealing with the latent environmental conditions on site by way of the past use of the former area. It is probably no surprise that there is a range of contamination and remediation exercises that need to be undertaken. So I guess there is a bit of a rider to that statement—that is, normally 12 to 18 months to actually build the proposed works and the annexe is certainly reasonable, but any major contamination and remediation that may need to be undertaken would add to that time frame.83

and

THE CHAIR: So you are saying that, basically, the 18 months was a time frame that was mentioned through that consultation process? Would that be correct?

Mr Reynolds: I specifically cannot recall saying 18 months, but it does not sound unreasonable. Having a look at the design, 18 months seems a reasonable time frame. However, if there was the requirement to have the site remediated and independently validated and signed off by the EPA, our experience on remediation and contamination issues is that they can take longer, and that would

82 Evidence, 6 March 2012, p. 155. 83 Evidence, 13 March 2012, pp. 156-157.


6 1

have to have occurred before that 18 or 12 months construction period would commence.84

6.10 The Committee was concerned to ascertain the current timeline forecast by LDA on the expected completion and relocation of Megalo to the Fitters’ Workshop. Following some discussion, Mr Reynolds agreed that the end of 2013 was a more likely date for this to occur than August or September 2012.85

6.11 Included in the timeline for the building proposal are, in addition to construction, essential remediation works – which must precede building – in relation to underground storage tanks on the site.

6.12 In answer to a question from Mrs Dunne MLA regarding that matter, Mr Reynolds noted that:

Mr Reynolds: Yes, but the variable there is if it is not contaminated—you would do your tests to start with before you touched anything. If they showed it is healthy, there is no leakage, you would pull the tanks out, compact some clean material back in the spot and then build on top of them. That is a very short process. However, until we actually get there—again, just being precautionary here—we would do the testing and obviously then see the results.

If it is contaminated then there is several months of process there—of independent sign-offs and checking of what is there, what are the results and what needs to be done. There are always three layers there: an expert consultant, an independent auditor and then the EPA. What we have typically found is that with those three levels the process works very well but it is not a quick process. It does take several months, depending on what has been found.86

84 Evidence, 13 March 2012, p. 158. 85 Evidence, 13 March 2012, p. 157-158. 86 Evidence, 13 March 2012, p. 164.


6 2

6.13 The Minister advised the Committee, by letter dated 11 April 2012, that the remediation work was to be undertaken, and is expected to take approximately four to six weeks.87

Conclusions

6.14 The Committee considers the construction phase for the proposed changes to the Fitters’ Workshop to accommodate Megalo to be a significant issue. Information in submissions and given in evidence suggested construction would be completed much earlier.

6.15 It appears to the Committee that Megalo would not have been in the Fitters’ Workshop prior to their current lease at Watson ending and that, regardless of this inquiry process occurring, alternative accommodation arrangements would have been required.

6.16 It should also be noted that a third party appeal is currently before the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, it is the Committee’s view that a timeframe longer than previously noted publicly is more accurate.

Amanda Bresnan MLA

Chair

13 April 2012

87 Letter to Committee Chair from the Minster for Arts, 11 April 2012.


6 3

7 DI S SE NT ING COM MENT S - M ARY

P O RT E R AM M LA

Ms Mary Porter AM MLA

Standing Committee on Education, Training and Youth Affairs Inquiry into the Future use of the Fitters’ Workshop in the Kingston

Arts Precinct This has been a very difficult inquiry due to the way it has been politicised by a number of players. I believe that the process has been contaminated by the way the various matters have been prosecuted in the media, vested interests and by non members of the committee who have attended the hearings. My examination of the matter before the committee had me to believe that the process that led to the decision, by the ACT Government, in relation to the Fitters’ workshop being set aside for an eventual home for Megalo, were done in the best interest of the Arts Community. I believe due process was undertaken in selecting Megalo for the Fitters Workshop, once the decision had been made to create a visual arts precinct. I am concerned that the process has been long drawn out. Evidence was given to the committee by LDA to the effect that it will be yet some months before any work to make the workshop suitable for occupation by Megalo can take place. I am also very concerned about the position Megalo is placed in because of the various delays. I believe that Megalo has acted in good faith, along with the ACT Government. Therefore regardless of what the majority view of the committee is, I believe that it is not desirable for this process to be yet again delayed; and for Megalo to be left to an uncertain future. It would take some time for any alternative to be found to house Megalo. I am also concerned that there is no organisation on the basis on which the suggested use of the workshop i.e. a mixed use space can go ahead. I feel it will fall into the same unfortunate use as Albert Hall suffered for many years, which will be the worst of all outcomes. Therefore I cannot support the majority report of the committee.


6 4


6 5

APPENDIX A: List of written submissions

Written submissions received by the Committee

No Author 1. Minister for Arts 2. Megalo Print Studio and Gallery 3. Australian Print Workshop (Victoria) 4. Nicci Haynes 5. Brian Stone 6. David Broker 7. David Denham AM 8. Ulli Brunnschweiler 9. Anna Prosser 10. Paul Peisley 11. Roger Butler AM 12. Jim Cotter 13. Richard and Janet Aitken 14. Neil Sloan 15. Miriam Kelly 16. Reiteke Chenoweth 17. Angie Bexley 18. Bernie Slater 19. Anne Trevillian 20. Impress Printmakers Studio 21. Photo Access 22. Michael Coghlan 23. Patsy Pane 24. Natasha Fijn 25. Oliver Raymond 26. Richard Brabin-Smith AO 27. G W Bot 28. Sasha Grishin 29. Deborah Metz 30. Howard Styles, Architect 31. Lex Beardsell 32. Nigel Lendon


6 6

No Author 33. Helen Ennis 34. Craft ACT 35. Print Council of Australia Inc 36. Helen Moore 37. Murray Upton and Judith Erskine 38. Pro Musica Inc 39. Colin Stewart Architects 40. Bill Risby 41. Ross Edwards 42. Roland Peelman 43. Larry Sitsky AM 44. Old Bus Depot Markets 45. Megalo Print Studio and Gallery (Supplementary) 46. Helen Moore (Supplementary) 47. Cicilia Kemezys 48. Graham Humpries 49. Payal Sehgal 50. Selma Teh 51. Penelope Upward 52. Heather Burness 53. Peter Hislop 54. Margaret Webber 55. Old Bus Depot Markets (Supplementary) 56. Julian Laffan


6 7

APPENDIX B: Committee public hearings

List of witnesses who appeared before the

Committee at public hearings

8 February 2012

Ms Alison Alder, Artistic Director and Chief Executive Officer, Megalo Print Studio + Gallery Mr Roger Butler AM, Private Capacity

Mr Tobias Cole, Private Capacity

Mr Chris Latham, Artistic Director, Canberra International Music Festival

Ms Helen Moore, Private Capacity

Ms Louise Page, Private Capacity

Ms Erica Seccombe, Megalo Print Studio + Gallery

9 February 2012

Mr Jim Cotter, Private Capacity

Dr Oliver Raymond, Private Capacity

Mr Colin Stewart, Private Capacity

Mr Howard Styles, Private Capacity

28 February 2012

Ms Joy Burch, Minister for Community Services, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Women and Minister for Gaming & Racing

