Project Housing & The Architectural Profession in The 1960s

_____________________________
PROJECT HOUSING
AND THE ARCHITECTURAL
PROFESSION IN SYDNEY
IN THE 1960s
A Thesis
Submitted to the University of New South Wales
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
By
Judith M. O’Callaghan
Faculty of the Built Environment
The University of New South Wales
Sydney, Australia
2007
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
_______________________________________________
Abstract 7
Acknowledgements 8
List of abbreviations 10
List of illustrations 12
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Introduction 14
Research Question 15
Scope 16
Key Definitions 16
Time Period 17
Geographical Limits 17
Project Builders 18
Interpretive Framework 20
Interpretive Method 23
Sources 25
Documentary Material 25
Interviews 27
Literature Review 29
Thesis Structure 38
2
CHAPTER 2
PROFESSIONALISM, ARCHITECTS AND THE CULTURE OF PRODUCTION:
An Interpretive Framework
Introduction 41
Professional Status and Identity 41
Pierre Bourdieu 47
Domination and Struggle in the Field of Architecture 49
A Question of Legitimacy 51
‘Cultural Intermediaries’ 56
‘Cultures of Production’ 60
‘Acceptability’ and ‘Accessibility’ 63
Conclusion 66
CHAPTER 3
‘THE ARCHITECT IS DEAD - LONG LIVE ARCHITECTURE!’
Housing and the Architectural Profession in Sydney 1930 – 45
Introduction 68
The 1930s 69
The Political Significance of Housing 73
The War Years 80
The ‘Newcomers’: MARS 81
Only a ‘partial’ revolution 86
Housing and the Future of the Profession 89
Conclusion 93
3
CHAPTER 4
‘HOMES IN THE SUN’
Introduction 94
The ‘Acceptability’ and ‘Accessibility’ of Architect-Designed

‘Solutions’ 96
Architects and the Popular Media 96
‘Another KO by Young Fighter’ 101
The NSW Chapter and Housing 104
‘An Opportunity for Leadership’ 120

Emerging Threats to Professional Identity 124
A New Industrial Environment 124
Architect as Builder 126
The ‘Package Dealer’ 128
Conclusion 138
CHAPTER 5
‘HOMES THAT SAY THE RIGHT THINGS’
Project Housing and the Architectural Profession in Sydney: The Early Years
Introduction 140
Sun-Line Homes 142
History 142
Culture of Production and the Role of the Architect 149
The Profession’s Response 157
Parade of Homes 158
History 158

4
Lend Lease Homes, the 1962 Demonstration Village and

the Carlingford Homes Fair 175
History 175
Conclusion 197
CHAPTER 6
‘ARCHITECTURAL EXCELLENCE AND VALUE’
Pettit & Sevitt
Introduction 199
History 200
Establishing the Business 200
Beginning of the Boom 207
Expansion 211
Speculative Interests 220
Other Building Interests 223

A Change in Ownership 226
Culture of Production 234
The Target Market 235
Individuality, Quality and Value 236
Presentation and Representation 241
The Role of the Architect 249
Defining the Terms of Engagement 249
Architectural Expertise and the Processes of Production 252
Architectural Authority 253
Conclusion 258
5
CHAPTER 7
‘ENTER THE PROFESSIONAL’
Project Housing and the Architectural Profession in Sydney 1960 – 69
Introduction 259
The ‘Newcomers’: The Architectural Society 260
The Continuing Importance of Housing as an Issue 264
The NSW Chapter takes the Initiative 270
Changes to the Code of Professional Conduct 278
Identifying the Issues 278
The NSW Chapter Again Takes the Lead 284

Conclusion 292
CHAPTER 8
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Overview and Conclusions 294
Relationship to Existing Literature 296
Future Research 298
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archival Material 301
Books and Journal Articles 301
Newspaper and Magazine Articles 319
Theses 321
Transcriptions of Radio and Television Broadcasts 322
Unpublished Material 322

6
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: List of Interviews and Correspondence 323
Appendix 2: Map of Sydney Metropolitan Area Showing Areas in

which Sun-Line Homes, The Master Builders’
Association of NSW, Lend Lease Homes and
Pettit & Sevitt Concentrated Their Activities at
Specific Times During the Period 1959–78 325
Appendix 3: Pettit & Sevitt Display Homes Advertised in Sydney 327
Appendix 4: Royal Australian Institute of Architects, New South Wales

Chapter Project House Design Awards 1967–78 329
Appendix 5: Membership of the Architectural Society in Sydney 333
Appendix 6: Royal Australian Institute of Architects Code of

Ethics [1932] 334
Royal Australian Institute of Architects Code of

Ethics [1939] 336
Code of Professional Conduct [1966–67] 339
RAIA Code of Professional Conduct [1969] 343

7
ABSTRACT
_______________________________________________
This thesis argues that the emergence of architect-designed project housing in Sydney
in the late 1950s and 1960s was associated with a cultural and political shift within the
local architectural profession. In order to provide an understanding of how such a shift
might be defined, the thesis draws from the literature on the sociology of professions
and the theories of sociologists Pierre Bourdieu, Paul du Gay and Sharon Zukin.
Beginning in the 1930s and then progressing through the war and postwar years, the
thesis will show how the popular housing market came to assume a major point of focus
for the local architectural profession not only as an area of practice but also in relation
to issues of identity and public image. The emergence of architect-designed project
housing in Sydney in the late 1950s and 1960s is seen as an extension of that process.
The thesis demonstrates how successful models of architectural engagement with
project housing were used to highlight limitations in the way in which the profession
had defined itself, particularly through such devices as the Royal Australian Institute of
Architects’ Code of Professional Conduct. It is argued that the dramatic revision made
to that code in 1969 embodied a distinct cultural and political shift for the profession
and was the result of a growing tension between traditional ideals and the realities of
practice. It is concluded that architect-designed project housing served to inform that
shift by providing a context in which aspects of this tension could be tested and, in some
cases, reconciled.
8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
_______________________________________________
I am indebted to the Faculty of the Built Environment at The University of New South
Wales for providing crucial support in the form of a PhD Scholarship at the very
beginning of my candidature. I would like to thank the former Dean, Professor Tong
Wu, for his role in this as well as the current Dean, Professor Peter Murphy, for his
support then and since.
I am particularly grateful to Associate Professor Bruce Judd who enthusiastically

supported my research proposal and encouraged me to pursue PhD candidature. I was
very fortunate to have Dr Judd appointed as my supervisor and then Professor Robert
Freestone as my co-supervisor. Their expert guidance, not to mention good humour and
forbearance, made all the difference to the progress of this thesis.
Special thanks are also due to:
• The architects, builders, developers and advertising executives who so graciously

gave of their time, knowledge and opinion: Max Bowen, Neil Clerehan, Michael
Dysart, John Fisher, Don Gazzard, Arthur Holland, Russell Jack, Geoffrey Lumsdaine,
Ian McKay, Brian Pettit, Dirk Reitsma, Bill Rodgers, Val Sevitt, Nino Sydney, Ross
Thorne, Peter Waite, Professor Peter Webber. I would like to make special mention of
Ken Woolley, who was very generous in making his time and records available to me,
as well as Brian Pettit and the late Ron Sevitt whose enthusiasm for architect-designed
project housing initially excited my interest in the subject.
• The New South Wales Chapter of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and in
particular Wendy McCloskey who arranged access to the Chapter’s archives and Anne
Higham who generously shared her own detailed research on the careers of Sydney
architects.
9
• The Master Builders’ Association of NSW, especially Brian Seidler who provided
access to the Association’s archives.
• The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, notably Richard Barton, for access to the
Institute’s archives.
• Lend Lease, in particular Diana Wyndham, Librarian at Lend Lease Design who
provided access to Lend Lease archives and contacts.
• The Powerhouse Museum and particularly Kathy Hackett, Image Librarian.
• Michael Bogle, for information on Arthur Baldwinson’s connection with the Modern
Architectural Research Society, as well as a list of the society’s members.
• Dr Bronwyn Hanna, for information on Eva Buhrich.
• Dr Charles Pickett, for his advice on pre-cut housing in Australia.
• Colleagues within the Faculty of the Built Environment and elsewhere at The
University of New South Wales — notably Dijana Alic, Caroline Butler-Bowden,
Professor Alexander Cuthbert, Dr Catherine de Lorenzo, Dr Paul Hogben, Dr Peter
Kohane and Dr Wendy Shaw for their valuable comments. Also Harry Stephens and
Kirsty Máté for their special support and encouragement, Kathy Argyropoulos for the
time she spent carefully scanning images, Colin Rowan for his more than generous
assistance with InDesign and Andrew Tice for drawing up the map used in Appendix 2.
• The University of New South Wales for the UNSW PhD Completion Scholarship that
paid for the transcription of interviews.
And finally to Helen Johns — the real inspiration behind this project.
10
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
_______________________________________________
Institutions and Organisations
ABC Australian Broadcasting Commission
AIA American Institute of Architects
CHC Commonwealth Housing Commission
IANSW Institute of Architects of New South Wales
MARS Modern Architectural Research Society, Sydney
MBA Master Builders’ Association of New South Wales
PWD Post-War Development Committee, New South Wales Chapter of the
Royal Australian Institute of Architects
RAIA Royal Australian Institute of Architects
RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects
RVIA Royal Victorian Institute of Architects
Journals, Magazines and Newspapers

A&A Architecture and Arts
AHB Australian Home Beautiful
AHG Australian House and Garden
AiA Architecture in Australia
AT Architecture Today
AWW Australian Women’s Weekly
BLE Building Lighting Engineering
DT Daily Telegraph
FR Financial Review
SH Sun-Herald
SMH Sydney Morning Herald
ST Sunday Telegraph
VL Vogue Living
Archival Material
AMW Archives of Ancher Mortlock & Woolley
AR Annual Report of Chapter Council, The Royal Australian Institute of
Architects New South Wales Chapter.
CM Minutes of Council Meeting, The Royal Australian Institute of Architects
New South Wales Chapter
CO Minutes of Convention Organising Committee, The Royal Australian
Institute of Architects New South Wales Chapter
EM Minutes of Executive Meeting, The Royal Australian Institute of
Architects New South Wales Chapter
EMBA Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting, The Master Builders’
Association of New South Wales
GL Geoffrey Lumsdaine’s personal papers
HC Minutes of Housing Committee Meeting, The Royal Australian Institute
of Architects, New South Wales Chapter
HMBA Minutes of Parade of Homes Sub-Committee, The Master Builders’
IM Minutes of the Institute of Architects of New South Wales
MB Max Bowen’s personal papers
11
MBA Minutes of Council of Management Meeting, The Master Builders’

MBAR The Master Builders’ Association of New South Wales Annual Report
and Financial Statements
ML Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales
MR Minutes of Members Relations Committee, The Royal Australian
NS Nino Sydney’s personal papers
N&I Minutes of News & Information Sub-Committee, The Royal Australian
PC Minutes of Professional Committee, The Royal Australian Institute of
Architects New South Wales Chapter
PHM Powerhouse Museum Design Archives
PMBA Minutes of Parade of Homes Management Committee, The Master
Builders’ Association of New South Wales
PR Minutes of Public Relations Committee, The Royal Australian Institute
of Architects New South Wales Chapter
RAIACM Minutes of Council Meeting, The Royal Australian Institute of Architects
Reports
HIBNSW Report of the Housing Improvement Board of New South Wales, in
accordance with Section 15 of the Housing Improvement Act, 1936,
Legislative Assembly, Sydney, 1938.
12
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
_______________________________________________
Figures:
1. The five key themes applied within the chronological framework.
2. The ‘Better Homes Exhibition’ of 1939, showing a house model by Arthur

Baldwinson. In the background is the MARS stand bearing the caption
‘Well-Designed Houses Are Cheaper’.
(Art in Australia, 15 August 1939).
3. The NSW Chapter’s interim report on postwar development completed in 1943

and published shortly after under the auspices of the RAIA.
4. ‘Designed to Cost Less’. House design by Harry Seidler (Rose House) as featured in
Australian Home Beautiful, March1950.
5. The NSW Chapter’s ‘Architecture Today and Tomorrow’ exhibition of 1952.

(Architecture, April-June 1952).
6. ‘To Better Living’. The Australian Home Beautiful cover that launched the Small
Homes Service (NSW) in December 1953.
7. One of the first house designs for the Small Homes Service (NSW) as featured in
Australian Home Beautiful, December 1953.
8. Advertisement for Civil & Civic’s ‘all-embracing service’.

(Sydney Morning Herald, 17 May 1961).
9. Advertisement for Archer Homes (Archer & Co) of Bankstown in Sydney’s west.
(Daily Telegraph, 1 March 1958).
10. Advertisement for the Sun-Line home designed by Bill McMurray, 1958.
(Sunday Telegraph, 22 June 1958).
11. Advertisement for Sun-Line Homes.

(Sun, 5 August 1960).
12. Advertisement for the Parade of Homes.

(Daily Telegraph, 21 January 1960).
13. The ‘All-Electric Home’ designed by Samuel Lipson and Kaad and sponsored by the
Australian Women’s Weekly for the Parade of Homes.
(Australian Women’s Weekly,10 February 1960).
14. Advertisement for Lend Lease Homes’ 1962 Demonstration Village on the
Kingsdene Estate.
(Daily Telegraph, 13 October 1961).
15. Beachcomber designed by Nino Sydney for Lend Lease Homes’ 1962 Demonstration
Village.
(Lend Lease Homes for 1962 brochure, NS).
16. One of three houses designed by Harry Seidler for the Carlingford Homes Fair of 1962.
(Carlingford Homes Fair brochure, MB).
13
17. ‘Home No 17’ designed ‘as economically as possible’ by John P. Ley & Associates
for the Carlingford Homes Fair of 1962.
18. Two of the three houses designed by Ken Woolley and Michael Dysart for the
Carlingford Homes Fair: the ‘Fifteen-Square House’ and the ‘Split-level’.
(Australian Women’s Weekly, 13 June and 11 April 1962).
19. The gala opening of the Carlingford Homes Fair on 24 May 1962.
(Australian Women’s Weekly, 6 June 1962).
20. ‘Design and construction keyed to modern living’. Pettit, Sevitt & Partners
brochure, c1961 (GL).
21. Four variations on the Split Level 1. (Top) Split Level Mk 1, 1964, and (above) Split
Level 1F, 1969; (Top) Split Level 1H, 1970, and (above) Split Level 1J, 1973.
(dimension, July 1964; Pettit & Sevitt brochures, c1969, c1970 and c1973, AMW).
22. The Lowline, as advertised in 1965 (top) and later c1970 (above), showing some of
the variations in plan offered by Pettit & Sevitt.
(Sydney Morning Herald, 3 April 1965; Pettit & Sevitt brochure, c1970, AMW).
23. Advertisement for the Pettit &Sevitt Exhibition Centre at St Ives, 1964.
(Sydney Morning Herald, 4 July 1964).
24. The Property, designed by Russell Jack for Pettit & Sevitt, as featured in the
Australian Home Journal, January 1967.
25. The Linear House, designed by Ken Woolley, as featured in Vogue Living,
December 1976 – February 1977.
26. The first of Pettit & Sevitt’s ‘dialogue’ advertisements.

(Sydney Morning Herald, 17 April 1965).
27. The first issue of dimension, May 1964.
28. Split Level Mk 1 display home within its landscaped setting in St Ives. Photograph by
Max Dupain (PHM).
29. Pettit & Sevitt display home interiors. Photograph by Max Dupain (PHM).
30. Kitchen of Pettit & Sevitt’s Split Level 1J display home at Westleigh as featured on
the cover of Vogue Living, 15 February – 14 April 1974.
31. Pettit & Sevitt advertisement.

32. Double-page spread in dimension, May 1964.
33. ‘Welcome to McMansion Land’, Good Weekend magazine cover.

(Sydney Morning Herald, 23 August 2003).
14
1
INTRODUCTION
______________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
This thesis is concerned with the architectural profession’s connection with project
housing in Sydney during the 1960s. Specifically it investigates the nature and
significance of that connection in relation to the culture and politics of the New
South Wales Chapter of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects. The interpretive
framework for the investigation is concerned primarily with issues of professional

identity in relation to production and draws on sociological theory.
Attempts have been made to explain both the advent and demise of the close public
association that once existed between architects and project builders in Sydney in the
late 20th century. The nature of that relationship, however, has never been adequately
addressed. More particularly, while the project housing work of a few individual
architects has received some attention, there has been no discussion of how that work
aligned with the culture and politics of the organised profession. That relationship
warrants critical investigation given that architectural involvement with project housing
was once institutionalised within the awards system of the New South Wales Chapter of
the Royal Australian Institute of Architects.
For a short period in the second half of the 20th century, architects were prominently
involved with the project housing industry in Sydney in a way that was seen to have
positive outcomes for the suburban environment. Studies of architect-designed project
housing to date have focussed on the work and motivation of individual architects.
There has been no attempt to investigate the active support of the organised profession.
This thesis addresses that anomaly and also suggests new ways of interpreting the
15
context and detail of the architectural profession’s engagement with project housing
during the 1960s.
This chapter introduces the subject of the thesis and explains the research question.
It describes the parameters of the investigation as well as the theoretical framework
and methodology. The available literature on project housing and the architectural
profession in Sydney is also reviewed and the significance of the study described. The
chapter concludes with a summary of the thesis structure.
RESEARCH QUESTION
The research question posed for this study is: What significance did architect-designed
project housing hold for the architectural profession in Sydney during the 1960s?
The aim is to establish a link between the cultural and political imperatives operating
within the New South Wales Chapter of the Royal Institute of Australian Architects and
architect-designed project housing as it emerged in Sydney during that period.
This thesis argues that fundamental changes occured within the culture and politics
of the architectural profession in Sydney in the period leading up to 1969 when the
Royal Australian Institute of Architects’ Code of Professional Conduct1 was radically
overhauled. That Code had been in place since 1930,2 when the Institute was formally
established. The principles it embodied were preserved for nearly forty years, with only
additions and minor alterations being made over that period.3 While the emergence of
architect-designed project housing in Sydney in the late 1950s and 1960s was not the
singular cause of the cultural and political shift associated with the Code’s revision, it
was inextricably linked to it.

1. Originally called ‘Code of Ethics’. The name changed to ‘Code of Professional Conduct’ in 1957.
See Royal Australian Institute of Architects, The Year Book of the Royal Australian Institute of Archi-
tects,1957-1958, Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Sydney, 1957, p. p.33.
2. The Code, however, was not published as part of ‘The Standard Documents of the Royal Australian
Institute of Architects’ until January 1932. ‘Royal Australian Institute of Architects Code of Ethics’,
Architecture, vol. 21, no. 1, 1932, p. 15.
3. See Appendix 5.
16
SCOPE
The scope of the thesis needs to be explained in terms of key definitions used, the time
period chosen and the geographical limits of the study. The reasons why particular
project building enterprises were selected for investigation will also be discussed.
Key Definitions
The term architectural profession is used here to signify the organised profession, that
is, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA) and particularly its New South
Wales (NSW) Chapter. During its early history in Australia, the organised profession
was represented by state institutes. Over the period 1929 to 1930, a national body
was established in the form of the RAIA, with state chapters representing the regional
interests of its constituency. Not every architect in Australia was (or is) a member of the
RAIA. Nonetheless, during the period under consideration, the organisation did play a
major advocatory and regulatory role in relation to the interests and development of the
field.
The Macquarie Dictionary describes ‘project house’ as ‘a house of standard design built
as one of a series. Also, exhibition house’.4 In this thesis, project housing is defined in
terms of a process which essentially involves the marketing of a standardised house
design through the medium of a display home. An enterprise that markets house designs
in this way is known as a project builder. To purchase one of these standardised designs
necessitates a contract whereby the project builder constructs the design, with or without
a range of variations, on a client’s own land or as part of a house-land package. That
process represents the way in which project housing generally worked in Sydney in the
1960s, and is still understood today.
4. The Macquarie Dictionary, 3rd edn, Macquarie Library, Macquarie University, NSW, 2001, p. 1518.
17
Time Period
In order to trace the ways in which project housing came to assume a political
significance for the architectural profession, it is necessary to begin the study some
years prior to its emergence in Sydney. The investigation commences in 1930, the year
in which the RAIA became fully established. An identity for the newly united profession
was shaped in the years that followed and it is during this period that the origins of
the Institute’s postwar policies on housing emerge. The investigation concludes in
1969, the year that the RAIA’s Code of Professional Conduct was radically overhauled
representing the culmination of another period of intense discussion and debate about
the profession’s identity in relation to appropriate fields of engagement.
Within that larger span, the study is loosely divided into three periods: 1930–45,
1945–60, 1960–69. In broad terms, each represents a critical period in the history of
both the architectural profession and the housing industry in Sydney. The first covers
the years of the Great Depression and the Second World War and their impact on both
fields. The second encompasses a period of slow recovery from the restrictions and
shortages of the war and immediate postwar period and the third, the new industrial
environment of the 1960s.
Geographical Limits
The Sydney focus of the study should also be explained. Architect-designed project
housing was not confined to that region, nor did it originate there. However it can
be argued that the way in which the industry developed in Sydney during the 1960s
provided a highly influential model for similar enterprises that emerged elsewhere in
Australia.
This does raise another issue, however, in relation to an understanding of ‘the
architectural profession in Sydney’. A chapter of the RAIA, such as the one in New
South Wales, is meant to represent the interests of architects across the state. However,
18
like so many national and state organisations, the power base of the RAIA was and still
is located in the capital cities. During the period under consideration, the NSW Chapter
certainly included regional representation, however, Sydney architects dominated the
leadership and thus the culture of the organisation.
Project Builders
This thesis is concerned with just one aspect of project building in Sydney: builders
who obtained their standardised house designs from architects. It does not attempt to
comprehensively document this industry, but rather to identify important milestones in
its early development. On this basis, the histories of four enterprises are investigated:
Sun-Line Homes, the Parade of Homes, Lend Lease Homes and Pettit & Sevitt.5
Established in the late 1950s, Sun-Line Homes appears to be the first local project
building concern to have clearly associated the name of an architect with its product.
The first Parade of Homes, organised by the Master Builders’ Association (MBA) of
NSW in 1960, set an important precedent for the project home display village, while
Lend Lease Homes took lessons from both, establishing a new benchmark for the
production and marketing of architect-designed project homes in Sydney in the years
following. The histories of Lend Lease Homes and Sun-Line Homes are interwoven
with that of Pettit & Sevitt, an entreprise that assumes a particular prominence within
the investigation.
There are two reasons for this special focus on Pettit & Sevitt. Firstly, it represents
a highly sophisticated model of the type of enterprise that emerged in Sydney in the
1960s that was concerned with the production and marketing of architect-designed
housing. Indeed it can be argued that Pettit & Sevitt influenced the development of
similar enterprises, both directly and indirectly. A very obvious link was established
through its ex-employees. Manager John Graham, for example, went on to join Civic
Constructions, while construction manager Jim White and marketing manager Richard
5. Although there were some slight changes over the years, the enterprise was, and is, most commonly known
as ‘Pettit & Sevitt’. For the sake of consistency this is the name that will be used throughout the thesis.
19
Palmer founded Habitat, two of the partnership’s main competitors in New South Wales.
Additionally, architect Michael Dysart who co-designed Pettit & Sevitt’s first Split Level
and Lowline project homes with Ken Woolley, later provided designs to Habitat as well
as project builders H.U.D. Pty Ltd and Program Building Industries.6
The second reason is the special significance that Pettit & Sevitt holds for the
architectural profession in Sydney. During its years of operation from 1961 to the end
of the 1970s, it not only enjoyed critical acclaim in the architectural press, but also
managed to secure over half of the Project House Design Awards presented by the NSW
Chapter.7 Even now, nearly thirty years after the business folded, Pettit & Sevitt enjoys
a kind of legendary status. According to architectural commentator Elizabeth Farrelly
writing in the Sydney Morning Herald at the end of 2005: ‘Within the profession they
are cult heroes to this day’.8 Ultimately however, the significance of Pettit & Sevitt
to this study is derived from the fact that its profile was built around a collaborative
relationship between architect and industry. As such, the enterprise embodied not only
the aspirations but also some of the tensions that occupied the attention of the local
profession in the 1960s.
It is also worth noting that even beyond the profession, Pettit & Sevitt has enjoyed
a special status. It received high media exposure during its lifetime, and since its
demise journalists have continued to use the enterprise as a standard against which
6. It is also acknowledged that Sydney-based project builder Pettit & Sevitt influenced the general
approach taken by Merchant Builders when it was established in Melbourne in 1965. See J.A. Trimble,
Graeme C. Gunn: A Critical Art History 1961–1981, PhD thesis, Monash University, 1985, p. 74;
A. Gartner, Merchant Builders: From Reform to Receivership, MA thesis, Monash University, 1994, p.
112; P.J. Goad, The Modern House in Melbourne 1945-1975, PhD thesis, University of Melbourne, 1992,
p. 6/157
7. Representing fifteen of the twenty-seven awards made between 1967 and 1978. See Appendix 3.
8. E. Farrelly, ‘Shoebox or Gingerbread House?’, Spectrum supplement, SMH 31 December–1 January
2005–06, p.18.
20
contemporary developments in the project housing industry are measured.9 Few project
builders have enjoyed such an enduringly positive, public profile.
In summary, while Pettit & Sevitt may not have invented the idea of architect-designed
project housing, it contributed significantly to the shaping of its identity in Sydney.
Surprisingly, however, no detailed academic study of the enterprise has been undertaken
to date. This investigation begins the process of addressing that omission.
INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORK
As it is the culture and politics of professional associations that provides the focus
of this study, the interpretive framework has been drawn from sociological theory.
Specifically, the thesis draws on a body of scholarship commonly described as the
theory of professions or the sociology of professions, to determine the purpose of
professional associations and how professional identity is defined. In order to examine
the relationship between issues of identity and production, the thesis also references the
theories of sociologists Pierre Bourdieu, Paul du Gay and Sharon Zukin.
To understand what might influence the political agendas of the RAIA and its NSW
Chapter, it is first necessary to clarify these organisations’ reason for being. Studies
undertaken on the sociology of professions would suggest that the fundamental purpose
of professional bodies such as the RAIA is to ensure that the professional status of the
field is maintained.10 Their policies as well as their regulations and rules of admission
are directed towards that end. For most of the period under discussion, sociological
9. M. Dickinson, ‘The Changing Australian Home’, National Times, 8 February 1981, pp. 31-38; R.
Schlicht, ‘Suburbs Cry Out for Pettit and Sevitt’, Spectrum supplement, SMH 15 October 1994, p. 15A;
H. Greenwood, ‘Home Delivered’ domain supplement, SMH, 9 September 1999, p. 6; M. Nye, ‘In The
Beginning…’, Homes supplement, DT, 2 December 2000, pp. 5-6; J. Richardson, ‘Project: Housing’,
Weekend Australian Magazine, 29 September 2001, pp. 36-39.; E. Farrelly, ‘Size Does Count, to
Architects’ Despair’ SMH, 17 January 2003, p. 14; S. Lacey, ‘Don’s Place, domain supplement, SMH,
20-21 March 2004, pp.8H-9H; G. O’Brien, ‘P+S To Taste’, Australian Financial Review Magazine,
November 2004, pp. 56-60; S. Lacey, ‘Archiphobia’, A2 supplement, Age, 25 March 2006, p. 16;
E. Farrelly, ‘Smaller But Perfectly Formed Could be the Super Model for Our Future’, SMH, 20
December 2006, p. 15.
10. G. Millerson, The Qualifying Associations: A Study in Professionalization, Routledge & Kegan Paul,
London, 1964.
21
theory in regard to the professions was concerned with defining what it was that
conferred that special status, in other words, what distinguished a profession from
an occupation. In the late 1950s, American sociologist Ernest Greenwood sought to
‘distill…the distinguishing attributes of a profession’ from the available literature. He
summarised these as a ‘systematic body of theory’, ‘professional authority’, ‘sanction
of the community’, ‘regulative code of ethics’ and ‘professional culture’.11 Central to
this thesis is the assertion that the way in which a profession chose to describe the detail
of these elements — at least during the period under consideration — was fundamental
to its professional identity. A key example would be a profession’s code of ethics or
professional conduct; a public document that is meant to describe its value system as
well as regulate the behaviour of its members. If a profession chose to make dramatic
changes to way in which it described its code of ethics, this would suggest a critical
shift in the way it defined itself and its public image. In this context, the major revisions
that were made to the RAIA’s Code of Professional Conduct in 1969 hold particular
significance for this study.
In order to understand the processes that might be associated with a change to the way a
profession chooses to define itself, the thesis draws on the theories of Pierre Bourdieu.
At the time of his death in 2002, Bourdieu was considered to be one of France’s leading
intellectuals. He began publishing his work in the 1960s, and since the mid 1980s
his theories have been widely known within the social sciences.12 While it is now not
uncommon to find Bourdieu referenced in studies related to architecture and urban
design, Garry Stevens’ The Favored Circle, published in 1998, appears to be the first
to use his theories as the basis for an investigation into the architectural profession.13
11. E. Greenwood, ‘The Elements of Professionalization’ in H.H. Vollmer & D.L. Mills (eds),
Professionalization, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1966 (reprinted from ‘Attributes of a
Profession’, Social Work, 2, no. 3, July 1957, pp.44-45), pp. 10-19.
12. L.J.D. Wacquant, ‘Bourdieu in America: Notes on the Transatlantic Importation of Social Theory’, in
C.Calhoun, E. LiPuma & M. Postone (eds), Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives, The University of Chicago
Press, 1993, p. 237.
13. Larson certainly referred to Bourdieu in her 1993 study, Behind the Postmodern Facade, but not
exclusively. M.S. Larson, Behind the Postmodern Facade: Architectural Change in Late Twentieth-
Century America, University of California Press, Berkeley 1993.
22
Critically important to both that study and this thesis is one of Bourdieu’s most
influential books Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste14 together
with his essay ‘The Field of Cultural Production’, in which he describes his theories
in relation to social formation.15 Bourdieu does not talk in terms of ‘professions’, but
rather of fields and sub-fields of ‘cultural production’. He argues that changes within
a sub-field of cultural production, such as architecture, relate to the struggles between
different interest groups. These struggles concern ‘the imposition of legitimate forms of
production’, which includes the determination of what is or is not an appropriate area
of engagement for the field. Essentially, this thesis seeks to determine if there is any
relationship between the way in which project housing became a ‘legitimate form of
production’ for the architectural profession in Sydney during the 1960s and the political
imperatives that led to the radical overhaul of the RAIA’s Code of Professional Conduct
in 1969.
The studies of British sociologist Paul du Gay into the nature of cultural goods and
services are also important.16 His concept of a ‘culture of production’ for example has
provided a context for analysing the operations of a number of enterprises specialising
in architect-designed project housing that have been central to the study. According to
du Gay: ‘Processes of production are themselves cultural phenomena in that they are
assemblages of meaningful practices that construct certain ways for people to conceive
of and conduct themselves in an organizational context’.17 In relation to this thesis,

however, the way in which the selected enterprises chose to represent their ‘cultures
of production’ — through their corporate identities, marketing and advertising — is
just as important as the cultures themselves. Du Gay’s adaptation of Bourdieu’s idea
14. P. Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. R. Nice, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984.
15. P. Bourdieu, ‘The Field of Cultural Production, or: The Economic World Reversed’ in P. Bourdieu,
The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, ed. and introd. R. Johnson, Polity Press,
Cambridge, 1993.
16. P. du Gay (ed.), Production of Culture/Cultures of Production, Sage/The Open University, London,
1997 and P. du Gay et al, Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman, Sage/The Open
University, London, 1997.
17. P. du Gay, ‘Introduction’ in P. du Gay (ed) Production of Culture/Cultures of Production, p. 7.
23
of ‘cultural intermediary’ – one who facilitates identification between product and
consumer — has also been applied to discussion of the role played by architects within
the cultures of these enterprises.
As a way of fleshing out the connection between political agendas and the emergence
of architect-designed project housing in Sydney, the thesis also draws on the work of
American sociologist and urban scholar Sharon Zukin and her highly significant study
Loft Living.18 In her investigation of the popularity of loft living in New York in the
1960s and 1970s, Zukin shows how the changing status of a group within society (in
that instance, New York artists) and the level of public exposure given to their life and
work, can have a major impact on the marketability of the housing type with which they
are identified. She describes those particular determinants as embodying the principles
of ‘acceptability’ and ‘accessibility’. In a similar vein, this thesis looks at the ways
in which certain policies and public relations initiatives of the NSW Chapter directly
contributed to an environment in which architect-designed standardised housing became
a marketable commodity. It also looks at how that market success then fed back into
political agendas operating within the Chapter.
INTERPRETIVE METHOD
The sociology of professions together with the theories of Bourdieu, du Gay and
Zukin provide the means to conceptualise the politics and culture of the architectural
profession in Sydney in relation to an area of engagement such as project housing. The
approach taken is to apply the key concepts or themes from the theoretical framework
to an historical investigation of both the architectural profession and architect-designed
project housing over the period 1930 to 1969.
Within that chronological span, a number of key themes are investigated. These are
derived from the theories of Bourdieu, du Gay and Zukin as well as the sociology of
18. S. Zukin, Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change, Radius, London, 1988 (1982).
24
professions. They comprise:
professional identity
‘legitimate modes of cultural production’
‘acceptability’ and ‘accessibility’
‘cultures of production’
architect as ‘cultural intermediary’
As illustrated in the diagram below (Fig. 1), the first two themes anchor the study,
running through the investigation from the 1930s to the end of the 1960s. That broad
perspective means that it is possible to identify more clearly the changes to the way
in which the architectural profession in Sydney sought to shape its identity, and how
those changes were directly tied to debates concerning ‘legitimate modes of cultural
production’. The other three themes are applied at later points within the chronology to
explicate the link between the culture and politics of the NSW Chapter and architect-
designed project housing specifically. For example, the third stream of investigation
— the ‘acceptability’ and ‘accessibility’ of architect-designed project housing — begins
to be considered in the postwar period in order to determine if the activities of the
NSW Chapter in any way contributed to the marketability of this housing type when it
appeared at the end on the 1950s. Once enterprises specialising in architect-designed
project housing did emerge, it is important to examine the way in which their ‘cultures
of production’ were represented. This includes the very prominent role assigned to
architects as cultural intermediaries. By collectively applying all five streams of
investigation to this critical period of the 1960s, it was possible to establish a clear
connection between what architect-designed project housing came to represent and
some of the major cultural and political issues faced by the architectural profession at
that time.
25
1930
‘legitimate modes of cultural production’
architect as ‘cultural intermediary’

1945
‘acceptability’ and ‘accessibility’
‘cultures of production’
professional identity
1960
1969
Fig.1: The five key themes applied within the chronological framework.
SOURCES
In order to map the specific relationship between architects and project housing, the
thesis draws on two principal sources: documentary material and qualitative information
gained from interviews with architects, builders and advertising executives.
Documentary material
Histories, overviews and analyses of Australian architecture and the Australian housing
industry provide the backbone to the investigation. For a thesis concerned with the
organised profession - its culture and politics - the publications of the RAIA and its
NSW Chapter are critically important. These include the Bulletin of the NSW Chapter19
as well as the RAIA News and the Institute’s official journal Architecture (1917–54),
which became Architecture in Australia (1955–75). Other architectural periodicals that
provide an insight into the culture and politics of the profession include the Melbourne-
19. Known as Chapter Bulletin (1944–53), then Bulletin (1954–81).

26
based Architecture and Arts and Cross-Section. Collectively, these journals also
assist in charting shifting opinion in regard to housing and housing types. The annual
reports of the Chapter and the RAIA are similarly revealing. Building journals, notably
Construction and Building Lighting Engineering, offered other perspectives on housing,
and frequently a more inclusive approach to the representation of significant projects
— that is, they covered projects and events that were often ignored by the architectural
press.
Within the secondary sources, newspapers and magazines provide another important
reference for this study. These include magazines devoted exclusively to project homes
— Architecture Today’s Project Houses later incorporated into Today’s House — but
also the main Sydney newspapers, such as the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily
Telegraph, as well as ‘home’ magazines such as Australian Home Beautiful, Australian
House and Garden, Belle, Vogue and Vogue Living, and the more generalist Australian
Women’s Weekly. These publications provide an invaluable insight into the public
image of the profession, particularly in regard to housing. At a more basic level, they
are also useful in establishing the dates and sequence of events relevant to the study.
For example, in the case of Pettit & Sevitt where company records were nonexistent, it
was necessary to consult each Saturday edition of the Sydney Morning Herald from the
beginning of the 1960s to the end of the 1970s, in order to establish the opening dates
for display villages and the number and type of designs they included.
Archival records constitute a major source for this study. The most significant pertain
to the NSW Chapter of the RAIA, the records of which are split between the Mitchell
Library and Chapter headquarters in Tusculum, Sydney. Particularly important are the
minutes of meetings held by the Executive, Council and the various committees of
the Chapter from the 1930s to the 1970s, together with the various papers and policy
documents tabled at those meetings. This material is crucial to establishing how, when
and by whom policies and significant initiatives were proposed, fostered and realised.
27
Records belonging to the Master Builders’ Association (NSW), notably the minutes
of meetings held by the Council of Management, Executive and Parade of Homes
Management Committee for the period 1959 to 1960 are similarly revealing in relation
to the history of the first Parade of Homes.
A number of people interviewed for this study possess drawings and other records
such as newspaper clippings and promotional material that have been helpful not
only in documenting projects but also in revealing the ways in which architectural
involvement with project housing was represented by builders and in the media. Of
particular importance are the archives of Ancher Mortlock Woolley to which Ken
Woolley provided access. These contain a wealth of material relating to Pettit & Sevitt,
including correspondence, record books, copies of contracts, drawings, photographs and
marketing material. The Powerhouse Museum’s collection of design archives also hold
some useful material on Pettit & Sevitt, comprising mainly photographic documentation
but also transcriptions of interviews with Ron and Val Sevitt undertaken in the 1990s.
Interviews
Qualitative information gained from in-depth interviews is fundamental to the
investigation. The list of interviewees was determined by preliminary research and
sometimes one contact led to another. Just over half of the interviewees were architects
who had worked with project builders and/or were associated with the NSW Chapter
during the critical period of the late 1950s and 1960s. They included Neil Clerehan,
Michael Dysart, John Fisher, Don Gazzard, Russell Jack, Geoffrey Lumsdaine, Ian
McKay, Nino Sydney, Ross Thorne, Peter Webber and Ken Woolley. The rest included
builders, such as Brian Pettit, Dirk Reitsma and Peter Waite, as well as individuals
involved in the promotion and marketing of project housing at the time, such as Max
Bowen, Arthur Holland and Bill Rodgers. Furniture designer Alex Blair and Ron
Sevitt’s widow Val Sevitt were also interviewed.20
20. See Appendix 1.

