Level ground

Abstract

Architecture can play a role in perpetuating social divisions in the Wakatipu Basin, an area considered one of the country’s most iconic landscapes. Due to the spread of urban development, the fringes of the Wakatipu Basin have become socially contested, politically loaded places, identified and labelled in a recent report by the Parliamentary Commission for the Environment as a ‘peri-urban’ area. The report identified a number of these areas throughout the country. They are “characterised by their fragility, arising from a combination of a uniqueness of their landscapes and ongoing development pressures”¹ . They are landforms that “as humans, we have connected with over time, whether it is the sweep of open space or the isolation of being nestled amongst native bush. We like the look and feel of these places. They are the landscapes of our heritage, our waahi taonga”² (little treasures).

The Wakatipu Basin is emblematic of the issues faced by the identified peri-urban areas. A large part of the economy of the Wakatipu Basin relies on tourism – one estimate suggests 95% of all jobs in the area depend directly or indirectly on tourism³. It is generally accepted that this tourism relies on the ‘iconic’ landscapes of the area. However, in conflict with scenic landscapes is the need to accommodate growth, in part driven by tourism and the burgeoning population. This has put considerable economic pressure on development in the Wakatipu Basin, which has had direct ramifications for the iconic landscape that is at the very heart of the region’s prosperity. The tension between the drive for increasing development and the desire to sustain landscape values creates an intense political environment⁴.

It would seem that an issue of identity is at the centre of this conflict. Tourists enjoy visiting the Wakatipu Basin because it is uniquely sublime. However, the built environment is diminishing this sense of place as it sprawls into the landscape. Rather than adding to the region’s uniqueness, this development detracts from it. To compound this condition, the changing landscape has become increasingly socially striated, with multi-million dollar homes and worker housing coexisting, with little provision of public space for opportunistic social interaction. It would seem that the problem is twofold. Firstly, how can architecture reaffirm, or otherwise contribute to, the creation of a sense of identity which is unique to the Wakatipu Basin? Secondly, how can architecture that is unique to the context seek to subvert the increasing social inequality that could be emergent in the Wakatipu Basin?

Currently the architecture of the Wakatipu Basin is reinforcing social boundaries. If architecture is considered as an expression of a society, could it be assumed that architectural form therefore has the potential to create or contribute to the establishment and reinforcement of social divisions.

The thesis poses the question: How can architecture subvert such distinctions, through a critical agency, in order to operate in a transformative, socially productive manner? This position is investigated through the development of a public house on the shores of Lake Hayes, a much photographed landmark 10km east of Queenstown and 7km from Arrowtown. A walking /cycle track linked to the popular Wakatipu Basin Cycle Trail circumnavigates its shores.

Taking this urban condition as its premise and provocation, this thesis investigates architecture’s role in the ‘peri-urban’ areas. It asks: what can architecture do in these contexts? How can architecture act upon the divided landscape in a critical operative catalytic manner? Identifying the need for a critical architecture’s engagement with this condition is the project’s raison d’etre.

The thesis investigates these lines of inquiry through design-led research, with an initial design question triggering broader research discussion and inquiry.

The thesis is broken into four sections.

The first part seeks to identify the issues present within the site, establishing a formal and cultural basis for architecture’s engagement with the context. The second is the presentation of the design outcome, a site specific response comprising of a pub and backpackers⁵. The design takes a critical, speculative position on the previously identified issues. The third part is a broader discussion of the ideas provoked by the design intervention, namely the notion of difference, or ‘strangeness’ within the context of a critical architecture. The third part negotiates a possible agenda for architecture in such a context, through terms of engagement that are formal, critical, and opportunistic – enabling the design to take a position on and in the peri-urban context. A series of strategies are discussed through the scheme.

Lastly, a critical reflection seeks to make comment on the potential of the findings for the architectural discipline. The implications of this design-led thesis are twofold; firstly for architecture’s role in the ‘peri-urban’ landscapes (particularly the Wakatipu Basin) and also for the architectural discipline. As global society embraces increasing homogeneity, insight into formal, architectural strategies seeking to amplify the local in a critical, non-mimetic sense (and instil a sense of agency) propound a timely awareness for the discipline.