Mr David Collett, Senior Director, Assets Management Branch, Community Services Directorate

Mr Martin Hehir, Director-General, Community Services Directorate

Mr Graham Humphries, Director, Cox Architecture

Associate Professor Nigel Lendon, Research Fellow, Australian National University

Mr Duncan Lowe, Acoustic Consultant, KVDL Acoustics


6 8

Mr Eric John Martin, President, National Trust of Australia (ACT)

Mr Murray Neish, Acoustic Consultant, Slr Consulting (Australia) Pty Ltd

Mr Alastair Swayn, Architect, Daryl Jackson Alastair Swayn

Mr Kimmo, Vennonen, Acoustic Consultant, KVDL Acoustics

Mr David Whitney, Director, artsACT, Community Services Directorate

6 March 2012

Ms Diane Hinds, Director, Old Bus Depot Markets

Ms Morna Isobell Whiting, Director, Dimor Pty Ltd and Old Bus Depot Markets

13 March 2012

Mr Andrew Barr, Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, and Minister for Tourism Sport & Recreation

Ms Cindy Cantamessa, Acting Project Director, Economic Development Directorate

Mr Hamish McNulty, Executive Director, Infrastructure and Capital Works, Economic Development Directorate

Mr Chris Reynolds, Executive Director, Land Development, Economic Development Directorate


6 9

APPENDIX C: List of Exhibits

• Acoustic report from KVDL

• Acoustic report from SLR

• Fax from Peter Sculthorpe AC

• Comments from Peter Sculthorpe AC


7 0


7 1

APPENDIX D: Answers to Supplementary

Questions

Reference Questioner Question Hansard Reference Date

Received

ETYA/FW 1 Mrs Dunne On 6 May 2008 the arts minister announced a scoping study to identify the cultural uses of the Fitters Workshop. Can you put that in the context of all the varying scoping studies? Can you tell me who did the scoping study, when the government received it and what the government concluded from that, and can the committee have a copy of that report?

28 February 2012 P90

5 April 2012

ETYA/FW 2 Mrs Dunne In January 2009—the government prepared a feasibility study statement of requirements to determine and scope the appropriate arts use for the Fitters Workshop. Who undertook the study and what were the findings and recommendations? Can the committee have a copy of the report?

28 February 2012 P91-2

5 April 2012


7 2


Received

ETYA/FW 3 Mrs Dunne On 29 October 2010 there is a briefing to the then arts minister that says, “The creative director of the centenary of Canberra and the Canberra Glassworks also provided input into discussion about the future use of the Fitters Workshop.” This is as late as October 2010. Can you provide the committee with copies of documents relating to the input, outlining the specific nature of the input provided by the director of the centenary of Canberra and the director of the Glassworks.

28 February 2012 P 93-95

5 April 2012 and 11 April 2012

ETYA/FW 3A Ms Bresnan (Referring to the matters raised by Mrs Dunne MLA in FW3) What might be useful would be if you could actually provide an answer to the committee as to why we would not be able to access that information. From your answer, minister, to be fair, it is not clear why we would not be getting access to that information, so I think first off if we can get that answer for the committee then we can determine what is the best action to take from there. Thank you.

28 February 2012 P 93

5 April 2012


7 3


Received

ETYA/FW 3B Mrs Dunne Could I just also ask: how many versions of the Conroy report were there and how much did the Conroy report change, if at all, from the first draft to its final version?

28 February 2012 PP 93-4

5 April 2012

ETYA/FW 3C Ms Bresnan (Referring to the matters raised by Mrs Dunne in FW3B) What we have just suggested is that that be taken on notice and the committee be provided with an answer on that. I appreciate that you were having conversations there, but it was not particularly helpful for anyone here getting answers. So if we can get a proper answer on that that would be good. I have got a question, if that is okay.


5 April 2012

ETYA/FW 4 Mrs Dunne You (i.e. Mr Barr) did in 2009 write letters to various people who had made representations that Fitters be retained for music, and in those letters you say that the government decided in July 2009 that the Fitters Workshop should be occupied by Megalo print studio. Was that decision made in cabinet? Where was that decision made?

13 March 2012 P 167

Not received to date of report

ETYA/FW 5 Ms Bresnan What Involvement did the Pro Musica have in the Conservation Management Plan?

13 March 2012 P 165

30 March 2012


7 4


Received

ETYA/FW 6 Mrs Dunne Could the Standing Committee see the letter that Professor Aitkin wrote to the Chief Minister in May 2009 regarding the pro Musica festival and also the government’s response to professor Aitkin?


5 April 2012


7 5

APPENDIX E: Reports on Acoustics of the

Fitters’ workshop

• Acoustics report from KVDL

• Acoustics report from SLR

Fitter's Workshop

Acoustic Assessment

Report Number 670.10287-R1

6 February 2012

ACT Legislative Assembly

PO Box 1020

CANBERRA ACT 2601

Version: Revision 0

ACT Legislative Assembly Fitter's Workshop Acoustic Assessment

Report Number 670.10287-R1 Revision 0

6 February 2012 Page 2

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Fitter's Workshop

Acoustic Assessment

PREPARED BY:

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd ABN 29 001 584 612 Units 7-8, 26-28 Napier Close Deakin ACT 2600 Australia (PO Box 9344 Deakin ACT 2600 Australia) T: 61 2 6287 0800 F: 61 2 6287 0801 E: [email protected] www.slrconsulting.com

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Reference Status Date Prepared Checked Authorised

670.10287-R1 Revision 0 6 February 2012 Murray Neish Zhang Lai Murray Neish




TABLE OF CONTENTS


1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 5

2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Reverberation Time ............................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Modal Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 5

3 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ............................................................................................................. 6

4 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 7

4.1 Reverberation Times ............................................................................................................ 7

4.1.1 Fitters Workshop ..................................................................................................... 7

4.1.2 Local School Gymnasium ........................................................................................ 7

4.1.3 Changes to Reverberation Time with Audiences .................................................... 7

4.2 Modal Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 7

4.3 Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 8

5 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 9

6 CLOSURE ...................................................................................................................................... 9

7 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................10

TABLES

Table 1 Reverberation Times – Fitters Workshop 7 Table 2 Reverberation Times – School Gymnasium 7 Table 3 Reduction in RT with increase in audience 7

FIGURES

Figure 1 Recommended Mid Frequency Reverberation Times vs Room Volume 6 Figure 2 Room Modes in Fitters Workshop 8 Figure 3 Modes per one-third octave (Bonello Criterion) 8





SLR Consulting have conducted a review of the acoustic qualities of the Fitter’s Workshop at Kingston ACT.