28
The interviewing process was based on the ‘general interview guide approach’ described
in Patton’s Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods.21 Essentially prospective
interviewees were contacted by phone. The research project was explained and, if
those contacted were then happy to be interviewed, a list of questions was prepared
that covered the relevant subject areas. On meeting the interviewee, a brief summary
of those areas was verbally described. The list of questions composed for each
interview was used as a flexible guide, allowing for detailed discussion of points raised
or directions suggested by the responses received. Depending on the subject areas
identified for the interviews, some questions were consistently posed to allow for cross-
referencing. Other questions were tailored to the particular respondent. All of the face to
face and telephone interviews were taped and transcribed,22 with subsequent enquiries
and clarifications made via email and facsimile or by telephone, in which case notes
were taken.
After the research project had commenced, a Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel
(HREAP) was formed by the Faculty of the Built Environment at the University of New
South Wales.23 Permission to continue with the interviews was subsequently applied
for and received from the panel. This served to further formalise the process. From
this point interviewees were also provided with a written description of the research
project together with a ‘project information sheet’ outlining issues of confidentiality and
disclosure. This sheet included a revocation clause for the interviewee should he/she
decide to withdraw his/her consent at some stage. Interviewees were also asked to sign a
‘project consent form’ acknowledging their willingness to participate in the project.
21. M.Q. Patton, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, Newbury
Park, California, 1990, pp. 283-284.
22. With the exception of Alex Blair’s interview on 9 February 2000 when notes were taken.
23. Details of the FBE Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel and its role are available at http://www.
fbe.unsw.edu.au/research/hreap/downloads/fbehreapguide.pdf.
29
Qualitative interviewing through in-depth interviews is recognised as a highly effective
research method.24 It offers the potential to achieve a depth of response that might not
be achieved by other means and one of the reasons for using this method was to gain
a sense of the relative importance of particular issues, policies, individuals and events
to the interviewees. Collectively the interviews were also able to fill important gaps in
information, such as the dates and sequence of events and who was involved.
Information gained from the interviews, together with archival source material, was
fundamental to the investigation. Triangulation25 therefore was central to the process of
assembling the data. Where possible, responses from inteviewees were crosschecked
with secondary and archival material as well as against each other. This process
proved necessary not only in relation to testing the veracity of the responses but also to
confirming the accuracy of the other source material.
In order to gain an understanding of the culture and politics of the organised profession,
the study has had to rely on qualitative information gained from interviews, published
texts and archival material. Of all the sources, the interviews provided the best
insight into the subtle intricacies of Institute politics. Ideally they would have been
comprehensive, but this was not possible. Timing in this context was a critical factor;
many of those who had been actively involved with the Chapter, even as late as the
1960s, had died, while both Peter Johnson and Bryce Mortlock for example passed
away before interviews could be arranged. Ultimately, the thesis can only provide a
perspective on the dynamics and powerplay within the leadership of the NSW Chapter.
LITERATURE REVIEW
This review focuses on three subject areas: the architectural profession, the project
housing industry and architect-designed project housing. The literature discussed
within those broad headings encompasses architectural histories, commentaries,

24. Patton, pp.283-284; M. Travers, ‘Qualitative Interviewing Methods’ in M. Walter (ed.), Social Research
Methods: An Australian Perspective, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, 2006, pp. 103-105.
25. Patton, pp. 187-188.
30
monographs and journal articles, as well as published studies on the Australian
residential building industry and on project houses in particular. Unpublished theses are
also referenced.
Given the focus of the thesis, literature concerned specifically with the architectural
profession has been particularly important. Very broadly, this can be described as falling
into two categories. One constitutes descriptive analyses and surveys of the profession
written by architects and/or produced by professional bodies such as the Royal Institute of
British Architects (RIBA) and the American Institute of Architects (AIA).26 This literature
is important for gaining an understanding of how architects viewed themselves and their
field of engagement as well as how they wished to be presented to the world. The other
category adopts a more critical and interrogative approach, questioning many of the
traditional assertions concerning professional identity and its relationship to practice.27
Much of this work was produced in the 1980s and 1990s when the implications of late
postmodernism in relation to architectural practice was the subject of intense debate and
when professions generally were under intense scrutiny. Some of the most illuminating
studies are those undertaken by sociologists, such as Margali Sarfatti Larson and Robert
Gutman. One of the most significant in terms of this thesis is Garry Stevens’ The Favored
Circle: The Social Foundations of Architectural Distinction.28 Describing himself as an
‘architectural sociologist’, Stevens appears to be the first to have comprehensively applied
the theories of Bourdieu to an analysis of the profession.
26. For example, T.C. Bannister (ed.), The Architect at Mid-Century: Evolution and Achievement.
Report of the Commission for the Survey of Education and Registration of the American Institute of
Architects, Reinhold Publishing, New York, 1954; A.S. Eggleston, The Practising Architect, Melbourne
University Press, 1955; Royal Institute of British Architects, The Architect and His Office: A Survey of
Organisation, Staffing, Quality of Service and Productivity Presented to the Council of the Royal Institute
on 6th February, 1962, Royal Institute of British Architects, London, 1962; A.J. Willis, The Architect in
Practice, 3rd ed. rev., Crosby Lockwood, London, 1964; J.M. Richards, Architecture, David & Charles
(Holdings) Limited, Devon, 1974.
27. See for example A. Saint, The Image of the Architect, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1983; R.
Gutman, Architectural Practice: A Critical View, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 1988; R. Ellis
& D. Cuff (eds), Architects’ People, Oxford University Press, New York, 1989; D. Cuff, Architecture: The
Story of Practice, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1991; D. Ghirardo (ed.), Out of Site: A Social
Criticism of Architecture, Bay Press, Seattle, 1991; M.S. Larson, Behind the Postmodern Facade.
28. G. Stevens, The Favored Circle: The Social Foundations of Architectural Distinction, The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1998.
31
The only published history of the architectural institutes in Australia is J.M. (Max)
Freeland’s The Making of a Profession.29 This seminal work provides an insight into
some of the major issues that emerged over the period and the complex interactions
within and between the state institutes and their national body. However, by virtue of
the breadth of his investigation, Freeland’s study is not able to go into the finer detail of
the way in which political agendas were formulated. More informative in this regard is
Paul Hogben’s examination of the architectural profession in Australia and elsewhere
specifically in relation to public relations and marketing. His detailed studies reveal the
interplay between the profession’s political agendas and the methodology of its public
relations activities since the 1930s.30
Prominent among the Australian architectural histories that are important to this study
are works by Freeland, Robin Boyd, Donald Johnson31 and Jennifer Taylor. Of special
interest is the way in these histories discuss housing and/or project housing as an
area of engagement for the profession. Given Taylor’s particular focus on Australian
architecture post 1945, her research and approach provide significant points of reference
for this study.32 There are also a number of publications dating from the late 1960s
and 1970s that provide an important contemporary perspective. These include Harry
Sowden’s Towards an Australian Architecture (1968), Ian McKay et al’s Living &
29. J.M. Freeland, The Making of a Profession: A History of the Growth and Work of the Architectural
Institutes in Australia, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, in association with The Royal Australian Institute
of Architects, 1971.
30. P. Hogben, ‘Marketing Fever’, Fabrications, vol. 11, no. 1, 2000, pp. 79-95; P. Hogben, PR for
Architects: The Public Relations Industry and the Profession of Architecture, PhD thesis, University of
New South Wales, 2004.
31. Various publications by Robin Boyd but particularly R. Boyd, Australia’s Home: Its Origins, Builders
and Occupiers, 2nd edn, Penguin Books Australia Ltd, Ringwood, Victoria, 1968. Also J.M. Freeland
Architecture in Australia: A History, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, England, 1974 (1968); D.L.
Johnson, Australian Architecture 1901-51: Sources of Modernism, Sydney University Press, 1980.
32. Notably J. Taylor: An Australian Identity: Houses for Sydney 1953-63, Dept of Architecture, Univer-
sity of Sydney, Sydney, 1972; ‘Ken Woolley: Appropriate Architecture’, in Royal Australian Institute of
Architects Education Division, Australian Architects: Ken Woolley, Royal Australian Institute of Architects
Education Division, Red Hill, ACT, 1985; ‘Beyond the 1950s’ in R. Irving (ed.), The History & Design of
the Australian House, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1985; Australian Architecture Since 1960, 2nd
edn, National Education Division, Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Red Hill, ACT, 1990.
32
Partly Living: Housing in Australia (1971) and Howard Tanner’s Australian Housing in
the Seventies (1976).33
Boyd’s second edition of Australia’s Home was published in the same year as Towards
an Australian Architecture and it is interesting to compare his assessment of the
significance of architect-designed project housing with Sowden’s. According to the
latter: ‘By this means good design reaches a greatly increased number of people and
is now influencing the vernacular of building’.34 Boyd is also very positive, noting in
relation to the production of Pettit & Sevitt for example that ‘for the first time a genuine
architectural circumspection was brought within the financial reach of the average
owner’.35 Boyd is nevertheless conservative in his assessment of what this represented
in relation to Australian housing generally: ‘Although this was one of the most hopeful
developments of the 1960’s, houses so produced still represented only about five per
cent of all houses built. With stolid fortitude Australia’s home was still overcoming
most attempts to make it better’.36 Despite this cautionary note, other architectural
historians and commentators since have demonstrated an ardent belief in the efficacy of
architectural involvement with the project housing industry.
In Taylor’s Australian Architecture since 1960, for example, the influence of architect-
designed project housing is described as wide-ranging: ‘During the years of high
production these houses made a lasting contribution to the suburban life of the middle
of the spectrum of the population…they have been progressive, passing directly to the
general buying public the advantages of improved design’.37 Other commentators agree
with Taylor’s assessment. Baird for example claims that houses designed by architects
for private clients and developers: ‘Although small in number and geographically
33. H. Sowden (ed.), Towards an Australian Architecture, Ure Smith, Sydney, 1968; I. McKay et al,
Living & Partly Living: Housing in Australia, Thomas Nelson (Australia), Melbourne, 1971; H.Tanner,
Australian Housing in the Seventies, Ure Smith, Sydney, 1976.
34. Sowden (ed), p. 33.
35. Boyd, Australia’s Home, p. 304.
36. ibid. See also R. Boyd, ‘The Neighbourhood’ in I. McKay et al, Living & Partly Living, Thomas
Nelson (Australia), Melbourne, 1971, p. 33.
37. Taylor, Australian Architecture Since 1960, p. 144.
33
scattered …form a major base for innovation and creative change. They do have a
pervasive influence on our housing design; usually not as total architectural entities, but
rather through the adaptation of ideas and elements’.38
It is difficult to verify such a qualitative effect and indeed claims made in relation to the
pervasive influence exerted by architect-designed project housing have been called into
question. As Pickett has pointed out, they fail to acknowledge the wider influences that
come to bear on the design of suburban housing.39 Nevertheless, the importance that is
commonly assigned to the outcome of architects’ involvement with the project housing
industry in the 1960s and 1970s suggests that a rigorous examination of that relationship
is needed.
A further point to be made is that ‘architect-designed project housing’ has a very
specific meaning in the context of most of these architectural studies, Taylor’s being
a case in point. Her focus is almost exclusively on the work of independent and
prominent architects such as Ken Woolley, Terry Dorrough, Cocks and Carmichael, and
Graeme Gunn. There is no discussion of the project houses produced by the salaried
architects of the large building companies such as Lend Lease Homes, nor the early
influential projects initiated by the Master Builders’ Association. Also, implicit within
the discussion is the assertion that architect-designed housing came to an end when the
nominated architects ceased their involvement in the late 1970s and 1980s. Again this
fails to recognise that architects, albeit in many cases anonymously, did continue to be
involved with project builders after this period. In order to understand the way in which
architect-designed project housing developed in Sydney, it is necessary to go beyond
this narrow definition and look at other levels of engagement that existed between
architects and the industry.
38. J. Baird, By Design: Changing Australian Housing, Australasian Educa Press, Melbourne, 1984,
p. 11. See also J. Archer, Building a Nation, William Collins, Sydney, 1987, p. 215 and M. Griggs & C.
McGregor (eds), Australian Built: Responding to the Place, (exhibition catalogue), Design Arts Board of
the Australia Council, North Sydney, 1985, p. 33.
39. C. Pickett, ‘Modernism and Austerity: The 1950s House’, in J. O’Callaghan (ed.), The Australian
Dream: Design of the Fifties, Powerhouse Publishing, Sydney, 1993, p. 87.
34
While there are no publications devoted exclusively to the subject of architect-designed
project housing in Sydney,40 there exists a small body of scholarship in the form of
undergraduate and postgraduate theses. The undergraduate theses were largely produced
when architects were still prominently involved with the industry. While varying in
quality, these studies are nonetheless interesting for their contemporary perspective,
especially as some were based on interviews with builders and architects.41 Of greater
significance is the postgraduate research undertaken by Judith Trimble, Ann Gartner
and Philip Goad. Trimble provides a detailed account of the relationship that developed
between architect Graeme Gunn and Merchant Builders in Melbourne, within a larger
study of Gunn’s work.42 Gartner also covers this territory, but within a comprehensive
history of the company and its production.43 Goad devotes a section to architect-
designed project housing, including reference to Sydney, in his larger investigation into
the modern house in Melbourne.44 While these scholars offer valuable discussion of
what the architects and builders sought to achieve through this form of collaboration,
they do not attempt to relate this to the political agendas of the organised profession.
As Chris Paris pointed out in the early 1990s and Robyn Dowling has recently
reinforced, few published studies on the Australian residential building industry exist.45
This is not to deny the rich vein of material available on Australian housing, however
there has been little scholarly research and analysis undertaken on the enterprises
40. With the exception of J. O’Callaghan, ‘The New Suburban Dream: The Marketing of Pettit & Sevitt
Project Houses 1961–1978’, Additions to Architectural History. XIX Annual Conference of the Society of
Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand. SAHANZ, Brisbane, 2002.
41. Notably G.J. Skinner, Project Homes in New South Wales: A Selective Approach, BArch thesis,
University of New South Wales, 1981.
42. Trimble, Graeme C. Gunn.
43. Gartner, Merchant Builders. Some of this research was later published: A. Gartner, ‘Death of the Project
House? Reflections on the History of Merchant Builders’, in G. Davison, T. Dingle & S. O’Hanlon (eds),
The Cream Brick Frontier: Histories of Australian Suburbia, Monash Publications in History No. 19,
Clayton, Victoria, 1995.
44. Goad, The Modern House in Melbourne.
45. C. Paris, Housing Australia, MacMillan Education Australia, South Melbourne, 1993, p. x;
R. Dowling, ‘Residential Building in Australia, 1993-2003’, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 23, no. 4,
2005, p. 447.
35
responsible for its production in the private sector.46 Only one study has been devoted
exclusively to project housing in Sydney47 and that was focussed on the activities of just
a few firms in the late 1960s in relation to marketing and development. Even certain
forms of statistical information are difficult to obtain. While the Australian Bureau
of Statistics does measure residential building activity, it does not provide figures on
project housing as a distinct area. This presents a problem in terms of tracking the
development of the project housing industry since the 1950s and in measuring that
development against other areas of residential activity including, for example, owner
building.48
Determining the significance of architect-designed project housing in relation to the
project housing industry as a whole and to residential building generally, in quantifiable
terms, is similarly hampered by a lack of concrete data. While Boyd suggested at the
beginning of the 1970s that architect-designed project housing represented ‘about five
per cent of all houses built’,49 this may or may not have been an accurate assessment.
Robert Gutman’s study The Design of American Housing: A Reappraisal of the
Architect’s Role established that, despite a widely held perception (particularly within
the profession) that American architects designed no more than 5-10% of housing
constructed, a fairer estimate was that ‘about one-half of all housing involves the
use of independent professionals in a design or supervisory role’.50 Gutman’s study
recognised that architects can be involved in housing design in different capacities: as
46. A notable exception being A. Greig: Structure, Organisation and Skill Formation in the Australian
Housing Industry, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1992.
47. J. McCredie, Study of Project Housing: An Investigation of the Operation of the Project House
Industry and Market in Sydney, Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney, 1969.
48. At the end of the 1960s for example, McCredie claimed that ‘Project houses constitute a vast segment
of the supply to the housing market: currently some 50% of new detached dwellings’ (McCredie, p. 31).
Greig however argues that ‘The emergence of the project builder during the 1960s should be placed
in perspective’. He refers to A Survey of the State of Housing In Australia undertaken by the Housing
Industry Association in 1967, which stated that the small home-builder was ‘still the major force in the
industry’. Greig, Structure, Organisation and Skill formation in the Australian Housing Industry, p. 19.
49. Boyd, Australia’s Home, p. 304.
50. Gutman quotes figures supplied by the National Association of Home Builders showing that in 1979
over 45% of member firms used the services of independent architects, ‘with the giant builders making
even greater use of independent architects’. R. Gutman, The Design of American Housing: A Reappraisal
of the Architect’s Role, Publishing Center for Cultural Resources, New York, 1985, pp. 8-9.
36
independent designers, as consultants working with builders and as salaried architects
working within large enterprises. With the exception of independent architects, much of
that involvement can remain anonymous. Even in those instances where architects are
explicitly associated with a project builder, statistical data can be difficult to obtain. The
business records of Pettit & Sevitt, for example, have been lost and while it has been
estimated that it built approximately 3,500 houses during its years of operation, there
is no breakdown of that figure in relation to location.51 Thus, even for one of the most
successful producers of architect-designed project housing during the 1960s and 1970s,
there can be no definitive conclusions drawn.
The histories of a number of building companies, notably A.V. Jennings and Lend
Lease, do exist.52 These acknowledge the 1960s as a critical period in the development
of those companies’ project housing activities. Architects, however, did not figure in the
Jennings operation at this time and there is also little discussion of the role of in-house
architects in Lend Lease’s Sydney-based operations.53
Alastair Greig’s investigations into various aspects of Australian housing post 1945
provide important references for this thesis.54 In his 1992 study, Structure, Organisation
and Skill Formation in the Australian Housing Industry, it is clear that project housing,
as it evolved during the 1960s and 1970s, was an influential force. Greig goes so
far as to say that project building ‘transformed’ the housing industry in terms of the
marketing techniques, organisational structures and production methods introduced.
51. Royal Australian Institute of Architects Education Division, p. 32.

52. M. Murphy, Challenges of Change: The Lend Lease Story, Lend Lease Group of Companies, Sydney,
1984; D. Garden, Builders to the Nation: The A.V. Jennings Story, Melbourne University Press, 1992;
L. Clark, Finding a Common Interest: The Story of Dick Dusseldorp and Lend Lease, Cambridge
University Press, 2002.
53. Clark however does discuss Robin Boyd’s involvement with Lend Lease Homes’ Appletree Estate in
Melbourne at some length.
54. Greig, Structure, Organisation and Skill Formation in the Australian Housing Industry. Also A.
Greig, The Stuff Dreams are Made of: Housing Provision in Australia 1945-1960, Melbourne University
Press, 1995; ‘Home Magazines and Modernist Dreams: Designing the 1950s House’, Urban Research
Program, Working Paper No.47, April, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National
University, Canberra, 1995; ‘Project Homes or Homes-as-Projects: Fashion and Utility in Twentieth-
Century Australia’, in P. Troy (ed.), A History of European Housing in Australia, Cambridge University
Press, 2000.
37
Without suggesting any direct responsibility for the model that project housing
provided, it is worth noting that this was the period in which architects, individually
and organisationally, were most closely associated with the industry in Sydney and
elsewhere in Australia.
Project houses have also been approached from a semiological perspective. Kim Dovey
for example has suggested that the model or project home is ‘a mirror in which we
might read the suburban condition and the cultural values that drive it’.55 He interprets
project home advertisements and display homes as ways of exploring ‘the social
construction of the meaning of the house’.56 John Fiske, Bob Hodge and Graeme Turner
have a similar intent, using the design presentation and advertising of a display home
to ‘decipher the meanings of houses and their features’ within the context of suburban
Australia.57
These attempts to decipher the meanings and cultural values associated with project
homes establish an important shift of focus from the architect-centred or even builder-
centred approach. Nevertheless, in a recent essay, Greig argues that they failed to go far
enough. He suggests that both studies:
retained a methodology which emphasises production rather than meaning,

and have focused on the promotion of the physical dwelling rather than the
household occupying the dwelling space. In other words, they still tend
to‘fetishise’ design and architecture by abstracting them from their user
context.58
Referencing the theories of American sociologist Herbert Gans, Greig calls for an
analysis of ‘the tension between creator-orientation and user-orientation within specific
domestic circumstances’. As an alternative methodology, he points to the sociological
studies of specific household types to illustrate some of the ways in which households
55. K. Dovey, ‘Dreams on Display: Suburban Ideology in the Model Home’, in S. Ferber, C. Healy
& C. McAuliffe (eds), Beasts of Suburbia: Reinterpreting Cultures in Australian Suburbs, Melbourne
University Press, 1994, p. 128. See also K. Dovey, ‘Model Houses and Housing Ideology in Australia’,
Housing Studies, vol. 7, no. 3, 1992, pp. 177-188.
56. Dovey, ‘Dreams on Display’, p.147.
57. J. Fiske, B. Hodge & G. Turner, Myths of Oz: Reading Australian Popular Culture, Allen & Unwin,
St Leonards, NSW, 1987, p. 27.
58. Greig, A History of European Housing in Australia, p. 224
38
negotiate meaningful and workable living environments for their members on a
symbolic as well as practical level.
This thesis is concerned with the architectural profession and the reasons why it
might be oriented towards engagement with an industry such as project housing at a
particular period in time. This does not mean that ‘creators’ are priviliged over ‘users’.
The ambitions, needs and desires of consumers were just as critical to the emergence
of architect-designed project housing as to any other type of commodity. This thesis
acknowledges that cultures of consumption exist and that consumption and production
are inextricably linked and mutually dependent. However it does assert that a culture
of production is not intrinsically the same as a culture of consumption and legitimately
warrants investigation.
THESIS STRUCTURE
Following this introduction, Chapter 2 describes the theoretical framework of the thesis.
It begins by identifying the primary indicators of professional status and the role of
professional organisations, such as the RAIA, in protecting these. It then draws on the
theories of Pierre Bourdieu to provide a way of understanding the processes associated
with any changes a profession might choose to make in regard to the way it describes
those indicators. Key amongst these is the process by which an area of practice, such
as project housing, comes to be regarded as a ‘legitimate form of production’. The

chapter also discusses Paul Du Gay’s concept of a ‘culture of production’ which is
used as a basis for investigating a number of project building enterprises that engaged
architects to design their product. Du Gay’s extension of Bourdieu’s idea of ‘cultural
intermediaries’ is discussed in terms of how it might be applied to examining the
role of the architect within those cultures. Finally, Sharon Zukin’s theories about the
marketability of a housing type being predicated on ‘availability’, ‘acceptability’ and
‘accessibility’ are also examined in relation to how they might apply to the emergence
of architect-designed project housing in Sydney, particularly in regard to the policies

39
and initiatives of the profession.
The thesis then follows a chronological sequence through an empiricial exposition,
beginning in the 1930s and ending in the late 1960s to show how housing and then
project housing came to assume a major point of focus for the local architectural
profession, not only as an area of practice but also in relation to issues of identity and
public image. This begins with Chapter 3 which examines the origins of the NSW
Chapter’s postwar policies on housing. It looks at the effects of the Great Depression
on the organised profession and the way in which the relevance and public profile of
the newly formed national body, the RAIA, was called into question by a younger
generation of architects – the ‘newcomers’ as Bourdieu would describe them.
Chapter 4 investigates the profession’s response to the challenges of the postwar
period. It first looks at the housing crisis of the late 1940s and early 1950s and the
ways in which the profession sought to locate itself in relation to this major area of
public interest, activity and investment. That engagement is then considered within the
context of the leadership role that the profession was at pains to establish within the new
industrial environment of the postwar years.
Chapter 5 looks at the beginnings of architectural involvement with the project housing
industry in Sydney in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It focuses on three enterprises:
Sun-Line Homes, the Parade of Homes and Lend Lease Homes. Each enterprise is
examined in the context of its history, culture of production and the role that architects
played within that culture. It also looks at the way in which these commercial
enterprises were viewed by the profession, particularly in relation to the political
imperatives of the period.
Chapters 6 and 7 are concerned with identifying the ways in which architect-designed
project housing became significant to the architectural profession in Sydney at a critical

40
time in its history. Chapter 6 begins this process by examining the history and culture
of Pettit & Sevitt, the most significant of all the project builders offering an architect-
designed product in Sydney. As shown, Pettit & Sevitt’s growing prominence within
the housing industry during the 1960s coincided with a period of intense discussion
and debate within the profession concerning its future survival. Chapter 7 explores
how Pettit & Sevitt’s ‘culture of production’ served to highlight a number of key issues
associated with that debate. It tracks the process by which architect-designed project
housing was ‘legitimised’ by the Sydney profession through the establishment of the
NSW Chapter’s Project House Design Awards in 1967. It also looks at the connection
between that initiative and the critical role that the NSW Chapter played in shaping the
revisions to the Code of Professional Conduct in 1969.
The central argument of this thesis is that the radical changes made to the Code in 1969
represented a fundamental shift for the profession in relation to its sense of identity and
value system. While the emergence of architect-designed project housing in Sydney in
the late 1950s and 1960s was not the cause of that shift, it was inextricably linked to it.
The conclusion in Chapter 8 draws the threads of this thesis together in summary form.
41
2
PROFESSIONALISM, ARCHITECTS AND
THE CULTURE OF PRODUCTION:
An Interpretive Framework
______________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
This chapter will outline the theoretical concepts that have shaped the interpretive
framework of the investigation. It begins by examining theories relating to professional

identity that are drawn from the sociology of professions. The writings of French
sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, notably his ideas regarding ‘cultural producers’ and
‘legitmate modes of cultural production’, are then considered in regard to the
relationship between identity and production. Bourdieu’s concept of a ‘cultural
intermediary’ is also examined in relation to the role played by architects in enterprises
specialising in architect-designed project housing during the late 1950s and 1960s.
The theories of British sociologist Paul du Gay regarding ‘cultures of production’ is
then introduced in terms of providing an approach to investigating these operations. In
conclusion, the theories of American sociologist Sharon Zukin on housing marketability
are considered in relation to the emergence of architect-designed project housing in
Sydney and its relationship to the policies and initiatives of the architectural profession.
PROFESSIONAL STATUS AND IDENTITY
Early studies of the architectural profession, at least within the Anglo-American
tradition, have been embedded within larger investigations into the origins, development
and distinctive characteristics of professions generally.1 One of earliest and most
1. Notwithstanding Martin Briggs’ landmark study The Architect in History, published in 1927. Briggs
was primarily concerned with tracing the history of the architectural profession, rather than locating
it within a larger discourse regarding the nature of professions. M.S. Briggs, The Architect in History,
Claredon Press, Oxford, 1927.
42
influential was A.M. Carr-Saunders and P.A. Wilson’s The Professions.2 Originally
published in London in 1933, it was long regarded as the definitive study, being
reprinted without alterations as late as 1964.
Carr-Saunders and Wilson’s research led them to conclude that ‘the chief distinguishing
characteristic of the professions’ was ‘the application of an intellectual technique to the
ordinary business of life, acquired as the result of prolonged and specialized training’.3
Particularly important too was the development of ethical codes, which included such
things as the ‘obligation to serve’, the principle of financial disinterest in the advice or
service provided and the prohibition of ‘advertisement, price-cutting, and other methods
familiar to the business world’.4 The ethical code of the RIBA, on which the RAIA’s
original code drew,5 was singled out for its explicit position on financial disinterest and
price-cutting activities. According to Carr-Saunders and Wilson, the connection between
the formulation of ethical codes and public image was obvious: ‘Just as the public may
fail to distinguish between competent and incompetent, so it may fail to distinguish
between honourable and dishonourable practitioners. Therefore the competent and
honourable practitioners are moved mutually to guarantee not only their competence but
also their honour’.6
Many of Carr-Saunders and Wilson’s observations were reiterated in later studies.
In fact, as Ming-cheng M. Lo has pointed out in her analysis of the sociology of

professions, until the 1960s professions were conceptualised in terms of their ‘functional
specialties’. In other words, sociologists were focussed on defining a core set of traits
and establishing the steps involved in the process of professionalisation, that is, how an
occupation becomes a profession.7 Of particular interest is the work of the influential
2. A.M. Carr-Saunders & P.A. Wilson, The Professions, Frank Cass & Co., London, 1964 (1933).
3. ibid., p. 491.
4. ibid., p. 432.
5. Freeland, The Making of a Profession.
6. Carr-Saunders & Wilson, p. 302.
7. M.M. Lo, ‘The Professions: Prodigal Daughters of Modernity’, in J. Adams et al (eds), Remaking
Modernity: Politics, History, and Sociology, Duke University Press, Durham, 2005, p. 382.
43
American sociologist Ernest Greenwood. In the late 1950s, Greenwood attempted
to ‘distill…the distinguishing attributes of a profession’ from a study of available
sociological literature on the subject. This led to the identification of five key elements:
‘systematic body of theory’, ‘professional authority’, ‘sanction of the community’,
‘regulative code of ethics, and ‘the professional culture’.8 Greenwood’s contention that a
professional possessed an ‘extensive education in the systematic theory’ of a discipline,
essentially reflected Carr-Saunders and Wilson’s concept of an ‘intellectual technique’
acquired through ‘specialised training’. In plain terms, a professional is distinguished
by the possession of specialised knowledge and it is on this basis that ‘professional
authority’ is established. As described by Greenwood, this ‘authority’ pertains to the
relationship between professional and client where the former assumes complete
control of the decision-making process: ‘the professional dictates what is good or evil
for the client, who has no choice but to accede to professional judgement’.9 ‘Sanction
of the community’ is made explicit in the way a profession is allowed to control its
training, education and accreditation processes as well as evaluate its own standards of
performance. This autonomy however is dependent on the profession making clear that
it regulates itself through a code of ethics:
Through its ethical code the profession’s commitment to the social welfare
becomes a matter of public record, thereby insuring for itself the continued
confidence of the community. Without such confidence the profession would
not retain its monopoly [associated with professional authority and community
sanction].10
According to Greenwood, a profession’s code of ethics defined appropriate professional

behaviour in respect to clients and the larger community and also to fellow practitioners.
Activities that placed one in aggressive competition with one’s colleagues, such as
price-cutting and advertisement, were considered unacceptable and were generally
prohibited. In the case of an architect, for example, his/her clients were meant to be
attracted by his/her good name, not by unfair competitive practices.
8. Greenwood, pp.10-19.
9. ibid., p. 12.
10. ibid., p. 14.
44
The imposition of formal disciplinary action on those who transgressed the code fell
to the professional association. According to Greenwood, the professional association
was central to the ‘culture’ of the profession. It formed part of a network of formal and
informal groups that introduced an individual to the ‘values, norms, and symbols’ that
constitute ‘professional culture’. As described by Greenwood: ‘the transformation of
a neophyte into a professional is essentially an acculturation process wherein he [sic]
internalizes the social values, the behaviour norms, and the symbols of the occupational
group’.11
As Greenwood does not provide extensive discussion of the role of professional
associations, it may be useful at this point to turn to the work of one of his
contemporaries, Geoffrey Millerson and his study The Qualifying Associations: A
Study in Professionalization, published in 1964. In Millerson’s detailed analysis of
professional organisations (including the RIBA), he identified their role in terms of
primary and secondary functions: ‘primary functions being the direct aims; secondary
functions being indirect aims following on from primary functions’.12 He includes the
promotion and preservation of a high standard of conduct, with reference to a formal or
informal code of ethics, as a primary function. ‘To raise professional status’ is listed as
one of the secondary functions. For Millerson the relationship between the two is clear:
‘improvement in professional status can only result from primary aims, viz… enforcement
of an ethical code’.13 The aggressiveness and/or effectiveness of the disciplinary powers

held by a professional organisation however is another issue. Eggleston’s description of
Australian architectural practice in the 1950s, for example, questioned the potency of
the ‘weapons’ at the RAIA’s disposal in relation to those who transgressed its code of
ethics.14 Nevertheless, Millerson’s observations serve to reinforce that, in theory at least,
organisations such as the RAIA performed an important role in guarding the public image
of a profession. That image in turn was significantly defined by its code of ethics.
11. ibid., p.18.

12. Millerson, p. 28.
13. ibid., p. 40.
14. Eggleston, p. 20.
45
Notwithstanding variations in emphasis and the descriptors used, Greenwood’s five
distinguishing attributes not only overlap with contemporary analyses, but have been
used by other writers since as a basis for developing a framework of investigation
into the nature of professions and professionalism.15 The importance of Greenwood’s
approach in the context of this thesis, is that he not only identifies a set of attributes but
also demonstrates their mutual dependence. Take, for example, specialised knowledge
— a particularly vulnerable assertion. As Wilbert Moore has observed, it is very difficult
for a professional — especially one whose work is strongly allied to technology — to
keep abreast of the ever increasing and more complex developments occurring within
the field.16 When a critical element such as specialised knowledge is challenged, the
implications are far-reaching. Importantly, the assertion of professional authority
becomes more difficult to defend and potentially community sanction is jeopardised.
In response to such a challenge, a professional association may choose to review that
which has served to define the limits of its members’ practice, such as its code of ethics.
Certainly that was the way the RAIA responded in the 1960s.17
This is not to suggest that the system of classification described above is the only one
that has been used in analysing professions or that it has not had its critics. As Lo has
shown, there was a ‘paradigm shift’ in the sociology of professions during the 1970s
and 1980s:
Aborting the search for a core set of traits of professions or the defining steps
of professionalization, scholars re-inserted professions in the historical transition
to European modernity, viewing professionalization not as an independent
process but a part of that macro history.18
15. For example R.H. Hall, Occupations and the Social Structure, 2nd edn, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, 1975; N.G. Marshall, Into the Third Millennium: Neocorporatism, the State and the
Urban Planning Profession, PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, 2000.
16. W.E. Moore, The Professions: Roles and Rules, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1970, p. 136.
17. For discussion of the relationship between ‘technical competencies’ and architects’ claim to
‘professional authority’, and how that pertains to other issues concerning professional identity, see
M. Crawford, ‘Can Architects Be Socially Responsible?’, in D. Ghirardo (ed.), Out of Site: A Social
Criticism of Architecture, Bay Press, Seattle, 1991, pp.27-45.
18. Lo, p. 282.
46
Moore as well as Andrew Abbott19 for example pointed out the limitations of ‘trait-
based’ definitions, while others have argued that dominance, exclusion and control
should be regarded as the dominant characteristics of professions.20 Other writers
suggest alternative frameworks for investigation, such as ‘the ideological and social
construction of the capitalist system’ as argued by Alexander Cuthbert.21 In regard to
architecture specifically, Dana Cuff’s investigation into architectural practice argues
that ‘descriptions of professions as sets of characteristics…fail to explain why these
characteristics may have been worth acquiring and how they function in professional
practice’.22 Stevens goes further asserting that recent sociological theory has shown that
the very concept of ‘profession’, when applied to a field such as architecture, is vastly
inadequate.23
For the purposes of this study, however, the issue is not the limitations inherent in such
a classificatory system, or its irrelevance in the face of larger ideological constructs or
contemporary sociological theory. The usefulness of the system in this instance lies
in the way in which it identifies a number of elements that, up until the 1960s, were
commonly assumed to be the prerogative of professions. Accordingly, they were used
by professional associations, such as the RAIA, to claim professional status for their
members and, as such, were intimately tied to public image and identity. It can be
argued therefore that if an association chose to substantially modify or change the way it
described any of those key elements, this would suggest a significant shift in the way it
defined itself and the priorities and ambitions of its constituency.
19. A. Abbott, The System of Professions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988.
20. E. Freidson, Professional Dominance: The Social Structure of Medical Care, Atherton Press,
Chicago, 1970; T.J. Johnson, Professions and Power, The Macmillan Press, London, 1972; I. Illich
et al, Disabling Professions, Marion Boyars Publishers, London, 1977; M.S. Larson, The Rise of
Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1997.
21. A.R. Cuthbert, ‘Bureaucratic Ideology, Socialism and Space: 1997 and the Environmental Professions
in Hong Kong’, Planning & Development, vol. 5, no.1, 1989, p. 21.
22. Cuff, Architecture, p. 23.
23. Stevens, pp. 23-31.
47
PIERRE BOURDIEU
Theory drawn from the sociology of professions has provided a way of identifying
significant cultural and political shifts within the organised profession. In order to
provide a framework for examining the processes associated with those changes, the
thesis draws on the theories of one sociologist in particular, Pierre Bourdieu.
Pierre Bourdieu was a French sociologist whose broadly informed theoretical position
was tied to extensive empirical research. The significance and influence of his theories
however extend well beyond sociology into areas such as literature, aesthetics and the
built environment. In 2002 a major conference held in Perth was dedicated to exploring
one of his key theoretical concepts in relation to space and place — Habitus 2000:
A Sense of Place — to which Bourdieu himself contributed.24 At that conference,
Kim Dovey, Associate Professor of architecture and urban design at the University of
Melbourne asserted that, ‘While Bourdieu’s critique has its limits, it offers considerable
hope for re-thinking architectural theory and for a re-engagement of architecture as
social practice’.25
In terms of applying Bourdieu’s theories within a detailed sociological analysis of
architecture, it appears that Australian academic Garry Stevens was the first with his book
The Favored Circle: The Social Foundations of Architectural Distinction published in
1998. In his investigation of the dynamics, discourses and social structures of the field,
Stevens rejects the concept of profession as thoroughly inadequate. He adopts instead the
‘fundamental analytical apparatus’ of Bourdieu, in other words, the sociologist’s three
primary theoretical concepts: cultural field, cultural capital and habitus. While Stevens’s
interpretation of Bourdieu’s theories in relation to the field of architecture goes beyond the
parameters of this thesis, his study does provide an important reference for the investigation.
24. P. Bourdieu, ‘Habitus’, in J. Hillier & E. Rooksby (eds), Habitus: A Sense of Place, Ashgate,
Aldershot, 2002, pp. 27-34.
25. K. Dovey, ‘The Silent Complicity of Architecture’, in J. Hillier & E. Rooksby (eds), Habitus: A Sense
of Place, op.cit., p. 267. Dovey had earlier applied Bourdieu’s theories within an investigation into the
nexus between practices of power and the built environment. See K. Dovey, Framing Places: Mediating
Power in Built Form, Routledge, London, 1999.
48
To return to Bourdieu’s theories directly, and to understand how they might pertain to
this thesis, it is best to begin with his three primary concepts: cultural field, cultural
capital and habitus. According to Bourdieu’s description of cultural field, architecture
would constitute a sub-field within ‘cultural production’. This large cultural field
encompasses other sub-fields such as art and literature, to which Bourdieu has devoted
substantial attention.26 The field of cultural production is itself located within society’s
dominant class. The dominance of this class is based on the amount of economic and
symbolic power it controls. Cultural producers, such as architects, artists and writers,
form the ‘subordinate fraction’ of this class and command the most symbolic power.
The ‘dominant fraction’ on the other hand is comprised of those who produce material
goods and command the most economic power.
Bourdieu describes symbolic power as cultural capital which can include such things
as academic qualifications, social networks and material objects as well as behaviours,
tastes and attitudes.27 Symbolic power or the possession of cultural capital is one of
the most potent means by which the dominant class maintains power. The key to its
success is that symbolic power is ‘misrecognised’. A person or group for example could
be actively discriminated against or, as Bourdieu would say, subjected to ‘symbolic
violence’, and yet read this discrimination as legitimate and natural.28
The misrecognition of the use of symbolic power is explained in terms of habitus. Simply
put, habitus is developed in the process of socialisation. As Bourdieu describes it, habitus is:
a system of dispositions, that is of permanent manners of being, seeing, acting and

thinking, or a system of long-lasting (rather than permanent) schemes or schemata or
structures of perception, conception and action.29
26. Notably P. Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, ed. and introd.
R. Johnson, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1993 and P. Bourdieu & A. Darbel, The Love of Art: European Art
Museums and their Public, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1997 (1991).
27. Stevens, pp. 62-63.
28. P. Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. R. Nice, Cambridge University Press, 1977,
pp. 190-197.
29. Bourdieu, ‘Habitus’, p. 27.
49
Accordingly, a person or group by virtue of their habitus may not be in a position to
recognise the mechanisms by which the dominant remain dominant. And essentially it
is the mechanisms of power and domination operating within society that Bourdieu is at
pains to expose.30
Domination and Struggle in the Field of Architecture
Domination is associated with struggle, and Bourdieu identifies the field of cultural
production as one of its chief sites. The source of the struggle relates to the very
structure of the field which, according to Bourdieu, ‘is based on two fundamental and
quite different oppositions: first, the opposition between the sub-field of restricted
production and the sub-field of large-scale production…and secondly, the opposition,
within the sub-field of restricted production, between the consecrated avant-garde, the
established figures and the newcomers’.31
The division, which Bourdieu establishes between cultural producers engaged in
restricted production and those involved in large-scale production, is particularly
interesting for this study – given that project housing would be identified with the latter
category. Bourdieu would argue that those engaged in restricted production do so ‘for
a public of producers of cultural goods’ in contrast to those whose output is destined
for ‘the public at large’. Those cultural producers who ‘go commercial’ disenfranchise
themselves from the autonomous system that allocates success and authority within
their field.
In contrast to the field of large-scale cultural production, which submits to the

laws of competition for the conquest of the largest possible market, the field
of restricted production tends to develop its own criteria for the evaluation of
its products, thus achieving the truly cultural recognition accorded by the peer
group whose members are both privileged clients and competitors.32
Without this ‘consecration’, those associated with large-scale production are usually
destined to be ‘excluded and discredited’ within the field of cultural production as a
30. For a sense of the political implications of Bourdieu’s theories see P. Bourdieu 1998, Acts of
Resistance: Against the Tyranny of the Market, trans. R. Nice, The New Press, New York.
31. Bourdieu, ‘The Field of Cultural Production’, p. 53.
32. ibid., p. 115.
50
whole. Bourdieu uses the example of historians of art and literature who ‘unconsciously’
adopt the definition of what is symbolically dominant by excluding artists and writers
who have produced for the market.
In his study, Stevens singles out the project home and the architect-designed house in
order to demonstrate the ‘basic cleavage’ between large-scale and restricted production
within architecture.33 For Stevens, the project home, by virtue of the fact that it is
designed to be replicated/mass produced, that the designer is anonymous, that economic
and functional considerations dominate and that it is meant to appeal to consumers of
‘middling means’ rather than an elite, means that it falls within the category of ‘large-
scale cultural production’. In contrast, the ‘architected’ house is a unique object with an
identified designer. Directed towards satisfying the demands of an elite, aesthetic and
symbolic considerations dominate within its design. Accordingly, the ‘architected’ house
falls into the ‘restricted cultural production’ category.
Stevens does not address the subject of ‘architected’ project homes however, and given
Bourdieu’s theory regarding the perils of engagement with large-scale production, one
might assume that if an architect became involved with project housing, he/she would
be destined to be excluded and discredited within his/her field. However, architecture
— and more specifically, modernist architecture with its emphasis on industrialised
methods of production and universal principles — presents a special case. Douglas

Evans’ study of Bourdieu’s theories in relation to architectural production provides
an additional perspective. He argues for a modification of Bourdieu’s ‘generic model’
regarding the opposition between large-scale and restricted production on the basis of
‘the profound heteronomy of the field of architecture’:34
it is a characteristic of the field of architectural-production not necessarily

present in other fields of cultural-production, that both autonomous and
heteronomous considerations are always embodied in the same artefact.
33. Stevens, pp. 83-85.

34. D. Evans, Indistinct: Pierre Bourdieu and the Field of Architectural Production, PhD thesis, RMIT
University, 2002, p. 237.
51
Accordingly it is possible to rank highly on both hierarchies of merit.35
For Bourdieu, the heteronomous hierarchy of merit is dominant within large-scale
production and is judged on the basis of quantifiable indices, which in literary circles
for example might equate to ‘book sales, number of theatrical performances, etc’.36
The autonomous hierarchy of merit dominant within restricted production on the
other hand is based exclusively on recognition provided by peers within the discipline
or profession. Evans argues that ‘all architecture is necessarily heteronomous in the
sense that it is inextricably bound up with the actions of other agents’,37 from clients
to specialist consultants, with its quantifiable indices encompassing such things as
‘initial cost and maintenance outlay, the climatic effectiveness of the building, its
effectiveness in containing the specified program etc’.38 Accordingly an architect who
ranks highly within the autonomous hierarchy ‘must also rank at least adequately on the
heteronomous hierarchy of merit if they are to continue in the field’.39
Evans’ observations suggest that, within architecture at least, the ‘cleavage’ between
large-scale and restricted production is not so well defined. Nevertheless, even within
Bourdieu’s ‘generic model’ it is possible to see how involvement with an area of large-
scale production such as project housing might be used to positive advantage within the
field. This entails looking at the second opposition identified within the field of cultural
production.
A Question of Legitimacy
According to Bourdieu, the overarching struggle within the field of cultural production
concerns ‘the imposition of the legitimate mode of cultural production’, which is
‘inseparable from the struggle within the dominant class (with the opposition between
‘artists’ and ‘bourgeois’) to impose the dominant principle of domination (that is to
35. ibid., p. 52.

36. Bourdieu, ‘The Field of Cultural Production’, p.38.
37. Evans, p. 42.
38. ibid., p. 52.
39. ibid., p. 53.
52
say – ultimately – the definition of human accomplishment’.40 Within the sub-field of
architecture, Stevens has described the struggle in relation to defining ‘who is and is not
a good architect, to say who is orthodox and who heretic, to define the limits of the field
and who can play the game’.41
Bourdieu would argue that this struggle is largely, if not exclusively, fought out by
those operating within ‘the sub-field of restricted production’. In architecture this would
mean those architects engaged in the design of ‘one-off’ projects. The initiative for
change within this sub-field ‘falls almost by definition on the newcomers’. As Bourdieu
explains:
to occupy a distinct, distinctive position, they must assert their difference, get it
known and recognized, get themselves known and recognized (‘make a name for
themselves’), by endeavouring to impose new modes of thought and expression,
out of key with the prevailing modes of thought and with the doxa, and therefore
bound to disconcert the orthodox by their ‘obscurity’ and ‘pointlessness’.42
Bourdieu describes this struggle in terms of young versus old:
The history of the field arises from the struggle between the established figures
and the young challengers. The ageing of authors, schools and works is far from
being the product of a mechanical, chronological, slide into the past; it results
from the struggles between those who have made their mark…and who are
fighting to persist, and those who cannot make their own mark without pushing
into the past those who have an interest in stopping the clock, eternalizing the
present stage of things.43
In his study, Evans suggests that the ‘struggle’ within architecture is not confined to the
relationship between young and old. He points out that architects are also ‘completely
capable of moving backwards and forwards between positions of cultural orthodoxy
and cultural heresy in the course of their careers’.44 In this thesis, Bourdieu’s term ‘the
newcomers’ will be adopted but in a more general sense to connote a group who are
critical of and pose a challenge to the status quo within the field or more specifically
within the organised profession.

41. Stevens, p. 98.
43. ibid., p. 60.
44. Evans, p. 113.
53
It is the strategies that ‘the newcomers’ employ for the challenge that are of particular
interest to this study. According to Bourdieu, in order to gain a real and lasting ‘foothold
in the market’ ‘the newcomers’ must first overturn:
the hierarchy of the field without disturbing the principles on which the field
is based. Thus their revolutions are only ever partial ones, which displace the
censorships and transgress the conventions, but do so in the name of the same
underlying principles. This is why the strategy par excellence is the ‘return
to the sources’ which is the basis of all heretical subversion and all aesthetic
revolutions, because it enables the insurgents to turn against the establishment
the arms which they use to justify their domination, in particular asceticism,
daring, ardour, rigour and disinterestedness.45
So if such a strategy was applied within architecture, the ‘newcomers’ for example
might call upon traditional ideals embodied within its professional code of ethics and/
or the tenets of a prevailing ideology such as modernism, as a means to criticise the
dominant faction within the field.
Another strategy is to engage in what Bourdieu describes as ‘the play of homologies’
where partial alliances occur between dominant and dominated. He notes that in
times of social crisis for example, cultural producers who wish to challenge the status
quo – ‘mobilize the potential strength of the dominated classes and subvert the order
prevailing in the field of power’.46 As an example of such a strategy being used within
architecture, Stevens points to the proponents of the modern movement: ‘What is more
natural, then, for those who would overthrow the priests of architecture, to seek in the
postwar misery of the lower classes a reason and a rationale for their revolution?’.47
However, Bourdieu points out that such alliances are fragile given that the habitus
of cultural producers is more closely linked with that of the dominant faction of the
dominant class rather than with the habitus of the dominated classes. Stevens also adds
that in the context of architecture ‘any alliance of architects to those outside their field
necessarily threatens their autonomy’.48 Accordingly, Stevens contends that the social
45. ibid., pp. 83-84.