The objectives of the brief were to look at the following:

the acoustic qualities and characteristics of the Fitters’ Workshop building, Kingston Arts precinct

whether the building may have any identifiable unique acoustic qualities which make it a superior venue for live music and/or choral performance

possible or likely alteration to any unique existing acoustic qualities that could result from changes (such as fitting out) to the current ’bare’ nature of the building.

comparison of the space to other venues of similar size with high reverberance eg a school gymnasium

Technically there are a number of factors which influence music production in a building. These include:

building geometry especially relative dimensions of the walls in rectangular spaces

surface finishes

surface irregularities or diffusive elements

In terms of surface finishes, the building is currently very unusual in that walls, floor and ceiling consist of entirely hard acoustically reflective surfaces, and the ceiling is over 7 metres high. This combination of attributes gives the building its exceedingly live and reverberant characteristics.

The building dimensions are approximately 42m x 12m x 7.6m. Testing of the space revealed reverberation times of up to 5 seconds in the lower frequencies, 10 seconds in the mid frequency range and 5 seconds in the high frequency range. By comparison, testing of a local school gym of similar volume with predominantly hard surfaces produced reverberation times of 3.5 seconds, 3.2 seconds and 2.3 seconds in the low , mid and high frequency ranges respectively. Clearly the space is unusual in its liveness and would suit performers wishing to achieve a warm, sustained sound without artificial electro-acoustic enhancement.

In terms of the appeal or potential uses of the building, recourse was made to a survey of many different venues cited in Beranek (1). In this study, conductors listed their favourite venues for different genres of classical music. Reverberation times for the different favourite spaces ranged from 1.5 to 2.1 seconds. The reverberation time of this space is well in excess of the range of desirable reverberation times in the study.

On the basis of reverberation alone, there is probably no similar space currently available in the ACT. However the space appears to be limited to a narrow range of musical performances due to these unusual characteristics. The decision appears to centre on whether the Fitter’s Workshop should be kept vacant to suit a minority of situations or be adapted for more permanent regular use.





1 INTRODUCTION

As the name suggests, the Fitter’s Workshop was originally built for industrial use. It is a rectangular building of approximate dimensions 41 metres long, 12 metres wide and a ceiling height of 7.5 metres at the lowest point.

In the recent past the building was used for storage, with the mobile crane being the only equipment retained from the previous use. The building is now empty. Internally it consists of entirely hard surfaces, rendered brick walls, concrete floor, timber doors, plaster ceiling and glass windows.

This makes for a highly live (reverberant) space, similar to a cathedral. The space has been used for musical performances. Anecdotally it is reported that some eminent musicians have given the workshop endorsement as a unique space in which to play music.

The purpose of this study is to provide some objective means of assessing the Fitters Workshop according to the following terms of reference:

Investigate the acoustic qualities and characteristics of the Fitters’ Workshop building, Kingston Arts precinct

Determine whether the building may have any identifiable unique acoustic qualities which make it a superior venue for live music and/or choral performance

Advise of the possible or likely alteration to any unique existing acoustic qualities that could result from changes (such as fitting out) to the current ’bare’ nature of the building.

Compare the space to other venues of similar size with high reverberance eg a school gymnasium

2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

2.1 Reverberation Time

SLR Consulting visited the Fitter’s Workshop to inspect the space and conduct some reverberation time testing. The resulting reverberation time measurements were compared to predicted reverberation times using Sabine Calculations for the size and surface finishes of the space in order to calibrate the model.

The reverberation times in the Fitter’s Workshop were then recalculated based on varying audience sizes. The acoustics of Fitter’s workshop was also compared with another potential venue, a school gym of similar dimensions. This alternative venue is also a relatively live or reverberant space, therefore it is worthwhile to evaluate such as space in view of the claims of “uniqueness” which have been attributed to the Fitter’s Workshop.

In order to determine the merit of the Fitter’s Workshop as a music venue, a literature search was made of relevant publications. In addition to the question of uniqueness there is also the question of usability. How beneficial the space is to a range of musical performances may be important in deciding whether it should remain in its current form.

2.2 Modal Analysis

The Fitter’s workshop was also analysed with respect to the likely reinforcement and distribution of sound due to the building’s geometry. Ideally, it is desirable that the building reinforce sounds evenly i.e. there should not be a marked reinforcement of any particular frequency. The most basic form of reinforcement occurs at wavelengths which are an exact multiple of one of the building’s main dimensions. Other more complex modes occur as a result of the interaction of several surfaces in the building.





3 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

There are few assessment criteria applicable to this situation, since we are dealing with the aesthetic nature of the sound rather than questions of noise level. AS2107:2000 Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors provides some limited guidance in the form of a graph of mid frequency reverberation times (500 Hz and 1000 Hz) versus room volume. This graph is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Recommended Mid Frequency Reverberation Times vs Room Volume

In the body of the document it is noted that the graph is intended as a guide only as practically speaking the spread of acceptable solutions is large. From this chart, based on a room volume of approximately 3700 cubic metres, the reverberation time at 500 Hz and 1000 Hz is recommended to be in the order of 2.5 seconds to 3 seconds.





4 RESULTS

4.1 Reverberation Times

4.1.1 Fitters Workshop

Reverberation times were taken based on balloon burst measurements within the building at various locations. A Rion NA 28 Sound Analyser was used for the measurements. Table 1 presents the reverberation time data.

Table 1 Reverberation Times – Fitters Workshop

Reverberation Time, (Seconds)

63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000

2.0 5.2 8.0 10.2 9.8 7.5 5.1 2.4

4.1.2 Local School Gymnasium

Reverberation times were taken based on balloon burst measurements within the building at various locations. A Rion NA 28 Sound Analyser was used for the measurements. Table 2 presents the reverberation time data.

Table 2 Reverberation Times – School Gymnasium

Reverberation Time, (Seconds)

63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000

2.5 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.2 2.9 2.3 1.3

4.1.3 Changes to Reverberation Time with Audiences

Once an audience has been added to the space, the reverberation time will decrease proportionally to the increase in audience numbers. Table 3 shows predicted decreases in the reverberation times with increasing audience sizes.

Table 3 Reduction in RT with increase in audience

Predicted Reverberation Time, (Seconds)

Audience 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000

10 2.1 4.7 10.0 8.4 6.2 5.4 2.1

20 2.1 4.5 9.2 7.7 5.8 5.1 2.1

40 1.9 4.0 7.7 6.4 4.9 4.2 1.9

4.2 Modal Analysis

The modal analysis is provided using Amroc software. Figure 2 shows the distribution of modes within the Fitter’s Workshop. The lines increase in height according to the number of modes within a narrow frequency range. It can be seen that the spread of modes is quite even, which is a desirable characteristic. According to Bonello (2) it is also desirable for the number of modes per third octave band to steadily increase as the frequency increases. Figure 3 shows that this trend is also occurring.





Figure 2 Room Modes in Fitters Workshop

Figure 3 Modes per one-third octave (Bonello Criterion)

4.3 Literature Review

Beranek (1) provided an in-depth study of concert halls around the world. This research work is very comprehensive and only a small excerpt was considered in reference to this project. In one survey referenced in this book, the ideal range of reverberation times for orchestral works was given as 1.5 to 2.1 seconds. Elsewhere in this volume, reverberation times of 5-10 seconds are described as being similar in performance to a medieval cathedral.

Frequency Band





5 DISCUSSION

The gymnasium measured had a similar cubic volume to the Fitter’s workshop at approximately 4000 cubic metres compared to 3700 cubic metres. From the reverberation time measurements it is clear that the Fitter’s workshop is unusual (if not unique) in the amount of reverberation it provides. This is most likely due to the desire in most cases for buildings of significant area to support a variety of uses. For example, reverberation times of 10 seconds in the mid frequency range are highly undesirable for speech intelligibility. This is easily demonstrated by trying to communicate within the Fitter’s workshop with only a few people present.

In terms of the uniformity of sound reinforcement there is a good spread across the frequency range. The effect of this is basically to amplify and sustain the sound with little distortion or favouring of a particular frequency. The large supports for the crane rails may be helping to scatter the sound and improve the overall distribution of sound within the space. This said, some “flutter echo” was also observed which occurs when sound waves bounce rapidly between the walls, resulting in some harsh echoes depending on the position of the sound source in the room.

It can be said that in certain respects the Fitter’s Workshop is a rare if not unique place to make music. The more significant issue appears to be under what circumstances would a musician wish to use the building, and what kinds of music are the most advantageous to play there. The technical data suggests that the hall would be best suited to works which rely on a rich sustained sound, where the different notes blend together. Based on Beranek’s review of concert halls, this space is not suited to classical music due to the very long reverberation times.

If the building was to be fitted out for other uses, it is inevitable that the current reverberant (live) nature of the building will be diminished. This is because the introduction of furniture and partitions will segment the space and therefore decrease the effective volume of any single area within the building. The introduction of soft furnishings would also further decrease the liveness.

In view of the results obtained, the utility of the Fitter’s workshop for musical performances appears to be limited to a very specific style of music or taste for the way the building will reinforce the sound. The consideration would then be whether this building should be set apart for this particular interest or be repurposed to address the needs of a broader cross-section of the community.

6 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared by SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the manpower and resources devoted to it by agreement with the client. Information reported herein is based on the interpretation of data collected and has been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid.

This report is for the exclusive use of ACT Legislative Assembly. No warranties or guarantees are expressed or should be inferred by any third parties. This report may not be relied upon by other parties without written consent from SLR Consulting.

SLR Consulting disclaims any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the agreed scope of the work.





7 REFERENCES

1. Beranek, Leo: “How they sound Concert and Opera Halls” - Acoustical Society of America (1996)

2. Bonello, Oscar J.: "A New Criterion for the Distribution of Normal Room Modes" - AES-Journal(USA) 29 (1981)

KVDL Acoustic ConsultantsPO Box 43Dickson ACT 2602

8 February 2012

A C O U S T I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT -

T H E F I T T E R S ’ W O R K S H O P

Date: 1 & 3 February 2012Location: off Canberra Avenue, Kingston ACTPresent: Kimmo Vennonen and Duncan Lowe

Introduction:

This report endeavors to test and discuss the musical acoustic qualities of the Fittersʼ Workshop so that it may help frame the decision making process regarding its future use. It was found that the Fittersʼ Workshop in its current bare state, does not measure up well against current subjective criteria. This is is part due to the nature of the subjective criteria, which are primarily aimed at describing the qualities of concert halls in an attempt to standardise subjective judgements based on acoustic measurements. It is also due to the completely unfurnished nature of the space when we tested it.

The Fitters workshop, in its current bare condition, has a reverb time that is more than twice that of any of the other venues we tested for comparison. That fact alone means it is a unique acoustic space for music in Canberra.

Background:

We were asked to prepare a report on the Fittersʼ Workshop building, relating to its acoustic qualities with regard to music performance. It is understood that there is a decision making process requiring expert advice and that we were approached because of our expertise/experience with music and performance spaces in the ACT. We have decades of experience in sound recording and we have done acoustic assessment and work for Federal Government agencies, the ANU, houses of worship, radio stations and community organisations. Although we are not formally qualified in acoustics, we have built and operated long term successful music studios and are regularly requested to provide advice on matters related to music and performance.

Issues requiring advice:

The Committee requires a description and assessment of these points:1. The acoustic qualities and characteristics of the Fittersʼ Workshop building, Kingston Arts precinct2. Whether the building may have any identifiable unique acoustic qualities which make it a superior venue for live music and/or choral performance 3. Possible or likely alteration to any unique existing acoustic qualities that could result from changes (such

as fitting out) to the current ʼbareʼ nature of the buildingAdvice is in the form of this report as well as assistance with the work of the Committee afterwards.

Methodology:

We were given access to the Fittersʼ Workshop for several hours in the preceding week. This allowed detailed acoustic testing and analysis using the respected EASERA software made by SDA/AFMG in Berlin. This uses accurate equipment to generate specially designed sounds into the space, which are then recorded and analysed. We measured ambient noise levels as well.

A central question is how unique are the acoustic qualities of the Fittersʼ Workshop. This can only answered in relation to other comparable spaces in Canberra. Within the time limitations we chose six comparable venues to conduct the same acoustic tests as in the Fittersʼ Workshop. Nobody to our knowledge has done this in the past and all we have had up until now is subjective claims and conjecture. The EASERA software can extract musically relevant criteria from otherwise raw acoustic measurements and we have presented the results in a way that permits direct and meaningful comparison.

In parallel with this we also recorded a high resolution impulse-response “audio signature” of every space using Waves IR-1 software. This means that it is later possible to virtually recreate the acoustics of all the spaces and subjectively assess them aurally, using identical source material in a calibrated recording studio environment.

Finally based on our own measurements we have made a functional acoustic model of the space using EASE, also made by AFMG, which corresponds well to the actual acoustic results. In a broad way this enables us to predict the effect of internal building alterations and fitting out on the perceived sound.

Subjective Impression of the Fittersʼ Workshop acoustics:

Neither of us have attended a musical performance at the the Fittersʼ Workshop and as such all of our impressions are purely of the room and what we think it can do. We are not coloured by past experiences with the venue.

We were both very impressed with the reverb of the room - it is very long and smooth and is far and away the most notable feature of the room. The room sounded bright, open and airy. There we no discrete echoes or reflections but at some locations, generally close to the sound source, the reverb appeared to surge in slightly. As part of the testing procedure for all venues, Duncan read a standard piece of text. Reading aloud in the Fittersʼ Workshop was easy and enjoyable.

We found it difficult to talk casually and understand what each other was saying beyond three to five meters distance. It was just possible, but extremely difficult, to hold a brief conversation over the full length of the empty building but only if we spoke very slowly and carefully, took long pauses and spoke absolutely directly at each other.

An initial judgement on what we were hearing suggested that the room would be good for slower forms of music - Gregorian Chant or Enya for example. A public speech would be unintelligible beyond about 5 meters. Music of any complexity, speed or detail would simply be lost in the long reverb tail, thereby defeating the point of the music.