46. ibid., p. 44.
47. Stevens, p. 103.
48. ibid., p. 104.
54
agenda of the modernists largely slipped away, particularly as a number of its main
protagonists moved to the USA and placed their services at the behest of ‘corporate
America’.
While Stevens might overstate his case, other scholars agree that the public image of
architecture, as a field that was actively engaged with social issues, shifted considerably
from at least the 1960s onwards. Frequently the trend is identified with the evolution
of postmodernism. According to American scholar Mary McLeod for example: ‘By the
early 1980s…postmodern architecture largely abandoned its critical and transgressive
dimensions to create an eclectic and largely affirmative culture, one strikingly in accord
with the tone of contemporary political life’. McLeod goes on to explain the ways in
which this became apparent:
The image of the architect shifted from social crusader and aesthetic puritan
to trendsetter and media star. This change in professional definition had
ramifications throughout architectural institutions. In the 1980s most schools
stopped offering regular housing studios; gentlemen’s clubs, resort hotels, art
museums, and vacation homes became the standard programs. Design awards
and professional magazine coverage have embodied similar priorities. Advocacy
architecture and pro bono work are almost dead .49
Apart from supporting the contention that architects’ engagement with social issues
was of a temporary nature, McLeod makes an important connection between the image
architects projected to the world – what she describes as ‘professional definition’
– and the type and form of their production in a way not dissimilar to Bourdieu.
Similarly, Magali Sarfatti Larson in her investigation, Behind the Postmodern Facade:
Architectural Change in Late Twentieth Century America, notes a decline in social
engagement, but also makes a clear connection between the way in which architects
defined themselves and their chosen form of expression. She interprets ‘changes in
aesthetic preference and taste among architects not as signs of whim or trendiness, but
as symptoms of changes in architects’ conceptions of their professional role and in the
49. M. McLeod, ‘Architecture and Politics in the Reagan Era: From Postmodernism to Deconstruction’
assemblage 8, February 1989, p. 38.
55
conditions of their practice’.50
The observations of sociologist Robert Gutman in relation to the architecture
profession provide an extension of this discussion. Gutman argues that ‘people and
their satisfactions are not the primary concern of most architects’ and ‘that many
architects believe that production requires concentration on issues that are important
to an audience of fellow architects, and to this audience only’.51 Accordingly ‘under
the banner of postmodernism, architects have exhibited less of a sense of obligation
to claim that the buildings they design have a moral or social content and are more
frank about their inclination to tailor social and political ideas to their architectural
ambitions’.52 So Gutman goes one step further in suggesting that whatever the projected
image, a fundamental aspect of the profession’s value system remains self-referential.
Thus the choices that an architect makes about the type and form of his/her production
is informed as much or more by the priorities of their peer group as by the needs or
wants of their clients. In taking this line, Gutman echoes Bourdieu’s theory that the
critical reference point for cultural producers is other cultural producers within the field.
As in Stevens’ interpretation of Bourdieu’s theories, Gutman, McLeod and Larson
raise fundamental issues in regard to the ways in which architects view themselves,
and their attitude to what they produce and for whom. Importantly they make a similar
connection between ‘professional definition’ and production.
The relevance of Bourdieu’s theories in the context of this study is that they open
up a larger understanding of the field of architecture and the way in which it might
function at a cultural and political level. Importantly his theories, and the critiques of
other scholars, serve to support the assertion that the public involvement of architects
with project housing served ambitions beyond those held by the particular individuals
concerned. There were larger issues at stake, that were to do with establishing the
50. Larson, Behind the Postmodern Facade, p. 6.

51. R. Gutman, ‘Human Nature in Architectural Theory: The Example of Louis Kahn’, in R. Ellis & D.
Cuff (eds), Architects’ People, Oxford University Press, New York, 1989, p. 107.
52. ibid., p. 106.
56
priorities and profile of the local architectural profession – or as Stevens would say, to
establish ‘who is and is not a good architect, to say who is orthodox and who heretic,
to define the limits of the field and who can play the game’. In summary, Bourdieu’s
theories serve to explicate the link between identity and production.
‘CULTURAL INTERMEDIARIES’
In order to trace architectural involvement with project housing from the late 1950s
into the 1960s, the thesis will investigate the histories and operations of four highly
significant building enterprises. The interpretative framework for this investigation is
drawn from Bourdieu and the theories of British sociologist Paul du Gay who references
Bourdieu extensively in his work. The principle concepts are ‘cultural intermediaries’
and ‘cultures of production’, which will be discussed in this and the following section
respectively.
According to Bourdieu cultural production in whatever form, be it art, literature or
architecture, does not only involve ‘the direct producers of the work in its materiality’.
It also involves ‘the producers of meaning and value of the work’ such as critics,
historians and publishers as well as a ‘whole set of agents whose combined efforts
produce consumers capable of knowing and recognising the work of art as such, in
particular teachers (but also families, etc.)’.53 Accordingly, there is a vast array of social
agents who are involved in evaluating, interpreting, establishing and promoting the
meaning and value of a cultural product such as a built form.
For Bourdieu, consumption like production is a symbolic activity as much as the
servicing of a material need. As he explains in Distinction: A Social Critique of the
Judgement of Taste (1984), consumption is:
a stage in the process of communication, that is, an act of deciphering, decoding,

which presupposes practical or explicit mastery of a cipher or code…A work
of art has meaning and interest only for someone who possesses the cultural

57
competence, that is, the code, into which it is encoded.54
Accordingly:
Taste classifies, and it classifies the classifier. Social subjects, classified by their
classifications, distinguish themselves by the distinctions they make, between
the beautiful and the ugly, the distinguished and the vulgar, in which their
position in the objective classifications is expressed or betrayed.55
What we consume, therefore, reflects our position within society. In expressing our taste
and lifestyle, consumption denotes our habitus – and it is habitus that largely determines
our choices in the first place. So while Bourdieu is not alone in aligning consumption
with identity56 or in seeing it as means of expressing class distinction,57 his theoretical
approach is distinguished by the fundamental principle of habitus which negates the
notion of free or rational choice.
In this context, the role of those who serve to encode material objects with symbolic
meaning, becomes critically important. Du Gay et al58 would argue that designers who
are employed or commissioned by a manufacturer to give shape to a product fall into
the category of ‘cultural intermediary’ — a concept adopted from Bourdieu. Based on
empirical research Bourdieu conducted in France in the 1960s and 1970s, the concept
relates in particular to what he describes as the ‘new petite bourgeoisie’:
The new petite bourgeoisie comes into its own in all the occupations involving
presentation and representation (sales, marketing, advertising, public relations,
fashion, decoration and so forth) and in all the institutions providing symbolic
goods and services. These include the various jobs in medical and social
assistance…and in cultural production and organization…which have expanded
considerably in recent years; but also some established occupations, such as art
craftsmen or nurses.59
The individuals who make up these ‘intermediary’ occupations are drawn from
diverse social backgrounds, from working class to middle class, and can have different
educational qualifications.
54. Bourdieu, Distinction, p. 2.

55. ibid., p. 6.
56. J. Baudrillard, Selected Writings, ed. M. Poster, Stanford University Press, California, 1988.
57. T. Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, New American
Library, New York, 1953 (1899); G. Simmel, ‘The Metropolis and Mental Life’ (1903), in The Sociology
of Georg Simmel (1903), trans. ed. K.H. Wolff, Free Press, New York, 1950.
58. Du Gay et al, p. 62
58
Du Gay suggests that designers, together with those working in advertising and
marketing, play
a pivotal role in articulating production with consumption by attempting to

associate goods and services with particular cultural meanings and to address
these values to prospective buyers. In other words, they are concerned to create
an identification between producers and consumers through their expertise in
certain signifying practices.60
In light of du Gay’s investigations, one might also suggest that architects who are
commissioned by developers to design housing for a particular market serve a role not
unlike that of a designer employed by a manufacturer. They, like the designers, have
an expertise in certain ‘signifying practices’. Their designs facilitate the process of
identification between product and consumer.
The role of architects in providing this kind of ‘expertise’ has provided the focus of a
number of investigations into recent forms of ‘place-marketing’. Chris Philo and Gerry
Kearns in their detailed study, Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past and
Present, describe ‘place-marketing’ in the following terms: ‘Central to the activities
subsumed under the heading of selling places is often a conscious and deliberate
manipulation of culture in an effort to enhance the appeal and interest of places,
especially to the relatively well-off and well-educated workforces’.61
In his contribution to the study, Darrel Crilley looked specifically at the role of
architects in ‘Constructing the Image of Redevelopment’.62 Focussing on the changes
that occurred to London’s Canary Wharf and New York’s Battery Park City during the
1980s, Crilley argues that ‘contemporary architects strive to give urban redevelopment
projects an acceptable cultural alibi by using an already resonant architectural
60. Du Gay, ‘Introduction’, p. 5.

61. C. Philo & G. Kearns, ‘Culture, History Capital: A Critical Introduction to the Selling of Places’, in
G. Kearns & C. Philo (eds), Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past and Present, Pergamon
Press, Oxford, 1993, p. 3.
62. D. Crilley, ‘Architecture as Advertising: Constructing the Image of Redevelopment’, in Kearns & Philo
(eds), Selling Places, pp.231-252.
59
symbolism’.63 Thus:
the postmodern architecture of redevelopment – with its facadal displays,

penchant for recycling imagery and theoretical rationale in semiotic theory – is
fully incorporated into the ideological apparatus of place marketing, playing a
major role in mediating perceptions of urban change and persuading ‘us’ of the
virtues and cultural beneficence of speculative investments.64
According to Crilley, just as advertising is ‘culturally encoded with popular meanings’,
so too is postmodern architecture. In simple terms, both are used to ‘persuade’ the public
of the merits of a particular product – in this instance, a major urban redevelopment.
So in other words, architects play a critical role in the marketing or selling process.
They shape the image of a product to make it more appealing, popular or aesthetically
legitimate. In certain instances they also serve another role: ‘Buildings designed by
culturally consecrated architects also function as ‘symbolic capital’, signifying the
cultural nobility and taste of the patron’.65
Crilley is not alone in his assertion that architects are directly involved in the process of
encoding their buildings, in other words facilitating identification between product and
consumer. During the 1980s it became a key issue for a number of theorists commenting
on the architectural pluralism of late postmodernism. Mary McLeod for example
raised the issue of postmodernism becoming subject to ‘the forces of consumption and
commodification’.66 American historian and theorist Stephen Kieran also considered the
relationship between the ‘architectural aesthetics’ of the 1980s and ‘theories of product
behavior in the market economy.’ Part of his argument asserts that:
Contemporary architecture shows evidence of four formal traits: packaging, style,

special features, and brand names, all of which can be manipulated to establish an
identifiable position for a product within the market place. (Although these traits
have always been aspects of architectural form, they have assumed an extreme
importance today, owing at least in part to the market mandate.)67
63. ibid., p. 237.
64. ibid., p. 231.
65. ibid., p. 234. Crilley overextends his argument, however, when he attempts to establish a clear
distinction between the strategies of modern architects and postmodern architects.
66. McLeod, p. 38.
67. S. Kieran, ‘The Architecture of Plenty: Theory and Design in the Marketing Age’, Harvard Architec-
ture Review, Patronage, vol. vi, 1987, p. 107.
60
Kieran restricted his assessment to the ‘self-consciously designed buildings – architect-
designed single family homes, museums, university, institutional and government
buildings’ which ‘are believed to exist in an insular world of aesthetic, contextual,
programmatic, and formal concerns untainted by the marketplace.’ He did not attempt to
address ‘developer-built houses and apartments’ as he automatically assumed that they
were ‘readily subjected to the rigors of the American marketplace’.68
The role of marketplace was also a major concern for Sharon Zukin in her essay ‘The
Postmodern Debate over Urban Form’. In analysing the association of postmodernism
with the ‘commercialization’ of architects and design, she raises the important issue of
autonomy:
Autonomy from patrons has always been especially problematic for architects
and designers because of the materials resources required to realize their
designs. In theory, professionalization, with its special educational requirements
and licensing procedures, should enhance the distance between architectural
producers and their patrons. In practice, however, the activities of these
producers and “cultivated” cultural consumers increasingly converge.69
Whatever the downside to the ‘commercialization’ or commodification of architectural
expertise, it is clear that it serves an important role in facilitating identification between
built form and ‘the market’. This thesis argues that it was integral to the cultures of
production that supported architect-designed project housing during the 1950s and
1960s.
‘CULTURES OF PRODUCTION’
Du Gay, like Bourdieu, believes that production does not exist as an autonomous sphere.
For him it forms part of the ‘circuit of culture’. This circuit is composed of five elements
or ‘cultural processes’: representation, identity, production, consumption and regulation.
In an investigation of one element, questions concerning the other four elements

68. ibid., p. 103.
69. S. Zukin, ‘The Postmodern Debate over Urban Form’ (1988), in A.R. Cuthbert (ed.), Designing Cit-
ies: Critical Readings in Urban Design, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 2003, pp. 49-50.
61
inevitably arise. Nevertheless, du Gay acknowledges that production has its own ‘forms
of life’:
Processes of production are themselves cultural phenomena in that they are

assemblages of meaningful practices that construct certain ways for people to
conceive of and conduct themselves in an organisational context.70
A convincing illustration of du Gay’s argument can be found in his collaborative study
of the culture of production that supported the development of a well-known product,
Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman. Central to the success of Sony
and its product was ‘flexible specialisation’, a production process commonly employed
by large manufacturers to differentiate versions of what is essentially the same product.
In this instance it referred to methods of production that were linked to flexible,
electronic-based automation technologies. Flexible specialisation in turn was intrinsic to
the process of ‘lifestyling’ the Sony Walkman, in other words ‘tailoring or customizing
a product to the lifestyle of a particular niche or target market segment’.71 The culture of
production at Sony therefore included a particular production process that supported the
way in which a particular product was encoded with particular cultural meanings. Not
that the process of production was solely responsible for ‘encoding’ the product, rather
it formed a ‘circuit’ with other elements, notably the way in which the product and
the company were represented and identified through the language of advertising and
marketing. In the context of this thesis, the representation of a culture of production in
fact becomes as important as the culture itself.
Du Gay’s example of the Sony Walkman serves to demonstrate the way in which a
process of production can feed directly into the process of encoding — that is, the
facilitation of identification between product and consumer. In the context of this
thesis, it is interesting to note that ‘customisation’ was identified as one of the key
processes that distinguished the production and promotion of project housing. Project
builders, like the rest of the Australian housing industry during the 1960s and 1970s

71. Du Gay et al, p. 66.
62
did not employ mass production techniques, much less electronic-based automation
technologies. However, they were able to rationalise methods of construction, which
included some off site assembly, so that the process became much more efficient.
Importantly, the project builders had the advantage of working with economies of scale,
which meant that they were in a position to offer a customised product. Not only were
consumers offered choices of materials and surface finishes but also the possibility
of modifying the basic plan and structural details of the chosen design. The architect-
designed project home was meant to offer an even greater level of ‘individualisation’.
As the thesis will show, in the cultures of production associated with architect-designed
project housing, the range and type of choices their products afforded the consumer was
explicitly linked to the design expertise of the architect and his/her command of those
new methods of construction.
At this point it, it may be useful to clarify the differences between a culture of
production and a culture of consumption. To begin with, there is no seamless continuum
between production and consumption. Consumers are far from being the passive
recipients of what the forces of production provide. Contemporary cultural theorists
such as Steven Miles, Kevin Meethan and Alison Anderson for example assert that:
the producers of commodities have little or no control, despite the rhetoric of

marketing and advertising, over their deployment and use. Therefore we should
not fall into the naïve fallacy of assuming that the ‘intentions’ of the producers
are simply absorbed whole and unmediated by the unsuspecting and passive
‘consumer’ in whatever social or cultural milieu they are located.72
Clearly, no assumptions can be made about what attracts an individual to a product or
indeed what occurs in the process of its consumption. As various studies have shown,
commodities including film, television and text, are appropriated and used in all sorts
of inventive and unexpected ways.73 Some theorists would argue for example that
consumption represents a form of production in the way commodities are transformed
72. S. Miles et al (eds), The Changing Consumer: Markets and Meanings, Routledge, London, 2002, p. 3.
73. J. Storey, Cultural Consumption and Everyday Life, Arnold, London, 1999.
63
through their appropriation and use.74 It is not difficult to find examples of such
a process occurring within the built environment. Perhaps the most famous is Le
Corbusier’s housing scheme at Pessac (1923–26) where many of the ‘ideal’ living
environments were very quickly transformed in the process of their habitation — much
to the disappointment of the designer.75
While recent cultural theory suggests that the lines between consumption and
production may be easily blurred, this does not imply that the culture of consumption is
the same as the culture of production. As Kim Humphery succinctly states in his study
of the changing cultures of consumption, ‘retailers develop retail forms and construct
retail cultures’, but ‘do not create smoothly functioning mass consumer cultures’.
Rather ‘Consumer cultures arise only in the interaction between those who have
something to sell and those who look, listen, watch, wander, feel and sometimes buy’.76
This thesis includes an investigation into the cultures of production that developed
around certain project housing enterprises during the 1950s and 1960s. In that context,
the producers — the architects and builders — are a primary focus. As will be shown,
these producers were concerned with the construction of retail cultures and the
development of retail forms. They did not, however, develop or construct cultures of
consumption. That was negotiated territory and warrants its own separate investigation.
‘ACCEPTABILITY’ AND ‘ACCESSIBILITY’
In order to enhance the link between architectural involvement with architect designed-
project housing in Sydney and the political agendas of the NSW Chapter of the RAIA,
an additional investigative theme has been adopted. This is derived from studies
undertaken on the ‘gentrification’ of inner city housing from the 1960s onwards —
ironically, a trend that is meant to have been largely responsible for the decline of
74. M. de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1984.
75. P. Boudon, Lived-in Architecture: Le Corbusier’s Pessac Revisited, Lund Humphries, London, 1972.
76. K. Humphery, Shelf Life: Supermarkets and the Changing Cultures of Consumption, Cambridge
University Press, 1998, p. 5.
64
architect-designed project housing in the suburbs. These local and overseas studies
locate the development and popularity of urban ‘gentrification’ within the context of
larger cultural and economic forces and, in particular, examine the way in which it was
represented and promoted.77 One of the first and most influential was Sharon Zukin’s
Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change first published in 1982.
Zukin’s investigation into the popularity of loft living in New York in the 1960s and
1970s is particularly relevant to this study because it addresses lofts as a market
commodity. According to Zukin:
the growth of a market in living lofts, like the growth of any modern product
market, requires three conditions. These are availability of the product or
the means of producing it, the acceptability of the product to the intended
consumers, and the accessibility of a model that promotes the product’s
use. These are, of course, the requirements of a market in a period of mass
production and mass consumption. The important point is that these factors, like
the commodities created by their interaction, are socially produced. They reflect
the social relations and cultural values of a particular time and place.78
According to Zukin, the availability of lofts ‘did not create the demand for loft living.
Instead, demand was a conjunctural response to other social and cultural changes’.79
Nevertheless, she reminds us that shifts in the real-estate market — such as the shift
from traditional housing models to non-traditional inner city lofts — involves more
that just a change in social values. Other forces are at work, such as the needs of capital
investment, state intervention in the housing market and the changing priorities of
lending institutions. In other words, one must consider the influence of economic and
political factors in the shaping of housing markets.
For Zukin, the acceptability of the loft-living was dependent on the emergence of a new
set of social and cultural values – among the most important being the changing status
of artists and of the arts generally during the 1960s. Accessibility was guaranteed by the
77. J. Podmore, ‘(Re)Reading the ‘Loft Living’ Habitus in Montreal’s Inner City’, International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research, vol.22, no.2, 1998, pp. 283-302; W.S. Shaw, ‘Sydney’s SoHo Syn-
drome? Loft Living in the Urbane City’, Cultural Geographies 13, 2006, pp.182-206.
78. Zukin, Loft Living, p. 4.
79. ibid., p. 15.
65
high level of exposure given to New York as a pre-eminent centre of artistic production.
Particularly important was the increasing amount of publicity given to the style of
life enjoyed by New York artists, in addition to the work they produced. According to
Zukin, the role played by the ‘taste-setting mass media’ cannot be underestimated, a
view supported by Podmore in her more recent study of loft-living in Montreal:
In the context of urban change, the media has often served as a tool to re-
code transitional landscape for new socio-economic spatial orders. Media
constructions are more, however, than ‘surface appearances’ that skew the
analyst’s vision from the ‘real’ economic processes that are shaping urban land
markets. In the case of certain urban landscapes the media can serve as a site and
agent of landscape and identity construction.80
Although Zukin acknowledges that her study was produced prior to her hearing of
the theories of Pierre Bourdieu, it does recall aspects of his approach, particularly in
relation to the issue of taste and taste-making. Zukin would contend that the process
of consuming lofts in New York was really the process of consuming the urban forms
that grew up around artistic production in that city. The appeal of those forms grew
according to the changing status of art and artists. Zukin asserts that from the end of
Second World War art moved ‘from a marginal and often elitist aesthetic concern’ into
‘a central position in the cultural symbolism of an increasingly materialistic world’.81

By the 1960s the new affluence and sophistication had opened up the art
market to a broader group of consumers, who were more middle-class than the
patricians that had predominated in art buying up to this time, and a less elitist
group of art gallery owners, who frankly pursued new art and new artists and
directed them toward a waiting public.82
As art became more highly valued, it also became accessible to a larger segment of
society. As a flow-on effect, the status value of urban forms that were associated with
artistic production increased, as did the demographic profile of their market.
Zukin’s study suggests some interesting parallels with the emergence and popularity of
architect-designed project housing in Sydney during the 1950s and 1960s. Its
80. Podmore, pp. 285-286.

82. ibid., p. 83.
66
availability related to changing conditions within the local housing industry as well as
the support provided by lending institutions and government to new housing. In terms of
acceptability, architects had assumed a higher profile in the public consciousness in the
years following the end of the Second World War. The NSW Chapter of the RAIA, as
well as individual architects, became actively and publicly involved in finding solutions
to the postwar housing crisis. This not only served to lift the profile of the profession,
but also allowed its work to be identified with a broader segment of the population, not
just an elite. Accessibility was guaranteed by the unprecedented level of exposure given
to architects’ involvement in housing design, and later project housing, by the popular
press and the specialist homemaker magazines of the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.
Again that exposure was greatly assisted by the public relations activities of the NSW
Chapter.
This thesis will use Zukin’s criteria of acceptability and accessibility as a way of linking
the marketability of architect-designed project housing to some of the policies and
initiatives of the NSW Chapter during the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. It will also look
at the way in which the market success of this type of housing fed back into the political
agenda of the Chapter, serving to support some of the major changes that occurred in
the 1960s.
CONCLUSION
In summary, theoretical concepts derived from the sociology of professions and the
writings of Pierre Bourdieu, Paul du Gay and Sharon Zukin provide the interpretative
framework for this thesis. They comprise professional identity, ‘legitimate modes of
cultural production’, ‘acceptability’ and ‘accessibility’, ‘cultures of production’ and
architect as ‘cultural intemediary’ . These are applied as key themes within an historical
investigation of both the architectural profession and architect-designed project housing

67
that begins in 1930 and ends in 1969. The aim is to establish a clear connection between
architect-designed project housing and some of the major cultural and political issues
faced by the architectural profession in Sydney during the 1960s.

68
3
‘THE ARCHITECT IS DEAD –
LONG LIVE ARCHITECTURE!’
____________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
The title of this chapter is taken from the closing lines of an editorial written by
architect Robin Boyd at the beginning of 1942. The then 23-year-old Boyd produced
the editorial for Smudges, a monthly magazine published by the Architectural Students
Society of the Royal Victorian Institute of Architects (RVIA). The piece, dramatically
titled ‘Death of the Architect’, argued that the local architectural profession had become
irrelevant: ‘It died because in peace it could not produce good architecture; in war it
could not provide worthy national service’.1
For Boyd, the materialistic values and self-serving attitude of local architects were
at the root of the problem. It was not the first time he had raised these concerns and
certainly similar opinions had been expressed in Smudges from the time of its inception
in 1939.2 Nevertheless, the impact of Pearl Harbour and the imminent threat of a war at
Australia’s doorstep served to heighten Boyd’s belief that architects needed to reassess
their priorities and focus on the larger social good. His slogan: ‘The architect is dead
– long live architecture!’ was a call for an end to the prevailing ethos within the field
and a resurgence of its core values.
As this chapter will show, Boyd’s opinions were not peculiar to the Melbourne
architectural scene but were also shared by a younger generation of architects in Sydney.
Even at an international level, Boyd’s observations evidently touched a chord. His
editorial was reprinted almost immediately in the American architectural journal Pencil
1. R. Boyd, ‘Death of the Architect’, Smudges, vol. 4, no.32, 1942, unpag.

2. G. Serle, Robin Boyd: A Life, Melbourne University Press, 1995.
69
Points 3 with the addendum: ‘Whatever may be his lot, let each architectural man look
forward, not back, determined to be ready for the inevitable time when Architecture will
become a more vital part of the social fabric than it has been in our memory’.4
Closer to home, the issues Boyd identified had been a source of concern and discussion
for some time. Focussing on Sydney, this chapter will look at the ways in which the
bleak economic circumstances of the early 1930s, followed by the outbreak of war at the
end of the decade, accentuated weaknesses within the local architectural ‘community’.
It will investigate the ways in which the NSW Chapter of the newly formed RAIA
sought to overcome these shortcomings by searching out a rallying point that would at
once unite the profession and bolster its public image. It will be shown that the issue
of housing came to provide that rallying point — partly out of political necessity but
also as a result of the struggle that occurred between a younger generation of Sydney
architects and the old guard of the architectural establishment to impose what Bourdieu
would describe as ‘the legitimate mode of cultural production’.
THE 1930s
Throughout the 1930s, Architecture, the official organ of the Institute of Architects of
New South Wales (IANSW),5 published numerous articles and reports that presented
a critical view of the attitudes and priorities of local architects. As expressed by young
Sydney architect Kenneth McConnel to a special meeting of the IANSW in 1931:
The basis of the trouble lies in this fact: that nearly every one of us is trying
to paddle his own little canoe, and not a few are only concerned with just how
much they can get out of their profession, and the other fellow can jolly well
look out for themselves. If we could only get together and pull together we could
place our profession where it ought to be – a living force in the community,
looked up to and sought after by all the people of Australia’.6
According to McConnel, there was little hope of architects claiming status within the
community as long as they remained self-serving and failed to present as a unified force.
3. R. Boyd, ‘Death of the Architect’, Pencil Points, vol. xxiii, no. 4, 1942, p. 182. [reprinted from
Smudges, vol. 4, no.32, 1942].
4. ibid., p.183.
5. The IANSW became an Organised Chapter (rather than an Institute) of the RAIA in 1933–34.
6. ‘Institute of Architects of New South Wales’, Architecture, vol. 20, no. 9, 1931, p. 192.
70
These views were not confined exclusively to young architects like McConnel, nor
were they particular to the 1930s.7 However they assumed greater significance after
the national association was formed in 1930 under the motto Artem Promovemus Una:
United We Advance Architecture. The process of establishing the RAIA had been long
and tortuous, constantly threatened by the hostility, distrust and parochial attitudes of
the state institutes.8 Once formed, the fledgling association was then faced with the
consequences of the Great Depression. The economic downturn had a devastating effect
on the local building industry which directly threatened the livelihoods of the RAIA’s
membership. According to J.M. Freeland’s history of the Institute: ‘Many architects
spent much of the thirties walking the streets selling soap and shoelaces…Having little
real contact with their profession in these years, many architects inevitably had even
less contact with its Institute’.9 In this context, the issue of a unified profession took on a
special urgency. The RAIA and its state institutes needed to galvanise the profession for
the sake of their own survival and continuing relevance.
But disunity was not the only concern. Poor public image was another. There was
a long-held perception within the profession that architecture and architects were
undervalued by the Australian community. The traditional approach to counteracting
the field’s poor public image was that ‘good’ architecture should speak for itself.
As eloquently expressed by G.Sydney Jones in his editorial for the first issue of
Architecture in 1917:
If…architecture is to become a force in our country…it behoves us as architects

so to conceive and carry out our work that the public may be compelled to
take some interest in it, understand and value it at its true worth, and that we
ourselves be content with nothing but that which is good and true in architectural
design, for it is only by such means that the advancement of our architecture will
be sure and certain.10
7. Freeland, The Making of a Profession.

8. ibid.
9. ibid., p. 170.
10. G.S. Jones, ‘Some Thoughts on the Trend of Australian Architecture’, Architecture, vol. 1, no.1,
1917, p. 19.
71
By the early 1930s, it had become apparent to some members of the IANSW that this
strategy was far too subtle. The issue came to a head at a special general meeting held
by the IANSW in July 1931 to discuss changes to the Articles of Association.11 At the
close of the meeting, Kenneth McConnel was given the opportunity to put forward
a detailed proposal regarding ‘the ways and means to be taken to advance the public
appreciation of Architecture in this country’. In his discussion, McConnel highlighted
the importance of establishing a good relationship with the leading newspapers and
reported that, together with the IANSW President, Henry E. Budden, he had already
visited a number of editors ‘with a view to soliciting their assistance’ in publishing
articles about ‘architectural ideas’. Importantly McConnel was careful to make the
distinction between seeking publicity for the Institute and publicity for the individual;
the idea was ‘to advertise architecture and not the person’. The latter was expressly
forbidden by the RAIA’s Code of Ethics.12 Another daring suggestion was for the
Institute to approach ‘the speculative builder’ and persuade him to employ an architect
to provide plans: ‘We were all only too ready to blame the speculative builder; but why
not come in alongside of him and try to work with him’.13
There was enough interest in McConnel’s proposals for a special meeting to be
convened the following month to discuss the matter in full.14 By that time the idea of
working with speculative builders had been forgotten, but the issue of advertising and
publicity had not. Two guest speakers had been invited to address the meeting - Mr
Esch, a journalist, and Mr Hill who appeared to have a background in advertising. Hill
argued at length that ‘the function of advertising can be, and largely is educational’ and
on this basis asserted that ‘logically, and in its broadest sense, the profession that does
not advertise in the one that is truly inethical’.15
11. ‘Institute of Architects of New South Wales’, Architecture, vol. 20, no. 8, 1931, p.169.
12. ‘It is unprofessional to advertise other than when changing address’ from‘Royal Australian Institute
of Architects Code of Ethics’, Architecture, vol. 21, no. 1, 1932, p. 12.
13. ‘Institute of Architects of New South Wales’, Architecture, vol. 20, no. 8, 1931, p. 170.
14. ‘Institute of Architects of New South Wales, Architecture, vol. 20, no 9, 1931, pp. 192-197.
15. ibid., p. 195.
72
The presentations excited some heated discussion, but overall the meeting was
supportive of advertising and publicity if ‘properly safeguarded’ and it was resolved to
request that the President and Council organise the formation of a committee:
which shall be empowered to enquire into and consider ways and means of
advancing the public appreciation of architecture in N.S.W. and the welfare of
the profession, and, as a result of such enquiries and consideration, to act or
to recommend action to the Council from time to time as may be considered
expedient.16
Thus the twin aims of ‘the public appreciation of architecture’ and ‘the welfare of the
profession’ were firmly united under the strangely altruistic banner of the ‘Civic Service
Committee’ established a few months later. This was to be the first of many such
committees charged with addressing issues related to public image — not only that of
the IANSW, but of architecture and architects generally.
During the course of its life, the Civic Service Committee focussed its attention on
organising radio broadcasts, lectures and occasional newspaper articles. Chief among its
achievements was the publication of a pamphlet entitled The Work of an Architect that it
believed would ‘educate the public to a keener appreciation of Architectural Service’.17
The pamphlet was directed at ‘a building owner’— commercial or domestic. It
explained the basic process and components of an architectural commission — working
drawings and specifications, quantities, the selection of tenderers — emphasising the
complexity of the building process. The coordination of this process was ‘the business’
of the architect who offered ‘disinterested’ personal service. The pamphlet concluded
with a note on ‘Artistry in Architecture’, stating that while a very great part of the
architect’s work ‘is intensely practical, the true architect is by temperament and training
an artist as well as a business man [sic]’.
While the notion of the architect as ‘artist’ has remained a consistent claim even to
this day, during the 1930s there was an increasing sense of unease about the way in
which it might be interpreted by the general public. In 1935 for example, William
16. ibid., p. 197.
17. ‘The Work of an Architect’, Architecture, vol. 22, no. 1, 1933, pp. 41-42.
73
Laurie, a future President of the RAIA, addressed what was now the NSW Chapter of
the RAIA on ‘The Architect in Relation to the Public’. Laurie was concerned that ‘the
business side’ of the architect’s activities was not stressed sufficently in the way that the
profession had described itself to the public. There was a need to counter the perception:
that the architect is a rather capricious individual who subordinates the client’s
requirements to his own fancy…Of course, we know that the best architects
have imagination…but from my personal experience, it appears that there is a
tendency for us to base our solution of a problem on fundamentals which are
divided from the fundamental ideas of the building owner – a thing which our
builder friends…would never dream of doing.18
The concerns expressed by Laurie largely simmered in the background for the rest of
the decade, however they were to become a major point of discussion for the NSW
Chapter in the 1940s and 1950s. In the meantime, another issue was gaining momentum
in the public realm and attracting the attention of Sydney’s architectural profession:
housing.
THE POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF HOUSING
Australian architects’ political engagement with housing in the 1930s was essentially an
extension of their long-standing involvement with the town planning movement. The
movement had emerged in Australia in the late 19th century and architects had played
a major role in its development, particularly in New South Wales. The outstanding
example was the expatriate English architect John Sulman who is regarded as the most
influential figure in the early planning movement in Australia.19 Sulman became the first
President of the Town Planning Association of NSW20 in 1913. Other founding members
included architects Walter Burley Griffin, Walter Liberty Vernon, and John Burcham
Clamp.21 Sulman published extensively on town planning, his An Introduction to the
18. W.R. Laurie, ‘The Architect in Relation to the Public’, Architecture, vol. 24, no. 5, 1935, p. 105.
19. R. Freestone, ‘Sulman of Sydney: Modern Planning in Theory and Practice 1890-1930’, Town
Planning Review, vol. 67, no. 1, 1996, pp. 45-63.
20. Originally the Town Planning Association of Australia.
21. ‘Town Planning: New Association’, SMH, 18 October 1913, p. 19.
74
Study of Town Planning in Australia22 acknowledged as the seminal text on the subject
until the 1950s.23
As Leonie Sandercock has shown in her history of city planning in Australia,24 housing
had been an issue for the emerging town planning movement in New South Wales since
the 1890s. While it had taken a number of forms, from the garden suburb movement to
the push for slum clearance and rehousing, it was based on a common understanding
that home ownership in the suburbs constituted ‘the most desirable way of life’ for
Australians.25 The slums that existed in major cities such as Sydney were regarded
as a three-way evil: posing a physical threat by way of breeding disease and crime, a
political threat as a hotbed of discontent and thirdly as an aesthetic blight on the city.
Clearing these slums and rehousing their occupants had been a major concern of the
reformists at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries. However the issue receded
temporarily into the background during the economic boom of the 1920s when the
untrammelled expansion of Sydney became the focus of the local town planning
movement. After the market crash of 1929, and the Great Depression that followed,
unemployed and lower-paid workers again assumed central stage.
The situation in Sydney was particularly dire. In the early 1930s, fifty-seven per cent
of unemployed wage-earners in New South Wales lived in Sydney, which at that time
was home to forty-six per cent of the state’s population.26 According to historian Peter
Spearritt:
The most palpable evidence of unemployment in Sydney was in the unemployed

camps…The most famous of the camps, ‘Happy Valley’, at La Perouse, was
22. J. Sulman, An Introduction to the Study of Town Planning in Australia, William Applegate Gullick,
Govt. Pr., Sydney, 1921.
23. Freestone, Town Planning Review.
24. L. Sandercock, Property, Politics and Power: A History of City Planning in Adelaide, Melbourne and
Sydney Since 1900, PhD thesis, Australian National University, 1974. See also L. Sandercock, Property,
Politics, and Urban Planning: A History of Australian City Planning 1890-1990, 2nd edn, Transaction
Publishers, New Brunswick, 1990.
25. Sandercock, Property, Politics and Power, p. 123.
26. P. Spearritt, Sydney Since the Twenties, Hale & Iremonger, Neutral Bay, NSW, 1978, p. 59.
75
described by the Worker’s Weekly…as one and three quarter miles long, with
129 tents and shacks.27
The industry worst hit by unemployment was building, with sixty per cent out of work
by the middle of 1933.28 Housing production was particularly affected, with the sharp
drop in new lending by all financial insitutions after 1929 being a major contributing
factor. By the early 1930s housing completions had fallen nationally from an annual rate
of around 50,000 in the mid 1920s to under 10,000 per year.29
While Sandercock has criticised Sydney architects, and the IANSW in particular,
for placing an emphasis on the aesthetic aspects of city growth during the 1920s,
at the expense of broader social issues,30 their position changed noticeably during
the 1930s.31 From the early years of the decade, the IANSW sought a visible role in
providing a solution to the housing problem – inevitably described in terms of ‘slum
clearance and re-housing’. In July 1933 a deputation from the Institute, lead by its new
President, Professor Leslie Wilkinson, met with the Hon. H.M. Hawkins MLC, the
NSW Minister for Social Services. It requested that a substantial proportion of the funds
made available by the Commonwealth Government for works in New South Wales be
allocated to slum clearance and rehousing. The Institute’s written submission justified
its approach to the government in conventional terms:
Our city is disgraced by areas covered with dwellings of the poorest nature,
where thousands of our people live in conditions of overcrowding and squalor.
That such conditions should be tolerated is a blemish on an enlightened and
civilised community. By the clearing of slum areas and the substitution of
modern housing, immoral character, the health and the happiness of the dwellers
would be infinitely improved, because it is in the slum districts that the more
poisonous elements of society are nourished, sickness is most prevalent, and
happiness least possible.32
27. ibid.
28. ibid.
29. M.R.Hill, Housing Finance in Australia 1945-1956, Melbourne University Press, 1959, p. 5.
30. ibid., p. 129.
31. See H. Margalit, Reasoning to Believe: Aspects of Modernity in Sydney Architecture and Planning
1900-1960, PhD Thesis, University of Sydney, 1997, pp. 71-76.
32. ‘Slum Clearance and Re-Housing: Deputation to Minister’, Architecture, vol. 22, no. 8, 1933, pp. 180-181.
76
The submission then moved on to more pragmatic concerns, stressing the timeliness
of expending funds in this area when valuations and building costs were low, adding
that ‘There is no better means of stimulating the flow of money than through building
activities, and the final result is a definite asset of immediate economic earning
capacity’.33 In conclusion the IANSW offered to assist in the realisation of such a
program and to develop ‘a definite scheme’. It seems safe to assume from this, that
whatever social and aesthetic evil the slums represented, the IANSW’s leadership
was also well aware that their clearance and replacement would directly stimulate the
local building industry and the livelihoods of its constituency. It also recognised the
opportunity of taking on a visible role in formulating public policy. This combination
of idealism, pragmatism and self-interest best captured the Institute’s approach to the
housing issue at this time.
While the submission met with a disappointing response from the state government,34
the IANSW maintained momentum on the issue. In its next attempt, a more developed
strategy emerged. In November 1933, the Institute arranged a conference on ‘Slum
Clearance and Re-Housing’, at the request of the Health Week Executive.35 From this
a committee was established ‘to formulate a method of approaching the authorities in
an endeavour to improve housing conditions’.36 The IANSW was represented on this
Committee as it was on the sub-committee that was appointed to develop a clearing and
rehousing scheme for a specific area in Sydney. By November the following year, the
subcommittee had prepared a scheme for clearing ‘one of the worst areas in Redfern’
and for the erection of ‘a comprehensive housing group’ on the site. The proposal was
deliberately presented as a clear alternative to the current approach of government
which was ‘spending £200,000 on small cottages scattered at random round the city’.37
33. ibid.
34. ‘Institute of Architects of New South Wales, Annual Report’, 1933, Architecture, vol. 23, no. 3, 1934, p. 51
35. ‘Conference on Congested Areas and Re-Housing’, Architecture, vol. 22, no. 12, 1933. pp. 275-276.
36. ‘The Royal Australian Institute of Architects: New South Wales Chapter’, Architecture, vol. 23,
no. 11, 1934, p. 230.
37. ibid.
77
The IANSW obviously considered it strategically important to claim a leading role
in the development of the scheme. A minute from a General Meeting of the recently
instituted NSW Chapter insists on this point:
The first move in this direction came from your Council [of the NSW Chapter],
and although a number of bodies have been interested, and have given valuable
advice and assistance, the movement emanated from this Council, and has been
actively put forward by the representatives appointed from the Institute.38
Unfortunately the scheme, which was submitted to the Mayor of Redfern for
consideration, received no official support.39 While some interpreted such setbacks as
evidence of the profession’s weak public image,40 lack of state government support for
urban projects was not unusual. As Sandercock has noted, while the United Australia
Party and the Country Party coalition was in power from 1932 to 1941, the interests
of the Country Party dominated. In fact, criticism was levelled at the government for
diverting funds away from planning in the Sydney metropolitan area to the country.41
However by the mid 1930s, when housing and slum clearance had become the main
focus of public debate, even the coalition government was forced to respond. In 1936
it established a Housing Conditions Investigation Committee, and the following year
passed the Housing Improvement Act, which resulted in the creation of the Housing
Improvement Board. The NSW Chapter was represented on both the Housing
Conditions Investigations Committee and the Housing Improvement Advisory
Committee appointed to give expert advice to the Housing Improvement Board.
By this time, the Chapter’s leadership had made a more explicit connection between
the housing issue and its potential to promote a sense of cooperation and public service
among its members and, by extension, improve the public image of the profession. In
his address ‘The Future of the Architectural Profession in Australia’ presented in 1935,
the new Chapter President, A.W. Anderson, made a clear association between service to
38. ‘The Royal Australian Institute of Architects: New SouthWales Chapter’, Architecture, vol. 23, no.
12, 1934, p.254.
39. A.W. Anderson, ‘The Problem of the Slums’, Architecture, vol. 24, no. 12, 1935, p. 287..
40. Laurie, Architecture, p. 104.
41. Sandercock, Property, Politics and Urban Planning, pp. 119-122.
78
the community, public image and housing:
the Institute must take an active part in the life of the community. It must lift
up its voice with no uncertain sound in protest against immature
and ill-conceived proposals to deal with cities, towns, villages and hamlets,
and the unsatisfactory, often squalid, housing conditions of its fellow citizens.
The Profession exists to produce the beautiful, the safe, and the true.42
Like many of his architectural colleagues and indeed many in the housing reform
movement generally, Anderson felt that Australia could learn from solutions developed
overseas. Throughout the 1930s, numerous articles in Architecture were devoted to
housing schemes in Europe illustrating what were considered to be successful examples
of state intervention. The reports provided models of strategic action and also served to
air some of the issues that were being debated by local architects and state authorities,
such as the value of cottages versus flats.43
Local architects who had travelled abroad, many on architectural scholarships, provided
a significant number of these reports. Donald Johnson, in tracing the sources of
Modernism in Australian architecture, states that:
for the cause of architecture the reports were of inestimable value in bringing
back, often after five or six years, a personal and, through their quasi-official
position, an authoritative empirically gained knowledge.44
During 1935 for example, Dudley Ward, the recipient of a NSW Board of Architects’
Travelling Scholarship, began a series of papers on the ‘World-Wide Problem of Low-
Cost Housing’.45 Ward offered a detailed comparative study of housing conditions in

Britain, Germany, France, Austria, Holland and Sweden and the successful methods
adopted to meet those conditions. The study was meant to provide a basis for the
42. A.W. Anderson, ‘ The Future of the Architectural Profession in Australia’, Architecture, vol. 24, no. 8,
1935, p. 175.
43. For example L.H. Keay ‘Slum Clearance’, Architecture, vol. 24, no. 3, 1935, pp. 48-50. Keay was
Director of Housing, Liverpool ( U.K.), and the article had been reprinted from the British journal, The
Builder.
44. Johnson, Australian Architecture 1901-51, p. 91.
45. D. Ward: ‘World-Wide Problem of Low-Cost Housing’, Architecture, vol. 24, no. 8, 1935,
pp. 156-159; ‘Slum Clearance’, Architecture, vol. 24, no. 11, 1935, pp. 264-268; ‘Slum Clearance’
Architecture, vol. 24, no. 12, 1935, pp. 295-297; ‘Slum Clearance’, Architecture, vol. 25, no. 1, 1936,
pp. 26-29; ‘Slum Clearance’, Architecture, vol. 25, no. 2, 1936, pp. 51-57.
79
development of a more ‘efficient solution of our own slum and housing problems’.
Morton Herman was another recipient of the Travelling Scholarship whose reports were
regularly published in Architecture.46 Herman chose to extend his time abroad to six
years (1930–36), which included working in London with modernist architect Goodhart
Rendell. After his return to Sydney in 1936, he was in a position to make direct
comparisons between urban housing schemes he had seen in Europe and Britain and
the existing situation in his home city, as well as promote his ideas on group housing.47
Significantly Herman, together with W.R. Richardson, was responsible for designing
the only rehousing scheme that attained fruition in the inter-war years in New South
Wales – the Erskineville Re-housing Scheme in South Sydney erected by the Housing
Improvement Board of New South Wales.48
When another young architect, Walter Bunning, made his return to Sydney in 1939 after
travelling through Europe on a Board of Architects’ scholarship, he reported to the NSW
Chapter:
That which struck me most forcibly whilst abroad was the very definite change
in the architectural outlook. The architectural spotlight has been turned away
from the monumental, grand scale buildings, and is focused on utilitarianism, a
trend most noticeable in architectural education, the “beaux art” type of project
has been replaced by practical problems of housing, community and health
centres, etc.49
It seems likely that Bunning’s observations were informed by the battles then being
fought in Britain over architectural education. There the lines had been drawn between
those supporting the traditional Beaux art style of education and those proposing a
modernist approach largely based on the Bauhaus model.50 But what is more important
about Bunning’s statement is that it points to a fundamental shift in attitude and

46. Such as M. E. Herman:‘Board of Architects of New South Wales Reports of Travelling Scholarships:
Report No. 3, By Morton E. Herman’, Architecture, vol. 21, no. 7, 1932, p. 161; ‘Board of Architects
of New South Wales Reports of Travelling Scholars: Report of Morton E. Herman’, Architecture, vol.
22, no. 10, 1933, pp.229-230; ‘Board of Architects of New South Wales Reports of Travelling Scholars:
Morton E. Herman’, Architecture, vol. 23, no. 4, 1934, pp. 83-87..
47. M.E. Herman, ‘Urban Housing’, Architecture, vol. 26, no. 10, 1937, pp. 221-227.
48. ‘The Erskineville Re-Housing Scheme’, Architecture, vol. 27, no. 12, 1938, pp. 292-296; HIBNSW
1938; P. Spearritt, op. cit., p. 75.
49. W. Bunning, ‘In Search of Architecture’[an address], Architecture, vol. 28, no. 6, 1939, p. 113.
50. M. Crinson, & J. Lubbock, Architecture – Art or Profession: Three Hundred Years of Architectural
Education in Britain, Manchester University Press, 1994.
80
approach. Up until this point, the profession’s involvement with ‘the problems of
housing’ had generally been discussed in terms of an obligation or duty that fell within
the realm of community service rather than what could be termed the main business
of architecture. In Bunning’s description, housing and other ‘utilitarian’ projects were
positioned at the very centre of an architect’s field of practice.
Over the next few years Bunning, together with a group of other young architects,
worked very hard to ensure that the NSW Chapter adopted this modern philosophy of
practice. A major focus for this younger generation of architects was housing – and not
just for the poor and marginalised workers but for a broader segment of society.
THE WAR YEARS
Walter Bunning returned to Australia in the year that war was declared in Europe. Even
before Britain and Australia were officially at war with Germany, the NSW Chapter of
the RAIA was anticipating its future role if the worst was to happen. In March 1939,
Architecture posed the question: ‘it would seem right that we should face the problem
of what we, as a body, rather than as individuals, can do. How can we best assist now?
And how would we be best able to assist in the unhappy event of our worst fears being
realised?’ Unfortunately, for most of the early years of the war, the Chapter seemed
lost for answers, but then circumstances were not in its favour. According to Johnson,
the war years, and those immediately following, were a frustrating time for Australian
architects.
Architects who remained in a civilian capacity did not engage in private practice,
or if they did, it was limited by the government. The larger firms managed to
continue professional services, but the smaller offices, the large majority, simply
closed. Many architects worked for governmental agencies or for the American
armed or support services in their architectural or engineering capacity.51
With its constituency again in disarray, it is hardly surprising that the NSW Chapter
became focussed on immediate issues rather than taking a visionary approach. But this
51. Johnson, p. 148.

81
did not satisfy its critics. According to Freeland, there was a general dissatisfaction:
that the Institute was almost wholly concerned with the affairs of practice…at
the expense of the larger philosophical questions of Architecture — its relations
and obligations to society in general, its changing nature and the changing role
of the architect — and that Australian architecture needed to move not only up to
but ahead of the time.52
This was particularly apparent to a group of younger architects who, like Bunning,
had experienced the new trends in Britain and Europe. Johnson’s discussion of the
Melbourne architectural scene at this time draws attention to their importance in
legitimising ‘contemporary ideas and modes of architecture’. He goes on:
While these individuals might offer comparisons or opinions or bring back their
expertise, they were a rather diverse group, without leadership or a
mentor to provide cohesion or inspiration. What was necessary at this crucial
moment was an individual or group to fuse people and events into a
comprehensible unity. The University of Melbourne Architectural Atelier…
provided a forum for such a group.53
In Sydney that group was the Modern Architectural Research Society known as MARS.
THE ‘NEWCOMERS’: MARS
In June 1939 an article appeared in Architecture, entitled ‘Architecture Here and Now’,
that was said to represent ‘the thoughts of a group of younger architects recently formed
in Sydney’.54 The article read like a manifesto, outlining the principles on which the
group was based. In essence, it advocated that the architectural profession should strive
‘to influence, as well as serve, the community in which we live’ and work cooperatively
with related groups and institutions, manufacturers, and groups responsible for
education and training in the various trades, arts and crafts – ‘Architecture cannot
develop its own ideas without recognising the development in other spheres closely
surrounding it’.55
It seems highly likely that this ‘group of younger architects’ formed the basis of what
52. Freeland, The Making of a Profession, pp. 173-4.

53. Johnson, p. 93.
54. ‘Architecture Here and Now’, Architecture, vol. 28, no. 6, 1939, p. 118.
55. ibid.
82
was to become known as the Modern Architectural Research Society of Sydney56 or
more commonly, MARS. While no official record of the group’s membership appears to
exist, personal recollections57 together with other sources,58 including Council Minutes
of the NSW Chapter, make it clear that Walter Bunning, Morton Herman, and three
other young architects with experience abroad, Arthur Baldwinson, Thomas O’Mahony
and Frank Costello, were among those identified with the group. Bunning served
as MARS president59 and certainly it appears that he was a driving force behind the
direction of its activities. While still in existence at least as late as 1946, the war years
represented the most active period for MARS.
The name chosen for the group had its own significance. As Bunning, Herman,
Baldwinson, Costello and O’Mahony had all travelled to Britain before the war, it
is likely that they were aware of the existence of the British Modern Architectural
Research Society that had been active since 1933.60 Certainly there were marked
similarities between the philosophy and approach of the Sydney and British groups:
both actively engaged in research, discussion, exhibition and publication and both
identified housing as a particular focus of interest and activity.
Within a few months of posting its colours to the mast in Architecture, Sydney’s MARS
had organised its ‘first public activity’, a display of low-cost timber homes at the ‘Better
Homes Exhibition’ arranged by the Forestry Commission of New South Wales and the
Timber Development Association of Australia held at David Jones’ department store
(Fig. 2).61 MARS’ target audience was described in terms of the small home builder
56. It also appears that a similar group by the name of the Architectural Research Group, Melbourne was
also formed and in operation by at least 1942 (CM, 29 September 1942, p. 2).
57. P.A. Johnson & S. Lorne-Johnson (eds), Architects of the Middle Third Programme: Architects who
Commenced Practice in the 1930s and 1940s, School of Architecture, University of New South Wales,
Kensington, 1992.
58. My thanks to Michael Bogle for the list of MARS members he composed from his research on Arthur
Baldwinson. Email 18 June 2007.
59. Angle 5, vol. 1, no. 1, 1941, unpag.
60. L. Campbell, ‘The MARS Group, 1933-1939’, Transactions 8, vol. 4, no. 2, 1984/5 pp. 68-79.
61. ‘Cheaper Houses’, SMH, 4 July 1939, p. 6; ‘Economy and Grace: The 1939 Better Homes Exhibtion
and the Use of Timber in Architecture’, Art and Australia, series 3, no. 76, 1939, pp. 79-82.
83
Fig. 2: The ‘Better Homes Exhibition’ of 1939, showing a house model

by Arthur Baldwinson. In the background is the MARS stand bearing the
caption ‘Well-Designed Houses Are Cheaper’.
(Art in Australia, 15 August 1939).
84
who ‘put the question of an architect out of his mind because he believes it too petty
for an architect to worry about, but, if we show that we are interested, it is doing our
profession, the home builder and the landscape a good turn’.62 The emphasis was very
much on affordability, with prices ranging from £450 to £750.63
While no record of MARS’ designs for the 1939 display appears to remain, the fact
that timber featured as the predominant construction material made a significant
statement.64 Fibro and weatherboard were becoming increasingly popular for housing
in certain areas of Sydney, most particularly in working-class outer municipalities such
as Fairfield and Bankstown where the average cost of houses was about £533.65 These
materials were not commonly used, nor in many cases allowed by local restrictions, in
the wealthier suburbs. MARS’ focus was plainly on the provision of low-cost housing
for a broader section of the community, and this was to remain a consistent priority.
However a stronger emphasis came to be placed on ‘new materials’, prefabrication
and standardisation as ‘the key to post war housing’, as exemplified in a booklet later
published by the group entitled The Post-War Home.66
In its determination to promote modernist ideals and to publicly identify architects
with the leading issues of the day, MARS became involved not only in exhibition67 and
publication, but also public broadcasting. In 1941 Bunning and O’Mahony presented a
series of talks for the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) as part of a program
62. ‘The Modern Architectural Research Society Display’, Architecture, vol. 28, no. 9, 1939, p. 195.
63. By way of comparison, the RVIA mounted a ‘Small Homes Competition’ nine years earlier where the
designs ranged between £1250 and £2000. Architecture, vol. 19, no. 12, 1930, pp. 574-577.
64. Notwithstanding the organisational context of the exhibition and that Walter Bunning had
connections with the Timber Development Association, designing the association’s new Sydney office
about 1940. See ‘Timber Development Association of Australia - New Office, Art in Australia, series 3,
no. 80, 1940, pp. 95-96.
65. Spearritt, p. 68.
66. MARS, The Post-War Home: In Towns, in Country, in Flats, in Communities, The Society, Sydney,
[between 1945 and 1950], pp. 6-7.
67. MARS was also represented on the Australian Committee convened by the Ministry of Post-war
Reconstruction, that sponsored the Sydney Housing Exhibition of 1944. See Committee convened
by the Ministry of Post-war Reconstruction in collaboration with the US Government Department of
War Information, Follow the Red Footprints: Souvenir of the Sydney Housing Exhibition 8th to 28th
August, 1944, (exhibition brochure), Committee convened by the Ministry of Post-war Reconstruction in
collaboration with the US Government Department of War Information, Sydney, 1944.
85
entitled Design in Everyday Things. The two architects presented three of the nine
broadcasts: ‘The Private Home and the Flat’, ‘Places of Work and Recreation’ and
‘Housing Schemes and Town Planning’.68 The official organ of the NSW Chapter,
Architecture, also provided a forum for MARS, most frequently in the form of articles
or addresses by individuals associated with the group or supportive of its aims.69
By the middle of 1941, MARS was also publishing its own newsletter Angle. In the
first issue, the editorial summarised the history of the group and its purpose: ‘Our aim
was the furtherance of the Modern Movement in Architecture and the Allied Arts’.70
However, as it begins to outline the group’s achievements, other more familiar concerns
regarding professional status and identity surface:
Among our efforts are lectures, articles, radio talks, exhibitions, and hypothetical
designs. We feel that these modest achievements will have justified our
formation if they have created even the slightest public interest in our ideals,
or helped to bring the Profession back to its rightful position among the leaders
of contemporary thought and public affairs.71
One of the primary purposes of Angle was to offer opinions on the state of local
architecture and those responsible for it.
For many years the Profession has been crying out for a publication giving true,
unbiased, constructive — but sensitive — criticism of the Architecture of our
cities. Today, MARS comes forward in an endeavour to fill the breach.72
According to Thomas O’Mahony, Angle ‘was really by way of being a smart alec little
piece of paper. I suppose you could call it half a dozen or nine or ten angry young
68. Australian Broadcasting Commission, Design in Everyday Things; Conflict, Australian Broadcasting
Commission, [Sydney], 1941.
69. See for example: ‘The Modern Architectural Research Society Display’, Architecture, vol. 28, no. 9,
1939, p. 195; F.G. Costello, ‘A Philosophy for an Architectural Community’, Architecture, vol. 28,
no. 11, 1939, pp. 221-223; ‘The Future of Architecture Changes as a Result of War’, Architecture, vol. 29,
no. 3, 1940, pp.46-54; W.R. Bunning, ‘Commodity, Firmness and Delight’, Architecture, vol. 29, no. 7,
1940, pp. 133-137; S.G. Hirst, ‘Community Housing’, Architecture, vol. 29, no. 10, 1940, pp. 201-204;
M.E. Herman, ‘Housing and Health’, Architecture, vol. 29, no. 12, 1940, pp. 253-254; W. Bunning & T.
O’Mahony, ‘What is the Character of Australia’s Architecture?’, Architecture, vol. 30, no. 1, 1941, pp.
11-13; W. Bunning, ‘Housing the Munition Worker: A Vital Problem of War’, Architecture, vol. 30, no. 2,
1941, pp.23-25; F.G. Costello, ‘Reconstruction’, Architecture, vol. 31, no. 6, 1942, pp. 65-68.
70. Angle 5, vol. 1, no. 1,1941, unpag.
71. ibid.
72. Ibid.
86
architects who were going to play hell with a big stick with the profession to show how
clever they were’.73
Only a ‘Partial’ Revolution
O’Mahony was not alone in his opinion that MARS was out to antagonise the
architectural establishment. According to Freeland, MARS ‘made quite a splash in
the public pool and raised a deal of apprehension amongst the Establishment of the
R.A.I.A.’. The main power broker within the Chapter and the RAIA, Alfred Hook, was
particularly concerned about the group’s intentions. In fact it was the housing issue that
brought matters to a head:
Hook believed that the Government could have used his Institute and served its
own purposes better by handing over the whole problem of post-war housing
to the R.A.I.A. to solve…He was incensed at the failure of the Government
to make more use of the R.A.I.A. and attributed it to the opposition of a small
group of architects in the Department of Post-war Reconstruction. He was
convinced…that they were not just apathetic or even opposed to the R.A.I.A, but
were actively out to destroy it.74
Carolyn Allport partially supports this contention in her study of the early history of the
Commonwealth Housing Commission (CHC), one of a number of agencies belonging
to the new Ministry of Post-War Reconstruction. She states that relations between the
CHC and the RAIA ‘were complicated in Sydney by the emergence of the Modern
Architectural Research Society (MARS) a radical group led by Walter Bunning who
was also a member of the CHC’.75 Bunning had in fact been appointed executive officer
of the CHC in 1943.76
From these accounts MARS might appear as an outlaw group, actively working against
the ‘establishment’ of the RAIA. However this is not quite the case. Following the
73. O’Mahony quoted in Johnson & Lorne-Johnson (eds), p. 108.

74. Freeland, The Making of a Profession, p. 173.
75. C.Allport, ‘The Unrealised Promise: Plans for Sydney Housing in the Forties’, in J. Roe (ed.),
Twentieth Century Sydney: Studies in Urban & Social History, Hale & Iremonger in association with The
Sydney History Group, Sydney, 1980, p. 50.
76. In addition to Bunning, two of the five people originally appointed to the commission were archi-
tects: John Gawler, Head of the School of Architecture at Melbourne University as Deputy Chairman, and
Charles Howard of the Commonwealth Works Department (J.S. Gawler, A Roof Over My Head, Lothian
Publishing Company, Melbourne, 1963).
87
pattern suggested by Bourdieu, the ‘revolution’ was ‘only ever partial’.77 From the
beginning the group sought to work from within, actively pursuing a direct affiliation
with the RAIA. On 2 May 1939, the Council of the NSW Chapter considered a letter
from Walter Bunning advising of the formation of a ‘Social and Study Group’. The
group offered its ‘support and assistance’ to the Chapter which in turn agreed to the
group using the Council Room as a meeting place.78 It seems highly likely that this
was the nascent MARS, particularly in view of the article that appeared in Architecture
earlier that year expressing the ‘thoughts of a group of younger architects recently
formed in Sydney’. Towards the end of 1939, at the request of the Board of Architects,
three representatives of MARS — ‘Messrs. Goble, Andrew and Bunning’ — addressed
the Council to discuss ‘the aims and objects of their Group, in the endeavour to arrive at
a basis for full co-operation with, and assistance from the Chapter’.79
At that meeting the President, W.R. Richardson, expressed the view that ‘the Group
could do the work it proposes better as an individual body’, however he did moot the
possibility of a research grant being paid to MARS by the Board of Architects. The
following year the Board allocated £52 to the Chapter for that purpose, which was paid
to MARS in instalments.80 This was the first in a series of grants made to the group
on the basis that it carry out an agreed program of research into one of three areas:
community housing, schools and town planning or other subjects that may be ‘of vital
importance to the advancement of Architecture’. MARS agreed to make the outcome

of this research public through exhibitions, a series of at least four public lectures, and
publication.81
Over the following years there are numerous incidences of the Chapter referring issues
to MARS for notice, response or investigation – from worker housing in Lithgow to
77. P. Bourdieu, ‘The Production of Belief: Contribution to an Economy of Symbolic Goods’ in

Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production, pp. 83-4.
78. CM, 2 May 1939, p. 2.
79. CM, 5 December 1939, p. 2.
80. CM, 7 May, 1940, p. 1.
81. ‘Programme of Research and Presentation of Results’ attachment, CM, 6 February 1940.
88
cooperation with the RAAF in regard to enlistment. Nevertheless there was tension
between MARS and the dominant power base within the NSW Chapter. According to
Freeland,82 much of it had to do with the fear of a take-over. Alfred Hook, for example,
was extremely concerned in 1940 when MARS’ candidates managed to capture all the
seats available to associates of the NSW Chapter in the annual elections. The following
year the group was forced to submit a written apology to the Chapter stating that
‘MARS hereby resolves not to interfere as a group in the domestic affairs of the RAIA
and that it regrets any ill-feeling arising over the last election of the NSW Chapter’.83
Again in 1944, during the preparations for the Post War Building Conference, John
Moore, a member of the Chapter Council made an impassioned plea for MARS to
be specially invited to collaborate in organising the project – despite the fact that ‘at
present there exists a distinct antagonism between us’. Moore expressed concern that
‘our abortive attempts at “disciplining” some of the members of MARS…is only
widening the breach’.84
Certainly Bunning, Herman, Costello and Moore, who were either members of
MARS or sympathetic to its cause,85 were active members of Council at various times
during the war years. All were in positions of considerable influence. Bunning was
particularly vocal, agitating strongly for the Chapter to focus its attention on issues of
housing and postwar reconstruction. However the point needs to be made that while
providing a critical foil, MARS did not ever ignore or set itself up in formal opposition
to the established professional body. MARS worked within the system and many of
the group’s members went on to become prominent figures within the architectural
community.
According to most accounts, MARS was meant to have fizzled out by 1942. O’Mahony
for example recalls that ‘those of us who had decided to do something in the war had

83. CM, 9 December 1941, p. 1.
84. ‘Report of Public Meeting’ attachment, CM, 13 June 1944.
85 Michael Bogle lists John Moore as a MARS member for 1941–42.
89
left and gone off to do it and those who didn’t do that had got themselves important jobs
in protected industries’.86 But this was not the case. While it is difficult to determine
exactly when MARS came to an end, it was still submitting reports to the Council of
the NSW Chapter at the end of 1944 and, as late as November 1946, the group was
requesting the use of Chapter rooms for its Christmas function.
HOUSING AND THE FUTURE OF THE PROFESSION
While the leadership of the RAIA, and particularly that of the NSW Chapter, may
have attracted considerable criticism for its lack of vision during late 1930s and early
1940s, by the final years of the war it had found an issue that it felt would galvanise the
profession and cast it into the public eye. The issue was postwar reconstruction and,
within an Australian context, that primarily meant housing and town planning. While in
one sense the issue had its own momentum, young architects such as Bunning, Herman,
and Costello, who were not only members of MARS but also actively involved with the
organised profession, were undoubtedly influential in shaping the approach taken by the
NSW Chapter.
By the beginning of 1944, it is clear that the Chapter had found its cause celebre from
the opening paragraphs of the first issue of its Chapter Bulletin:
In the past it has often been said that the Institute was a dead as the dodo…The
important fact is that at present the Institute — and particularly the New South
Wales Chapter — is very much alive…The interim Post-War Development
Report…has been a fine example of co-operative effort, and one, which, perhaps
it is no exaggeration to state, has put the Institute before the Government and the
public more than any other action for a number of years.87
The interim Post-War Development Report had only recently been produced by the
NSW Chapter’s Post-War Development Committee (PWD) for presentation to the
Ministry for Post-War Reconstruction and other authorities. The Committee had
been formed in 1943 – the same year that the federal government established the
Commonwealth Housing Commission. The NSW Chapter was extremely proud of its
86. Johnson & Lorne-Johnson (eds), p. 108.

87. ‘The Bulletin’s Function’, Chapter Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 1, 1944, p. 1.
90
efforts, particularly in view of the fact that the report was adopted by the RVIA and
the South Australian Chapter and accepted as a model by the Queensland Chapter.88
In the end, the ‘preliminary’ report was published under the auspices of the RAIA as
Wanted! A Plan! 194X: Post-War Development! (Fig. 3).89 In an attempt ‘to indicate
the best conditions under which the Architect can most fully satisfy the individual and
public needs of the community in his [sic] special field’,90 the document made a series
of recommendations in regard to town planning, the building industry, new construction
methods and materials including prefabrication, building codes and housing standards.
While obviously a major achievement for the PWD, the production of the interim
Post-War Development Report was just one part of its brief. The ‘Development’ in
the committee’s title also encompassed the advancement of the NSW Chapter. On
the basis that ‘the need to educate the public to a better appreciation of architecture,
more particularly as relating to neighbourhood planning and the problems associated
with housing was so evident’, the PWD formed a Public Relations Group in 1943.91
To achieve its goal, the group became involved in organising lectures, radio talks and
broadcasts. By 1945 it had become a committee in its own right and was supported in its
public relations activities by the Exhibition Committee.
Clearly for the NSW Chapter, involvement with housing and planning was now seen
to be central to its public image and it is within this context that the activities of the
PWD need to be considered. This includes its investigations into the establishment of
a Small House Plan Bureau in 1945. According to the PWD Committee’s published
report,92 it considered numerous proposals received from Chapter members. It was,
however, cautious about proceeding in view of the ‘complete failure’ of the Plan Service
Bureau established by the IANSW in the 1920s. Interestingly, that exercise had also
88. ‘Publication of Post-War Development Committee’s Report’, Chapter Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 2, 1944, p. 1.
89. Royal Australian Institute of Architects , Wanted! A Plan! 194X: Post-War Development!, Royal
Australian Institute of Architects, Sydney, [194-?].
90. ibid., p. 3.
91. ‘The Chapter’s Annual Report’, Chapter Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 1, 1944, p. 3.
92. ‘The Establishment of a Small House Service’, Chapter Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 10, 1945, pp. 3-5.
91
Fig. 3: The NSW Chapter’s interim report on postwar development completed in 1943
and published shortly after under the auspices of the RAIA.
92
been politically motivated, but with a very specific end in mind. According to Freeland,
the Bureau was a device used by the IANSW to have the Architects’ Registration Act
tightened: ‘since the profession had provided architectural service at a cheap rate to
those who normally could not afford it there was no longer any reason why it should not
be made compulsory to have an architect’s drawings for all buildings’.93
The PWD was also concerned about the resources involved in running a Small House
Plan Bureau. Recognising that the potential market would be dependent upon financial
assistance, the committee recommended in its report that: ‘This plan service should
be directed in the first instance towards all authorities, all Building Societies, and all
organisations, financial or otherwise, engaged in the provision of many houses’.94
Thus, rather than the Chapter establishing its own independent service (though this
was still raised as a future possibility), it was proposed that booklets of illustrative
drawings ‘anonymously’ prepared by Chapter members be made available through
these organisations. Only designs, not plans and specifications would be included. The
prospective builder would have to contact the architect directly to obtain those. At this
stage it was considered that the number of designs should be limited to 50 according to
the following classifications:
(a) 3-bedroom types in brick

(b) 3-bedroom types in timber
(c) 2-bedroom types in brick
(d) 2-bedroom types in timber
The cost of the first copy of plan and specification was to be £3/3/- and each additional
set £1/1/-.95
After this promising start in 1945, the process of actually establishing the service
stalled. While the RVIA went on to launch its Small Homes Service in conjunction with
the Age newspaper in 1947, it took another six years for the NSW Chapter to finally
establish its own service. Nevertheless the process had commenced and the Small
94. ‘The Establishment of a Small House Service’, Chapter Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 10, 1945, p. 4.
95. ibid.
93
Homes Service (NSW) became one of the key ways in which the NSW Chapter actively
and publicly engaged with the housing issue during the postwar period.
CONCLUSION
This chapter has investigated the culture and politics of the architectural profession
in Sydney during the 1930s and early 1940s. It has shown how the stresses associated
with the economic downturn of the Great Depression and then the outbreak of war at
the end of the 1930s served to highlight certain weaknesses within the field, in regard
to notions of professional standards and collegiality. Amidst a climate of disunity and
disaffection, the NSW Chapter of the RAIA came to see the current housing issue as
a potential rallying point – one that could unite the field as well as enhance its public
position and image. A younger generation of architects, who were critical of what they
termed the materialistic and self-serving attitudes of many of their senior colleagues,
also saw housing as an area of involvement that might facilitate a resurgence of the
field’s core values. Accordingly, while housing became a focal point of interest for the
NSW Chapter, the way in which it came to be approached was substantially shaped by
the struggle that occurred between that younger generation of Sydney architects and the
old guard of the architectural establishment. Centred on fundamental issues regarding
appropriate fields of architectural engagement, that struggle was, in Bourdieu’s terms,
essentially concerned with establishing ‘the legitimate mode of cultural production’.
While the resolution could be read as a triumph of modernist ideology, the struggle at
a micro level concerned fundamental issues related to professional identity, namely the
relevance, survival and public image of the organised profession.

94
4
‘HOMES IN THE SUN’
____________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
People everywhere are looking ahead to the promise that the future holds out to
them…We must achieve a living and working environment worthy of those who
worked to build our country and have since battled to save it.1
The Second World War had only just ended for Australia when Walter Bunning’s
Homes in the Sun was published.2 While providing a number of plans and drawings and
enumerating on the ‘Principles of House Planning’, Homes was focussed primarily on
identifying housing as a crucial element within a larger, rigorously planned scheme of
urban and regional development. This was not a new or novel approach. It had been
the official line of both the RAIA and the Australian government during the war years.
SALT, the authorised educational journal of the Australian army, had summed it up
nicely in an editorial entitled ‘After the Bombs’: ‘our whole post-war plan is linked
with building. Thus the perspective drawing of a five-roomed cottage is linked with a
perspective drawing of Australia’.3
Conditions in the immediate postwar period however were far from promising. Under
the restrictions of the war years, the shortage of available housing had more than
doubled. The demobilisation of troops and the demand for housing due to wartime and
postwar marriages soon exacerbated the problem. Birth rates increased and, after 1947,
the natural upturn in population growth was accelerated under the Commonwealth
Government’s new immigration program. Not only were there too few houses to
accommodate a rapidly expanding population, there was also an acute shortage of
1. W. Bunning, Homes In The Sun: The Past Present and Future of Australian Housing, W.J. Nesbit,
Sydney, 1945, p. 5.
2. Bunning was now Executive Officer of the Commonwealth Housing Commission.
3. ‘After the Bombs’, SALT, vol. 2, no. 6, 1942, p. 1.
95
building materials and skilled labour – a situation that persisted until at least the end of
the 1940s. Building costs rose steadily and those who chose to build in Sydney had it
toughest: ‘Even the houses built by the NSW Housing Commission on cheaper land and
with the economies of large scale construction cost 48 percent more than comparable
housing in South Australia’.4
Despite these problems, housing activity increased dramatically. In fact, the late 1940s
marked the beginning of the largest building boom in Sydney’s history. At the heart of
this activity was an overwhelming commitment to home-ownership. The proportion
of private dwellings that were owner-occupied in Sydney rose from 39.7% in 1949 to
59.6% in 1954 and to an impressive 71% by 1961.5 Furthermore, there was a significant
trend towards owner-building. By 1952 for example, the majority of houses under
construction in New South Wales were owner-built.6 The national average was around
thirty per cent for the same period.7
This chapter will investigate the ways in which the architectural profession in Sydney
sought to locate itself in relation to this major area of public interest, activity and
investment during the late 1940s and 1950s. It will begin by looking at the way in which
architect-designed ‘solutions’ to the housing crisis became ‘acceptable’ and ‘accessible’,
firstly through the high level of exposure given to the work, ideas and opinions of
architects in the popular media and secondly through the public relations activities of
the RAIA’s NSW Chapter.
The organised profession’s engagement with housing during the late 1940s and 1950s
will then be considered within the context of the leadership role that Sydney architects
were at pains to establish within the new political and industrial environment of the
postwar period. While endeavouring to give form to this image, the profession was
4. Allport, p. 51.
5. Spearritt, p. 105.
6. Pickett, ‘Modernism and Austerity’, p. 76.
7. Greig, The Stuff Dreams are Made Of, p. 71.
96
also acutely aware of the impact of these new conditions on the field. In particular
it sought to counter the threats that were now posed to its traditionally defined areas
of responsibility and ultimately its claim to specialised knowledge and professional
authority.
THE ‘ACCEPTABILITY’ AND ‘ACCESSIBILITY’ OF ARCHITECT-
DESIGNED ‘SOLUTIONS’
Architects and the Popular Media
During the late 1940s and 1950s, home magazines such as Australian House
and Garden, and Australian Home Beautiful as well as the daily newspapers and
more generalist magazines, notably the Australian Women’s Weekly, provided an
unprecedented level of exposure to the work and ideas of local architects. Such attention
was not confined to architects alone. As Greig has pointed out in his study of Australian
House and Garden:
A range of experts that understood modernist design – such as architect, interior

designers and furniture designers – were hailed as the agency of post-war
change, struggling valiantly against popular conservatism. The feature stories
within the magazine rarely missed an opportunity to advertise the virtues of such
professionals and their modernist solutions.8
While some writers have asserted that this promotion of modernist design linked to a
modern way of living was directly allied to an ideology of consumerism and capitalist
interests,9 Greig argues that a single reading is inadequate given that the concept
of modernism was so complex and multi-faceted during the postwar period. Using
Australian House and Garden as an example, Greig claims that the magazine sought in
fact ‘to provide a realistic solution to pressing housing provision needs dictated by post-
war social, economic, political and administrative changes’.10 From this one can infer
8. Greig, ‘Home Magazines and Modernist Dreams’, p. 11.
9. Such as R.W. Connell & T.H. Irving, Class Structure in Australian History, Longman Cheshire,
Melbourne, 1983 and K.Blackburn, ‘The “Consumers Ethic” of Australian Advertising Agencies, 1950-
1965’, Journal of Australian Studies, 32, 1992, cited in Greig, ibid.
10. Greig, ‘Home Magazines and Modernist Dreams’, p. 15. This is not to suggest that the readerships of
these magazines were uncritical recipients of the message delivered. Just as modernism was multi-faceted,
so too were the reasons for its ‘marketability’ during this period. Pickett, for example, has suggested that
the postwar need ‘to produce houses that were austere in size and construction gained Modernism more
converts more quickly than generations of architects’ and builders’ advocacy’. See Pickett, ‘Modernism and
Austerity’, p. 80.
97
that architects at this time were offering the kind of ‘realistic’ solutions the magazines
were after.
Certainly architect-designed houses were promoted in home magazines as exemplars of
modern design and were extensively showcased through plans, photographs and detailed
descriptions. But while these houses may have been promoted as ‘showpieces’, this
did not preclude their design from being described as ‘practical’. In fact, the magazines
normally placed great emphasis on the designers’ expertise in achieving economies and
efficiencies in construction and detailing (Fig. 4). In other words, the architects were
portrayed as addressing the needs and pocket of the average homebuilder. A typical
example is the following description of Sydney architect Harry Seidler, published in
Australian Home Beautiful in 1955:
Harry brings to his houses the trained engineering logic which works on the true
basis of economy – getting the best out of his site and materials. Floor space is
planned to an exact fit, without waste, achieving maximum freedom, outlook
and privacy in the smallest area. Construction methods are simple and direct,
eliminating bulk and saving cost in labor [sic] and material.11
Part of the exposure provided by the popular media was generated by architects
themselves. They not only contributed designs for houses and interiors but also advice
on a range of related subjects that explicitly targeted the growing owner-builder market.
While the level of contribution varied from one-off articles to consistent representation,
it extended beyond home magazines to more general publications as well as

newspapers. One who achieved a particularly high media profile was Sydney architect,
Eva Buhrich.12 Trained in Germany and Switzerland, Buhrich arrived in Sydney with
her husband Hugh Buhrich in 1939. As Hanna’s extensive investigation has revealed,
from the mid 1940s to the mid 1960s, Buhrich was a regular contributor at various times
to Australian Women’s Weekly, Woman, Australian House and Garden and Walkabout.
11. ‘Harry Seidler…The Signature is Written Large on all the Houses this Young Overseas Architect has
Designed’, AHB, January 1955, p. 13.
12. While Eva Buhrich did not register as an architect in NSW or join the RAIA, she practiced until the
1950s and in her public life as a writer and broadcaster she was known as an architect. See B. Hanna,
Absence and Presence: a Historiography of Early Women Architects in New South Wales, PhD thesis,
University of New South Wales, 1999, pp. 285–86.
98
Fig. 4: ‘Designed to Cost Less’. House design by Harry Seidler (Rose House) as
featured in Australian Home Beautiful, March 1950.
99
From the late 1950s to the late 1960s she also wrote her own column for the Sydney
Morning Herald.13 In these contexts Buhrich not only discussed topical issues related to
contemporary architecture and design, but also provided advice and practical models in
the form of plans and drawings.
Architect-designed plans for small houses were regularly featured in magazines and
newspapers particularly those that advertised their own plan services, such as the
Australian Women’s Weekly, Australian Home Beautiful, Sun-Herald and Sunday
Telegraph. Some produced books of plans for sale. In 1946 for example The Herald and
Weekly Times published The Sun Post-War Homes: Architects’ Competition Designs.
While only fifty designs ‘specially suited to immediate post-war building’ were
published, over three-hundred architects and students of architecture submitted designs,
including a number from Sydney. Around the same time, the Australian Women’s
Weekly published Eve Gye’s Home Plans. It comprised forty-three plans, most of which
were provided by Australian architects, the rest by ‘outstanding’ American architects.
According to Gye, the compilation of architect-designed schemes ‘will prove of vast
national importance if it helps to prevent exploitation of our people by speculators like

those responsible for the flood of poorly planned, poorly designed and badly constructed
houses that followed World War I’.14
Architects also had their designs published by material manufacturers and suppliers.
Sydney architect Raymond C. Smith, for example, supplied plans to the Monier Pipe
Company to promote its ‘Monocrete’ wall panelling product in ‘Modern Homes: A
Book for Home Planners published in the 1940s. Plans for twenty-seven homes ranging
from in size from 785 square feet (72.9 square metres) to 1,400 square feet (130
square metres) were included: ‘Specially designed for Australian conditions and for
the average-size suburban allotment, and all are within the range of the average man
13. ibid.
14. E. Gye (ed.), Home Plans, Australian Women’s Weekly, Sydney, 1946?, p. 1.
100
[sic]’.15 In 1956 James Hardie and Co, in association with the NSW Chapter’s Small
Homes Service, published a booklet of home plans to promote its version of asbestos
cement sheets ‘Fibrolite’. There were twenty-six designs in all and if the reader wanted
to obtain actual plans and specifications they had to contact the Small Homes Service
at David Jones’ department store in Sydney.16 Also during the 1950s, the Timber
Development Association’s Build Your Home in Timber featured photographs and some
of the plans of fourteen houses by Sydney architects, including Harry Seidler and Arthur
Baldwinson.17
Seidler, Baldwinson and a number of other Sydney architects were also represented
in The New Australian Home (1954) and its sequel Homes for Today (1957) which
featured the ‘best interiors, exteriors and plans by Australia’s leading architects’.18
Both books were the work of Melbourne architect Kenneth McDonald, but Sydney
architects also produced their own publications in the late 1940s and 1950s.19 These
ranged from discursive texts on the principles and philosophy of housing design, such as
Bunning’s Homes in the Sun, to what were more collections of designs and plans such
as Your Post-War Home by William Watson Sharp,20 Practical Homes by R.L. Spooner
and C.T. Eeles21 and Harry Divola’s Truth Home Plan Book.22 Divola, who appears to
have been an early member of MARS,23 was architect to the Australian Legion of Ex-
Servicemen and Women and director of its Home Planning Bureau for some years after
the war. Kenneth McConnel’s Planning the Australian Homestead had a rural focus, and
15. R.C. Smith, Modern Homes: A Book for Home Planners, Monier Pipe Company, Sydney, 1946?, p. 3.
16. James Hardie & Co., Modern Homes of Hardie’s Genuine Fibrolite/James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd,
The Company, Sydney, 1956.
17. Timber Development Association of Australia, NSW, Build Your Home in Timber, Timber
Development Association of Australia (NSW Branch), Sydney, [195-].
18. K. McDonald, The New Australian Home, K. McDonald, Melbourne, 1954 and Homes for Today,
Horwitz Publications, Sydney, 1957.
19. A number had also been produced during the war years, notably John D. Moore’s Home Again!
Domestic Architecture for the Normal Australian published in 1944, as well as a string of publications
from Florence Taylor’s Building Publishing Company, including Fifty Modern Homes (1940), The Book
of 150 Low Cost Homes (between 1940 and 1944) and The Book of 36 Distinctive Homes (1944 or 1945).
20. W. Watson Sharp, Your Post-War Home, K.G. Murray Publishing, Sydney, c1945.
21. R.L. Spooner & C.T. Eeles, Practical Homes, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1947. Unlike Spooner,
C.T. Eeles was not recorded as having any architectural qualifications.
22. H.L. Divola, Truth Home Plan Book, Invincible Press, Melbourne, [195-].
23. List of MARS members provided by M. Bogle. Email 18 June 2007.
101
included not only house plans but also comprehensive advice on all aspects of a country
dwelling, from horse yards to the internal layout of the homestead.24 George Beiers’
Houses of Australia: A Survey of Domestic Architecture featured the work of a number
of contemporary Sydney architects such as Ancher and Baldwinson. However, as Beiers
himself noted, the book was not meant as ‘a treatise on styles but to give the story,
mainly in pictures, of the houses of Australia’.25
Harry Seidler’s first book, Houses, Interiors, Projects (1954), was also largely
devoted to housing design.26 He illustrated his work in photographs and drawings but,
like Bunning, was also concerned with discussing the principles of modern design.
Among the work illustrated were a number of small, low cost houses such as ‘House
in Newport’ and the ‘Universal House’, the latter being a design that he submitted to
the NSW Chapter’s Small Homes Service.27 According to the review that appeared in
Australian House and Garden, the book provided an invaluable resource ‘for architects
and designers, and for home planners and builders, it offers an unstinted wealth
of material…the most necessary book on Australian home design yet compiled’.28
Australian Home Beautiful was a little more restrained in its assessment noting that ‘It’s
a pity that the price of £4/4/- must restrict its circulation’.29
‘Another K.O. by Young Fighter’30
In considering the public profile enjoyed by Sydney architects during the late 1940s and
1950s, Seidler makes an interesting study. When reviewing Houses, Interiors, Projects
for Architecture in 1955, the recently retired President of the NSW Chapter, Max
Collard, remarked:
In the short period he has been in practice in this country he has brought a
stimulus to architecture and has caused more arguments and discussion about
24. K. McConnel, Planning the Australian Homestead, Ure Smith, Sydney, 1947.
25. G. Beiers, Houses of Australia: A Survey of Domestic Architecture, Ure Smith, Sydney, 1948, p. 11..
26. H. Seidler, Houses, Interiors and Projects, Associated General Publications, Sydney, 1954.
27. ‘Small Homes Service Offers The Universal House’, AHB, June 1954, pp. 70-71.
28. ‘Review of the Book of the Month’, AHG, March 1955, p. 82.
29. ‘Seidler Samples’, AHB, March 1955, p. 24.
30. From an article entitled ‘Another K.O. by Young Fighter’ by Keith Newman, SMH, 22 March 1952, p. 9.
102
modern house design than any of his contemporaries in Australia.31
Seidler’s uncompromising commitment to modernist ideals, particularly in relation to
housing design, and his intolerance of any who might question their validity, made him
very newsworthy.
Seidler had only arrived in Sydney in 1948, but by the following year he was engaged
in a bitter dispute with Warringah Shire Council in relation to his plans for a house in
Newport.32 According to Boyd’s account in Australia’s Home, Seidler’s response to the
council’s objections included the offer of ‘a lecture illustrated with slides to show the
councillors “what modern design really is’’. Boyd also noted that ‘The press took up the
story sympathetically’ and certainly in the coverage given to Seidler’s subsequent rows
with local councils, his portrayal as controversial rebel was overlaid with suggestions of
‘crusader’. In an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled ‘Another
K.O. by Young Fighter’, for example, Keith Newman wrote:
Harry Seidler, the son of a Viennese shirt-maker, reinforced his claim to be one
of the most positive forces in Australian architecture the other day when, in [the]
face of his crusading zeal, Kuring-gai Council threw in the towel and approved
one of his home designs rather than fight out the issue in court.33
Keith Newman was then editor of Australian Home Beautiful and certainly that
magazine provided consistent coverage of Seidler’s work from as early as 1950.34 In
February 1951 it printed the first of two articles on the Rose Seidler house.35 The cover
story was headed ‘Sydney Showpiece’ and began ‘Houses of a style new to Australia
are appearing on Sydney’s North Shore…The style is still novel in Europe and America,
and the architect, a Canadian, Harry Seidler, believes that Australians will accept the
new style now that they can see houses that have been built here’. The five-page article
31. M. Collard,‘Harry Seidler “Houses, Interiors, Projects”’, Architecture, vol. 44, no. 1, 1955, p. 18.
32. Boyd, Australia’s Home, pp. 209-210; A. Spigelman, Almost Full Circle: Harry Seidler, Brandl &
Schlesinger, Rose Bay NSW, 2001, p. 181.
33. Newman, SMH, p. 9.
34. J. Wentworth, ‘Designed to Cost Less’, AHB, March 1950, pp. 18 & 74; N. Cooper, ‘Architect’s
Office Flat’, AHB, April 1950, pp. 21 & 44; J. Wentworth, ‘House on Two Levels’, AHB, May 1950,
pp. 38-39; ‘Space from Every Angle’, AHB, December 1950, pp. 18 & 19.
35. N. Cooper, ‘Sydney Showpiece’, AHB, February 1951, pp. 14-15,17, 39-40. The second story on the
Rose Seidler House appeared in September 1952.
103
then went on to describe the house in minute detail, from its construction and plan to the
colour, weight and texture of the pillow covers.
The greatest public response to the Rose Seidler House came after it was awarded the
RAIA NSW Chapter’s Sulman Medal of 1951. The award was publicly announced
on 5 August 1952 and soon the home Seidler had designed for his parents became
‘The Most Talked- About House in Sydney’.36 Again for some like Keith Newman,
Seidler represented a crusader for modern design. In an article entitled, ‘Architect beats
convention’, Newman began:
All those who are impatient to see our house designers freed from the leg-irons
of antiquated building regulations so that they can evolve homes which are
distinctively Australian and economical will welcome the award of the Sulman
medal to Mr Harry Seidler.37
Not that the house or Seidler’s opinions were accepted without debate. A storm of
controversy for example erupted after the Sydney Morning Herald combined a double-
photo spread on the house with an article entitled ‘Prize-Winning Architect Hates Our
“Brick Shacks”’.38 The latter recounted Seidler’s opinions on local building practice:
‘Little brick and fibrous shacks with little windows, little cubicles of rooms connected
by dark little passages which really paralyse the normal functioning of a house’.
Government architecture was ‘really criminal’, Housing Commission bungalows
and flats ‘an outrage’. Over the following week, the ‘Letters to Editor’ section of the
newspaper printed numerous responses from the general public and architects.39 In both
instances, opinions were polarised, from those who supported Seidler’s stand to those
who deplored his ‘ignorance’.
In the heat of debate, it became apparent that the house had become a powerful emblem
of the new, the modern and it continued to attract attention from newspapers and
36. ‘The Most Talked-About House in Sydney’, Sunday Herald, 17 August 1952, p. 28.
37. Unsourced article from a copy of Harry Seidler’s scrapbook held by Historic Houses Trust of New
South Wales.
38. ‘Winning House Design’, SMH, 6 August 1952, p. 3 and ‘Prize-Winning Architect Hates Our “Brick
Shacks”’, SMH, 6 August 1952, p. 2.
39. See for example SMH, August 13, p. 2, August 14, p. 2, August 15, p. 2 and August 18, p. 2, 1952.
104
magazines. Over the next few months the house was referenced and discussed in the
Sunday Herald, Sunday Telegraph and the Australian Home Beautiful.40 Even twelve
months later, a particularly splendid view of the Rose Seidler House dominated the first
page of a Pix feature ‘Search for Ideal Australian Home’.41
It cannot be said that Seidler was representative of the architectural profession in
Sydney in terms of the public profile he enjoyed during the 1950s. However this brief
overview does serve to reinforce the contention that the popular press was more than
willing to give exposure to the work, ideas and opinions of local architects in relation
to housing. Even Seidler’s controversial image was interpreted as an advantage in this
context. In 1954 for example, Woman magazine stated that it had invited Seidler to
provide advice on the ‘contemporary home’ because:
We felt that this young Viennese-born cosmopolite is one of Australia’s foremost

modern architects. Some say he is the foremost. He has been mixed up in
sufficient controversies with councils, builders, fellow architects, and the general
public over his revolutionary houses…to know all the answers’.42
The popular media placed a value on Seidler’s specialist skills and knowledge, and that
other modern architects, in regard to the ways in which that expertise could be applied
to the needs of contemporary homebuilders. Furthermore the media identified a clear
connection between modern design principles and a modern way of life. It is against this
background, and in the context of the developing priorities of the RAIA’s NSW chapter,
that the emergence of architect-designed project housing as a marketable commodity in
the late 1950s and early 1960s needs to be considered.
The NSW Chapter and Housing
While on an individual level, Sydney architects were actively and publicly engaged
40. ‘The Most Talked-About House in Sydney’, Sunday Herald 17 August 1952, p. 28; H. Seidler, ‘The
Architect’s Role in Home Furnishing’, ST, 21 September 1952, p. 41; K. Newman, ‘Sulman Prize House’,
AHB, September 1952, pp. 8-10,14 &18.
41. ‘Search for Ideal Australian Home’, Pix, 29 August 1953, pp. 19-23. The work of other architects was
also shown — Ancher, Baldwinson and Booth, Hans Oser, Harold Smith and Gray Senior.
42. ‘The Contemporary Home’, Woman, 18 January 1954, pp. 60-61.
105
with housing in the postwar period, it took some time for the NSW Chapter to organise
an official response. In the immediate postwar years, the national council of the RAIA,
based in Sydney, was busy getting its house in order. William Laurie was now national
president and under his direction a new administrative structure was adopted that
placed the management of the RAIA on a more professional basis. It also served to
release the conservative hold of Professor Alfred Hook – initially from the National
Council but then also the NSW Chapter Council. Around the same time a professional
editor-manager was appointed to Architecture, which until then had been produced on a
volunteer basis.43 By May 1948, Laurie could report:
All we can claim now is that we, as members of our profession, have at our
disposal fairly satisfactory machinery to make sure that our internal affairs run
smoothly and our public relations efficiently. This is a challenge to the Institute
and the profession to devote its time to major things rather than to be pre-
occupied with the establishment of routine organisation.44
Housing was one of those ‘major things’. It was a consistent subject of discussion
within the pages of Architecture, albeit largely within the context of promoting the
architect’s role as overseer of postwar development during the late 1940s. However by
the early 1950s the pressing need for affordable housing had become a clear point of
focus. In one of his editorials for Architecture entitled ‘Seizing an Opportunity’, Cobden
Parkes — NSW Government Architect and President of the RAIA — stated:
The question which concerns us all most nearly today is the problem of how to
reduce building costs. All types of building must naturally be affected, but the
most urgent demands for a solution come from the nation’s housing projects. To
devise some means of enabling the average Australian to build a home at a price
he [sic] can really afford is a task of no small magnitude, and may well set the
key for a return to general economic stability. We cannot turn our back on such
an opportunity for national service.45
During the 1950s the NSW Chapter developed a number of initiatives that were
explicitly directed towards providing affordable housing solutions. These were in
the form of two highly successful exhibitions and the Small Homes Service (NSW).
Importantly, all were framed as public relations exercises.