Fittersʼ Workshop results and discussion:

It is interesting to note that the ratio of internal dimensions of the Fittersʼ Workshop (2:3:10) is very close to an exact double of one of the classic “golden ratios” of concert halls (Volkmannʼs 2:3:5 proportion). This is a notable ratio as it results in very evenly distributed room modes, meaning low notes are not cloudy or muddied by an uneven distribution of room resonances.

Bearing in mind the space is currently empty with no designated stage area, we tested both the north-south and the east-west axis, corresponding to the classic “shoe-box” concert hall shape (“stage-end”) as well as

an alternative orientation (“stage-side”) that might suit smaller or more intimate audiences. The sound source was placed in a typical performerʼs position. This was monitored by microphone arrays in three representative audience positions as depicted in Table 1. The stage area was not actual, only hypothetical. Position 1 was chosen to be an ideal recording location at near front centre, position 2 was midway back and quite left, position 3 was at the rear and right of centre. Please refer to Table 2 for the results. As well as the measured values we have colour coded the fields to interpret the absolute values with regard to accepted standards where they exist and by our judgement where not. Please refer to Appendix 1 for more information about the criteria used.

Stage area

Sound source

mic position 1

mic position 2

mic position 3

Stage area

Sound source

mic position 1

mic position 2

mic position 3

Category: Results: Descriptor: (App. 1) Location:

Overall Criteria:

Speech Criteria:

Music Criteria:

Interpretation Key:

(Absolute ratings)

source at

end stage

source at

side stage

mics at

position 1

mics at

position 2

mics at

position 3

mics on

stage

mics at

position 1

mics at

position 2

mics at

position 3

mics on

stage

RT20 (reverb time) 8.42s 8.59s 8.33s 9.09s 10.83s 7.28s

Echogram (App. 2) (level of interfering echoes)

Frequency Response (App. 3) (frequency smoothness)

Noise Level (background noise) 53dBC 53dBC

C50 (definition) 0.3dB -3.4dB -4.4dB 7.6dB -5.2dB -1.8dB

ALcons (consonants intelligibility) 17.30% 26.33% 26.38% 8.59% 30.32% 21.07%

STI (Syllable intelligibility) 0.42 0.35 0.34 0.55 0.32 0.39

Bass Ratio (bass fullness) 0.66 0.71 0.73 0.69 0.77 0.73

Centre Time 1kHz (Clarity) 532.95ms 656.79ms 612.1ms 367.55ms 672.45ms 624.87ms

C7 (directness) -0.8dB -6.7dB -11.3dB 5.7dB -12dB -4.7dB

C80 (temporal & register clarity) 1.3dB -2.6dB -2.6dB 7.9dB -3.4dB -0.7dB

Early IACC (width) 0.78 0.38 0.27 0.93 0.32 0.34

Late IACC (envelopment) 0.25 0.10 0.10 0.19 0.08 0.09

ST1 (performers hear each other) -15dB -15dB

ST2 (performers hear room) -12.4dB -11.35dB

not rated

very poor

problematic

indifferent

fine

excellent

Table 2: Fittersʼ Workshop results

Table 1: testing layout

Without doubt the most significant feature of the space is the exceptionally long reverberation time, measured at between 7.28 and 10.33 seconds depending on location. This is caused by every internal surface being hard, resulting in very little sound energy being lost when it bounces around the space. A classic “bathroom” effect is created which in this case can assist slow singing voices and slow music in general. Fast music would become very chaotic in such an environment. As different music requires different reverberation times we decided to leave this unrated in the table although we find it hard to think of too many forms of music that suit a 10 second reverb time.

The Fittersʼ Workshop has many echoes which mostly blend together to create a homogenous effect. The echograms (Appendix 2) are a way of depicting the echoes and in this case they have a non-ideal “choppy” appearance due to the lack of diffusing objects in the empty space. The frequency response graphs (Appendix 3) show whether the listener hears all frequencies (musical pitches) evenly. The results are fairly good and smooth apart from a low frequency “bump” in most. There is the usual variation to be expected from one microphone position to another. The measured response with the source at the side stage position and microphones in the “perfect seat” position was exceptionally flat all the way to very high frequencies.

The extreme reverberation makes speech problematic or very hard to understand at greater than five metres distance. The poor results in most of the speech criteria like ALcons (Articulation Loss of Consonants) and STI (Speech Transmission Index) are numerical evidence of this. The only exception is the quite good C50 definition score for the closest source to microphone position at the favoured “perfect seat” facing the side stage orientation..

The music criteria are likewise affected by the very long reverberation. The poor bass ratio would seem to reflect the lack of absorbtion of mid frequencies normally occurring due to carpets and seats in other venues, rather than a lack of support of the low frequencies. Likewise centre time is very high due to the long reverb tail, causing a lack of musical clarity. Directness (C7) and time/frequency clarity (C80) are also marred by the strong reverb field. The measures of width and envelopment (IACC) are good, indicating a well diffused sound field in listening positions 2 and 3. We have disregarded results for position 1 as the microphone is close to the sound source and a de-correlated sound field does not occur normally there. Finally the Fittersʼ Workshop scores well with how the performer on stage hears their own sound (ST1) as well as what comes back from the room (ST2). These values are on par with many good concert venues.

As an empty room, the general evidence is that Fittersʼ Workshop is only suited to a very limited range of music and not to speech at all. There is at least one position that produces excellent results in some criteria.

Comparative study results and discussion:

The testing methodology used for the Fittersʼ Workshop was applied to six other local venues, to identify if there are unique qualities that make it superior for live instrumental or choral performance. Of all the possible venues ranging from clubs, cafes, theatres and halls we chose spaces that were used for similar musical purposes. We used our prior recording experiences to guide us where appropriate. The chosen venues needed to be regarded as good for unamplified music meaning a minimum of absorbtion from soft seats or carpets reducing the sound energy in the room. It was also deemed important to choose some well known reference points and several potentially deserving venues were ruled out because they were not “on the map” due to poor accessibility to performers and audiences for various reasons. From the beginning we were clear that lack of time meant that the survey of local relevant venues could not be comprehensive.