44. W.R. Laurie, ‘President’s Address at Institute General Meeting’, Architecture vol. 36, no. 3, 1948, p. 28.
45. C. Parkes, ‘Seizing an Opportunity’, Architecture, vol. 40, no. 4, 1952, p.113.
106
Exhibition
Exhibition became one of the Chapter’s key public relations strategies during the
1950s. Various types of displays were organised within a range of contexts, from major
‘chapter-owned’ installations to representation within larger events.46 Early on it was
decided that ‘large-scale exhibitions’ should be held at two year intervals47 which the
Chapter managed to achieve three times during the 1950s: in 1952, 1954 and 1956. The
first two exhibitions were particularly important as they served to publicly identify a
role for the profession in addressing contemporary housing needs and aspirations. The
last, while it included housing design, was not as explicitly directed.48
The Chapter’s first postwar exhibition was ‘Architecture Today and Tomorrow’ (Fig. 5), held
in March 1952. It was mounted in the Blaxland Galleries in Farmer’s, one of Sydney’s
large department stores. The designers and organisers of the exhibition were Thomas
O’Mahony and Arthur Baldwinson who had once been prominent members of MARS.
According to the double-page spread devoted to the exhibition in Architecture,49 the
purpose of the project was ‘to interest the general public in architects and architecture’.
The display consisted of photographs, drawings and scale models representing the work
of more than eighty NSW architects.
While a range of building types were shown, from factories and offices to schools and
churches, housing dominated, forming the central display of the exhibition. According
46. Displays for example were mounted at the ‘Careers Exhibition’ in 1956 (AR, 1956) and in combined
exhibitions with the Australian Planning Institute in 1956 and 1958 (CM, 11 February 1958, p. 1). On at
least one occasion, Chapter members participated in an overseas exhibition, ‘Architecture in Australia’,
held at the RIBA in London in February 1956 (AR, 1956).
47. CM, 2 September 1952, p. 2. ‘Architecture Today and Tomorrow’ was held in 1952, the exhibitions
associated with the Architecture Convention in 1954 and ‘Architecture Here and Now’ at David Jones’
department store in 1956.
48. Reviews of the exhibition, ‘Architecture Here and Now’, make it clear that the exhibition was arranged
according to architectural practice rather than building type. The reviews were also more concerned with
general design issues than those that specifically pertained to housing. See G. Molnar, ‘Australian Architects
Hold Exhibition’, SMH, 15 May 1956, p. 2; M. Herman, ‘Display Shows Architectural Advances’, SMH, 15
May 1956, p. 10; ‘Architecture Here and Now’, BLE, 24 May 1956, pp. 19-21.
49. ‘“Architecture Today and Tomorrow”: NSW Chapter’s First Postwar Exhibition’, Architecture,
vol. 40, no. 2, 1952, pp. 54-55.
107
to a review in Architecture the public ‘buzzed most loudly’ in this section, while also
making a ‘bee-line’ for the ‘Work of an Architect’. To maximise the impact of the
exhibition, the organisers arranged for members of the Chapter to be in attendance to
answer the questions posed by ‘a highly critical and appreciative public’ as well as
to present fifteen minute lectures at lunchtime: ‘Public relations couldn’t have been
better’.50
The exhibition was deemed a success. It not only attracted record attendances (causing
it to be extended for a week), but was also ‘preceded and accompanied by some of the
best Press and radio publicity architecture has had here for some time’.51 This media
coverage was squarely focussed on the housing content of the exhibition. The Sunday
Herald for example reported the show under the title ‘Glimpses of Australian Homes of
the Future’.52 Similarly the Australian Home Beautiful devoted its attention to the results
of a questionnaire that had been circulated by the exhibition’s organisers in an article
entitled ‘Public’s Shock Verdict in Design Quiz’:
When Sydney architects staged an exhibition recently they had a brainwave

– they turned their show into a “Gallup poll” of public preferences in home
design…Scores of visitors to the exhibition responded to the architects’
invitation to complete a “Design Quiz” which had been drawn up in a form
which made it a plebiscite of public taste in houses…The result was
overwhelmingly in favour of the “moderns” — the designers who have sought to
apply contemporary principles to Sydney’s domestic architecture.53
Two years later the Chapter again involved itself in a major exhibition project: the
‘Architectural and Building Exhibition’ held in conjunction with the Fourth Australian
Architectural Convention in May 1954. The Convention Organising Committee
established by the Chapter was chaired by Professor H. Ingham Ashworth, Chair of
Architecture at the University of Sydney. Ashworth decided to capitalise on the current
level of popular ‘interest in architecture and design’ by mounting a supportive program
50. ‘Sidelight on Sydney’, Architecture, vol. 40, no. 2, 1952, p. 75.

51. ibid.
52. ‘Glimpses of Australian Homes of the Future’, Sunday Herald, 16 March 1952, p. 14.
53. K. Newman, ‘Public’s Shock Verdict in Design Quiz’, AHB, July 1952, pp. 8-11. While the article
does not actually name the exhibition, it obviously refers to ‘Architecture Today and Tomorrow’.
108
Fig. 5. The NSW Chapter’s ‘Architecture Today and Tomorrow’ exhibition of 1952.
(Architecture, April-June 1952).
109
of exhibitions, that would not only draw attention to the convention but also illustrate
‘the advantages which accrue to both the individual and the nation as a whole from
sound, well-designed development’.54
With the convention located in the centre of Sydney at the Australia Hotel, an extensive
range of exhibitions on architectural themes was organised for major venues around the
city: the National Art Gallery [Art Gallery of New South Wales], the Mitchell Library
and the Gallery at David Jones’ department store. The most important of all, however,
was the ‘Architectural and Building Exhibition’ planned for the most prominent and
central location, Sydney Town Hall. Again, a substantial amount of resources was to
be devoted to the project.55 The cost of transforming the basement of Town Hall for the
exhibition alone was reported in the press to be £11,900.56
Harry Seidler was appointed to design the exhibition57 which comprised a number of
displays: work by NSW architects (including ‘a special exhibit illustrating and stressing
the service an architect renders to his client and the public’),58 the winning entries of
a national competition for an ideal Australian home, as well as displays by suppliers
of building materials and equipment. The main attraction however was the full-size
prefabricated house, the ‘House of the Future’, designed by Seidler. Ashworth was
happy to report to the press that the design ‘will certainly be provocative, and will
probably bring down a storm of controversy on our heads, but we want it to be different
from the usual houses being built today’.59
54. H.I. Ashworth, ‘Fourth Australian Architectural Convention, 1954’, Architecture, vol. 42, no. 1, 1954, p. 9.
55. In a budget submitted to the Convention Organising Committee in February 1954, estimated
expenditure for the Convention was put at £24,814, £9000 of which was to be spent on ‘exhibition’.
Estimated income from sponsorships, donations, attendance fees, advertising and the renting of exhibition
space was £43,075 (CO, 15 February 1954).
56. DT, 10 May 1954, p. 17
57. CO, 14 September 1953, p.1.
58. Ashworth, Architecture, p. 9.
59. Unsourced article from a copy of Harry Seidler’s scrapbook, held by Historic Houses Trust of New
South Wales.
110
The architect-designed ‘House of the Future’ was meant to demonstrate a potentially
cheap and highly efficient form of house production. Prefabricated in the Armco Factory
in Sydney, the house was constructed on site in one day by four men. Walls and roof
were comprised of interlocking 20-guage zinc-anneal panels attached to steel columns
and open web beams. These structural components were locally supplied, as were
other elements such as sliding doors and windows and wall and floor coverings. While
offering a combined living-dining room, kitchen, laundry, bathroom and bedroom, the
house was only 740 square feet (68.7 square metres) in total. To off-set the smallness
of the plan, Seidler introduced a glass wall down one side. He also provided drawings
to illustrate how this ‘nucleus’ could easily be extended to accommodate the growing
requirements of a household.
‘Futuristic’ features included ‘packaged’ units such as the moulded fibreglass bathroom60
and integrated kitchen unit that housed refrigerator, sinks, dishwasher, garbage disposal
and stove under one stainless steel countertop. There was also a circular steel and plastic
skylight in the bathroom. The furniture was built-in as well as freestanding and the latter
included a selection of Eames and Hardoy chairs on loan from the Rose Seidler house.
Seidler reinforced the message of the house by a panel display entitled: ‘The Story of
Modern Architecture’. The text expounded ‘the new structural possibilities’ inherent
in modern architecture as well as Seidler’s opinions regarding the poor state of local
housing design and his belief that ‘low cost housing lies in increased industrialisation’.61
The way in which the ‘House of the Future’ was reported in the press demonstrated
an obvious sympathy with the principles Seidler sought to express. The Australian
Women’s Weekly which sponsored the project, together with its affiliate the Daily
Telegraph, promoted the project as a serious attempt to meet the housing shortage.62
60. The bathroom unit had to be made up especially for the display. It was not in production.
61. H. Seidler, ‘The Story of Modern Architecture’, display panel text for Architecture and Building
Exhibition, Sydney Town Hall, 1954. In possession of Harry Seidler and Associates.
62. ‘The Australian Women’s Weekly House of the Future’, AWW, 5 May 1954, p. 32; ‘“House of Future”
on Show Tomorrow’, ST, 9 May 1954, p. 11.
111
Particular emphasis was placed on the way in which Seidler’s design demonstrated the
unrealised potential of prefabrication in housing: ‘The house bears no resemblance to
typical “pre-fab” houses, which sometimes are small and dingy and have a depressing
sameness’.63 The ways in which existing building regulations inhibited such valiant
attempts was also noted.64
In summary, the ‘House of the Future’ effectively served to draw attention to issues
which were not only of concern to Seidler, but to the local architectural profession.
Prefabrication and certainly more effective building practices had long been a subject
of discussion within Sydney architectural circles. The ways in which local government
and existing building regulations impeded more efficient design was also a point of
contention.65 Reported comments by the conference’s key speaker – Walter Gropius –
only served to reinforce the message of reform: ‘Governments and committees cannot
create — they can only regulate’.66
Gropius, the convention and the exhibition received generous coverage in the media.
The day before the opening on 10 May, Gropius was invited to speak on the question
‘Can Australia Develop Her Own Form of Architecture?’ on ABC Radio. The following
day the Daily Telegraph published his speech67 along with a six-page ‘Architectural
Supplement’ devoted to the convention and issues related to contemporary architecture.
The Sydney Morning Herald also came to the party. On the first day of the event, it
opened with an editorial ‘Modern Architecture Comes to Australia’ that noted the
timely nature of the convention and argued that ‘before much progress [in Australian
architecture] can be made public bodies as well as private individuals will have to learn
to have confidence in their architects’.68 The edition also included a special sixteen-page
63. ‘“House of Future” on Show Tomorrow’, ST, 9 May 1954, p. 11..

64. ‘Show House all Made in Factory’, DT, 10 May 1954, p. 19.
65. See for example ‘Local Government, the Law and Design’ in Architecture, vol. 39, no. 3, 1951, pp. 85-88.
66. ‘Prof. Opposes Restrictions’, DT, 4 May 1954, p. 2. See also ‘Building Design ‘Should be Free’’
SMH, 4 May 1954, p. 7.
67. W. Gropius, ‘Can Australia Develop Her Own Form of Architecture?’, DT, 10 May 1954, p. 8.
68. ‘Modern Architecture Comes to Australia’, SMH, 10 May 1954, p. 2.
112
‘Architectural and Building Supplement: A survey of architecture and building at home
and abroad to mark the fourth Australian Architectural Convention’. The social pages
of both newspapers were also liberally sprinkled with images of delegates and their
wives during the first days of the convention. The ABC provided further coverage by
broadcasting two half-hour talks and a forum debate by four ‘leading architects’.69
Both the architectural and building press were enthusiastic in their support. The
Melbourne based Architecture and Arts deemed the exhibition to be ‘the most exciting
and influential…ever to be held in Australia’.70 Building Lighting Engineering devoted
a large spread to the Convention and exhibition.71 As for the RAIA’s own publicity,
a special edition of Architecture 72 produced to support the convention presented
photographic essays on ‘Australia Yesterday’ and ‘Australia Today’. The latter opened
with recent domestic architecture, ‘Buildings for Living’, which took the lion’s share of
the publication.
Certainly, the ‘Architectural and Building Exhibition’ secured the public attention the
Chapter craved. During the opening day, it was estimated that 8000 people visited
the exhibition.73 The ‘House of the Future’ was a particular drawcard, with the Daily
Telegraph reporting that ‘From 6.30 pm until closing time at 10 pm people formed a
queue to pass through the home’.74 The exhibition ran until 25 May, extending beyond
the convention by fifteen days, and was open daily from 9.30 am – 10.00 pm. By the
end of the exhibition, visitor numbers were estimated to be 40,000.75
The RAIA was delighted with the response, though its published summary of the event
was rather low key:
69. ‘Convention in Sydney for 300 Delegates’, DT, 10 May 1954, p. 15.
70. ‘RAIA Convention’, A&A, June 1954, pp. 11-12.
71. ‘The Architectural Convention’, BLE, 24 May 1954, pp. 18-23.
72. Architecture, vol. 42, no. 2, 1954.
73. ‘The Architectural Convention’, BLE, 24 May 1954, p. 23.
74. ‘8000 Flock to Display’, DT, 11 May 1954, p. 9.
75. ‘Fourth Australian Architectural Convention’, Architecture, vol. 42, no. 3, 1954, p. 130.
113
[The aim of the Convention] was twofold: to provide architects with an

opportunity to meet socially; and to disseminate, both within the Profession
and amongst the general public, information of the latest architectural thought,
design, planning, and techniques. Both these functions were amply fulfilled.76
Whatever the educational purpose of the exercise, the new national president E.J.A.
(Jim) Weller made his opinion clear in a novel interpretation of the central theme of
Gropius’ keynote address:
But this concept of total architecture must go further – it must imply a

profession understood for its capacity…It means, perhaps, that architects in their
professional associations should not wait to be discovered, but should instead
exhibit their wares and air their views. That is what we have been about with our
conventions and our exhibitions. The spectacular trappings which glorify these
occasions and publicise their being are not fundamental to a convention, but they
are important in the realm of public relations.77
Small Homes Service (NSW)
While there had been concerted efforts within the NSW Chapter during the war to
establish a Small House Plan Bureau, it took almost a decade for the initiative to be
realised. In the meantime, the RVIA had set up its Small Homes Service in 1947 in
conjunction with the Age newspaper. According to Freeland78 it was the success of
the Victorian venture that influenced the establishment of similar services in other
states, including New South Wales, during the 1950s.79 As Freeland points out, the
RVIA’s service was adequately resourced and had regular public exposure through its
association with the Age. It was also run by the high-profile Robin Boyd whose talent,
wit and energy ensured that the service was ‘the best public relations venture that the
architectural profession has ever had’.80
While lacking Boyd, the NSW Chapter endeavoured to replicate the RVIA’s success by
entering an agreement with the Herald and Weekly Times,81 proprietors of Australian
76. ibid.
77. E.J.A. Weller, ‘The President’s Letter’, Architecture, vol. 42, no. 3, 1954, p. 112.
79. See J. Collins, ‘Raising the Architectural Standard of Small Homes: The Small Homes Service of
South Australia’, Fabrications vol. 16, no. 2, 2006, pp. 6-27.
80. Freeland, ibid.
81. See ‘Draft Agreement between The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, The Herald and Weekly
Times Ltd., on the Establishment of a N.S.W. Small Homes Bureau’ (EM, 31 March 1953).
114
Home Beautiful and the Sun-Herald newspaper, in 1953.82 According to Chapter
president Eric Andrew:
Since the beginning of the post-war years of frustration to the home builder we
have been attempting to find a way to assist the home owner in getting a home…
not just any house…but a home. Something for himself [sic], something to suit
his individual needs, something within a cost range he can afford. And, too,
at a fee that he can meet. But for years we could not find a way. Until Home
Beautiful came along and very generously offered to co-operate with us in
providing the services.83
Much fanfare attended the opening of the Small Homes Service (NSW) in December
1953. The service and its plans were launched in the December issue of Australian
Home Beautiful, which commissioned a special double-cover from artist Joe Greenberg
on the theme of ‘Through Better Building to Better Living’ (Fig. 6). It also included a
glowing endorsement from the NSW premier Mr J.J. Cahill, together with messages
from the Chapter president and the editor of Australian Home Beautiful. The Service’s
office was opened on December 1 on the 5th floor of David Jones’ department store. The
Lord Mayor of Sydney, Alderman P.D. Hills, officiated, with hundreds — ‘housewives,
businessmen, office workers and students’- in attendance.84
The Small Homes Service offered a range of stock plans of single, double and three-
bedroom houses, suitable for construction in brick, timber or fibro (Fig. 7). All the
designs supplied were meant to be suitable for ‘the widest possible variations in site
conditions’. For the price of £10/10/- a client received three sets of working drawings
and specifications that provided the details ‘necessary to satisfy the usual requirements
of municipal councils…financing authorities, and builders’.85 The client also received
a standard form of building contract, schedules for completion showing finishes and
equipment required, a guide sheet on the building process and advice on home-building
82. The fact that Australian Home Beautiful was a national magazine, and thus the designs and plans of
the Small Home Service NSW would be circulated in Victoria, caused consternation within the RVIA
(CM, 1 September 1953, pp. 4-5).
83. Quoted in ‘“I Commend the Small Homes Service to Every Home Seeker” Says NSW Premier’,
AHB, December 1953, p. 18.
84. ‘Hundreds Attend Opening of Small Homes Service’, SMH, 2 December 1953, p. 8.
85. ‘What is the Small Homes Service’, AHB, September 1959, p. 29.
115
Fig. 6: ‘To Better Living’. The Australian Home Beautiful cover that launched the
Small Homes Service (NSW) in December 1953.
116
finance.86 A number of the stock plans offered were designed with potential for a staged
building program, so that extra rooms could be added according to the owners’ needs
and financial situation. In the beginning there was a size limit of eleven and a half
squares (106.8 square metres)87 but this was later dropped.
Plans were published monthly in Australian Home Beautiful and on a weekly basis in
its affiliate, the Sun-Herald newspaper. All were supplied by Chapter members and it
was reported at the opening that ‘more than 30 firms and offices had contributed’.88
Harry Seidler for example supplied a number of designs to the Small Homes Service.89
Clients were assured that ‘when a limited number of repeats of any one design has
been sold, that particular design is withdrawn’.90 In the beginning they could discuss
their particular needs with one of the architects on staff.91 The service even provided an
architect fluent in English, German, Dutch and French on Saturday mornings, ‘to help
New Australians’.92 Supervision of house construction could also be arranged.
The Chapter threw its weight behind the Small Homes Service’s launch, organising for
‘six expert architects’ to be in attendance answering questions on house design, suitable
building materials and construction costs.93 During the first week of operation, it also
arranged a series of lunch-time lectures by Walter Bunning, Robin Boyd, Harry Seidler
and two academics, Professor Towndrow and Neville Anderson.94 According to reports,
‘more than 5000 people attended the lectures and inspected the Service during opening
week’95 and ‘more than 200 inquiries were received each day’.96
86. ‘Small Homes Service’, SH, 13 December 1953, p. 75.

87. ‘Small Homes Service’, Bulletin, December 1960, p. 1.
89. See for example ‘Small Homes Service Offers The Universal House’, AHB, June 1954, pp. 70-71;
‘Small Homes Service NSW: S/T 449’, AHB, December 1954, p. 95.
90. S.A. Morris, ‘Small Homes Service NSW’, AiA, vol. 51, no. 2, 1962, p. 91.
91. ibid. Later such consultations were arranged by appointment.
94. ‘Architects Discuss Our Homes in Lunch-Hour Talks’, SMH, 3 December 1953, p. 6.
95. ‘Plan Service “Enormous Benefit” - Lord Mayor’, AHB, January 1954, p. 9.
117
Fig. 7: One of the first house designs for the Small Homes Service (NSW) as featured
in Australian Home Beautiful, December 1953.
118
The Small Homes Service was off to a good start and certainly the way it was promoted
in the press served to enhance its effectiveness as a public relations exercise:
The members of the Institute of Architects participating in this scheme are

remaining anonymous. They include many of the leading domestic architects in
the State, and they are offering their services as a gesture to the public to assist
in overcoming housing problems and providing good designs.97
Before long, however, the financial viability of the service came into question. Only six
months after its launch, the NSW Chapter Council was advised that the service needed
sales of £112/2/0 per week to cover costs. The weekly average was reported to be only
£99/7/3.98 While the income generated by the service fluctuated throughout the 1950s, it
continued to receive support from the Chapter who considered that ‘as a service to the
public’ it was ‘justified and worthwhile’.99
One of the main problems was competition — not just from the host of draughting
practices operating around Sydney but also the sophisticated plan services based in
other large department stores, such as Grace Bros. and Anthony Horderns, that offered
much or more of the same service.100 Grace Bros. Home Plans Service was operated
in Sydney in association with the Sunday Telegraph. It provided individually prepared
plans as well as stock plans, supported by a free advisory service that was advertised
as being run by ‘trained and qualified Architectural staff’.101 Additional services were
available for a fee such as ‘Inspection of land prior to plans’ and ‘Periodical Inspections
by an Architect during construction’.102 Additionally there was a fully furnished
display home adjoining the service and a free Interior Decoration Studio to assist in the
selection of furnishings and colour scheme. Together with the range of products
97. ‘“Sun-Herald” Small Homes Service’, SH, 6 December 1953, p. 84.

98. CM, 6 July 1954, p. 4.
99. AR, 1958, unpag.
100. Unfortunately, there are no available statistics on the number of houses built from plans offered by
these services.
101. Grace Bros., Thirty Home Plans, Grace Bros. Home Plans Service, Sydney, in association with the
Sunday Telegraph, [1954].
102. Grace Bros., Thirty Three Home Plans, Grace Bros., Sydney, in association with the Sunday
Telegraph, [196-?].
119
on sale in the store, Grace Bros. could boast ‘virtually a complete Home Exhibition
permanently on hand’.103
There was also the Australian Women’s Weekly Home Plan Service, which by 1962
operated out of Anthony Horderns. The Sydney service, like its Victorian and
Queensland counterparts, was managed under the direction of Melbourne architects
Kevin Borland and Geoff Trewenack. In South Australia and Tasmania, the service was
run in conjunction with the local chapter of the RAIA.104 It too offered a comprehensive
service from a basic £10/10/- package of home plans (which included five copies
of working drawings and three copies of the specifications), to site inspections and
supervision of work through a network of ‘architects and engineers who are interested
in small homes work’.105 The Weekly also had the advantage of being one of the largest
selling popular magazines of the period. During the 1950s and 1960s, its readership
extended to one in four households in Australia.106
The Chapter was well aware of the competition, however it argued that while ‘there
are a number of small homes services available to the public it is necessary to set a
standard’.107 Its Annual Report for 1960 noted that two projects had been undertaken
to boost interest in the service. One was representation within the Chapter’s display
at the 6th Annual Sydney Homes Exhibition in June–July. The other was the erection
of a display house in David Jones, which was opened by the Minister for Housing in
November 1959. Six squares (55.7 square metres) and constructed in asbestos cement
sheeting, the house remained on show for three months.108 According to the Report, the
‘project created considerable amount of interest’, nevertheless it was noted that ‘The
103. ibid.
104. In 1960 the AWW approached the NSW Chapter with a proposal to partner up, but the Chapter’s
existing association with the Sun Herald prevented this (CM, 4 August 1960).
105. ‘Australian Women’s Weekly Home Plan Service’, AiA, vol. 51, no. 2, 1962, p. 92.
106. S. Sheridan, Who Was That Woman?: The Australian Women’s Weekly in the Postwar Years,
University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 2002, p. 1.
107. AR, 1960, unpag.
108. ‘Minister Opens House in City Store Today’, SMH, 4 November 1959, p. 8.
120
support of this service by those few Members interested in it is appreciated but wide
support would result in a greater variety of plans being available for distribution’.109
By the mid 1960s the Chapter’s involvement with the Small Homes Service (NSW)
was under review, with the flagging support from members being a constant concern.
In 1963 the service had been re-located twice; first to another floor of David Jones then
to 525 Elizabeth Street South, where the Sydney Building Information Centre had its
offices.110 In 1967 the Chapter finally decided to discontinue its association with the
service. At an April meeting of the Council it was resolved
To recommend to the Council of the RAIA that it resolve to withdraw from the
Agreement with the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. in relation to the Small Homes
Bureau in New South Wales, and that the notice of intention so to do be forthwith
transmitted to the other party.111
The Annual Report for 1967 noted that the Chapter decided to withdraw its sponsorship
of the Small Homes Service for a number of reasons, including the poor quality of the
plans being offered, spasmodic supply, lack of control over design standards and the
unavailability of ‘full-time professional advice’. However there was also a sense that
the service had been superseded. According to the report, a consideration had been that
‘Project builders are providing a good service of high quality’.112 The housing industry
and the market had moved on and so had the Chapter. While 1967 marked the end of
the Small Homes Service (NSW), it was also the inaugural year of the NSW Chapter’s
Project House Design Awards.
‘AN OPPORTUNITY FOR LEADERSHIP’
The Small Homes Service (NSW), along with the exhibitions organised by the NSW
Chapter, demonstrated an active engagement with housing as an area of wide public
concern. However, as was the case in the 1930s, housing formed part of a larger agenda
that was concerned primarily with issues related to professional identity. Chief amongst
109. AR, 1960, unpag.

110. ‘Small Homes Service’, Bulletin, March 1963, p. 3 and ‘Announcements’, Bulletin, September
1963, p. 4.
111. CM, 11 April 1967, p. 41.
112. AR, 1967, unpag.
121
these during the late 1940s and 1950s was the question of leadership within the modern
architect’s broad field of practice and interest. This was nothing new, but the social,
industrial and political upheaval associated with the Second World War generated a new
and intensified level of concern. Even MARS had posed the question in the early 1940s:
Can the Mars Group or the Institute stimulate sufficient activity to guide the
Architect from the chaos of war and post-war conditions, to rise and take
his place amongst the leaders in the vital work of building the new social
structure?113
Australian architects were not alone in their disquiet. As Goldhagen and Legault’s
Anxious Modernisms argues, ‘postwar architects’ in most Western countries experienced
‘anxiety about the adequacy of their architectural culture to cope with and positively
influence society in its new state’.114 Australia, however, did not have to contemplate the
immense rebuilding programs that Britain and Europe faced. Nevertheless the rhetoric
of postwar ‘reconstruction’ and the need to develop a comprehensive vision for future
development pervaded local architectural discourse. Discussion frequently focussed on
the ‘broken promises’ made during the previous war and the uncontrolled development
that followed. Walter Bunning’s Homes in the Sun provides a good example of this:
Remembering the bitter disillusionment of the last peace, they [the people]
are seeking to ensure that this time there will be a square deal for everyone…
All these problems of housing, town planning and slum clearance cannot be
examined separately; they are all inter-connected and part of a single social and
technical problem.115
During the late 1940s and 1950s, Architecture consistently included articles specifically
devoted to town planning116 and/or served to underline the leading role of the architect
in shaping the physical and social environment of the nation. A strong British influence
was discernable, not only in the precedents cited but in the general flavour of the
113. ‘Mars Meetings and Business’, Angle 9, 1941, unpag.

114. S.W Goldhagen & R. Legault, ‘Introduction: Critical Themes of Postwar Modernism’, in S.W.
Goldhagen & R. Legault (eds), Anxious Modernisms: Experimentation in Postwar Architectural Culture,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2000, p. 13.
115. Bunning, Homes in the Sun, p. 5.
116. See for example articles by Sydney architect and one-time MARS member Frank Costello, who
by the late 1940s was Officer-in-Charge of the Planning and Building Branch of Brisbane City Council.
Architecture, vol. 34, no. 1, 1946; vol. 35, no. 1, 1947 and vol. 36, no. 4, 1948.
122
discussion.117 By the 1950s, British architectural practice had shifted dramatically from
the private to the public sector. According to Robert Elwall’s study of the period, ‘by
1955 nearly half the country’s architects were employed in public offices while many
of the remainder subsisted on a diet of work farmed out to them by authorities which
were over-stretched’.118 The same situation did not exist in Australia, nevertheless the
new perspective that came with the enlarged social responsibilities of the British ‘public
architect’ — responsibilities that ‘reached beyond those to his [sic] immediate client’119
— permeated the published opinions of many local architects, including those assuming
leading roles in the organised profession. Cobden Parkes,120 for example, had this to say
in 1951 in one of his statements as RAIA President:
Architects are not simply individuals working each in some isolated corner on
some individual building. They are a corporate body of planners, making whole
streets and villages and towns and cities of buildings, fashioning the frame
within which the people live. Architects create an environment, and environment
makes a people.121
Not that everyone was in total agreement with this position, or the simplistic brand of
social determinism it expressed. In 1948, British-trained architect Frederick Towndrow,
who had been recently been appointed to head the Department of Architecture at Sydney
Technical College, presented an address to the NSW Chapter entitled ‘Sketch Design
for an Ideal Architect’. As part of his discussion, Towndrow singled out Le Corbusier’s
ideas on ‘the place of architecture’ and ‘the place of the Architect…in the coming
Utopia’.122 Reflecting the vacillating opinion of British architects in regard to Corbusier
117. For an overview of the ways in which British architects sought to define their role after the Second
World War see J.R. Gold, The Practice of Modernism: Modern Architects and Urban Transformation,
1954-1972, Routledge, London, 2007.
118. R. Elwall, Building a Better Tomorrow: Architecture in Britain in the 1950s, Wiley-Academy in
collaboration with the Royal Institute of British Architects, Chichester, West Sussex, 2000, p. 12. Gold
points out that in reality the influence of architects on town planning in Britain was not as pervasive as the
figures alone would suggest. See Gold, pp. 70-71.
119. Elwall, p. 17.
120. The fact that Cobden Parkes was then NSW Government Architect should be noted, however, this
was a statement made in his offical capacity as RAIA President.
121. C. Parkes, ‘Architecture and Australia’, Architecture, vol. 39, no. 1, 1951, p. 3. The turn of phrase echoes
the words of Sir Winston Churchill speaking on the restored House of Commons: ‘We first shape our buildings
and they then shape us’. Quoted by Professor Robert Matthew of Edinburgh University, a key speaker at the
Architectural Convention of 1954. (‘The Architectural Convention’, BLE, 24 May 1954, p. 21).
122. F. Towndrow, ‘Sketch Design for an Ideal Architect’, Architecture, vol. 36, no. 2, 1948, p. 51.
123
and other European ‘pioneers’ of Modernism in the postwar years,123 Towndrow
expressed a certain degree of scepticism about the expansive vision of this ‘prophet of
the new architecture’. While supporting idea of the architect as planner - ‘organising
whole towns and designing every conceivable thing that goes to make our man-
made environment’ , he had to concede that ‘when it comes to organising large-scale
industrial production and re-organising spiritual values as well, I think it is only fair to
leave something for lesser mortals to do’.124 Allan Gamble, who at that time lectured
in architecture at the University of Sydney, went further. In an article he submitted to
Architecture entitled ‘Dilemma’ he wrote:
At the risk of being branded as a heretic, reactionary or even plain idiot…I am

not yet prepared to believe that the benefits to be derived from town planning
in our complex modern age will not be outweighed by its disadvantages…
Architects are by no means infallible, nor their plans all highly successful in
execution. The evils of a bad plan on the scale of that for a town or city may be
of such magnitude as to be beyond correction.125
For the most part, however, the notion of architect as planner appeared to be generally
accepted within the profession and this was a time when opportunities appeared
plentiful. In the two years following the passing of the Local Government (Town and
Country Planning) Amendment Bill of 1945, Walter Bunning126 was able to report that
Cumberland County Council was preparing a masterplan of Sydney and that twenty
eight Municipal and Shire Councils in New South Wales had ‘sought and received
official approval to prepare town planning schemes. In addition, 21 Councils have

taken preliminary steps, and at least 30 more are known to be actively interested in
planning’.127 In his address to the NSW Chapter in 1948 the Cumberland County
Council’s Chief County Planner, Sidney Luker, expressed the opinion that ‘the body of
professional men represented by this Institute will, if only by reason of its numerical
123. N. Bullock, Building the Post-War World: Modern Architecture and Reconstruction in Britain,
Routledge, London, 2002, pp. 53-55.
124. Towndrow, Architecture, 1948, p. 52.
125. A. Gamble, ‘Dilemma’, Architecture vol. 35, no. 1, 1947, p. 16.
126. Bunning was then Chairman of the NSW Town & Country Planning Advisory Committee. He
reported that it was on the advice of this Committee that the NSW Government decided to establish
a Chair of Town Planning at Sydney University. W. Bunning, ‘Town Planning in New South Wales’,
Architecture, vol. 35, no. 1, 1947, p. 41.
127. ibid., p. 38.
124
strength and widespread range of activity, feel the influence of the County Plan and
participate in carrying it into effect, perhaps more directly than any comparable
professional body’.128
Of course the political advantages of being associated with such high profile activity
were not overlooked. In 1950, when the first annual conference of the RAIA was being
planned for Perth, an editorial in Architecture promoted town and country planning as
an appropriate area of focus:
An annual convention could offer an opportunity for leadership to be exercised

[in town and country planning]…A public pooling of the thought of the
Commonwealth’s architects on such issues must prove invigorating to the
profession and helpful in increasing the esteem in which it is held by the
public…[Architects’] fortunes do not depend directly upon votes, as do those of
the politicians; but neither should they forget that they face frustration in much
of their constructive work if they fail to secure the broad mandate of public
approval for their aims.129
EMERGING THREATS TO PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY
While the grand vision of the architect’s ‘leadership’ role embraced the broad spectrum
of the built environment, the postwar realities of the building industry suggested a
diminution rather than an enlargement of that role. Just by virtue of the fact that building
projects could be more complex – extending beyond single structures to groups of
buildings or even towns – meant that teams, rather than individuals, would be required
to plan and complete the work. Rapid advances in building technologies also presented
a challenge as did the rise of the ‘package dealer’. As a result, the protection of two key
professional attributes — specialised knowledge and professional authority — was an
issue of major concern to the NSW Chapter during the late 1940s and 1950s.
A New Industrial Environment
By the late 1940s, some within the profession were acutely aware of the implications of
rapid technological change within the building industry. William Laurie, then President
128. S.L. Luker, ‘The Cumberland Country Council Scheme’, Architecture, vol. 36, no. 3, 1948, p. 43.
129. ‘A National Rostrum’, Architecture, vol. 38, no. 2, 1950, p. 39.
125
of the NSW Chapter, felt that architects had failed to appreciate the challenge posed
to their area of authority. Architects’ increasing reliance on specialist consultants was
a particular concern.130 For Laurie the problem largely stemmed from inadequate
educational practice as well as architects’ failure to respond to the new environment:
the world has increasingly reaped the fruits of scientific discovery and is
applying them to its buildings to a degree where building becomes an
increasingly complex matter, calling for a field of scientific knowledge
which traditional architectural education does not even begin to touch
and traditional architectural practice almost deliberately avoids…If we
confine ourselves to our traditional field and make no attempt to shoulder the
new responsibilities which science thrusts upon us, it is inevitable that we
shall no longer be the controlling minds in building design.131
Laurie was not alone in his concerns. When Frederick Towndrow132 addressed the 1952
Australian Architectural Convention on ‘The Architect and the Future’, he argued that
‘the functional, constructive and planning side of our work’ had to be emphasised, if the
image of the architect as ‘a dreamy artistic, unpractical fellow’ was to be countered:
In furtherance of this we must train specialists who will keep abreast of

developments in materials and structure…we shall have to train several
different kinds of architects…they will be of three main types, the
architect-planner, the architect-constructor, and the architect-administrator.
The future of building, the production of more and better buildings, is the
responsibility of architects. They are still the only people fitted to take charge
of the production team.133
The subject of specialisation within architectural education continued to be discussed
throughout the 1950s, but not all were in favour of it. It was felt that intensive
specialisation too early would be detrimental and that perhaps it should be deferred until
the latter stages of the degree or even post-graduate study. Some resisted the idea totally,
such as the retiring National President W. Race Godfrey who pronounced in
130. W.R. Laurie, ‘President’s Address at Institute General Meeting’, Architecture, vol. 36, no. 3, 1948, p. 28.
131. W.R. Laurie, ‘The Responsibility of the Architect to the Community’, Architecture, vol. 40, no. 1,
1952, p. 12.
132. Now Professor Towndrow.
133. F. Towndrow, ‘The Architect and the Future’, Architecture vol. 41, no. 1, 1953, p. 9.
126
1957 that the profession ‘needs men [sic] who are first of all thinkers, and secondarily,
technicians…it needs first, Architects, and second, Specialists’.134
Architect as Builder
Meeting the challenges posed by technological development was one thing, but there
was also the more fundamental question of what now comprised an architect’s sphere
and mode of practice. Even the traditional three-way relationship between client,
architect and builder was under threat. Laurie again took the lead in raising the issue in
a paper presented to the Australian Architectural Convention in Melbourne in 1951:
After a hundred and fifty years during which proprietors have looked on builders
as rather untrustworthy partners to a contract over whom an architectural
watchdog was a necessity, they are now, particularly in large undertakings,
beginning to take the view that the builders’ interests run very largely parallel to
their own and that it is possible and often essential to enter into a project with a
building organisation on a co-operative basis.135
For Laurie the answer lay in the architect returning ‘to his [sic] very old position of
master builder, and I believe that future trends will largely compel him to do so’. He
added ‘Many of us in the last few years have, in our own interests, had to take some of
the preliminary steps in this direction’.
For some, Laurie’s attitude presented a threat in itself. Firstly it blurred the jealously
guarded distinction between profession and trade that was enshrined within the RAIA’s
Code of Ethics. It also raised issues in regard to conflict of interest and competition
between colleagues, which also directly challenged the Code. Matters came to a head
in May 1953 when S.G. Thorp, a past President of the Chapter, put a motion to a
general meeting of the NSW Chapter that the Code of Ethics be reinforced in regard to
an architect’s source of income. The specific clause under consideration was that: ‘A
Member is remunerated solely by his professional fees and is debarred from any other
source of remuneration in connection with the works and duties entrusted to him’.136
134. W.R. Godfrey, ‘Address by Retiring President, Mr. W. Race Godfrey’, AiA, vol. 46, no. 2, 1957, p. 61.
135. W.R. Laurie, ‘The Responsibility of the Architect to the Community’, Architecture, vol. 40, no. 1,
1952, p. 13.
136. ‘Architect as Builder?’, Architecture, vol. 41, no. 3, 1953, p. 66.
127
Thorp supported his motion on that basis that if everyone followed the path suggested
by Laurie:
We should lose absolutely our identity as a professional body, for what

difference would there be between us as architect-contractors and builders who
in their own offices employ architects and draftsmen to prepare plans for their
clients’ work.
He also anticipated problems arising in regard to competitive activities - ‘Do we tender
for other architects’ work?’.137
Thorp’s motion provoked lengthy discussion.138 Those in support reiterated his concerns
and also raised the issue of a conflict of interest in terms of quality control over building
projects. This traditionally fell to the architect and was reflected in his/her scale of
fees. Accordingly, if architects were to become builders, this independent position
would be compromised. Those who spoke against the motion, such as A.J.M. Moore,
felt that the Institute should not become a restrictive body but ‘broaden its attitude, to
broaden its aims, to help building rather than hinder it’.139 Gerard McDonell, a former
member of MARS,140 went further. Based on the assertion that the speculative builder
was responsible for most building development in Australia, he suggested ‘strongly and
sincerely, that architects should spec. build as a means of producing better towns and
cities’.141 Laurie, of course, also spoke against the motion, arguing that the RAIA’s Code
of Ethics was wildly out of date: ‘It has scarcely been revised in the last 130 years’ —
and thus had failed to keep abreast of changes in the building industry.142
After much debate, Thorp’s motion was eventually lost, however the issue of the
architect as builder did not go away. As Freeland points out, when a group of local
architects, under the name of Architon proposed to go into construction in early
137. ibid.
138. ibid., pp. 66-68, 72, 76, 80.
139. ibid., p. 67.
140. Angle 6, no date, unpag.
141. ‘Architect as Builder?’, Architecture, vol. 41, no. 3, 1953, p. 72.
142. ibid., p. 68.
128
1950s,143 the Institute took the issue to a larger forum:
In a vote conducted by each State the members of the RAIA agreed that Institute
members should be permitted to organize the construction of buildings, provided
their remuneration was a salary, fixed fee or a percentage of the cost that
accorded with the Scale of Charges. They did not agree, however, that members
should be permitted to tender in competition with builders for other architects’
work, or to quote a lump sum for designing and constructing a building.144
So in effect the challenge posed by Architon resulted in a loosening of the Code on one
level, while the traditional keystone of profession ethics — lack of competition between
colleagues — remained intact. Over coming years, the restrictive nature of the Code of
Ethics was increasingly questioned until a major overhaul occurred in 1969.
The ‘Package Dealer’
The rise of the ‘package dealer’, also sometimes referred to as the ‘promoter’ or
‘developer’, raised further questions in regard to the parameters of architects’ practice
and authority. These enterprises offered complete design and construction packages,
essentially cutting out the independent architect on building projects. They could
be operated by a builder, but more commonly were headed by an entrepreneur or
businessman. While Robin Boyd, from the distance of 1967, was to disparagingly
describe the phenomenon as ‘not exactly package so much as brown-paper-bag’,145
during the late 1950s and early 1960s the package dealer was perceived by the NSW
Chapter to represent a major threat to the profession. Initially concern related to large
commercial and government projects, but it soon became apparent that the package
dealer was also impacting on the domestic sphere.
Design and construction packages were nothing new within the Australian building
industry, however conditions in the late 1950s appeared to support a flourish of activity.
It was a buoyant time for the building industry, so the possibility of independent
architects being sidelined from major projects accentuated the Chapter’s concern.
143. Freeland states that the situation with Architon arose in 1954, but it appears to have come to a head
at Chapter level early in 1953 (PC, 2 April 1953, pp. 1-3).
145. R. Boyd, ‘The State of Australian Architecture’, AiA, vol. 56, no. 3, 1967, p. 456.
129
During the course of 1959, the subject of package dealers became a serious point
of discussion. In the middle of that year it was reported to Council that the Chapter
President, Max Collard, had met with the Minister for Education, the Hon R.J. Heffron,
to voice concern about the schools building program being carried out by package
dealers.146 By September that same year an ad hoc committee had been formed to
discuss the impact of package dealers overall. One of the committee’s first jobs was
to arrange a meeting with ‘a number of leading builders…to consider the subject’. It
appears that traditional builders were also apprehensive about the intrusion of package
dealers into their territory.147 Serious consideration was also given to employing ‘a
professional public relations consultant’ as well as a research officer to mount an
‘aggressive’ campaign to counteract the impact of the package dealer.148
In the meantime Architecture in Australia, which was based in Sydney, decided to
meet the perceived threat head-on and sought statements from ‘a representative group
of architects, planners, financial advisers and constructers’.149 These papers were then
discussed by the group at a forum organised by the journal. Those involved included
G.J. Dusseldorp, managing director of Civil and Civic Contractors Pty Ltd, Ronald
Collier, a financial advisor and R.D.L. Frazer, a town planner. Representing the
profession were Robert Demaine and Leslie M. Perrott Jnr from Melbourne and Sydney
architect Gerard McDonell. Denis Winston, Professor of Town and Country Planning at
the University of Sydney, chaired the discussion.
146. CM, 14 July 1959.

147. At the beginning of 1960 the NSW Chapter Council received a letter from the NSW Chapter of
the Australian Institute of Builders inviting it to participate in a discussion on ‘Package Deals’ in June.
Other organisations were expected to take part: the Institution of Engineers and the Association of
Structural Engineers. By 1962, the Executive of the NSW Chapter was keen to extend the relationship,
recommending to Council that an approach be made to the Australian Institute of Builders through the
Federal President of the RAIA inviting them to nominate a small number of their members to sit on a joint
committee on the subject with the aim of eventually producing statements on the ‘package deal’ from both
organisations which would at least be in support of each other (EM, 27 March 1962, p. 1).This was later
endorsed by Council (CM, 10 April 1962).
148. CM, 8 September 1959; PR, 24 September 1959.
149. ‘The Promoter’, AiA, vol. 48, no. 3, 1959, p. 50
130
An edited version of the papers was published in Architecture in Australia in September
1959, forming a special section entitled ‘The Promoter’. It began:
Among members of the architectural profession there is a growing awareness

of the emergence of a newcomer in the building sphere. Is this man a threat to
the traditional architectural practice or a challenge to the architect’s leadership
and independence, or have his apparent successes in a number of large-scale
instances underlines – perhaps exaggerated – his importance? …Whatever the
garb, he seems unanimous in the intention of replacing the traditional triangular
arrangement of client/architect/builder with a bi-lateral client/promoter one.150
It became clear that ‘promoter’ was an inadequate term. Dusseldorp, for example,
claimed the title ‘developer’ over ‘promoter’ on the basis that the latter related
‘specifically to real estate development’. He also contrasted ‘developer’ with ‘package
builder’, despite the fact that Civil and Civic provided full design and construction
services. According to Dusseldorp, what the package builder constructed ‘would
eventuate in any case’ while the farseeing developer was ‘the initiator of projects not
otherwise likely to eventuate’. Furthermore, he argued that the developer recognised
the ‘importance of the basic concept’ and therefore ‘does not put economy first, he will
spend to enhance the scheme’.151
Interestingly both the architects, McDonell and Perrott, were quite receptive to the
notion of a ‘promoter’, particularly in terms of it offering a role that the architect might
perform. Alternatively the architect could serve as ‘the natural leader of the professional
group engaged in the promoter’s project’. According to Perrott the emergence of the
promoter was a natural outcome of the growing complexity of building, town planning
and urban renewal: ‘the only possibility of bringing such projects to fruition is with
teams of specialists, generally co-ordinated by a Promoter. In many cases the results
provide not only big scale co-ordinated building but also distinguished architecture’.152
Both Perrott and McDonell raised the issue of architectural education in terms of its
needing to reflect the dramatic changes occurring in the building industry both in
150. ibid., pp. 46-63.

151. ibid., p. 53.
152. ibid., pp. 54-55.
131
Australia and overseas. Perrott went further by criticising the Code of Ethics as an
impediment to architects competing effectively in the new circumstances. Even the
much more senior Demaine came to the conclusion that if necessary ‘the Code must
be amended (a) for the good of the Building Public and (b) for the Architect’s own
good’.153
Interestingly, Professor Winston extended the discussion into housing, specifically
‘repetition housing’, as a field that required the kind of financial backing and resources
that only big concerns, government or commercial, could render:
architects have hardly entered this field at all. What great new idea in housing
has been forthcoming from architects in recent years? — and I mean housing for
the people, real housing in quantity at the lowest price. But how can architects,
especially private practitioners, contribute in this problem under existing
circumstances?154
While it was obvious that some members of the profession wanted to engage with this
new world of building development and investment, others persisted in lobbying the
Chapter about the impact that package dealers were having on their livelihoods. By the
end of 1959, the President Max Collard felt compelled to establish a clear position on
the issue. This was in the form of a statement published in the December Bulletin. By
this stage the concerns had been brought down to two key issues. Firstly, the pitfalls
associated with architects providing partial services, for example drawings, but not
being able to control the final result of the project. Secondly, the potential conflict of
interest and ethical dilemma that arose when the architect is employed by the builder
or developer not the owner of the building or project, and is therefore prevented from
carrying out his/her ‘true function of professional adviser to the Proprietor’. Overall,
however the tone of the statement was now cautionary rather than defensive:
In their own interests, Members should ascertain before agreeing to accept

engagement by a Builder or Developer, whether a Proprietor, other than the
Builder or Developer, exists at that stage. If such a Proprietor does exist, the
Architect should consider whether acceptance of such an engagement will
153. ibid., p. 53.

154. ibid., p. 55.
132
permit him to provide proper architectural service for the Proprietor.

Where no Proprietor for the building or project exists, however, and the
proposition is speculative on the part of a Builder or Developer, there seems no
objection to the Architect accepting a Builder or Developer as a client and
supplying whatever services are agreed upon at rates in accordance with the
Scale of Minimum Professional Charges.155
While this was meant as a definitive statement on the subject of package dealers,
continuing pressure by members forced Council to seek further guidance on the matter.
This was to become a long drawn-out process that involved a number of consultants
and the development of numerous strategies. The School of Applied Psychology at the
University of New South Wales was the first to be contacted in December 1959 ‘with a
view to carrying out a possible survey’ particularly in the relation to package deals.156
A year later the University responded with a research proposal from Unisearch Ltd.
Details were submitted under the following headings:
Part I - Survey of Institute Members £1,200

II - Motivation Research of Public Attitudes to Architects as Professional
Persons £2,400
III - Motivational Aspects of the “Package Deal” £2,400
IV - Pilot Study £2,150 157
Council responded by appointing an ad hoc committee to consider the proposals. The
suggested members of this committee included the Chairs of the Public Relations
Committee, the Professional Committee and Members Relations Committee. It is not
clear if this small group was ever convened.158
In the meantime it was felt that the best strategy was an ‘active public relations
campaign’. Interestingly, this was meant to be directed at both ‘the architect and the
public’, with the Professional Committee undertaking ‘a campaign towards providing
and maintaining good service to the public by the architect’.159 For its part, the
155. M. Collard, ‘The Architect’s Position with the Package Deal and the Developer’, Bulletin,
December 1959, p. 1.
156. CM, 14 June 1960, p. 9.
157. CM, 8 November 1960, p. 4. The details of Unisearch’s proposal however only appeared later in the
minutes of the Public Relations Committee meeting on 17 May 1961, p. 1.
158. CM, 8 November. 1960, pp. 4-5. It was noted at a meeting of Council on 11 April 1961 that the ad
hoc committee had not met (CM, 11 April 1961, p. 4)
159. CM, 13 July 1960, p. 7.
133
Public Relations Committee proposed a series of publications to be distributed to the
public, including something along the lines of ‘The Work of the Architect’, as well as
journal and magazine articles on ‘the value of an architect’ and a set of posters.160 The
strategy essentially revisited old ground and, early the following year, the Chair of the
Committee decided to seek professional assistance. He began by approaching a public
relations consultancy to develop a strategy for the Chapter. The consultancy provided an
outline of the areas that needed to be addressed:
1. The architect’s status in the community

2. The relationship between the architect and the R.A.I.A.
3. The architect’s relationship with other elements both professional and trade,
within the building industry.161
However, in order to formulate ‘a more clearly defined policy and public relations
programme’ it was decided that a survey was required. To this end, Evan Davies from
the School of Applied Psychology, University of New South Wales, was invited to
attend the next Public Relations Committee meeting in May. The earlier proposal by
Unisearch was reconsidered and it was decided that the first step might be to undertake
the Pilot Study. This was meant to be a general study in which all three aspects covered
by Parts I, II, and III be studied on a more restricted scale.162
Meanwhile, just as the committee was building up momentum, a public relations
disaster was about to unfold. On 27 May 1961, Civil & Civic placed a large
advertisement in the Sydney Morning Herald (Fig. 8). ‘Architectural Design’ was listed
as part of the company’s ‘complete design and construction service for Commerce,
Industry and Public Utilities’.163 The Chapter’s Professional Committee was incensed
and the matter was referred to the Board of Architects of NSW to consider whether
such advertising ‘contravened the provisions of the Architects Act’.164 By the end of the
year, the Committee was so concerned by the apparent increase in the type of activity
exemplified by Civil & Civic that it recommended to the Council ‘that practising
160. PR, 17 August 1960, p. 2.

161. PR, 15 March 1961, p. 5.
162. PR, 17 May 1961, p. 2.
163. Advertisement, SMH, 27 May 1961, p. 10.
164. PC, 1 June 1961, p. 6.
134
[architectural] firms be invited to contribute substantial sums of money to a special
fund for the purpose of undertaking Public Relations activities to counter Package Deal
builders. It was further considered that expert Public Relations consultants should be
engaged to implement the campaign suggested’.165
Council did act and early the following year organised a special meeting of the Chapter
to discuss the problem. This took place on 22 February 1962 and three resolutions were
passed ‘on the subject of the Package Deal and the Architectural Profession’:
(i) That a fund be set up to enable research to be carried out concerning the
relationship between the architectural profession and the public.
(ii) That as a matter of urgency a new and appropriate brochure on the work
of an architect be produced and made available to members and to the
public.
(iii) That a fund be created immediately with the aim of collecting a
minimum of £6,000 to commence research on the subject of the first
motion and for public relations activities, this sum to be obtained by a
general appeal to all members for contributions on a voluntary basis.166
Following the meeting, the Chapter Secretary Roger Greig submitted a prepared
statement to the Sydney Morning Herald. Ironically, despite the clear emphasis placed
on the careful crafting of public relations, this appeared to unleash a round of publicity
that quickly rebounded on the Chapter. On 27 February the Herald published an
article headed ‘Architects Plan Move Against Package Deals’ which included parts of
Greig’s statement.167 While the piece suggested no more than what had already been
discussed within the Chapter, Council was angered by it and described the article as
‘inaccurate and misleading’.168 It may have been that Council was embarrassed by
having the profession’s dirty linen aired in public. The article for example reported
that some architects ‘urged that to meet any challenge made by the package deal,
architectural practice and procedures should be modernised. They also stressed the
need for the architect’s training to be widened to include management and business
165. PC, 7 Dec 1961, pp. 2-3.

166. CM, 13 March 1962, pp. 12-13.
167. ‘Architects Plan Moves Against Package Dealers’, SMH, 27 February 1962, p. 16.
168. CM, 13 March 1962, p. 14.
135
Fig. 8: Advertisement for Civil & Civic’s ‘all-embracing service’.

(Sydney Morning Herald, 17 May 1961).
136
affairs’.169 The critical concern however was that the article suggested the Chapter had
adopted a confrontational approach towards package dealers, ‘endeavouring to create
animosity’.170 After all, the NSW Chapter had no wish to cleave a division between the
profession and a powerful and lucrative section of the building industry.
What made the situation worse was another article that appeared in the Sydney Morning
Herald on the very day of the Council meeting, again playing up the ‘architect versus
package dealer’ scenario.171 On the ‘Homes and Building’ page, ‘The Package Deal
Question’ was debated by ‘An Architect’, Basil Beirman, and a ‘Package Dealer’,
G.J. Dusseldorp. Beirman for his part trotted out the same old arguments regarding the
importance of open tendering and of the architect’s role as ‘intermediary’ between client
and builder, offering the sort of protection that ‘a package-deal operator’ could not.172
Dusseldorp opened his argument with the statement: ‘It is regrettable that the Institute
of Architects should see a menace to architects’ livelihood in the increasing number of
projects built on a firm design-and-construct basis’. He then proceeded to refute each
of the points put by Beirman including the issue of protection: ‘One might well ask
who protects the client from the architect?’ Dusseldorp’s main argument related to the
complexity of contemporary architecture – pinpointing one of the key issues with which
the profession itself was grappling:
The many complex specialities of modern building are putting unreasonable

demands on an architect seeking to co-ordinate all of them and trying to become
in the process a kind of superman, experts in all things…Architects as a body
cannot put the clock back. The enlightened designer willingly pools his talents in
a construction team. It is in this form that the future of large-scale construction,
both commercial, industrial and domestic, undoubtedly lies.173
169. SMH, 27 Feb 1962, p. 16.

170. ‘The President’s Column’, Bulletin, March 1962, p. 1.
171. ‘The Package Deal Question’, SMH, 13 March 1962, p. 14.
172. B. Beirman, ‘System Dangerous and Open to Abuse’, SMH, 13 March 1962, p. 14.
173. G.J. Dusseldorp, ‘Best Argument is Performance’ SMH, 13 March 1962, p. 14..
137
The Chapter Council was not amused.174 In the March issue of the Bulletin the
President, Albert Hanson, noted that ‘Since the meeting on the package deal matter
some statements have been made in the press by Members and some of these have not
assisted the matter’. He strongly urged members to send their articles to either him or
the Chapter Secretary before submitting them to the press.175
Meanwhile, the resolve expressed at the Chapter meeting on 22 February on the issue
of package deals was quickly dissipating. At an Executive Meeting held on 27 March, it
was resolved that:
professional research into the problem of the relationship between the

architectural profession and the public…[was] an unnecessary expense which
would probably produce no further result than a finding that knowledge of the
work and manner of working of the architectural profession is sadly lacking
from the public’s point of view. It was thought that our available funds could
best be spent in public relations activity to spread the knowledge of the value
and importance of architects’ services and generally to create an awareness of
the importance of architecture in the public’s mind.176
No action was to be taken regarding the raising of the £6000 for the time being, though
there had been moves to secure a professional journalist to write the proposed brochure.
By November this had been converted to a series of leaflets: ‘Advice for those about to
start building’, ‘Your House’ and ‘Buildings for Commerce and Industry’. These were
prepared by the Public Relations Committee and intended for wide circulation.177
While the puff seems to have gone out of the larger campaign, in July 1962 another
interesting facet of the package deal phenomenon emerged. At a Council meeting held
on 10 July, Chapter President, Albert Hanson, reported that over the last two to three
months the Small Homes Service (NSW) had been operating at a considerable loss: ‘It
was felt that this situation may be due partly to the activities of a number of package
deal organisations’.178 Perhaps it is no coincidence that Lend Lease Homes’ Carlingford
174. CM, 13 March 1962, p. 15.

175. ‘The President’s Column’, Bulletin, March 1962, p. 1.
176. EM, 27 March 1962, p. 1.
177. ‘“Why You Should Use an Architect” Public Relations Leaflets’, Bulletin, November 1962, p. 2.
178. CM, 10 July 1962, p. 2.
138
Homes Fair had opened in May that year, with its selection of architect-designed
display homes. On this occasion Council took an extraordinary step. It suggested ‘that
the Chapter might consider setting up some form of package deal arrangement with the
MBA of NSW in conjunction with the sale of plans from the Small Homes Services’.179
In other words, the Small Homes Service and the MBA would combine to provide the
kind of design-build packages that project builders such as Lend Lease Homes were
offering. At the following meeting, Hanson reported that the President of the MBA had
agreed ‘to refer this suggestion to members of the Association for consideration’.180
While nothing appears to have emerged from this proposed liaison, within two years the
Small Homes Service was again under threat from package dealers, but not on the basis
of limited service. Now the threat related to the quality of design – the ‘appearance of
capriciousness and lack of coherence in design compares unfavourably with the work
of better project builders’.181 By now there was a range of project builders on the market
that not only offered design and construction packages, but also engaged the services
of talented architects. That same month, Architecture in Australia published its first
article on the houses of Pettit Sevitt & Partners ‘designed by Ancher Mortlock Murray
& Woolley’.182
CONCLUSION
During the late 1940s and 1950s, the NSW Chapter of the RAIA as well as individual
architects became actively and publicly involved in finding solutions to contemporary
housing needs. These efforts were given a high level of exposure in the popular media
where modern design was identified with a modern way of living. This not only served
to lift the public profile of the profession but also identified its interests with a broader
segment of the community. In relation to the emergence of architect-designed project
housing during the late 1950s and early 1960s, these factors must be considered in
179. CM,10 July 1962, p. 2.

180. CM, 14 August 1962, p. 11.
181. N&I, 9 December 1964, p. 2.
182. ‘Four Exhibition Houses’, AiA, vol. 53, no. 4, 1964, pp. 88-90.
139
relation to the level of ‘acceptability’ and ‘accessibility’ that Zukin pointed out was
necessary for ‘the growth of any modern product market’.183
It was also during the late 1940s and 1950s that local architects were confronted by a
new industrial environment that challenged the fundamental basis of their professional
status: specialised knowledge and professional authority. There was a growing sense
within the NSW Chapter that the capacity of architects to survive within these new
circumstances, and to participate on equal terms with their competitors, was severely
compromised not only by existing educational practice, but something much more
fundamental — the profession’s Code of Ethics.

140
5
‘HOMES THAT SAY THE RIGHT THINGS’
Project Housing and the Architectural Profession in Sydney:
The Early Years
____________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Project home building emerged in Sydney in the postwar period, largely as an extension
of the long tradition of speculative building that had existed locally since the 19th
century. In both instances, houses were not produced for a specific client, but with a
section of the home-buying market in mind. However, project building differed in that
the house produced by the builder was clearly a display house that could be replicated
on the buyer’s land or, in some cases, on land purchased from the builder. Other
building work may have flowed from the speculative builder’s initial investment, but it
was not as formalised a process as that developed by the project builder.
During the 1940s and 1950s in Sydney, project builders appeared to generally target
the economy end of the home-buying market. Most display homes for example were
built in areas where land was cheapest, such as the western and southern suburbs of
Sydney. Typically designs were basic and conservative, economical building materials
predominated and prices were relatively low (Fig. 9). At the very end of the 1950s,
another style of project builder emerged. This new form of enterprise adopted strategies
that specifically targeted the middle market. It primarily located its operations in the
northern suburbs of Sydney and while its advertised product may not have been large,
expensively constructed or highly priced, it shared the important distinction of being
architect-designed.
This chapter will focus on the operation of three enterprises that emerged in Sydney
during the late 1950s and early 1960s: Sun-Line Homes, the Parade of Homes and Lend
141
Fig. 9: Advertisement for Archer Homes (Archer & Co) of Bankstown in Sydney’s west.
(Daily Telegraph, 1 March 1958).
142
Lease Homes. The Parade of Homes, by virtue of being a discrete project organised
by the Master Builders’ Association of New South Wales, might at first appear to be
the odd one out. However it will be shown that the Parade, like Sun-Line Homes and
Lend Lease Homes, provided an important model for the production and marketing of
architect-designed project housing in Sydney. All three enterprises will be discussed in
terms of their history, culture of production and the way in which they were received by
the architectural profession in Sydney.
Of particular importance will be the role that architects played within each operation.
This will be discussed in terms of du Guy’s interpretation of Bourdieu’s theories
concerning ‘cultural intermediaries’. Du Gay suggests that designers, together with
those working in advertising and marketing, play
a pivotal role in articulating production with consumption by attempting to

associate goods and services with particular cultural meanings and to address
these values to prospective buyers. In other words, they are concerned to create
an identification between producers and consumers through their expertise in
certain signifying practices.1
This chapter will determine if there is a correlation between the role that du Gay
describes and the one performed by architects who were commissioned or employed by
project builders to design housing for particular markets. This entails an examination of
the promotional and marketing strategies developed by Sun-Line Homes, the Parade of
Homes and Lend Lease Homes and the way in which these represented the role of the
architect. Those strategies will also be considered in relation to the way in which they
extended the connection between architects and affordable housing that had already
been established in the popular media and to some extent by the NSW Chapter’s own
efforts in the postwar period.
SUN-LINE HOMES
History
The project building company that came to be known as Sun-Line Homes was
143
established by David Jamieson in Sydney in the late 1950s. The business initially traded
under the name of David James & Company Pty Ltd,2 but within a short time operated
as Sun-Line Homes Pty Ltd.3 Jamieson was an entrepreneur, not a builder, nevertheless
his company set a new standard in the production and marketing of project homes in
Sydney.
The name ‘Sun-Line’ was originally applied to the first project house offered by
Jamieson’s company (Fig. 10). It was launched in 1958 at the Homes Exhibition
held in the Sydney Showground.4 As advertised in the Sunday Telegraph, the Homes
Exhibition that year included ‘five fully erected modern homes’ – all with ‘an emphasis
on economy’.5 David James & Company took out a full-page advertisement for the Sun-
Line in the same paper.6 Listed at £2995, its three-bedroom home offered economy, but
much more besides. This was an ‘architect’s dream-house of richly finished panels and
sheer walls of glass’.
The architect in question was W.J. (Bill) McMurray. Importantly, his name appears in
the advertisement along with that of the company’s surveyor in a highlighted list of
features that were meant to underline the ‘exceptional quality’ of the product on offer.
This appears to be the first time that an architect’s name was publicly associated with a
project home in Sydney. No record of the relationship that existed between McMurray
and David James & Company appears to exist, however it is clear, right from this early
point, that the architect’s involvement was understood to be integral to the image and
marketing of the product.
2. Advertisement, ST, 22 June 1958, p. 70.

3. Advertisement, DT, 27 July 1959, p. 24. According to the National Names Index on the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) website, Sun-Line Homes Pty. Limited was registered
on 30 December 1959. It was not deregistered until 22 November 1971. A David James & Co Ltd was
registered as a public company, but its registration and deregistration dates are not listed, http://www.
search.asic.gov.au (accessed 21 April 2005). Further investigation revealed that the files on both
companies had been mislaid by the ASIC during its relocation.
4. ‘Mass Production Eases Shortage’, SMH, 15 December 1959, p. 31.
144
Fig. 10: Advertisement for the Sun-Line home designed by Bill McMurray, 1958.
(Sunday Telegraph, 22 June 1958).
145
Implicit in the advertising was the suggestion that the architect’s expertise had served to
elevate the Sun-Line above the ranks of the ‘shoddy cheap-looking’ houses in its price-
range. This was ‘a contemporary home that you will be proud to show your friends’.
The house was described as a ‘luxury 3 bedroom home’, but in reality it was still a
modest structure. Timber-framed with a low-pitched fibro cement roof, it was only
ten-and-a-half squares (97.5 square metres) in plan. Nevertheless, the advertisement
repeatedly emphasised its spacious qualities achieved through clever planning and
openness to the outdoors. The combined lounge-dining area for example could be
extended through French doors onto a terrace at one side, and on the other to a sunroom
and porch through sliding doors. Stegbar ‘Windowalls’7 were also a major feature of
the design. The ‘Windowalls’, a modular system of pre-cut timber-framed components,
were infilled with a combination of glass and opaque panels – though there was the
option to have the glass ‘floor-to-ceiling’.
In addition to ensuring that a small, modestly priced house had reached its full potential,
there was also the implication that clever design had achieved the necessary savings to
allow the inclusion of an extensive range of ‘quality’ features in the selling price. Apart
from electrical installation, plumbing and painting, the £2995 also bought a carport,
floorcoverings, tiles, ‘duradec’ for the bathroom and kitchen walls, a hotwater service
and an electric range. Prominent brand names were represented, such as Berger Paints,
CSR, Simpson, Wunderlich and Stegbar. Clients were also assured that the ‘Sun-Line’
had been approved by all the major lending institutions including War Service Homes.
When the Homes Exhibition came to an end, the house was dismantled and re-erected as
a demonstration house on a site at St Ives, a northern suburb of Sydney.8 By July 1959,
the same house, slightly modified in plan, was advertised as a demonstration home on
the corner of Warringah Road and Fitzpatrick Avenue, French’s Forest, an adjoining
7. Robin Boyd designed the ‘Windowall’ for the Melbourne joinery company Stegbar in 1952–53. Boyd
used the system in his first project house the ‘Peninsula’, designed for Contemporary Homes Pty Ltd in
1955-56. See Serle, pp. 182-183.
8. ‘Prediction of Wide Use of 8ft Ceilings’, SMH, 15 December 1959, p. 31.
146
suburb.9 The company was no longer listed as David James & Company Pty Ltd, but
as Sun-Line Homes Pty Ltd. The price had also increased to £3,150. By September,
the French’s Forest site had become a ‘Demonstration Centre’ with the addition of
another display house – the Custom 9 designed by young Sydney architect Geoffrey
Lumsdaine.10
As originally displayed the Custom 9 was only 11½ squares (106.8 square metres). This
included three bedrooms, a bathroom with separate toilet and an open-plan kitchen,
dining and living area. A carport, workroom and screened patio added another 5½
squares (51 square metres). However, the dramatic line of the Custom 9’s low pitch
roof, that extended out over the terrace and carport, maximised the impression of
house size externally, while high raked ceilings and large expanses of glass enhanced
the perception of space internally. The listed ‘luxury’ features included a wall-oven
and counter hotplates in the kitchen, a built-in vanity bureau and shower recess in the
bathroom and a screened patio for entertaining.
By the end of 1959, Sun-Line Homes is meant to have also opened a ‘demonstration
centre’ in Canberra.11 The following year, the company was advertising four
demonstration homes or centres at various locations: the one at French’s Forest plus
Carlingford to the north-west, Kirrawee to the south, together with a display house
located on the fourth floor of Anthony Horderns department store in the city12. Sun-
Line Homes also ventured into estate development. It was reported at the end of 1959
that ‘the company has acquired subdivisions in Sydney suburbs on which fully planned
estates will be built’.13 While Sun-Line advertised ‘a number of master-planned estates’
in 1960,14 the only one that Geoffrey Lumsdaine recalls was the ‘Forest Heights Estate’
9. Advertisement, DT, 27 July, 1959, p. 24.

10. ‘First 8ft Ceiling Home in N.S.W. Approved by Council’, SMH, 15 September 1959, p. 10 and ‘Pre-
diction of Wide Use of 8ft Ceilings’, 15 December 1959, p. 31.
11. ‘Prediction of Wide Use of 8ft Ceilings’, SMH 15 December 1959, p. 31. Geoffrey Lumsdaine, who
was by this time consultant architect to Sun-Line Homes, cannot recall a centre in Canberra.
12. Refer Appendix 2.
13. ibid.
14. Advertisement, Sun, 5 August 1960, p. 33.
147
for which a glossy brochure was produced. The estate was located off Altona Avenue
Forestville, not far from the French’s Forest demonstration centre, and comprised
twenty-one lots. The house designs were drawn from the small range that Lumsdaine
had produced for the company, including the Custom 9. Lumsdaine provided variations
of each design and sited the houses on their blocks, endeavouring to provide each house
with a degree of privacy.15
By the beginning of 1961, however, Sun-Line Homes had collapsed. According to at
least one account, the company was undercapitalised and had over-borrowed.16 With
the credit restrictions in 1960–61 and their dramatic impact on housing construction,17
there was no possibility of survival. According to other versions, the problem was
financial mismanagement. The company had grown too quickly without a financial plan
to match.18 Accountant Brian Pettit, who had previously worked at A.J. Anderson,19 was
brought into Sun-Line in 1960 to sort out the problem. He soon realised that company
was in serious trouble.
It was about this time that Lend Lease demonstrated an interest in taking over the
company. According to Max Bowen, who was then marketing manager of Sun-Line
Homes:
Lend Lease … decided they wanted to go into housing. They’d never been in
housing and they had two ways of doing it – either creating a new division,
creating their own operation, or taking over an existing one. They identified Sun-
Line as being the one housing organisation that was worth taking over.20
Given Sun-Line’s financial situation however, Lend Lease did not proceed with its
plans. Instead, it approached members of Sun-Line’s management team and asked if
15. Interviews: Lumsdaine, 3 July 2001; Bowen, 23 April 2002.

16. Interview: Sevitt 28 July 1992.
17. J. Hutton, Building and Construction in Australia, F.W. Cheshire, Melbourne, 1970, p. 2.
18. Interview: Pettit, 16 June 2002 & Bowen, op. cit.
19. A.J. Anderson was a design and construction company specialising in industrial projects.
20. Interview: Bowen.
148
they would join Lend Lease in setting up Lend Lease Homes.21 The Sun-Line team then
comprised not only Max Bowen and Brian Pettit but also Rex Todd as construction
manager and Ron Sevitt as office and sales manager. Bowen, Todd and Pettit left to take
up related positions in Lend Lease Homes in January 1961.
Technically that was the end of Sun-Line Homes, however Ron Sevitt decided to take
on the task of completing the construction of those houses that were already under
contract. He invited Brian Pettit to join him in the new enterprise. After only a brief time
with Lend Lease Homes, Pettit left and together with Sevitt established Pettit, Sevitt
& Partners. The new company advertised its own project home and, contrary to the
common assumption that the first designs on Petitt & Sevitt’s books were provided by
architects Ken Woolley and Michael Dysart,22 it was the work of Geoffrey Lumsdaine.
His slightly modified Custom 9 appears on an early Pettit, Sevitt & Partners brochure,
making obvious the transitional stage between Sun-Line and the new concern. A few
years later in 1965, Rex Todd joined his old colleagues after leaving Lend Lease Homes.
The connection between Sun-Line and Pettit & Sevitt also extended to the relationship
that the latter company established with Ken Woolley and Michael Dysart. The initial
contact was through Max Bowen who, before joining Sun-Line had worked at the
Sydney furniture manufacturing company, Descon. At that time, Descon had plans
to extend into the production of standardised housing and contracted Woolley, who
was very talented at drawing, to illustrate the designs. Woolley later designed the
company’s metalworking factory at Brookvale, since demolished. It was through this
early relationship with Bowen that Woolley became involved with Sun-Line, together
with one of his colleagues in the Government Architect’s Office, Michael Dysart. The
21. This appears to be supported by an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, ‘Project Homes Open to
Public’ (17 October 1961, p. 23). (Lindie Clark has a different interpretation in her study of Lend Lease
and G.J. Dusseldorp. Drawing on an interview with long-term Lend Lease executive Ken McGrath, she
states that Sun-Line ‘was subsequently acquired by Lend Lease’ (Clark, pp. 269-70).)
22. No mention is made of Geoffrey Lumsdaine in any discussion of Pettit & Sevitt to date. See for
example in Boyd, Australia’s Home, p. 304; Taylor, An Australian Identity, pp. 62-63; Saunders & Burke,
p. 41; Royal Australian Institute of Architects Education Division, pp. 31-32.
149
two had already collaborated on a submission to Taubmans’ ‘Australian Family Home
Competition’, which they won in 1958. According to Woolley ‘The prize was £2,000 –
a considerable sum in those days, but it also received wide publicity and is the source
of both our individual careers in the field of housing’.23 The two young architects were
invited to design for Sun-Line Homes, and while a proposal they produced appeared on
a Sun-Line brochure (c1960) it is not known whether it was ever built by the company.
In summary, Sun-Line Homes’ history is interwoven with that of two highly significant
project building enterprises that emerged in the early 1960s: Lend Lease Homes and
Petitt & Sevitt. So while David Jamieson’s enterprise had folded by the beginning of
1961, those who had played a major role in the company went on to directly influence
the cultures of these two new enterprises.
Culture of Production and the Role of the Architect
David Jamieson’s background is thought to have been in the diplomatic corps of the
civil service. According to those who worked closely with him, it was Jamieson’s ability
to sell himself and his ideas that secured Sun-Line Homes generous deals with lenders
and product suppliers.24 It has been suggested, for example, that one of Sun-Line’s
major suppliers, CSR, provided substantial financial backing on at least one occassion.25
Significantly, Jamieson also had a strong interest in design. Max Bowen recalled that:
He was a bit of a hustler in many ways, but he had very good taste, he was very
design conscious. Liked to have historic houses and do them up and that sort of
thing. He was quite a sensitive sort of a person and I think his first motive was to
do it better than it had been done, maybe in the hope that there was a market out
there for something better.26
Jamieson’s interests enabled him to be quite specific in terms of what he wanted in a
23. K. Woolley, Pettit and Sevitt, draft three-page manuscript, 2004, unpag. In possession of K. Woolley.
The Australian Women’s Weekly featured the plans in its housing section and advertised that the plans
were available through its Home Planning Centres (‘Low Cost Houses for Family Living: Grand
Champion Design’, AWW, 1 October 1958, p. 49).
24. Interview: Bowen and Interview: Lumsdaine.
25. Interview: Lumsdaine.
150
project house. As Geoffrey Lumsdaine recalled:
Certainly he was the client and he was a man of considerable taste…We would
discuss things until we got to a design which he liked…he wouldn’t have chosen
anything, any old rubbish to sell. He would only choose something he was
happy to see associated with him.27
According to Lumsdaine, Jamieson was also very clear as to his intended market.
His market was the emerging group of professionals who were looking beyond
the triple-fronted brick bungalow and red tile roof. New ideas were appealing to
them. You had the young lawyers, accountants, stockmarket people.28
So in today’s parlance, the identified market for Sun-Line Homes was young and
upwardly mobile.
From the beginning, the building side of the operation was subcontracted, first to one
builder, then to a group of builders working in Sydney’s north, and later to another
group in the south. As the company developed, its organisation was based around the
management of production, marketing, sales and finance. A construction manager was
employed as well as a marketing manager, office and sales manager and an accountant.
Thus, unlike the traditional model of the small builder-operator that dominated the
Australian housing industry at that time, the building process was not central to Sun-
Line’s organisational structure. It was obviously still important, but it was clearly
separate.
It is difficult to determine just how innovative Sun-Line’s organisational structure

was at that time as it was not unusual for project builders to sub-contract the building
of their houses. However Sun-Line Homes distinguished itself in a number of ways.
Firstly, it used its organisational structure to define its public image. It represented itself
as a manufacturing concern, marketing and promoting its houses on the basis of good
design, efficient and largely factory-based production processes, a degree of choice in
style and finish, and competitive pricing — all the hallmarks of a successful product.
Even more importantly, it sought to differentiate that product by emphasising quality

28. ibid.
151
— quality that was achieved without compromise to the economic benefits of mass
production. Pivotal to this claim was the explicit involvement of the architect in the
process of production. That involvement was used to assure potential clients not only of
the quality of the product but also its customisation to their personal requirements.
This strategy had evolved to a large extent by the launch of Sun-Line’s first house in
1958. The full-page advertisement published in support began:
Sun-Line luxury 3 bedroom home yours for £3/15/3 a week. Hold a house-
warming party 8 weeks from now. “Sun-line” costs only £2,995. If you have
been house-hunting for a three-bedroom house in the metropolitan area, you’ll
know that estate agents are asking between £4,000 and £4,500 for just such
a house as this. This is not a shoddy, cheap-looking house! “Sun-line” is an
architect’s dream-house of richly finished panels and sheer walls of glass. The
feeling is spacious and luxurious. This is a contemporary home you will be
proud to show your friends.29
So in summary, ‘an architect’s dream-house’ set at a competitive price that was
efficiently produced to a tight schedule. The advertisement went on to detail exactly
what was included in the Sun-Line package from plumbing to wall finishes. Of course,
the display house itself, much like the taste sample offered in the supermarket, provided
the tangible experience.
Importantly, the benefits of architectural involvement with Sun-Line’s product were not
meant to be confined to the design alone. It was the architect’s expertise that mediated
the mass production processes that provided the savings to the customer. This was
implied in the advertising but was certainly explicit in an advertorial that appeared
in the ‘Homes and Building’ section of the Sydney Morning Herald on 15 December
1959. Under the heading ‘Prefabricated Homes Feature’, two articles were located
between advertisements for Sun-Line’s major suppliers.30 The main article, entitled
‘Mass Production Eases Shortage’,31 spoke at length about the economic benefits of

30. SMH, 15 December 1959, p. 31. Dulux paints, Monier concrete bricks, Rheem hot water, Grayworths
appliances and CSR building products.
31. The first article does not mention Sun-Line by name, just ‘one Australian firm’. However the images
used are of Sun-Line homes and identified as such. Together with the adjoining article, ‘Prediction of
Wide Use of 8ft Ceilings’, it is clear that the ‘firm’ is Sun-Line Homes.
152
prefabrication in housing and its potential for reducing the housing shortage. The
article was also at pains to emphasise the critical role of the architect in preventing
‘stereotypes’ appearing en masse: ‘The architect can draw from the storage bank of
component parts and design a great number of different homes by arranging the parts
in a variety of ways’. The message was simple. Great technologies can bring great
benefits, but these can only be realised through the mediation of a specialist — in this
instance, the architect.
This main article then leads into the second where the focus is Geoffrey Lumsdaine.
Described as a ‘consultant to Sun-Line Homes, a company specialising in building pre-
fabricated homes’, the article is mainly concerned with Lumsdaine’s advocacy of eight
foot (2.4 metre) ceiling heights32 particularly as they afforded ‘many economies…
in a prototype home’. It was estimated that the new height could save £30 to £40 ‘in
the average timber-framed home’.33 Nevertheless Lumsdaine warned about ‘the risk
of creating undesirable proportions in rooms’ if the height was adopted universally.
Creative intervention was obviously required.
As reported in the article, Sun-Line Homes had set a benchmark a few months earlier
by having the Warringah Shire Council approve the Custom 9 with its eight foot
ceiling. According to the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph34 this was
the first ‘8ft ceiling home’ to be built in New South Wales.35 The decision was not
without controversy. In the first instance, Sun-Line appears to have pre-empted the state
government’s decision to permit houses and flats to be built with the new ceiling height.
The second issue concerned the intrusion of demonstration homes into the Warringah
Shire. The Herald reported that ‘Councillor G. Jones said he would vote against the
proposal because he considered exhibition homes in “A” class residential areas were a
32. Then restricted to a minimum of 9 feet (2.7 metres).