Three venues ie. St Christopherʼs Cathedral, St Andrewʼs Church and Wesley Uniting Church have all been used for external musical performances for a long time. The latter has also had a successful history of acoustic improvements carried out in recent decades. All three are characterised by high ceilings and many hard surfaces making them very appropriate for choral music. We chose the Albert Hall because it is a well known mid-large size space which has been recently refurbished with performance in mind. The Llewellyn Hall at the ANU School of Music is a versatile “flagship” venue with purpose built acoustics and a diverse range of performers appearing there, sometimes amplified and sometimes not. The Larry Sitsky Room at the ANU School of Music completed in 2011 is a recent addition to the music scene, aiming at delivering an

Table 3: Comparative study results

Venue Details: Overall

Criteria:

Speech

Criteria:

Name

Albert Hall

position 2

position 3

FW stage end

position 2

position 3

FW stage side

position 2

position 3

Llewellyn Hall

position 2

position 3

Sitsky Room

position 2

position 3

St Andrew’s Church

position 2

position 3

St Christopher’s Cathedral

position 2

position 3

Wesley Church

position 2

position 3

Interpretation Key:

Seating

Capacity

Floor

space

Volume RT20 Echo

Rating

Frequency

Response

Rating

Noise

Level

C50 ALcons STI

(reverb time) (level of

interfering

echoes)

(frequency

smoothness)

(background

noise)

(definition) (consonants

intelligibility)

(Syllable

intelligibility)

480 656 m2 4917 m3 3.16s 2 3 53dBC 4.3dB 10.14% 0.52

3.37s 3 1 -1.8dB 18.55% 0.41

3.32s 3 3 -2dB 17.90% 0.42

400 498 m2 4052 m3 8.42s 6 6 53dBC 0.3dB 17.30% 0.42

8.59s 6 6 -3.4dB 26.33% 0.35

8.33s 7 8 -4.4dB 26.38% 0.34

400 498 m2 4052 m3 9.09s 5 1 53dBC 7.6dB 8.59% 0.55

10.83s 8 5 -5.2dB 30.32% 0.32

7.28s 8 6 -1.8dB 21.07% 0.39

1336 940 m2 14000 m3 1.8s 8 8 57dBC 10dB 4.75% 0.66

1.86s 7 2 1.6dB 11.20% 0.50

1.92s 4 7 3.0dB 8.18% 0.56

120 188 m2 1000 m3 1.43s 1 7 54dBC 3.9dB 6.66% 0.60

1.41s 1 4 1.9dB 7.88% 0.57

1.44s 1 5 2.5dB 7.08% 0.59

600 550 m2 6090 m3 1.74s 7 2 56dBC 5.1dB 6.68% 0.60

1.73s 5 8 1.8dB 10.29% 0.52

1.67s 6 2 2.7dB 9.12% 0.54

700 655 m2 6320 m3 3.26s 4 4 59dBC 5.2dB 7.46% 0.58

3.31s 2 7 -1.9dB 19.00% 0.41

2.94s 2 4 -2.0dB 17.55% 0.42

350 260 m2 2367 m3 1.77s 3 5 50dBC 4.2dB 7.12% 0.59

1.76s 4 3 1.4dB 10.99% 0.51

1.65s 5 1 1.6dB 8.99% 0.54

Size: Time: In

General:

For

Speech:

smallest smallest smallest shortest worst worst loudest worst worst worst

biggest biggest biggest longest best best quitest best clearest clearest

Venue Details: Music

Criteria:

Name

Albert Hall

position 2

position 3

FW stage end

position 2

position 3

FW stage side

position 2

position 3

Llewellyn Hall

position 2

position 3

Sitsky Room

position 2

position 3

St Andrew’s Church

position 2

position 3

St Christopher’s Cathedral

position 2

position 3

Wesley Church

position 2

position 3

Interpretation Key:

Bass Ratio Centre

Time 1kHz

C7 C80 Early IACC Late IACC ST1 ST2

(bass

fullness)

(Clarity) (directness) (temporal &

register

clarity)

(width) (envelopment) (performers

hear each

other)

(performers

hear room)

0.83 190.78ms 3.4dB 4.7dB 0.89 0.22 -18.05dB -15dB

0.81 255.81ms -5.2dB -0.1dB 0.32 0.10

0.81 265.92ms -9.4dB -0.2dB 0.25 0.09

0.66 532.95ms -0.8dB 1.3dB 0.78 0.25 -15dB -12.4dB

0.71 656.79ms -6.7dB -2.6dB 0.38 0.10

0.73 612.1ms -11.3dB -2.6dB 0.27 0.10

0.69 367.55ms 5.7dB 7.9dB 0.93 0.19 -15dB -11.35dB

0.77 672.45ms -12dB -3.4dB 0.32 0.08

0.73 624.87ms -4.7dB -0.7dB 0.34 0.09

1.27 69.08ms 9.2dB 10.6dB 0.90 0.38 -22.4dB -19dB

1.22 112.47ms -1.4dB 3.2dB 0.63 0.18

1.12 73.14ms -1.8dB 4.8dB 0.17 0.10

0.75 105.93ms 0.1dB 5.3dB 0.47 0.16 NA NA

0.90 112.79ms -2.7dB 4.7dB 0.31 0.17

0.79 88.99ms -6.3dB 5.4dB 0.17 0.11

0.98 82.79ms 4dB 6.5dB 0.91 0.33 NA NA

0.90 156.9ms -1.3dB 4.7dB 0.38 0.15

1.57 143.22ms -5.1dB 4.6dB 0.35 0.13

0.73 149.11ms 3.6dB 6.5dB 0.90 0.33 -14.85dB -12.65dB

0.77 294.27ms -5.2dB -0.5dB 0.41 0.09

0.69 287.21ms -6.2dB -0.4dB 0.33 0.16

0.76 101.45ms 2.5dB 6dB 0.86 0.29 NA NA

0.74 166.12ms -1.9dB 3dB 0.41 0.09

0.75 139.61ms -4dB 3.3dB 0.33 0.16

For

Music:

worst worst worst worst worst worst worst worst

best best best best best best best best

excellent acoustic experience to a smaller audience. Although it can appear empty there is a lot of acoustic treatment on the walls and ceiling which controls reverberation and echoes.

Please refer to Table 3 for the results, ranked by colour code. Darker shades are intended to convey a better result. Whereas Table 2 uses colour to signify absolute correlation to accepted standards, in Table 3 the colour shading represents relative ranking. At a glance we can see that both the ANU School of Music venues score well according to the conventional concert hall criteria used in both speech and music categories. Both venues have a history of acoustic design and investment and they are intended to suit a diverse range of music while seating audiences in comfort. However Llewellyn Hall ranked less well from a performerʼs point of view whereas the Fittersʼ Workshop scored well there. The three churches perform reasonably well against the mainstream criteria even though they have been built to provide more specialised experiences. The Albert Hall had good frequency response and echogram results although the current stage may be reducing the performer related scores. The Fittersʼ Workshop performs relatively well for the IACC measures, no doubt because it has a lush reverberant sound field causing a wide and spacious sound.

Ambient noise is a real consideration especially in free standing spaces like churches and when recording or broadcast is happening. The Fittersʼ Workshop performed well for a free standing venue, better than a church like St Christopherʼs Cathedral in busy Manuka and also much better that Llewellyn Hall with its air conditioning noise. The Wesley Uniting Church had the quietest result.

The Fittersʼ Workshop is definitely unique among this group of spaces. Most notably its reverberation time is two to three times as great as all the other venues. This is also the reason it ranks poorly overall. The reverberation skews some of the other criteria like centre time and C50. It is clearly not a standard concert hall and as is, it cannot fit conventional parameters.