33. SMH, 15 December 1959, p. 31.
34. ‘First 8ft Ceiling Home in N.S.W. Approved by Council’, SMH, 15 September 1959, p. 10; ‘First
Home to Get 8ft Ceiling’, DT, 15 September 1959, p. 5.
35. The articles refer to the house as being located in Forestville rather than French’s Forest, however the
site actually runs along the border of French’s Forest.
153
form of business…Warringah Road will become like Parramatta Road with exhibition
homes instead of car sales’.36
In reality Sun-Line Home’s claim to prefabrication was limited to the off-site
construction of wall frames and wall panels and the use of Stegbar ‘Windowalls’. This
in itself was nothing new – at least within that segment of the house building industry
that produced prefabricated or ‘pre-cut’ homes. Timber merchant George Hudson Pty
Ltd was one of the first companies in Sydney to offer a range of ‘ready cut’ houses.
It had been producing these since before the Second World War and its range became
very popular with owner-builders in the postwar period.37 Hudson’s was also known for
supplying its product to builders,38 so it is no coincidence that the firm is listed as the
timber supplier in Sun-Line advertisements.
Nonetheless, the efficient system of construction that was adopted by Sun-Line Homes
meant that the building site could be brought to lock-up stage relatively quickly. Once
the foundations went in and the timber flooring was installed, the erection of the timber
framework quickly followed. This allowed the roof to be constructed which in turn
provided weather protection for the installation of the exterior and interior wall panels.
The fact that Sun-Line concentrated its operations in particular areas also provided
efficiencies in production. As Max Bowen has noted
It was far more efficient to build in one area than to spread your building out.
That’s why spec. builders built in one street or one suburb, so your tradesmen
weren’t all over the place, deliveries of materials weren’t all over the place. The
economics of geographic closeness.39
In addition to ‘geographic closeness’, Sun-Line Homes also took into account ‘the
demographics of an area which suit the product’.40 Not that any formal market research
36. ‘First 8ft Ceiling Home in N.S.W. Approved by Council’, SMH, 15 September 1959, p. 10.
37. C. Pickett, The Fibro Frontier: A Different History of Australian Architecture, Powerhouse
Publishing and Doubleday, Sydney, 1997, p. 102.
38. Greig, The Stuff Dreams are Made Of, p. 86.
40. ibid.
154
was undertaken. According to Bowen, it was more a ‘subjective’ approach:
I think we recognised the market of people who lived in the sort of areas that
we lived in, that probably had the same sort of values, the same sort of tastes.
Probably young, progressive people…that’s why all of our marketing and sales
were in areas, new areas like French’s Forest and Forestville.41
While these young homebuyers may have been ‘progressive’, price was still a major
consideration. They wanted value for money. Accordingly, Sun-Line Homes’ advertising
emphasised both. The Custom 9 for example was marketed as ‘the greatest value in
building history’42 and ‘A Masterpiece of Architecture’. The latter translated to ‘pride of
ownership. Confidence. Wise investment’, not to mention ‘a reflection of your own good
taste’. Within this scenario, the architect became even more crucial. Indeed, by late 1960
Geoffrey Lumsdaine assumed a physical presence in Sun-Line Homes’ advertisements.
A photograph of Lumsdaine was accompanied by his personal endorsement of the
product.
This home is planned to reduce the strain of daily living…to make the owner
happier, more at ease…to draw the family together by providing a sophisticated
background for relaxed modern living.43
The advertising made it clear however that unlike ‘the case with many individually
designed homes’, ‘with Sun-Line there are no “beyond your means” quotes after months
of waiting’.44 In other words, Sun-Line’s product offered all the advantages and none of
the disadvantages of an architect-designed home.
Sun-Line cleverly capitalised on these perceived advantages by extending Lumsdaine’s

role. After paying a deposit and having their land surveyed by the company, clients were
entitled to meet with the architect to finalise design details. According to Lumsdaine:
we were able to look at the orientation and what the actual buyer wanted. You
could arrange things or you could flip the plan or turn it around. So there were
a number of things you could do to actually address the site and their particular
needs. Because they could have variations. They could have another bedroom,
put two rooms in one or do a few things like that…So it gave them some variety
41. ibid.
42. Sun-Line brochure, c1960 (GL).
43. Advertisement, Sun, 5 August 1960, p. 32.
44. ibid., pp. 32-33.
155
and control and it gave use some control over how the building was put on the
site, which was very important.45
All of this formed part of the company’s wider claim of providing the client with
‘complete individuality’ of product. ‘Sunline homes have many interesting internal
variations to suit the individual requirements of your own family’s mode of living’.46
Even within its ‘estates’, Sun-Line promised ‘complete individuality and privacy’ by
virtue of the ‘variety of home designs’ on offer.47 In reality, these were not extensive
and comprised variations on a small number of designs supplied by Lumsdaine.48
Furthermore, ‘The continued value of each home on the estates is ensured by the high
standard of adjoining properties, and careful overall planning of landscaping provides
an atmosphere for gracious living’.49
Providing assurance of a secure investment was always a major consideration. From the
beginning, Sun-Line Homes’ customers were advised that the house had been approved
by all the major lending institutions, including War Service Homes. Interestingly, it was
the fact that the company offered modern, distinctive designs that homebuyers required
extra assurance. Max Bowen recalled that Sun-Line had to go out and actively forge
relationships with financial institutions as:
It wasn’t just an accepted thing, because they were pretty conservative and
everyone likes the safety zone of what they know. They knew a G.H. Thomas50
home sold…They didn’t know whether this sort of home would have an ongoing
appeal, or whether it would be just a seven-day wonder.51
In this context, the role of the display house was highly important. Effort was put into
its furnishing and its surrounds. Also:
The fact that it had brand and identified products, standard detailing, people
knew what they were going to get. These were all the differences. If you had an
architect-designed home you didn’t really know what you were going to end up

46. Sun-Line brochure c1960 (GL).
47. ibid.
49. Sun-Line brochure c1960 (GL).
50. G.H. Thomas Pty Ltd, a project builder operating in Sydney from at least the late 1950s.
156
with - you couldn’t see what you were going to end up with…and if you bought
a typical G.H. Thomas, you didn’t end up with very nice things anyway…No
one innovated at all and put in things like wall ovens and that type of thing.52
An emphasis on quality materials and products reinforced that sense of security and
Jamieson was able to negotiate very good deals with major manufacturers and suppliers
such as CSR, Monier and George Hudson’s. The relationship with suppliers also
extended into the realm of experimentation with manufacturers such as CSR assisting in
overcoming technical difficulties with new designs.
Particularly things like insulation of the fibro roofs and the build-up of moisture
as a result of not traditional air spaces and so forth…CSR came to the party on
all those things…and helped develop ways of minimising it.53
According to Bowen, the relationship worked to the benefit of both parties:
We worked with these suppliers for pricing and marketing support, and they
found in us the means of marketing their product and going out into new
markets.
Bowen described this arrangement as ‘a total marketing concept’, and Sun-Line Homes
appears to be among the first project builders to attempt it.
In summary, the culture of production at Sun-Line Homes developed from the vision and
background of its founder, David Jamieson. He was not a builder in the conventional sense,
but an entrepreneur who had a strong interest in design and knew the market he wanted
to target. Building was always separate to the main business of the organisation, which
allowed marketing to become a dominant aspect of what Sun-Line Homes was all about. In
Bourdieu’s terms, Sun-Line Homes was in the business of ‘presentation and representation’.54
Within that context, the architect had a clearly identified role. The architect provided
a particular expertise, a way of ensuring that the product was both ‘smart and
contemporary’ and ‘value for money’.55 This would be described by Bourdieu as
52. ibid.
53. ibid.
55. Sun-Line brochure, c1960 (GL).
157
encoding the product through signifying practices. Furthermore, the architect was
portrayed in Sun-Line’s marketing as a mediator, between new technologies and the
limitations of the small house on the one hand, and the demands and aspirations of
the small householder on the other. In other words, the architect assumed the role of
‘cultural intermediary’ facilitating the process of identification between product and
consumer.
The Profession’s Response
Despite the fact that Sun-Line Homes appears to have been the first project builder
in Sydney to have proudly claimed architectural involvement with its product, the
enterprise received no official recognition by the local architectural profession. At a
time when housing design was significant enough for the NSW Chapter to operate its
own Small Homes Service, it seems surprising that Sun-Line Homes’ range of modestly
priced, architect-designed homes did not warrant a mention in either the Bulletin or
Architecture during the company’s three years of operation. To some extent, this may
reflect a cautionary approach on the part of the Chapter, given the current level of
concern over package dealers. Major questions regarding the role of the architect in
relation to such enterprises were not yet resolved.
While the Chapter’s focus was more on the commercial end of the building industry,
Sun-Line Homes still fell into the category of a design and construction operation. For
Geoffrey Lumsdaine, who had only just set up his own practice, negotiating his way
through uncharted territory created some difficulties.56 As he recalled: ‘I had to develop
the arrangement and I didn’t have a precedent and I got into trouble with the Chapter…
because one of Sun-Line’s advertisements had my photograph on it’.57
56. Robin Boyd had provided a precedent in Victoria through his involvement with Contemporary
Homes Pty Ltd in the mid 1950s, but this arrangement was short-lived and unsatisfactory from Boyd’s
point of view. Serle, p. 183.
158
The advertisement to which Lumsdaine refers is that which appeared in the Sun
newspaper in August 1960 (Fig. 11). It included a photograph of ‘Geoffrey Lumsdaine
B.Arch., A.R.A.I.A., A.R.I.B.A., Architect’ accompanied by a caption promoting the
Custom 9.58 Members of the NSW Chapter’s Professional Committee were not amused.
In the opinion of R.A. Gilling who chaired the committee, Lumsdaine’s presence in the
advertisement ‘could have been much more discreet’.59 It was deemed unprofessional
in light of the existing Code of Ethics. Lumsdaine was subsequently reprimanded by
the Chapter President, Max Collard, and, as the architect recalled, ‘Those were the days
when a dressing down by the President meant something’.60
Ultimately, the financial side of Lumsdaine’s arrangement with Sun-Line Homes proved
unreliable and disappointing. Nevertheless he regarded his experience overall in a most
positive light. ‘My whole practice really grew out of that [Sun-Line]. It was nothing
before then’.61 Apart from his brief association with Pettit Sevitt & Partners, Lumsdaine
also went on to provide a number of designs for Civic Constructions, another project
builder established in the 1960s. Meanwhile his practice continued to grow, through
both private commissions for houses and commercial projects. Lumsdaine’s association
with Sun-Line Homes also proved to be no impediment to achieving a high profile
within the NSW Chapter. Elected to Council in the 1960s and involved with numerous
committees, Lumsdaine served as Chapter President in 1972–74 and national President
of the RAIA in 1978–80.
PARADE OF HOMES
History
The proposal for a ‘Parade of Homes’ was first put to the Executive of the Master
Builders’ Association of New South Wales (MBA) on 22 April 1959. The President,
58. Advertisements, Sun, 5 August 1960, pp. 32-33 and 19 August 1960, pp. 34-35.
59. PC, 11 August 1960, p. 2.
61. ibid.
159
Fig. 11: Advertisement for Sun-Line Homes.

(Sun, 5 August 1960).
160
W.J. Bryant, announced that:
it had been suggested that the Association should organise a Parade of Homes
which could be summed up as a competition amongst members of what were
referred to as speculative homes, organized in such a way that considerable
publicity would accrue to the Association and the successful member.62
The fact that a very detailed and complete proposal for an MBA Parade of Homes was
already available for circulation to the Executive, would suggest that a model already
existed.63 The idea for such a project is almost certain to have been derived from a North
American model. State-based builders’ associations in the United States and Canada
had been mounting annual housing exhibitions, under the title ‘Parade of Homes’,
since at least the late 1940s. The Manitoba Home Builders’ Association appears to
have been among the first, its initial ‘Parade of Homes’ being presented in 1947.64
Closer to home, New Zealand took up the idea in 195565 and in March 1959 a Parade
of Homes, comprising forty-five display homes together with a hundred exhibits, was
also mounted in Melbourne.66 The Melbourne Parade had been organised by RCT
Riddell, the Managing Director of Exhibitions Promotions — a Melbourne marketing
group. While the driving force behind the Sydney proposal was meant to have been Syd
Mack,67 a prominent member of the MBA, it is likely that Riddell had input into the
proposal that went to the MBA Executive. He was quickly involved in the Association’s
‘Parade of Homes Sub-Committee’ when it was established and later took on the role of
‘Exhibition Director’.
Certainly, the proposal contained in the report reflected a very business-like approach.
Rather than framing the Parade as a pure public relations exercise, the event was meant
to attract a ‘substantial profit’ for the Association. Firstly it was to be a co-operative
venture with The Builders Exchange, The Builders Advisory, The Real Estate Institute
62. MBA, 5 May 1959: Report of the proceedings of the Executive Committee Meeting 22 April 1959.
63. MBA, 5 May 1959, ‘Parade of Homes’ report.
64. Http://winnipegfreepress2.com/specialsections/paradeofhomes (accessed 8 February 2005).
65. ‘Parade of Homes’, BLE, 24 March 1958, p. 51.The article in BLE suggests that the New Zealand
Parade of Homes was organised by an informal group of builders rather than an official association.
66. ‘The Master Bulders’ Association of New South Wales is Organising a Parade of Homes’,
Construction, 19 August 1959, p. 9.
67. MBA, 5 May 1959, p. 1.
161
of NSW and the RAIA. The Association of Co-Operative Building Societies, The Life
Assurance Companies of NSW, The Timber Development Association of NSW and the
Cement and Concrete Association of NSW were also expected to participate. The MBA
of course was to hold the controlling interest:
The Parade of Homes will be conducted by a Pty. company formed by the MBA,
having as its Chairman the President of the MBA; Directors of the company to
be appointed form the MBA and associate bodies.68
Admission charges, rental from exhibitors and sales of the published plans were also
expected to offset expenses.
A suitable location for the Parade had already been identified: Cherrybrook Gardens,
New Farm Road, West Pennant Hills — a northern Sydney suburb, located north-west
of Forrest Hills. Described in the report as a ‘good’ suburb, West Pennant Hills was
also meant to be ‘an area of intense building development, particularly in the bracket
from £5000 to £8000’.69 It was also noted that the site was ‘handy’ to the new shopping
centres constructed at West Ryde, Pennant Hills, Top Ryde, Eastwood and Parramatta.
Located one mile from Pennant Hills Station, it was also within ‘easy walking distance’
of buses and schools.
It appears that the ‘Cherrybrook Gardens Estate’, as it became known, was already
subdivided into quarter acre blocks offering 70 to 90 foot (21.3–27.4 metre) frontages.
There were also roads and drainage of ‘high standard’. The site offered two streets,
‘ideal for two different brackets of building’, with no requirement to build to a
predetermined style. The idea was that ‘the Estate can create its own style’. Each house
was to be fully furnished and its surrounds landscaped so that ‘its presentation for sale
will be at a far higher standard than any “spec builders” cottage’. It was particularly
important that the houses ‘have the best of everything’ as they would be entered in a
competition to be judged by the general public and a panel of judges.70 Even this could
68. MBA, 5 May 1959, ‘Parade of Homes’ report, p. 1.

69. ibid., p. 3.
70. ibid.
162
be used to advantage by the MBA: ‘The analysis of the Public’s choice of home and
points could form the basis of very interesting statistics. It will give an indication what
the public wants’.71
Forty-six builders were to be selected from the membership, ‘either by ballot or
recommendation’. These builders would purchase a block of land on the estate,
construct a house, and offer it for sale during the course of the exhibition. A large
financial institution had been approached about assisting the builders with finance, and
had agreed ‘to consider every individual application for short term finance’.72 It was
also noted that approaches to seven of the principal home financing institutions in New
South Wales had resulted in a proposal that representatives of these organisations would
attend the Parade of Homes to negotiate for prospective buyers.73
There was no question that the houses would sell. In addition to being located on ‘the
best land available’, the Executive was reminded of how well ‘exhibition homes’ were
doing for the cottage building industry ‘in the lower bracket’. According to the report,
‘resulting sales of contracts from these cottages is huge – sometimes as many as 10 or
15 sales in one weekend. This can be done in the medium bracket – nobody has ever
done it but the demand again is very nearly the same’.74
It was resolved by the Executive Committee that a meeting ‘of interested members’
would be convened the following month to further discuss the proposal.75 As a result,
a Parade of Homes Sub-Committee was established that included the MBA Executive
and five other members. The sub-committee took responsibility for the ‘initial
arrangements’ and for seeking support from associated organisations.76 The original
idea of establishing a company under the aegis of the MBA had to be abandoned due to
71. ibid., p. 4.
72. ibid., p. 2.
73. ibid.
74. ibid., p. 4.
75. EMBA, 22 April 1959, p. 1.
76. EMBA, 19 May 1959, p. 1.
163
taxation issues,77 so it was resolved instead to appoint a Parade of Homes Management
Committee comprising W.J. Bryant and S.O. Edwards from the Executive and ‘those
members of the Council of Management who were participating in the erection of
cottages for the Parade’.78 It was also resolved that a professional marketing group,
Riddell’s Melbourne-based Exhibition Promotions, would be responsible for ‘the full
promotion under the control of the Parade of Homes Management Committee’.79
At the first meeting of that committee, the ground rules for builders participating in the
Parade were set.80 There was a substantial entrance fee of £325, but participants could
be sponsored by ‘persons, firms or institutions whose major interests are in the Building
Industry’.81 Much emphasis was placed on standards of ‘workmanship’, which had to
be ‘of the highest order of which the participant is capable’. If standards were not met,
the ‘offending builder’ might be ordered to remove his house at his own expense. The
houses were to be judged in two groups, based on their selling prices (unfurnished
but including land): less than £6000 and less than £8500. The judging criteria and
their associated weighting out of 500 were: design (50); planning and layout (100);
construction (200); work and materials (50); initiative in the use of materials (75) and
landscaping skill (25). It was also noted at the meeting that plans of all the houses in
the competition were to be made available to the Australian Women’s Weekly for sale
through its Home Plans Service. At a later meeting it was made clear that the Weekly
was ‘at liberty to publish all or any of the plans and that they will not be required or
expected to make any payment to any person claiming any copyright or other interest
in any plan’.82 The Weekly was not to be upset. It not only sponsored two houses in the
Parade, but together with its Consolidated Press affiliate, the Daily Telegraph, could
extensively promote the project and provide it with extensive coverage during its
showing.
77. EMBA, 30 June 1959, p. 1.

78. MBA, 14 July 1959, p. 10.
79. ibid.
80. PMBA, 14 July 1959.
81. ibid., p. 2.
82. PMBA, 21 October 1959, p. 2.
164
Despite the enthusiasm of the MBA executive and the best efforts of Riddell, progress
was slow. The date for the opening of the Parade had been set for 21 January 1960, but
as late as August 1959 it was reported that the response rate from potential participants
was still ‘very poor’.83 By September only thirty contracts had been signed,84 though it
had been established early on that a minimum of forty participants was required.85 In
November there was concern expressed over the poor progress of house construction86
and even nine days before the grand opening in January, it was reported that ‘several
builders were still behind and will be working hard to have their cottages completed in
time’.87
When it finally opened on 21 January 1960, ‘The Mighty Parade of Homes’ was
billed as ‘Sydney’s Greatest Homes show ever!’, not to mention ‘The largest Homes
Exhibition ever presented in the Southern Hemisphere’ (Fig. 12). The Cherrybrook
Gardens Estate boasted ‘35 architect-designed, Master-built homes’, with 230 fully
furnished rooms and landscaped gardens.88 Crowds of people and their cars converged
on the estate for the official opening. In fact, the event had to be delayed for half an
hour while the Minister for Housing made his way through congested roads with the
help of a police escort.89 Just before the Minister’s congratulatory speech, the winning
house entries were announced: Syd Mack’s three-bedroom brick veneer with green
tiled roof and double carport (designed with the assistance of the Australian Women’s
Weekly Home Plans Service), scooped the pool by winning both best house and best
interior (designed by Mrs Mack). Second prize went to W.C. Brown and Mowbray’s
three-bedroom brick veneer designed for F.L. & F.G. Sattler Pty Ltd, and third to Harry
Divola’s timber house for A.E. Swane & Son Pty Ltd.90
83. PMBA, 13 August 1959, p. 1.

84. PMBA, 23 September 1959.
85. HMBA, 16 June 1959, p. 1.
86. PMBA, 17 November 1959.
87. PMBA, 12 January 1960.
88. Advertisement, DT, 21 January 1960, p. 10.
89. ‘The Parade of Homes’, BLE, February 1960, p. 26.
90. ibid., pp. 22-28.
165
Fig. 12: Advertisement for the Parade of Homes.

(Daily Telegraph, 21 January 1960).
166
The thirty-five houses on display offered visitors a wide variety of choice in terms of
both price and design. The cheapest house — constructed in concrete blocks and a
little over 10.5 squares (97.5 square metres) — was listed at only £3044. The majority
however ranged between £4500 and £6500. The most expensive, in solid brick with
three bedrooms and a double carport, was advertised at £8,000. Naturally, prices
reflected the size and quality of the product. While the average size of the houses was
still a modest 12.6 squares (117 square metres), nearly a third were above 14 squares
(130 square metres), the largest reaching 16.4 (152.3 square metres). By comparison,
Sun-Line Homes was still advertising its Custom 9 in 1960 at 11.5 squares (106.8 square
metres). The vast majority of houses came with three bedrooms and a carport or garage.
Two were displayed with swimming/wading pools. Over a third were constructed in
brick or brick veneer, with others combining brick with concrete blocks. Weatherboard
was also used in a number of houses, which to some extent reflected the interests of the
timber industry which supported the project in various ways.91 But it was also linked to
the underlying principle of providing variety of choice to potential home-buyers and by
implication defined the scope of work that a Master Builder could offer.
By the end of the Parade’s four-week showing, it was estimated that over 200,000
people had inspected the site.92 Within the first five days, 28,678 adults and 5480
children were recorded at the gate with £3694/18/0 being earned from entrance fees, car
parking and program sales alone.93 Sales figures for the display homes however were
not so impressive. In May it was reported that only seventeen houses had sold to that
point94 and by the end of August there were still eight without buyers.95 Nonetheless, the
MBA was extremely pleased with the outcome of the project which, after all, was not
91. Kauri Timber Coy and West Pennant Hills Timber and Hardware Pty Ltd sponsored two houses for
example, and the Timber Development Association of Australia (NSW Branch) was one of the Parade’s
overall sponsors.
92. MBAAR, 1960, p. 8.
93. PMBA, 27 January 1960, p. 1.
94. PMBA, 31 May 1960, p. 2.
95. Interestingly, of the remaining houses some were architect-designed and some were not, and
collectively there was no obvious consistency in price, style, size or building materials.
167
just about selling houses. In its annual report for 1960, it recorded:
This Parade was the biggest and most influential exhibition of its kind ever held
in the Southern Hemisphere. Both the Association and those members who
exhibited gained valuable publicity from this venture.96
It was considered such a success, that within two months of the opening, the MBA
was planning another Parade97 which appears to have taken until 1963 to be realised.
Mounted at Killarney Heights to the north of Sydney near Middle Harbour, this Parade
of Homes was co-sponsored by Woman’s Day magazine and the L.J. Hooker Group.98
A much smaller project, it comprised only seventeen houses. Nevertheless a significant
number were again architect-designed, including some familiar names such as Geoffrey
Lumsdaine and McMurray McElhone. The ‘major attraction’, the ‘Woman’s Day
Dream Home’, was designed by prominent Sydney architect Sydney Ancher of Ancher
Mortlock Murray99 — the practice Ken Woolley was to join less than twelve months
later. While receiving substantial publicity, the 1963 Parade was nowhere near as
ambitious or ground-breaking as its predecessor.
Essentially the Parade of Homes was a marketing exercise consumed with the
‘representation and presentation’ of the MBA and its members. When the President
opened the event, he explained that ‘the purpose of the Parade was to demonstrate to the
people of Sydney the skill of members of the M.B.A. and that fact that quality homes at
a reasonable cost can be produced’.100 That sentiment was consistently reiterated in all
the marketing and promotion associated with the event.
To achieve its end, the Parade’s organisers drew and expanded upon the methodology
of the project builder as well as the more established tradition of speculative building.
96. MBAAR, 1960, p. 8.

97. MBA, 15 March 1960, p. 1.
98. ‘Parade of Homes Feature’, SMH, 5 April 1963, pp. 19 & 21.
99. ‘Great Interest in “Dream Home” Killarney Heights’, SMH, 13 April 1963, p. 5.
100. ‘The Parade of Homes’, Construction, 27 January 1960, p. 1.
168
As already noted, the MBA conceived the Parade along the lines of traditional
speculative building, with each exhibiting builder making an investment and hoping
for a return not just on the house displayed, but on any work that might come from it.
Nevertheless, the houses were cast in the mould of demonstration homes, not ‘spec built
cottages’. This was very clear in the way in which they were advertised and presented.
Applying the marketing methodology of project housing, prospective buyers were told
that apart from the option of buying the houses on view they could also order similar
designs to be built on their own land.101 The Estate as a whole was also promoted as an
‘exhibition’ or demonstration centre. With its thirty-five display homes, the Parade in
fact established a new benchmark for demonstration centres in Sydney. This was the
first time that prospective buyers were not limited to variations on one or two display
homes and a small catalogue of designs. Now there were thirty-five individual houses
from which to choose. In this environment, variety of choice became a key selling point.
Many different types of homes have been built for the Exhibition, ranging from
starkly modern to moderate conventional designs, although most have been
specially designed to suit Australian conditions. The price range of the 35 homes
varies from £3,500 to £8,000 — to cater for all types of home buyers.102
In order to further enhance that sense of variety, the houses were meant to be
individually packaged (Fig. 13). Firstly they were presented as furnished homes. The
Furnishing Society of NSW was responsible for this aspect of the project and, according
to its President, the furnishing retailers involved ‘had attempted to cater for every
taste…furniture displayed at the Exhibition would be suited to the particular design
of the home and in keeping with the cost’.103 The houses were also meant to have
their own landscaped settings:‘ every plot of land…has been landscaped to tone with
and complement each one of the 35 houses in the parade. Many of Sydney’s leading
landscape gardeners have designed and laid out these gardens’.104 This approach was
101. The Australian Women’s Weekly’s sponsorship of the event complicated the issue to some extent, in
the sense that plans of all the houses were also available through its Home Planning Service.
102. ‘Master Builders’ Association’s Parade of Homes’ supplement, DT, 20 January 1960, p. 33.
103. ibid., p. 40.
104. ibid.
169
Fig.13: The ‘All-Electric Home’ designed by Samuel Lipson and Kaad and sponsored
by the Australian Women’s Weekly for the Parade of Homes.
(Australian Women’s Weekly, 10 February 1960).
170
meant to reflect the planning of the Estate as a whole: ‘The plan is to preserve to the
utmost the natural charm of this area. Wherever possible, trees are being preserved’.105 It
seems that the Cherrybrook Gardens Estate offered the best of both worlds for whatever
bucolic charms the ‘rural, wooded setting’ was meant to possess, the promoters were
quick to point out that the Estate was also ‘handy to transport and other amenities for
family living’.106
In keeping with the theme of individuality and variety of choice, ‘architect-designed’
became an important part of the marketing package. This was not a major point of
consideration during the course of the Parade’s development, but by the time of its
opening ‘Architect-designed and Master-built homes’ ranked second only to ‘The
largest Homes Exhibition ever’ in the list of the Parade’s fourteen advertised attributes.
In reality, builders and at least one local draftsman107 were responsible for the design of
some houses, however a large proportion was designed by architects.108
Among those involved were Harry Seidler, Ken Woolley and Michael Dysart, Harry
Divola, Samuel Lipson & Kaad and McMurray McElhone – McMurray being W.J.
McMurray who provided the first design for Sun-Line Homes. Some entries in terms
of design, plan and use of materials challenged the norm of ‘builders’ housing. Harry
Seidler’s three-bedroom house with its flat, angled roof and ‘bi-nuclear’, split-level
plan109 for example was constructed in concrete blocks and blond faced bricks. Woolley
and Dysart’s flat-roofed, timber-framed house was similarly adventurous. Square in
plan, all rooms faced a central courtyard while the external walls were essentially a
combination of glass and Granosite.110 The design was a slightly modified version of the
architects’ winning entry for the Taubmans’ ‘Australian Family Home Competition’ in
105. J. Halstead, ‘A Parade of Homes on Woodland Site’, AWW, 25 November 1960, p, 69.
106. ibid.
107. Alan V. Doust of Epping who was responsible for the design of two houses in the Parade.
108. Seventeen of the houses were designed by registered architects. The plans of five others were meant
to have been supplied by the Australian Women’s Weekly, which offered architect-designed plans within
its larger portfolio.
109. See Seidler, Houses, Interiors and Projects, p. xvi
110. Granosite was a form of pre-finished asbestos cement sheeting.
171
1958.111 Other architects such as Samuel Lipson & Kaad, Harry Divola and Nado Milat
also produced houses that were distinctive either through the use of non-traditional
materials, for example timber or concrete blocks, or by virtue of the roofline, extensive
use of glass, unusual plan or interior detailing. However, that cannot be said for all the
architect-designed entries. W.C. Brown and Mowbray’s three-bedroom brick veneer for
example, with its pitched tiled roof and long stone-faced entrance ramp, demonstrated
little attempt at innovation. In some cases, it was obvious that the design preference of
the builder was the major deciding factor. McMurray and his partner John McElhone
for example produced two houses for the Parade. One, for builder R.M. Thompson,
was a small 10 square (92.9 square metres) weatherboard house, with a pitched roof,
that was similar in design and plan to the Sun-Line and included Stegbar ‘Windowall’
components. The other, for builder Stewardson, Stubbs and Collett, was a white-painted
brick veneer house with pitched roof, small-paned windows and extended veranda. It
was described as ‘Modern-Colonial’.112
Such variation in approach was seen or at least promoted by the Parade as an advantage
— variety of choice being one of the main selling points. As the Women’s Weekly put
it: ‘Designers with conservative ideas are vying with such architects as Harry Seidler,
whose advanced designs have always provoked controversy’.113 In other words, the
involvement of architects like Seidler provided more interest and choices for the
homebuyer. According to the Daily Telegraph, ‘The Parade has been regarded as a
competition — architect against architect and builder against builder’114 — with the
prospective home-buyer being the ultimate winner. Variety of choice in design was in
turn linked to new developments in construction and building materials:
With such a variety of style and design, naturally a large range of building
materials, both internally and externally, have been used. The homes have been
constructed in brick, timber and masonry veneer. For the interior finishes all the
111. ‘Dream Home’, A&A, no. 61, November 1958, pp. 28-29; ‘Low-Cost Houses for Family Living:
Grand Champion Design’, AWW, 1 October 1958, p. 49.
112. ‘The Parade of Homes’, BLE, February 1960, p. 32.
113. Halstead, p. 68.
172
latest materials available to the building industry have been used, some being
shown for the first time.115
In this context, architects could be seen to portray a mediating role between new
materials and technologies and the general public. Their ‘advanced’ designs enabled the
‘latest’ developments to be demonstrated.
In addition to carefully composing the physical package, the MBA also recognised the
importance of providing homebuyers with whatever assistance was needed to clinch
a sale. Trained hostesses were meant to be located in every house to offer information
and advice. Representatives of the major lending institutions were also on hand to assist
prospective buyers while members of the Real Estate Institute could advise on holdings
of available land in the metropolitan area.116 More than a hundred building exhibits
were also advertised, with technical advisers at each stand to provide advice on the cost
and use of the ‘latest’ materials. Added attractions included a children’s playground,
cafeteria, model aircraft display and generous parking facilities. And for those without
their own vehicles, a special bus service had been arranged to transport people from and
to the nearest train station.
According to the Women’s Weekly, the retail environment created at the Parade of
Homes was designed to make
home-buying a pleasure instead of an exhausting search. The houses will be for

sale or you can arrange to have similar designs built on your own land. Thus
you will have the advantage of knowing exactly what you are getting. Houses,
fittings, and furnishings will show price tickets. Because most people are
working to a limited budget, this practical arrangement will enable them to plan
their entire home and its contents.117
The one-stop shopping analogy was made more explicit in another issue of the Weekly
which likened the experience of visiting the Cherrybrook Gardens Estate to ‘shopping
for a home in a convenient supermarket’118. The Daily Telegraph was similarly
115. ibid., p. 34
116. ‘Guide Book to Parade of Homes’ supplement, AWW, 20 January 1960, p. 2.
117. ‘Simple But Striking Design’, AWW, 30 December 1959, p. 38.
118. ‘Two Contemporary Houses’, AWW, 23 December 1959, p. 38.
173
impressed: ‘The “take it or leave it” days of home buying have gone; the exhibition of
35 modern homes on the Cherrybrook Gardens Estate provides a “shop” for the home
builder’.119
In essence, the Parade of Homes was a marketing exercise. As such, its culture of
production was based around ‘representation and presentation’. While the participants
might not have been project builders, its organisers drew on that industry’s methodology
- the display house - and enlarged upon it by creating a display village. This was to
establish an important milestone in the history of display housing, most particularly in
terms of its retail environment. While the Parade of Homes may not have been as slick
a production as the elaborate project home villages that have opened in Sydney in more
recent times, it certainly established the basic guidelines: variety of choice, optimum
presentation of product, free information and advice and pleasant distractions.
Within this context, the role of the architect was still important, but not in the same way
as it had been for Sun-Line Homes. The architects who were involved with the project
still performed the role of ‘cultural intermediaries’ in the sense that their expertise in
‘signifying practices’ was used to guarantee the representation of the ‘new’ and the
‘modern’ at the Parade. Nevertheless, all of that was absorbed into the project’s larger
promotion and marketing strategies as a way of supporting its claim to providing quality
along with variety of choice and experience. But then the architect was not the hero in
this scenario. That part was reserved for the master builder.
As to be expected, the Parade of Homes received substantial coverage in the building
press120 in addition to the extensive exposure provided by the popular media. The
architectural press, on the other hand, largely ignored the event. The Parade failed to
120. ‘The Parade of Homes’, Construction 27 January 1960, pp. 1-3; ‘The Parade of Homes’, BLE,
February 1960, pp. 26-31.
174
rate even a mention in Architecture or the Bulletin, despite the fact that a significant
number of Sydney architects had been involved in what was then the largest homes
exhibition ever mounted in the state. By comparison, the Bulletin had given quite
a lengthy note on the outcome of the Taubman’s Family Home Competition in
1958, inviting members to an exhibition of all the entries from New South Wales.121
Nonetheless, a little over a year later, it did not feel compelled to record the fact that
Woolley and Dysart’s winning entry had actually been constructed at the Parade.
The two houses that Samuel Lipson and Kaad had produced for the Parade were
featured in the Melbourne-based Architecture and Arts.122 as well as Architecture
Today,123 but without any broader discussion of the event itself.124 Interestingly, the
previous issue of Architecture and Arts had published an article on ‘The Builders’
House 1960’125 where it had applauded the rise of the ‘volume builder’. It noted the
economic benefits and quality improvements now available to the consumer in this
type of housing – particularly when an architect was involved. Perhaps the editors felt
the Parade was more a publicity exercise than a true representation of any blossoming
relationship between house builders and architects. Nevertheless, given the profile of the
event and its level of popular success, the overall lack of acknowledgement is difficult
to understand, especially within a Sydney context.
Despite publicly ignoring the Parade, the NSW Chapter was in fact very aware of
its existence. Less than eight months after the event, it seriously considered another
proposal for a housing exhibition that was discussed explicitly in terms of the
Cherrybrook model. As will be shown, the Chapter’s own records make it clear that
it did recognise the success of the Parade and was keen to be involved with another
project like it.
121. ‘Taubmans’ Family Home Competition’, Bulletin, August 1958, unpag.

122. ‘Two Space-Maker Houses’, A&A, vol. vii, no. 77, 1960, p. 39.
123. ‘Two “Minimum Area” Homes’, AT, vol. 2, no. 6, 1960, pp. 22-23.
124. Architecture Today did briefly mention the event in its March edition under ‘News’, p. 9
125. ‘The Builders’ House 1960’, A&A, vol. vii, no. 76, 1960, pp.48-53.
175
LEND LEASE HOMES, THE 1962 DEMONSTRATION VILLAGE AND THE
THE CARLINGFORD HOMES FAIR
History
In October 1960, two representatives of the Australian Women’s Weekly met with the
Public Relations Committee of the NSW Chapter. One of the two men was Melbourne
architect Kevin Borland, who was then co-director of the Weekly’s Home Plans Service.126
He and his colleague had come to discuss the magazine’s proposal to ‘hold an exhibition
of houses at Carlingford, similar to that held at Cherrybrook’ earlier in the year.127
The exhibition was to be a joint venture with Lend Lease. This rapidly growing property
development enterprise had only been established in 1958, but its portfolio to date
already included residential estate development128 as well as major commercial projects.
According to Clark’s account, by the end of the 1950s the Managing Director of Lend
Lease, G J Dusseldorp, ‘was on the look-out for ways to extend Lend Lease’s operations
in the residential field’.129 In September 1960 it was reported in the architectural
press that the company was planning major housing projects at Macquarie Fields in
Campbelltown, a western Sydney suburb, and in Carlingford, a neighbouring suburb to
West Pennant Hills.130
The site chosen for the exhibition formed part of the area in Carlingford that Lend Lease
was planning to develop as the Kingsdene Estate. At this stage, the land was still to be
released from the Green Belt and a plan for the development of the site, prepared by
Sydney architects Clarke, Gazzard & Yeomans, was before the Baulkham Hills Council
and Cumberland County Council.131 The design of the exhibition houses was to be
126. The other director was architect Geoff Trewenack with whom Borland shared a practice in Melbourne.
127. PR, 13 October 1960, p. 1.
128. First in Middle Cove and then elsewhere in Sydney and also Newcastle. See Clark, p. 188.
129. ibid.
130. ‘News: The Lend Lease Corporation Group’, A&A, vol. vii, no. 83, 1960, p. 19. The A&A article
states that Lend Lease was planning ‘a large-scale housing development at St Ives where Lend Lease has
bought big tracts of land’. This was incorrect.
131. PR, 13 October 1960, p. 1.
176
determined by an architectural competition. It was proposed that the first, second and
third-prize winning designs would be built on the estate, together with approximately
twenty other houses selected from the entries submitted. The Australian Women’s
Weekly was to finance construction.
The initial idea was to launch the competition in January or February of 1961, complete
the judging by the end of March and commence building at the beginning of August.
However, problems in meeting this schedule soon emerged.132 A delay in the release
of the site from the Green Belt was said to be largely responsible for the planned
architectural competition being abandoned early in 1961. By way of a compromise,
Lend Lease advised that it would now commission a small group of architects to carry
out ‘the necessary work’ for the exhibition.133 It took until May the following year for
this new proposal to be realised.
In the meantime, Lend Lease formally established its own housing division, Lend
Lease Homes, at the beginning of 1961. Key positions within this new enterprise were
occupied by staff from Sun-Line Homes – Brian Petitt went to finance, while Max
Bowen and Rex Todd assumed the roles of Sales Manager and Production Manager
respectively. A.J. Howard headed the team as General Manager. Within ten months,
Lend Lease Homes had completed its first project home village. The futuristically
titled 1962 Demonstration Village was opened on the Kingsdene Estate by the Minister
for Housing on 11 October 1961 (Fig. 14).134 It consisted of five houses: Golden Key,
Cabana, Regal, Pan Pacific and Beachcomber designed by architects in the design
department of Civil & Civic, Lend Lease’s building subsidiary (Fig. 15).135 One of these
architects was Nino Sydney who had only joined the company that year. Sydney shortly
went on to become Lend Lease Homes’ Chief Architect, a position he held until 1973.
132. PR, 7 November 1960, pp. 1-2.

133. PR, 15 March 1961, p. 1.
134. ‘Model Village Opened’, DT, 12 Octber 1961, p. 11.
135. ‘Project Homes Open to Public’, SMH, 17 October 1961, p. 23. Lend Lease acquired Civil & Civic
from its Dutch backers in 1961. See Clark, p. 244.
177
Fig. 14: Advertisement for Lend Lease Homes’ 1962 Demonstration Village on the
Kingsdene Estate.
(Daily Telegraph, 13 October 1961).
178
As the house names suggest, and as the advertising reinforced, the five designs were
meant to offer the consumer a variety of choices: ‘See bungalows. Ranch homes.
Cantilever designs. Split-levels. Contemporary homes’.136 In fact, at least two —
Cabana and Golden Key — were based on the same plan, but while the first was
presented in a more traditional way with red brick walls and red roof tiles, the latter
had a distinctly modern look with its dramatic roof line and raked ceiling. In terms
of price, the houses as displayed ranged from ‘economy’ to ‘pedigreed’ — £3995
and £5750 respectively — and in size from 14.85 squares (137.9 square metres) with
three bedrooms to 20.45 squares (189.9 square metres) with four bedrooms and two
bathrooms. Like the Parade of Homes, emphasis was placed on the presentation of the
houses: ‘Each of the homes has been carpeted and furnished to act as a guide to the
future furnishing of the homes and to enable furniture placement to be considered when
choosing a particular model’. In addition, ‘a fully equipped children’s play area under
the supervision of a trained nurse’ was located at the demonstration centre, along with
‘complete car parking facilities’.137
There were also similarities to the Sun-Line formula in that homebuyers were not
limited to the designs on display. According to Nino Sydney, there were thirteen
floorplan variations on offer.138 Also, after paying a deposit, and having their land
surveyed by the company, clients had access to a ‘Lend Lease architect’ to finalise the
finer points. Lend Lease Homes however took the process one step further. In addition
to the demonstration village, it opened a showroom at Lend Lease’s headquarters in
Macquarie Street in the city. As reported in the ‘Lend Lease Homes Lift-out Feature’ in
the Daily Telegraph:
Visitors to the elaborate and comprehensive Lend Lease Homes showroom…

can see samples of all types of materials used in the houses as well as a complete
specimen kitchen and photographs of the many models of Lend Lease houses.139
136. Advertisement, DT, 13 October 1961, pp. 18-19.