St Christopherʼs Cathedral is a similar size and has similar wall, ceiling and floor surfaces, but measures dramatically differently. This can be attributed to presence of pews, rugs on parts of the floor, wall dressings and statuary, etc. Llewellyn Hall with its much greater volume has a lower reverberation time when empty, due to the use of carpets and soft seats. Introducing an audience into it would reduce the reverberation a little but not radically change its acoustic parameters.

Doing this study we have come to the opinion that the Fittersʼ Workshop cannot be usefully compared to other spaces, as it is the only untreated and totally empty space. It is acoustically highly sensitive to what is put into it. There is no doubt that if it had seating and other acoustically absorbing and diffusing elements like a stage and an audience, it would behave very differently. The measured acoustic parameters would be much improved by the real world absorbtion and diffusion of a musical event, the key factor being the number of people attending.

Evidence supporting this is in a CD supplied to us by the Committee of sound recordings made there with live audiences. In our opinion as recording practitioners, the perceived quality of the room is excellent and nothing like what we measured when it was empty. The reverberation time with audience etc is obviously not seven to ten seconds (as measured empty) and is subjectively about three to four seconds. Likewise we would expect the speech and music criteria to be improved with seating, audience and stage. The bottom end of these recordings is not loud which backs up the bass ratio we measured. But it open and clear and feels like it extends a long way down without sounding cloudy or muddy, possibly a result of the favourable ratio of internal dimensions.

Proposed basic fitout:

We are mindful that any proposed fitout as a performance space should preserve the current acoustics as much as possible to suit past successful uses, for instance for the Canberra International Music Festival. But also a space needs to be viable year round and this means being able to accommodate a wider range of uses. So as well as needing to preserve the current acoustics we must to be able to reduce the reverberation time on demand. A short list of internal alterations could be:

•Modular and movable acoustic treatment• permanent electricity and lighting• portable seating• portable modular staging• approved fire exits• art hanging system

Externally these features can be added, in the knowledge that the internal acoustics would not be affected:

• toilets• backstage space and/or green room• storage space for chairs and other movable furnishings• entrance foyer or ticketing space

It should also be noted that introducing a standard HVAC system would be detrimental to the acoustic. Noise generated by these systems and the resonant spaces that the pipes would create, would defeat the very thing that that is trying to be preserved. If climate control is a concern, there may be systems, such as hydronic heating and cooling of the slab (potentially silent as the boiler can be located well away from the building, and acoustically and physically invisible), that may be appropriate for this space. This is beyond the scope of this report but it is a factor that plays a role in the acoustic of any room. For now we have decided not to factor in heating and cooling.

We have created a virtual acoustic model in EASE software of the empty room and ensured that its predicted acoustic results conform to the measured values, within margin of error. Electricity, lighting and an art hanging system could be installed to have insignificant impact on acoustics so can be disregarded in the model. We are not qualified to comment on suitable fire exits but believe that replacing the doors (2% of the roomʼs surface area) could also have a small impact on acoustics. This leaves portable seating and staging, modular acoustic treatments, potentially in the form of carpet or curtains, and an actual audience to be modeled as alterations to the current space.

When thinking of how to make alterations to the Fittersʼ Workshop, we can look to the Wesley Music Centre as a interesting model. Although it is a much smaller space, in an empty state we have verified it is highly reverberant, but it can also achieve a much more controlled acoustic. Its design by Garth Mansfield and the late Eric Taylor is characterised by variable acoustic elements which are easily adjusted to suit the occasion and audience numbers. Although different techniques would need to be used for the Fittersʼ Workshop, the idea is the same, that is, variable acoustics. For instance this could be achieved with a combination of movable carpets, portable chairs, a modular stage and curtains that tuck or roll away to become acoustically insignificant when not needed.

Fittersʼ Workshop acoustic modeling :

We took detailed internal measurements of the space and turned this into a three dimensional model in EASE. We then incorporated the existing room materials into this model and confirmed that the predicted results for reverberation time were suitably close to the actual measured results. This then enabled us to put alterations like chairs into the model and see how the reverberation times at different frequencies were affected.

In Appendix 4 we include graphs of the reverberation times of the actual measured empty room, a predicted empty room, a predicted room with chairs and curtains and finally an audience of 280-300 people added. The latter option has significantly reduced reverberation times and we would expect that it would sound similar to the CD recording we heard. The modeling proves that with simple additions the Fittersʼ Workshop acoustic is transformed. At 1kHz the predicted reverberation time with alterations and audience is 2.4s, compared to the measured empty room which is 9.1s at 1kHz. It is still a unique live and airy space, and without the liability of excessive reverberation. It could be termed “luxurious” instead of “out of control”. There would be a broader range of music that would sound very good in the altered Fittersʼ Workshop.

Our modeling also indicates that this venue could give a relatively similar listening experience (C80 is -4dB) to 70 - 75% of an audience. More modeling would need to be done to determine the uniqueness of this fact but initial cursory examinations of a previous project show a maximum of around 25 - 45% get a similar experience. According to Ahnert and Schmidt the predicted C80 clarity measure is fine for slower classical music like Brahms or Wagner but not appropriate for faster passages in Mozart or Haydn for instance.

The speech criteria are not radically changed by the alterations. For most places in the audience area the STI (Speech Transmission Index) is 0.38 which is judged as satisfactory according to conventional criteria. The ALcons (Articulation Loss of Consonants) measure remains troublesome as over 65% of seats would have a loss figure of over 20% which is considered unsuable.

Conclusion:

The Fitters Workshop is undoubtedly a unique acoustic performance space in Canberra. In its empty state it is initially a curiosity, and it is acoustically problematic, especially for speech. With at least chairs and audience present it is highly suited to slower, ambient, and sparsely instrumented forms of music. The recordings demonstrate subjectively that for these genres it can be superior to local churches and other venues.

It is not the purpose of this report to decide whether the Fitters Workshop be kept as a music venue but to provide information that may help form that decision. If it is decided that it should be used as a music venue then how exactly the space will be utilised is the next question that needs to be addressed.

Whether there are the performers, material and audience to support an ongoing music program of a style appropriate to the acoustic is a matter for someone else to determine. If the answer to this question is no, then the issue of using the space as a multi- purpose and modular space should be investigated.

In either case the current “blank slate” condition of the space should be preserved lest we destroy the unique acoustic we are trying to preserve and as such, any treatments that need to be introduced to alter the room acoustic in order to make it suitable for other uses and any furnishings to make it habitable need to be modular in nature, moveable and on the whole temporary. This would open the space up for a greater variety of music performances and also to a range of other possibilities such as exhibitions, large scale art installations and as a creative development or workshop space. With simple alterations, the Fittersʼ Workshop can retain all the acoustic qualities known and experienced already by audiences, but also be put to other uses.

Our modeling work in this report should be seen as indicative of directions worth pursuing. If a decision is made to retain the Fittersʼ Workshop in its current form, there needs to be an acceptance of its acoustics with a realism and clarity around what the space could be potentially used for. It is very likely that even after the proposed minimal alterations it can never be made to suit all forms of music, media or performance.. Even with an audience it may have a longer reverberation time than other venues tested. Further acoustic modeling of the space should be central feature of any design process.

With a space having such sensitive acoustics as the Fittersʼ Workshop we urge that any alterations should be made and assessed carefully. If it is retained the space may need to be tried out for a variety of uses and we need to learn from that real world experience. After a year or two it is quite possible that a second round of alterations would become advisable.

Finally, we have come to the view that the Fittersʼ Workshop has merit as a venue for certain styles of music. If retained in its current form it could become a functional and complementary extension to the range and variety of venues in Canberra.

Disclaimer:

This report is for the benefit and use of the client the ACT Legislative Assembly. The information and assumptions used in writing this report have been provided to us by the client and by direct measurements in the field. Although every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of our findings and to provide a good appraisal of the acoustic spaces for the client, this report does not contain results or recommendations that can be implemented without further consultation.

KVDL Acoustic ConsultantsKimmo VennonenDuncan Lowe

Appendix 1: Descriptions of Criteria

RT20 (reverb time) The reverberation time RT is the time taken by a stopped sound to reduce to one millionth (or 60dB) of its initial volume. In our case to get the most reliable readings we chose the RT20 method. According to ISO 3382 the sound pressure is measured as it drops from -5dB and -25dB and then this drop of 20dB is extrapolated to arrive at the figure of how long it would take to drop 60dB. Rooms with long reverberation times sound "lush" to the point of being "washy" if to long, whereas too short a time can make something sound "dry" or even "tunnelly".

Echo Rating (level of interfering echoes) We examined an echogram from each position and venue and compared them to each other to rate them best to worst. The echogram is a graph of the volume of a stopped sound (typically an "impulse") versus time, allowing any echoes to be identified. A good echogram would look very smooth, ideally a straight line sloping downwards as the sound level decays. An average one would look like a saw blade, (ie many insignificant small echoes) and a bad one would have obvious large bumps representing audible echoes.

Frequency Response Rating (frequency smoothness) Ideally every room is a level playing field for sounds, that is, it doesn't favour one note or octave over another. However in practice this is never the case. Measured responses are graphed as volume versus frequency so a flat line response is the best. The measurements we took are affected by sound source placement, plus the response of the source and the microphone as well. All anybody can do is compare one graph to another, factor out the test related variations and look for relative flatness.

Noise Level (background noise) Every venue has some level of background noise, expressed in dB. Too much noise can impair recordings and spoil the performance for a live audience. We use the dBC weighted scale which is more effective at measuring the effect of low frequency rumbles caused by traffic and air conditioning.

C50 (definition) This is a measure relevant to speech definition and is calculated from the log (or dB) ratio of sound energy arriving in the first 50ms versus all that follows. In other words a lot of late reverberation can mess up how we hear a stream of words. A value of -2dB is considered to be the minimum for good speech intelligibility.

ALCons (consonants intelligibility) The Articulation Loss of Consonants is and alternative measure to C50 for the assessment of speech intelligibility. Ideally, less than 3% of consonants are lost and a good result is 3% to 8%. 8% to 11% is still good intelligibility, 11% to 20% loss is poor and more than 20% loss is accepted as worthless intelligibility.

STI (Syllable intelligibility) This is a well known measure of how speech is conveyed from a source to a listener, taking into account background noise as well as room effects. A poor result is less than 0.3, whereas a satisfactory result is 0.3 to 0.45. The index is good from 0.45 to 0.6, very good 0.6 to 0.75 and excellent above that.

Bass Ratio (bass fullness) For music it is often desirable for the room reverberation times of low frequencies to be longer than for mid frequencies whereas for speech the opposite is true. A preferred bass ratio for music according to Beranek is 1.0 to 1.3. Too small a bass ratio would make low notes below about 350 Hz feel less "full" in the room than the "live" sounding notes higher up. However a low bass ratio in a room would not necessarily spoil the experience hence we have rated this as indifferent in the case of the empty Fitters' Workshop.

Centre Time 1kHz (Clarity) This measure corresponds to the point in time when the sound energy received before then is equal to the energy received after then. A long centre time makes music sound more "spacious" and for concert halls a value of 70 to 150ms is considered best.

C7 (directness) It can be useful to know the ratio of the sound level coming directly from a source, compared to all the reverberation and reflections afterwards. This is done by expressing in dB the value of sound energy received in the first 7ms divided by all the later energy. With the C7 measure according to Ahnert it is

said that the direct sound level should not fall below a range of -10 to -15dB. It is to be expected that listeners further back from the sound source will hear less direct sound and more room reflections and reverberations.

C80 (temporal & register clarity) This is a useful measure of clarity for music especially when it has fast passages. It is calculated similarly for C50 except that the relevant time is 80ms. According to Abdel Alim classical music like Mozart and Haydn requires a C80 figure of more than -1.6dB, but Brahms and Wagner need greater than -4.6dB. A compromise figure for all classical music is said to be -3dB but for slow sacral music a C80 of -5dB is acceptable.

Early IACC (width) & Late IACC (envelopment) Interaural Cross Correlation according to ISO 3382 is a measure of the spatial aspects of music corresponding to percceptions of width (o to 80ms) of the sound source and being enveloped (80 to 500ms). It is measured using binaural dummy head microphones and low correlation values are considered good. According to Beranek an excellent to superior concert hall has an early IACC of 0.28 to 0.38, good to excellent halls are 0.39 to 0.54 and fair to good halls are 0.55 to 0.59. In our measurements the close ones in position 1 could be disregarded for IACC purposes as there would be too much direct sound causing high correlation.

ST1 (performers hear each other) and ST2 (performers hear room). These are both measures of room support for musicians and are measured on stage. Typical ST1 values for European concert halls are between -15dB and -12dB. ST1 is important as musicians need good acoustics on stage to hear each other clearly. There is no consensus on what the ideal ST2 value is, but lower means less sound coming back from the room to assist the performer to make creative judgements.

Appendix 2: Echograms

Appendix 3: Frequency Response

Appendix 4: Modeling Results

Measured Fittersʼ Workshop reverberation times - note 9s reverberation time at 1kHz

Modeled empty Fittersʼ Workshop

Modeled Fittersʼ Workshop with seats & curtains Modeled Fittersʼ Workshop with seats & curtains & audience of 280

18774 C80 values distributed around a previously modeled large room - note highest band at 36% of all values.

C80 values in altered Fittersʼ Workshop - note about 75% in the room have C80 = -4dB

STI values in altered Fittersʼ Workshop - note most places in the room have STI = 0.38.

Articulation Loss in altered Fittersʼ Workshop - note over 65% of seats have ALcons > 20% which is considered unusable for speech.

An EASE model of the uniformity of the C80 criterion across the room. Note the audience areas in dark shade have almost uniform colour except at the very front, showing a very similar predicted clarity across the audience.

Future Use of the Fitters' Workshop, Kingston › __data › assets › pdf_file › 0004 ›...

Documents

Transcript of Future Use of the Fitters' Workshop, Kingston › __data › assets › pdf_file › 0004 ›...