137. ‘Lend Lease Homes Lift-out Feature’, DT, 9 April 1962, p. 20.
138. Interview: Sydney, 14 July 2000.
139. DT, 9 April 1962, p. 21.
179
Fig. 15: Beachcomber designed by Nino Sydney for Lend Lease Homes’
1962 Demonstration Village.
(Lend Lease Homes for 1962 brochure, NS).
180
A consultant was also on hand to meet with prospective homebuyers and, if appropriate,
refer them on ‘to any of the special executives of the organisation’. These included an
architect who interviewed each client, decided on the orientation of the chosen design
and prepared plans and specifications for presentation to the local council. Additionally,
for ‘the person with a financial problem’, an advisor was on hand ‘to help solve’ any
difficulties.140
In terms of the construction of the houses, Lend Lease Homes also adopted the Sun-
Line approach of subcontracting the work. This was identified as ‘a system of Franchise
Builders’ and the company was very careful about the way in which this was described:
The detailed building operation in the Lend Lease Homes method of production,
is carried out by a system of Franchise Builders. These builders have been
carefully selected on a basis of their past performances, their ability to get work
done, and their knowledge of modern building principles’.141
It was also made clear that each builder was given ‘a pre-determined area’ in which he
had operated ‘for several years’ thereby affording him special local knowledge. This
combined with the fact that he would be ‘handling the one type of product continually’
meant that the building team would ‘reach a stage of efficiency unprecedented in the
history of the industry’. In order to reinforce that it was indeed a ‘system’ that formed
part of a larger operation, prospective homebuyers were assured that construction was
undertaken ‘in a manner which is completely controlled by specialised officers of Lend
Lease Homes’.142
The formula met with substantial success. In less than six months, it was reported
that Lend Lease Homes had sold more than one and a half million pounds worth of
houses.143 According to Nino Sydney, it was on the basis of the public’s response to
the 1962 Demonstration Village, that the company decided to spread its operations
interstate.144 In six months Lend Lease Homes had display houses in Canberra and in
140. ibid.
141. ibid., p. 20.
142. ibid.
143. ‘Lend Lease Homes Lift-out Feature: Striking Housing History’, DT, 9 April 1962, p. 19.
144. Interview: Sydney, 14 July 2000. The claim appears to be supported by Murphy, p. 89.
181
twelve months they were on show in Melbourne.145 On 27 October 1962, it had also
opened its second demonstration village, comprising ten new house designs,146 on the
Kingsdene Estate.147
In the meantime, the joint venture with the Australian Women’s Weekly finally came
to fruition in May 1962. As predicted, it no longer took the form of an architectural
competition but was presented instead as the Carlingford Homes Fair. Located on
a small section of the Kingsdene Estate, it included twenty-four homes: nineteen
designed by seven local architects along with five different versions of the Lend Lease
homes presented in 1961. According to Nino Sydney,148 Lend Lease Homes originally
contacted about ten architectural practices to be involved in the project but on receiving
their submissions decided to invite just seven: Harry Seidler, Ken Woolley and Michael
Dysart, Clarke, Gazzard and Yeomans, John P. Ley, Lightfoot and Stanton, Neville
Gruzman and Towel, Jansen and Rippon. Each practice designed at least two houses,
most produced three.149
The style of houses produced by the commissioned architects varied, from Seidler’s
tightly composed geometric forms (Fig. 16) to Ley’s light and open structures (Fig.
17). Some took an explorative approach to the brief. According to Philip Goad,
Gruzman’s three brick and timber houses, for example, were distinguished not only
by the arrangement of brick piers and pergolas that linked them, but by the fact that
they represented early examples of Gruzman’s interest in the architecture of Frank
Lloyd Wright and included two of his ‘very first pitched [and tiled] roofs’.150 Distinct
variations also occurred within the designs produced by the one practice, such as the
145. The same five houses built at the 1962 Demonstration Village were built in Canberra and Melbourne.
146. Including Beachcomber Mk. II.
147. Advertisements, SMH, 27 October 1962, pp. 7 & 9.
149. Seidler had an established relationship with Lend Lease, having designed Blue Point Towers for
the company in 1959 as well as Lend Lease House in 1961. Clarke, Gazzard and Yeomans also had an
association with the company, having designed the plan of the Kingsdene Estate and the exhibition site.
150. P. Goad, ‘A Reflective Landscape: The Architecture of Neville Gruzman’ in N. Gruzman & P. Goad,
Gruzman: An Architect and His City, Craftsman House, Fishermans Bend, Victoria, 2006, p. 24.
182
Fig. 16: One of three houses designed by Harry Seidler for the Carlingford Homes Fair
of 1962.
183
Fig. 17: ‘Home No 17’ designed ‘as economically as possible’ by John P. Ley &
Associates for the Carlingford Homes Fair of 1962.
184
three Woolley and Dysart houses. One was called the ‘Free Form’ house reflecting its
irregular plan and varying floor levels. Timber-framed with a flat roof of bituminous felt
and gravel, the house was designed to be constructed in concrete blocks with fascias and
external window frames in exposed timber. This idea of combining concrete blocks and
exposed timber was also applied to Woolley and Dysart’s second house, but this time
the blocks were to be laid vertically for different effect (Fig. 18). Long and low, the flat
metal-roofed house also had a more formal, rectangular-shaped plan where the central
living area separated the parents’ rooms from those of the children. The third house was
a split level with laundry, toilet and ‘lobby’ located on the lowest level, a combined
living-dining area and kitchen on the next, with bedrooms and bathrooms above (Fig.
18). This time, weatherboard was the primary external facing, with large expanses of
glass also used. Unlike the other houses, this one had an off-centre gable roof laid with
tiles.
The materials and surface finishes used in the two houses designed by Clarke, Gazzard
and Yeoman’s are also of interest. Both houses had similar plans in that the rooms of
each ran in-line down two sides of a central courtyard. One house was of brick veneer
construction, the external walls bagged and painted white. The other house was also
brick veneer, but this time the clinker brick was left with its original surface. Both
also featured tiled roofs and like the three Woolley and Dysart houses, exposed wood
featured prominently. All of these materials and treatments were characteristic of what
became known as the ‘Sydney School’, but they also became the staple of architects
designing for project builders during the 1960s and 1970s — most particularly Woolley
and Dysart’s work for Pettit & Sevitt. Certainly both Woolley and Clarke Gazzard and
Yeomans151 had already used these devices in other houses, but this is the first time that
they appeared in the context of a display home.
151. For example Woolley’s own house at Mosman, completed in 1962, and Don Gazzard’s Herbert
House in Hunters Hill, completed 1961. Gazzard notes that his clinker-brick house for the Carlingford
Homes Fair was in fact a ‘developed version’ of the Herbert House. See D. Gazzard, Sydneysider: An
Optimistic Life in Architecture, Watermark Press, Boorowa NSW, 2006, p. 40.
185
Fig. 18: Two of the three houses designed by Ken Woolley and Michael Dysart for the
Carlingford Homes Fair: (l) the ‘Fifteen-Square House’ and (r) the ‘Split-level’.
(Australian Women’s Weekly, 13 June & 11 April 1962).
186
Like the Parade of Homes, the plans of those houses designed by the seven architectural
practices could be purchased through the Weekly’s Home Plans Service. The magazine
also published the designs in successive issues, with the assurance that ‘all the houses
can be adapted to suit any site’.152 The other five homes were only available through
Lend Lease Homes. Collectively, all the houses were promoted on the basis of size
- ‘they are all two-or three-bedroom homes’, variety of style — ‘traditional, ranch-
type, split level’, variety of building materials — ‘brick, timber, concrete masonry
and aluminium siding’ and variety of price - ranging from £6750 to £12,750.153 Like
the Parade of Homes, promotion also placed an emphasis on the total package: house,
interiors and surrounds. Demonstrating ‘new trends in home design and interior layout’,
the houses showcased the ‘newest’ furniture and appliances. Sites were ‘pleasantly
varied’. Some were ‘heavily wooded’, with houses set attractively among the trees’.
Others were ‘sloping and open with views across the rest of the estate’.154
While the Fair had opened to the public on Saturday 19 May,155 a gala launch was
organised five days later that was filmed and telecast by the Australian Women’s
Weekly’s television affiliate Channel 9 (Fig. 19).156 Officially opened by the President
of the Baulkham Hills Shire Council, the event was also ‘compered’ by Tommy Hanlon
jr, who was joined by other popular Channel 9 personalities such as Dawn Lake and
Jimmy Hannon.157 According to the Weekly a large crowd attended the opening158 and
‘thousands’ reportedly inspected the Fair during the first few weeks of its showing.159
Certainly, there was much to see. Like the Parade of Homes, the Fair was presented
along the lines of a Homes Show providing a potent combination of product sampling,
free information and pleasant distractions. In this instance, most activity was centred
152. ‘Designed for Children’, AWW, 25 April 1962, p. 45.

153. Advertisement, DT, 18 May 1962, pp. 14-15.
154. ‘Kingsdene Prepares for its Homes Fair’, AWW, 28 March 1962, p. 23.
155. Advertisement, DT, 18 May 1962, pp.14-15.
156. ‘On TV Today’, DT, 24 May 1962, pp. 29 and 25 May 1962, p. 12.
157. ‘Homes Fair Opening’, AWW, 6 June 1962, p. 9.
158. ibid.
159. ‘Carlingford Homes Fair’, Construction, 13 June 1962, p. 4.
187
Fig. 19: The gala opening of the Carlingford Homes Fair on 24 May 1962.
(Australian Women’s Weekly, 6 June 1962).
188
in a temporary exhibition hall. This contained an information booth where the details
of products and furnishings were available, a refreshment bar offering drinks and
sandwiches, a display of models showing future housing developments around Sydney
and ‘an all-plastic model of the Monsanto Home in Disneyland’.160 The hall was also
the setting for cookery demonstrations on gas and electric ranges. Further enhancements
were provided in the form of a nursery and playground, and parking facilities for 2,000
cars. Information on all twenty-four homes was provided in a thirty-two page booklet
produced by the Australian Women’s Weekly, and ‘complete details about finance’ were
also available.
Certainly, in terms of public response the Fair was a great success. Even with an
admission charge, it managed to attract large crowds. Nino Sydney recalls that, similar
to the three ‘demonstration villages’ that Lend Lease built in Sydney and Melbourne
between 1961 and 1962, ‘the first weekends were incredible. Traffic jams for miles,
enormous crowds, excellent reception by the public. I have never experienced anything
like that again’.161
It has since been claimed that the Carlingford Homes Fair ‘launched’ the project
house as ‘a viable alternative to individual architect designed or builders housing’.162
Certainly the Fair represented an important milestone in the history of middle market
housing in this country, most particularly in terms of the level of involvement by

independent architects. However, the only project homes shown at the Fair were in fact
‘builders housing’. These were the five homes designed by Lend Lease’s own in-house
architects. The nineteen houses designed by independent architects were all one-offs
— notwithstanding the fact that the plans were available for sale through the Weekly.
As Ken Woolley recalled: ‘They were not intended for repetition but for exposing new

162. Taylor, Australian Architecture Since 1960, p. 143. There is also some confusion about the year of
the Carlingford Homes Fair. It was held in 1962, not 1961 – the year given by Taylor. See also Taylor, An
Australian Identity, p. 59 as well as Saunders & Burke, p. 42.
189
ideas to public reaction’.163 According to Nino Sydney, Lend Lease Homes did have the
option of selecting from the nineteen designs for its own range, however the company
chose not to pursue this.164 After the Fair closed on July 1, 1962, the nineteen houses
were sold as one-offs.
Nevertheless, at least two of the houses in modified versions were to become the staple
of another project building firm, Pettit & Sevitt. This was the ‘Split Level’ and the flat-
roofed, single-storey house designed by Ken Woolley and Michael Dysart. In addition
to these designs, Pettit & Sevitt gained much from the model provided by the Kingsdene
Estate. Growing out of Sun-Line, its modus operandi followed the same basic model:
customised, architect-designed project homes aimed at the middle market – albeit a
more closely defined segment. However the partnership also adopted (and eventually
refined and extended) many of the marketing techniques employed at the Kingsdene
Estate, some of which of course can be traced back to the Parade of Homes. Finally
there was also continuity in terms of personnel. Brian Pettit left Lend Lease Homes
to join Ron Sevitt in forming Pettit Sevitt & Partners in 1961. Four years later, when
Rex Todd left Lend Lease Homes, he joined his old colleagues from Sun-Line Homes,
becoming their Production Manager.
Lend Lease Homes, was largely shaped by the vision of Gerardus Jozef (‘Dick’)
Dusseldorp, Managing Director of both Lend Lease and Civil & Civic. As an employee
of the latter company once noted: ‘The culture started with Duss’.165 Born in the
Netherlands where he trained as an engineer, Dusseldorp had only arrived in the country
in 1951. By the early 1960s, he had overseen the development of Civil & Civic from
a small Dutch-backed contracting firm to a major independent force in the Australian
construction industry. He had also established Lend Lease Corporation which began as
163. K. Woolley, Pettit and Sevitt, draft three-page manuscript, 2004. In possession of K. Woolley.
165. A.Cull quoted in Clark, p. 72.
190
the development arm of Civil & Civic in 1958 but within three years had acquired its
sponsor from its Dutch backers.166
When Civil & Civic won the prestigious contract for the construction of the first stage
of the Sydney Opera House in 1959, the Daily Telegraph reported that the company had
‘progressed at an astonishing rate…and is today regarded as one of the leaders in the
industry’.167 The newspaper attributed this achievement to ‘the company’s revolutionary
ideas’ that had ‘resulted in reduced building costs, higher quality buildings, and higher
pay for building workers’.168 Dusseldorp was the driving force behind this innovative
approach, creating a culture of production within Civil & Civic and Lend Lease that
few within the building industry could match. As a more recent article in the Sydney
Morning Herald noted in relation to Dusseldorp’s legacy:
The Lend Lease “culture” was a by word for progressive management. It was
built on Dusseldorp’s philosophy that workers, shareholders and customers
should share rewards. He introduced employee share-ownership plans that
extended down the hierarchy and a profit-sharing scheme’169.
Even the past secretary of the Builders’ Labourers Federation, Jack Mundey, was quoted
as saying, ‘It was a unique culture of dignity and respect’.170
Innovation combined with a level of altruism or sense of a larger purpose and
responsibility, underpinned Dusseldorp’s public image and that of the companies
he represented – including Lend Lease Homes. When this new division of the Lend
Lease enterprise launched its first range of project homes in October 1961, the Sydney
Morning Herald reviewed them in the following way:
The homes show just what can be done in design and cost-wise when a
businessman at the top of a highly organised and experienced building company
tackles a housing problem. He goes to the experts in all fields — architects,
builders, suppliers of materials, fittings and fixtures. There is no skimping
in detail and money has been available for research into overseas and local
166. Clark, p.72

167. ‘Newcomer Gets Contracts’, DT, 9 February 1959, p. 21.
168. ibid.
169. A. Horin, ‘Builder’s Vision saw Sydney Grow and Fortune Shared’, SMH, 23 October, 2002, p. 2.
170. ibid.
191
construction methods that give quality housing for far less money than is
possible with individual home building.171
‘Businessman’ may have been an inadequate description of Dusseldorp, however it
did serve to underscore a business-like methodology that was directed towards the
provision of a quality product. According to another article in the Herald, Lend Lease
Homes was intending ‘to play a major role in the rising standard of house requirements
in Australia’.172 After investigating ‘local and overseas trends’, it had decided to focus
its energies, at least initially, in ‘the field considered to be “above average” in the
mass housing market’ — particularly given that ‘lower value homes were being well
catered for and that the market was extremely competitive’.173 A sense of the customer
profile within this targeted market was provided in the promotional lift-out feature that
appeared in the Daily Telegraph: ‘Inspection of the Lend Lease village is a regular
Saturday or Sunday outing for about-to-be-married couples as well as those who already
have a family and want better living conditions’.174
In terms of the public image developed for Lend Lease Homes, the quality and
innovation claimed for its product were explicitly linked to its culture of production.
Again, it was made very clear that this culture was an extension of that already
developed within Lend Lease itself. This hinged on the principle of a totally integrated
operation - from the point of selecting and assessing a site, through all the stages of its
development, including design, construction and marketing. As reported in the Sydney

Morning Herald in a feature on Lend Lease Homes:
Key staff in the production and sales field were appointed and when initial
planning began it was decided that maximum use would be made of the
large Design Department of Civil and Civic, a building subsidiary of Lend
Lease Corporation, rather than employ outside architects. The original design
stage took five months and close liaison was established between the design
department, architects, and Production and Sales Executives.175
As projected in this image, key staff such as Bowen, Todd and Pettit had brought
171. ‘Twenty Squares in Project Home’, SMH, 13 October 1961, p. 11.

172. ‘Project Homes to Public’, SMH, 17 October 1961, p. 23.
173. ibid.
174. ‘Lend Lease Homes Lift-out Feature: Five Choices of Design’, DT, 9 April 1962, p. 20.
175. ‘Project Homes to Public’, SMH, October 17 1961, p. 23.
192
specialised knowledge and skills from Sun-Line Homes that had influenced Lend Lease
Homes’ approach to production and sales. Nevertheless, that expertise served only to
enhance rather than change an existing culture. As described, once having joined the
housing division, the new personnel were quickly absorbed into the larger integrated
structure.
It was also made clear that, in addition to a culture of production, Lend Lease Homes
also shared its parent’s vast resources. By virtue of Lend Lease’s land holdings around
Sydney, its housing division could offer homebuyers the choice of building on their
own land or purchasing a ‘house-land’ package. Lend Lease could also supply many
of the building materials from its own companies, which included a brick-works,
timber-yard and window factory by the latter half of 1961.176 These advantages were
neatly encapsulated in Lend Lease Homes marketing catchphrase: ‘Lend Lease Homes
builds you a better home – and makes it easier to own!’. As explained in one of its
advertisements for the 1962 Demonstration Village:
Lend Lease Homes are easier to own because of the building skills, designing
know-how and vast resources of the Lend Lease group of companies have
effected tremendous savings on your Lend Lease home…savings which have
been passed straight on to you.177
A key element of this pledge to build ‘you a better home’ included architectural
involvement. This was explained under the heading ‘Better-Designed Homes’ in the
same advertisement:
Lend Lease homes incorporate the newest architectural techniques. These

techniques, formulated by our architects after years of Australian and overseas
experience, have created homes that say the right things about you and your
family. Exteriors are superbly proportioned. Interiors are traffic-planned and
thoughtfully detailed. From gate to gable, Lend Lease homes are wonderful to
live in and own.178
In providing the ‘designing know-how’ that generated savings and produced homes ‘that
176. ‘Project Homes Open to Public’, SMH, 17 October 1961, p. 23 and ‘Lend Lease Builds for a Big
Future’, SH, 22 October 1961, p. 86.
177. Advertisement, DT, 13 October 1961, pp. 18-19.
178. Advertisement, DT, 13 October 1961, p. 19. The same claims were repeated in the Lend Lease
brochure for the 1962 Demonstration Village.
193
say the right things’, the architect was again cast in the role of ‘cultural intermediary’.
The important distinction in relation to Sun-Line Homes and the Parade of Homes
however, was that these particular designers were un-named and formed part of a brand
entity – ‘our architects’. Even when Lend Lease Homes had its own twelve-page ‘Lift-
out Feature’ on the 1962 Demonstration Village in the Daily Telegraph,179 no faces or
names were put to the architectural team. It was described only as ‘the large Design
Department of Civil and Civic Pty Ltd., Lend Lease’s giant construction associate’.180
At the same time however, A.J. Howard, Rex Todd, Max Bowen and F. Smith (Finance
Consultant) were all given by-lines for their individual contributions to the feature.181
At this point in the company’s history, it seems that it was more important to emphasise
the designing might of the larger enterprise than to profile the individual architects
involved.182 This in turn reinforced the image of a totally integrated culture.
The 1962 Demonstration Village, along with subsequent Lend Lease Homes’
villages on the Kingsdene Estate, were designed entirely by in-house architects. The
Carlingford Homes Fair was quite a different proposition and provided another sort
of opportunity. Essentially, Lend Lease used the project as a way of enhancing its
image as a forward looking organisation, concerned with innovation and raising the
standard of the Australian residential industry: ‘Lend Lease Homes and The Australian
Women’s Weekly have long nurtured the ideal of creating truly Australian homes…
We are confident the Carlingford Homes Fair will herald a new era in Australian
home building’.183 Architectural involvement was clearly critical to this claim. An
advertisement that Lend Lease Homes placed in the Daily Telegraph was headed
disingenously ‘5 Lend Lease Homes Chosen For Exhibition At The Carlingford Homes
179. DT, 9 April 1962, pp. 19-30.

180. ‘Highest Quality Houses for Thousands’, DT, 9 April 1962, p. 19.
181. Even a consultant at the Lend Lease Homes display showroom, Miss Deborah Sherry, was profiled
in the feature.
182. Later, Nino Sydney as Chief Architect of Lend Lease Homes, did achieve a public profile,
particularly in the context of the NSW Chapter’s Project Homes Awards. See also N. Sydney, ‘A New
Basis for Housing Development Advocated’, SMH, 16 November 1965, p. 17. It should also be noted
that in 1965 Lend Lease commissioned Robin Boyd to design all of the houses for its Appletree Estate in
Melbourne.
183. Carlingford Homes Fair, brochure, 1962 (MB), p. 2.
194
Fair’.184 It went on:
Lend Lease Homes is the only building organisation exhibiting homes at the
Carlingford Homes Fair…because only lend Lease Homes are designed to the
new “forward look” in architecture. Now 5 of the famous Lend Lease Homes’
designs take their place (along with 19 other homes designed by Australia’s
leading architects) at the Carlingford Homes Fair.
The approach had been reinforced a few pages before this in an advertisement devoted
to the Fair that read ‘24 new homes…designed by top architects’.185 Essentially, Lend
Lease Homes used the Carlingford Homes Fair as an opportunity to underline its own
architectural credentials — or rather those of the larger integrated organisation, Lend
Lease — and its stated agenda of raising standards within the housing industry.
In summary Lend Lease Homes’ culture of production grew out of that which was
already established within the parent company. Its culture was based on the principle
of integration where all aspects of its operation from design through to marketing were
inter-related and drew on the strength and resources of the enterprise as a whole. The
‘presentation and representation’ of Lend Lease Homes, through its marketing and
public relations exercises was firmly based on this premise, with the customer reaping
the rewards from a forward-looking, efficiently run business. Within this context,
architects still played the role of ‘cultural intermediaries’ in creating ‘houses that say the
right things’. However their individuality as designers was not capitalised upon. Rather
it was subsumed within the integrated whole that was Lend Lease.
The response of the profession, as represented by the NSW Chapter of the RAIA, to
the 1962 Demonstration Village and the Carlingford Homes Fair has to be seen within
the context of its concern about package dealers at this time. By the early 1960s, Lend
Lease together with Civil & Civic were in a position to offer the ultimate design and
construction package. It was in fact Dusseldorp who had waded into the public debate
184. Advertisement, DT, 18 May 1962, p. 17.

195
to respond to what the press described as ‘The Package Deal Question’.186 While being
reluctant to openly offend this powerful force within the development and building
industries, the Chapter endeavoured to respond to the perceived threat primarily through
public relations strategies, but with little apparent success.
When it came to the proposed joint venture with Lend Lease and the Australian
Women’s Weekly in 1960, the Chapter tried to establish a position of some control.
From the very first meeting, suggestions for improving the project were mooted. These
included some constructive and innovative ideas such as the inclusion of ‘some form
of experimental housing (e.g. row housing)’ and for teams of architects to work on
‘groups of buildings rather than individual houses’.187 Then, at a subsequent meeting
of the Public Relations Committee, a further six suggestions were made as to how the
competition might be run. These again included some constructive ideas, but there
was also a recommendation that the amateur submissions proposed for the competition
should not be built. The point was also made that the architects involved should be able
to supervise construction of their houses as well as retain copyright in their drawings,
rather than this being taken over by the Women’s Weekly as proposed.188 At a meeting
held the following day, where coincidentally package dealers were a major point of
discussion, the Chapter Council came to the conclusion that the competition should
now be restricted to architects only and was ‘emphatic that the promoters be advised
that it be run in accordance with the [RAIA’s] Competitions Code and to conditions laid
down by the Institute’.189 While it appears that representatives of both the Weekly and
Lend Lease agreed to ‘some preliminary aspects’ of the Chapter’s demands at a joint
meeting held at the beginning of 1961, by mid February it was reported that Lend Lease
was now considering abandoning the competition and might commission a number
of architects to design the houses ‘in view of the limited time’.190 This position was
186. Dusseldorp, SMH, p.14.

187. PR, 13 October, 1960, p. 1.
188. PR, 7 November 1960, p. 3.
189. CM, 8 November 1960, p. 9.
190. PR, 15 February 1961, p. 1.
196
confirmed in a letter from Lend Lease on 22 February, with delays in the land being
released from the Green Belt being cited as ‘largely’ contributing to the decision.191
From this point, the project receives no further mention in the Chapter’s minutes. It
went back to waging its public relations war on package dealers.
Despite the Chapter’s early involvement in the planning stages of the project, the
Carlingford Homes Fair received little attention in the architectural press. In June
1962, Architecture in Australia published a special housing issue. This had a section
on ‘Project builders’ which included one page on the ‘Kingsdene estate’. Despite the
title, the article was in fact devoted entirely to the Carlingford Homes Fair project.
No mention was made of the 1962 Demonstration Village or Lend Lease Homes’ next
group of houses planned for the estate. According to the article: ‘The development is
of particular interest as it is being planned by architects, who will also supervise the
housing development within the area’.192 Architectural involvement in the design of
the houses was also important, but apparently Lend Lease Homes’ offering did not
qualify: ‘Architects have designed 19 of the houses and the remaining five are standard
plans available from Lend Lease’.193 The only other related article that appeared in the
architectural press was one that Don Gazzard of Clarke, Gazzard and Yeomans had
published in the British journal Architectural Design two years later.194 This was only
concerned with explaining the design approach taken to one of the two houses which
Clarke, Gazzard and Yeomans contributed to the Fair.
The popular press and even the broadcast media were far more generous. Apart from the
features that appeared in the Australian Women’s Weekly, Sydney Morning Herald and
Daily Telegraph, the Weekly continued to publish plans of the architect-designed houses
until late July. The building press also provided substantial coverage. Both Construction
191. PR, 15 March 1961, p. 1.

192. AiA, vol. 51, no. 2, 1962, p. 89.
193. ibid.
194. D. Gazzard, ‘Speculative House, Carlingford Sydney’, Architectural Design, August 1964, p. 410.
197
and Building Lighting Engineering reported on the opening of the first Village195 as well
as publishing detailed reports on the Fair after it opened.196
Interestingly Building Lighting Engineering reported that a large number of architects
had attended a barbecue breakfast that was organised shortly after the launch of
the Carlingford Homes Fair.197 According to the article, the objective of the Fair’s
promoters and developers was ‘to bring about close co-operation in the three major
planning contributors: the architectural profession, the master builders, and the building
material suppliers.’ The General Manager of Lend Lease Homes is quoted as saying:
the provision of better and more economical housing is a challenge to the whole
industry, and in which all of us must play a role. This can only have a successful
result if the other parties are knowledgeable of the thinking of each other. The
field is wide open for such close liaison and if the Carlingford Homes Fair has
played a small role in establishing this, it will have served more than a useful
purpose.198
While the ‘large number of architects’ who attended the barbeque were said to have
‘thoroughly enjoyed this novel feature’,199 such overtures appeared to have little impact
on the organised profession at this time.
CONCLUSION
Sun-Line Homes, the Parade of Homes and Lend Lease Homes provided important
models for the production and marketing of architect-designed project housing in
Sydney. The histories of Sun-Line Homes and Lend Lease Homes were intertwined,
and certainly the earlier enterprise must also have provided a frame of reference for
the Parade. Accordingly there were commonalties in approach. Each used primary
aspects of its culture of production to underpin its public image. Each enterprise had
also considered that there was an advantage to commissioning or employing architects
195. ‘Demonstration Village Opened at Carlingford’, Construction, 18 October 1961, p. 5; ‘Demonstra-

tion Village Opened at Carlingford’, BLE, October 1961, p. 53.
196. ‘Carlingford Homes Fair’, Construction, 13 June 1962, pp.4-6; ‘Carlingford Homes Fair’, BLE,
June 1962, pp. 54 -56.
197. ‘Carlingford Homes Fair’, BLE, June 1962, p. 55.
198. ibid., pp. 54-55.
199. ibid., p. 55.
198
to design its product. To use du Gay’s terminology, Sun-Line Homes, the Parade
of Homes and Lend Lease Homes utilised the expertise of architects in ‘signifying
practices’ to encode their products with particular cultural meanings, thereby facilitating
identification between the targeted middle market and the houses on offer. Importantly,
within the culture of production that each enterprise represented to the public, the
architect was explicitly cast in the role of ‘cultural intermediary’. His/her skills
produced houses that ‘say the right things’.
While individual architects were obviously willing to be involved with this kind of
enterprise, the organised profession was not yet in a position to effectively respond. It
was distracted to some extent by the apparent threat posed by the rise of package dealers
in Sydney. It was also trying to come to grips with the prospect of architectural service
becoming commercialised through involvement with this new area of the housing
industry and its marketing agenda. The old rules just did not suffice. However, changes
were occurring within the ranks of the NSW Chapter which were to have a direct impact
on the way in which the profession engaged with this new and rapidly developing sector
of the industry.
199
6
‘ARCHITECTURAL EXCELLENCE AND VALUE’
Pettit & Sevitt
____________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
This chapter, in combination with the next, will investigate the major changes that
occurred within the NSW Chapter of the RAIA during the 1960s in parallel with the rise
of a new and flourishing segment of the housing industry: architect-designed project
housing. Of the enterprises that specialised in this type of housing in Sydney, Pettit &
Sevitt was the most significant and influential. Its importance relates both to project
building in Sydney and to the issues that provoked change within the NSW Chapter.
The chapter will begin by tracing the history of Pettit & Sevitt, from its origins as a
partnership between Brian Pettit and Ron Sevitt at the beginning of the 1960s, through
its years of rapid expansion and changes in ownership, to the demise of the enterprise at
the end of the 1970s.1 It will then look at the culture of production that developed within
the organisation over those years and how that was ‘presented and represented’ to Pettit
& Sevitt’s target market. The role of the architect within that culture will be considered
in relation to Bourdieu’s and du Gay’s theories regarding ‘cultural intermediaries’,
especially the ways in which architectural expertise and authority were used to associate
Pettit & Sevitt’s products and services with what du Gay would describe as ‘particular
cultural meanings’.2 The significance of Pettit & Sevitt’s success within the NSW
Chapter’s Project House Design Awards will also be discussed in this context.
1. During the process of researching this thesis, some of the findings related to Pettit & Sevitt were
presented as a conference paper: J. O’Callaghan 2002, ‘The New Suburban Dream: The Marketing of Pettit
& Sevitt Project Houses 1961-1978’, in Additions to Architectural History, Proceedings of the XIX Annual
Conference of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand, SAHANZ, Brisbane.
2. Du Gay, ‘Introduction’, p. 5
200
HISTORY
Establishing the Business
In April 1961, Brian Pettit joined Ron Sevitt to form Pettit, Sevitt & Partners, the
partners being their wives Margaret Pettit and Val Sevitt.3 The decision to set up as a
partnership rather than a company was deliberate, even though it meant being exposed
to financial risk:
We were Pettit & Sevitt and Partners to start with — unincorporated, money on
the line…We had to do that to get credit to begin with. If we’d hidden behind a
two dollar company…we wouldn’t have been able to work.4
The two men had worked together at Sun-Line Homes, Pettit briefly as the accountant
and Sevitt as the office and sales manager. While technically neither was a builder, both
had experience in the industry. Pettit, who trained as a chartered accountant, had worked
for over two years at Austin Anderson, a design and construction company specialising
in industrial buildings. Following his short association with Sun-Line, Pettit had been
part of the team that had set up Lend Lease Homes. Sevitt, an Irish émigré, had worked
in real estate in Sydney in the early 1950s. He then became involved with a venture
in prefabricated houses imported from the Netherlands before being invited by David
Jamieson to join Sun-Line.5
The collaborative venture between Pettit and Sevitt in fact began with the idea of
completing some of the Sun-Line homes on which deposits had already been paid and
plans approved by council. According to Pettit, ‘we were just picking up the clients that
Ron had a list of and were ready to go. We didn’t need a big turnover in that first year to
support two people…we operated out of a single room in Gordon’.6 Once underway, the
new concern also began to advertise its own project home: a slightly modified version
of Geoffrey Lumsdaine’s Custom 9 (Fig. 20). According to Pettit ‘to 30th June [1961],
we completed six houses, each at a margin of about £600 each. We were on our way’.
It was during this time that Brian Pettit made a determined effort to understand the
3. Interview: Pettit, 3 October 2005.

4. Interview: Pettit, 21 November 2005.
5. Interview: Sevitt, 28 July 1992 (PHM)
6. Interview: Pettit, 6 June 2002.
201
Fig. 20: ‘Design and construction keyed to modern living’. Pettit, Sevitt & Partners
brochure, c1961 (GL).
202
building side of the operation:
I couldn’t drive a nail straight to save my life, but I learned how it should be
done. Within six months, I could with all confidence, take out quantities, organise
carpenters, plumbers, drainers, etc and supervise the construction of a house.7
Ron Sevitt meanwhile assumed the role of ‘ideas’ man, taking primary responsibility for
developing the product and its image. He looked after marketing and sales and worked
closest with the architects.
When the partners were in a position to take on a new house design, they turned to
Ken Woolley and Michael Dysart whom they had known from their Sun-Line days.
Sevitt and Pettit nominated a split-level as their preferred design, on the basis that it
had the potential to work well, and economically, on the kind of uneven housing blocks
that were commonly available in the northern suburbs of Sydney — their target area.8
Woolley and Dysart were already in the process of testing the type as one of three
designs produced for Lend Lease Homes’ Carlingford Homes Fair. The split-level they
designed for Pettit & Sevitt bore similarities to the Carlingford house, most notably in
terms of the plan of the upper level, however there were substantial differences overall.
The lower level of the house, which was previously a carport, was now devoted to the
main living area and study, with the kitchen and dining areas raised up onto the middle
level. The internal stairs also now faced the entrance, which itself had become a feature,
with tall glazed mullions placed above the door. The tiled roof and timber-framing to
doors and windows (with stylistic modifications) remained consistent, but the house was
now designed for construction in brick veneer rather than predominantly weatherboard.
The first Pettit & Sevitt Split Level display house was constructed in 1962 in the outer
northern suburb of St Ives at 24 Richard Road. Little promotion was used at this
stage – just a small newspaper advertisement.9 According to Ron Sevitt the Split Level
represented an unusual addition to the immediate neighbourhood; ‘people thought it was
7. ibid.
8. Interview: Sevitt, 28 July 1992 (PHM)
203
all very surgical…some of the neighbours even complained’.10 In terms of sales, Brian
Pettit recalled that the response ‘was not overwhelming because we didn’t do much
advertising and of course it was something pretty different to what else was around’.11
Nevertheless, enough houses were sold from this display model to provide the capital
for Pettit & Sevitt’s first ‘Exhibition Centre’, opened on the corner of Pennant Hills
Road and North Rocks Road in Carlingford in 1963.
The centre comprised a Split Level together with a new design, the Lowline, which had
been commissioned by the partners as a lower priced alternative.12 This flat-roofed,
single-storey house was again a housing type that Woolley and Dysart had explored
at the Carlingford Homes Fair - the ‘Fifteen-Square’ house as it was described by the
Australian Women’s Weekly.13 Significant changes, however, had been made. Brick
veneer had replaced the concrete block construction and the plan had been changed
to an in-line progression from living, dining and kitchen through to bedrooms and
bathroom — rather than one bedroom being located at the entrance end. Like the
Split Level, the Lowline was to become a staple of the Pettit & Sevitt range having a
flexible plan that could be simply expanded or contracted on the basis of a three foot
(91.4 cm) module (Figs 21 & 22). The Lowline also had the advantage of being able
to accommodate a variety of roof treatments. The 17.5 square (162.5 square metres)
Split Level was advertised at £5895 and the 14 square (130 square metres) Lowline at
£4995. These prices compared well with what else was on offer in the upper range of
production housing, notably the architect-designed project houses marketed by Lend
Lease Homes. Prices for these started at £3345 and climbed to £7467.14
10. Interview: Sevitt, 28 July 1992.

12. Copy of legal deposition by K. Woolley, 18 February 1971, p. 7. (AMW)
13. Illustrated in ‘Fifteen-Square House’, AWW, 13 June 1962, p. 38.
14. Advertisement, SMH, 9 November 1963, p. 5.
204
Fig. 21a: Four variations on the Split Level 1. (Top) Split Level Mk 1, 1964, and (above)
Split Level 1F, 1969.
(dimension, July 1964; Pettit & Sevitt brochure, c1969 AMW).
205
Fig. 21b: (Top) Split Level 1H, 1970, and (above) Split Level 1J, 1973.
(Pettit & Sevitt brochures, c1970 and c1973, AMW)
206
Fig. 22: The Lowline, as advertised in 1965 (top) and later c1970 (above), showing some
of the variations in plan offered by Pettit & Sevitt.
(Sydney Morning Herald, 3 April 1965; Pettit & Sevitt brochure, c1970, AMW).
207
Beginning of the Boom
Public response to the two display homes at Carlingford was very encouraging. By May
1964 the partnership was in a position to host a grand opening of its new exhibition
centre in Richmond Avenue and Mona Vale Road, St Ives. This group of four display
houses comprised a Split Level Mark 1 (Fig. 28) — a slightly altered version of the
1963 model — a Split Level Mark 11, a Lowline and a Courtyard House (Fig. 23). The
Split Level Mark 11 and the Courtyard House were designed by Woolley alone, as by
this point Michael Dysart was no longer collaborating with him on the Pettit & Sevitt
houses. Their working relationship had ceased in the latter half of 1963.15 Woolley had
left the Government Architects Branch at the end of that year and was now in private
practice with Sydney Ancher, Bryce Mortlock and Stuart Murray as Ancher Mortlock
Murray & Woolley.16
The Split Level Mark 11 was a bi-level rather than a tri-level and was suited to more
gently sloping sites. At only 12.5 squares (116.1 square metres) and advertised at £4955
it was significantly smaller and less expensive than the 17.5 square Mark 1 which was
now listed at £6177. It had in fact superseded the Lowline as the cheapest house in the
range. The 13 square (120.7 square metres) Courtyard House 17 came in just above it
at £4993. This new design by Woolley was ‘long and low’ like the Lowline, but with a
low-pitched tiled roof. Its main feature was an outdoor living area, screened from the
outside by a brick wall, onto which the internal living areas and one of three bedrooms
opened. Visually all four houses were linked by their grey tiled roofs, stained wood
framing to windows and doors and white-painted brick walls – a stylistic consistency
particularly noted in the advertising.18
15. Copy of legal deposition by K. Woolley, 18 February 1971, p. 4. (AMW)

16. Woolley joined the practice as a partner on 1 January 1964. See‘Professional Announcements’,
Bulletin, December 1963, p. 2.
17. The Courtyard House was later advertised as the Court House after a new Courtyard was added to
the display range in 1966 at the exhibition centre off Mawson Road, St Ives (see Pettit &Sevitt brochure
c1966).
18. Advertisement, SMH, 4 July 1964, p. 9.
208
Fig. 23: Advertisement for the Pettit & Sevitt Exhibition Centre at St Ives, 1964.
209
The Leader of the State Opposition in New South Wales, Mr R.W. Askin, officially
opened the centre on 15 May 1964, with three state and federal members of parliament
in attendance.19 According to Brian Pettit, the project was:
An absolutely spectacular success. In fact, so successful that the local

government authority brought in laws that no longer could you build exhibition
centres on main roads because of the incredible traffic jams we used to cause on
Sunday afternoons on Mona Vale Road.20
Certainly, the new venture marked the beginning of the organisation’s boom period.
Public reaction was strong and media attention was building. In the same month that
the centre opened, the partnership was featured in a substantial review of Sydney
project houses undertaken by Australian Home Beautiful. The section on Pettit & Sevitt
focussed on the Lowline which the magazine noted had
Outstanding design and detailing. Those people who follow world trends
in architecture will appreciate this progressive design, because it combines
economy in construction with full provision for both the practical needs of
family living, and the emotional satisfactions people should get from the form
and content of a house and its environment.21
Early the following year, Pettit & Sevitt advertised the addition of two new house
designs by Ken Woolley to its range: the Gambrel (£4250) that was still in the process
of construction in Richmond Avenue, and the Two Storey (£8000) which was then only
at the planning stage.22 The Gambrel, named ‘after its distinctive tiled roof’,23 was not so
different in plan to the Lowline, but in its basic form lacked the ‘extras’ such as a family
room and an ensuite off the main bedroom. Externally it was also distinguished by
stained boarding laid horizontally around the living area, to the level of the low sill. The
Two Storey on the other hand was the largest and most expensive of the range to date.
Its flat roof extended out to a dramatic six-foot (1.8 metre) eave which was supported by
twelve, six-inch square (15.2 cm), Oregon pillars at its perimeter. Square in plan with
a central stair, all four bedrooms were located on the top level. The main bedroom had
19. ‘Young Builders Draw Praise for Exhibition Homes Show’, BLE, June 1964, pp. 12-14.
21. E. Wilson, ‘New Ideas in Sydney Projects: Pettit, Sevitt & Partners’, AHB, May 1964, p. 49.
22. Advertisement, SMH, 17 April 1965, p. 7.
23. Pettit & Sevitt brochure, c1966.
210
its own dressing room as well as ensuite and shared a balcony with an adjoining sitting
room.
At the end of October 1965, while the St Ives display group was still being promoted,
Pettit & Sevitt advertised another centre at Chester Street in Sylvania, a southern suburb
of Sydney.24 This appeared as a distinct departure given the partnership’s established
locus, however it reflected a new level of expansion. Since the early part of 1965, Pettit
& Sevitt had advertised that it could now ‘build anywhere in Sydney, not just the North
Shore’.25 That same year, the partners together with Woolley also began to investigate
the possibility of extending the operation interstate to Melbourne and Canberra. By
the time the Sylvania centre was advertised they had also entered an arrangement with
Perth’s Corser Homes whereby the West Australian builder adapted the Split Level and
the Lowline for production for the local market.26
New houses were also being planned back in Sydney. According to correspondence,27
there were twelve designs being considered, a number of which were variations
on existing designs and others such as the ‘Water House’ that appear not to have
progressed. However one that did enter the range was the Stilt house. This was
essentially a pavilion supported on steel columns that, according to the advertising,
enabled it ‘to be erected on extremely steep sites, or to be raised for car parking, storage,
extra rooms, or even to achieve a better view’.28 While an exhibition house was not
built, Woolley recalls that a number were constructed around Sydney with one possibly
serving as a display house for a period through an agreement with the owners.29 At 11
squares (102.1 square metres) and priced at £4500 the Stilt house was the smallest and
least expensive in the Pettit & Sevitt range that currently extended up to the 21 square
24. Advertisement, SMH, 30 October 1965, p. 9.

26. Cross-Section, Issue 156, 1 October 1965, unpag; See also Gartner, ‘Death of the Project House’, p. 112.
27. Letter from R.E. Palmer to K. Woolley, 18 October 1965 (AMW). Dick (R.E.) Palmer was then Mar-
keting Director of Pettit Sevitt & Partners.
29. Interview: Woolley, 10 November 2005.
211
(195 square metres) Two Storey advertised at £8160.30 The design was to remain on the
books right up until at least 1976.31
Expansion
At the beginning of 1966, the partnership advertised that ‘We can build…anywhere in
Sydney. Or Melbourne, or Canberra. (We’ll even help you find the land you want, and
the finance you need)’.32 While the Canberra concern operated through an agent and
then as a franchise, Brian Pettit took the initiative of moving to Melbourne with his
family in January 1966 to set up a branch office.33 According to Pettit, ‘It was meant to
be for a year but lasted two years’.34 The first demonstration house — a Split Level
Mark 135 — was built on two lots in Government and Doncaster Roads in Warrandyte.36
Other display homes followed: one to the north-west at Bundoora,37 another at
Frankston to the south, and a group of three built at Glen Waverley.38 ‘We perceived
that Eltham [Warrandyte] was the sort of area that would want our houses…but there
was significant business down on the Peninsula, down towards Frankston. And Glen
Waverley was the centre of the two, half way between the two areas’.39 Shortly after
the homes were launched, Pettit returned to Sydney leaving the Melbourne office in the
hands of a manager and salesperson.40
By March 1966, after Pettit had moved to Melbourne, ‘Pettit & Sevitt Merchant
Builders’ had opened an even larger exhibition centre at St Ives, just off Mawson
30. Advertisement, SMH, 8 January 1966, p. 7.

31. ‘Sydney Price List, Pettit + Sevitt Houses’, October 1976 (AMW).
34. Interview: Pettit, 3 October 2005.
35. Letter from P.J. Ferris to K. Woolley, 18 April 1966; ‘Interview’ sheet 28 April 1966 (AMW). Ferris
was then General Manager of Pettit & Sevitt.
36. According to Pettit the first was fully built and paid for by a timber merchant. It was used by Pettit &
Sevitt for a short time as an exhibition house until it was sold: ‘It was their means of encouraging us to
use them as timber suppliers, which we did for the rest of the time’. Interview: Pettit, 21 November 2005.
37. Pettit & Sevitt advertisement, Age, 26 July 1968, p. 12.
38. ‘Display Home of the Week’, Age, 26 July 1968, p. 11.
40. ibid.
212
Road. The new name, that omitted ‘Partners’, signalled a change to company status.41
The centre was again opened by Mr R.W. Askin, who was now Premier of New South
Wales. According to the Australian Home Beautiful:
several of the houses were on display within hours of being finished…But the
time factor gave the builders a flying start, and lengthened the period before
competitive styles by other builders could be put on the market.42
The centre in fact opened with only seven houses completed,43 but by April all ten were
ready for inspection. Prices, which were now in dollars rather than pounds,44 ranged
from $9250 to $24,000 or, as one advertisement served to translate, £4311 to £12,000.45
So essentially, while the top end of the range had dramatically increased in price, the
least expensive house was now cheaper than it had been in 1963.
Seven of the houses were designed by Ken Woolley and these ran down one side of
Edgecombe Road (off Mawson Road) leading into Wembury Road and around into
Staddon Close. They comprised the Gambrel 7, the Two Storey, the Split Level
Mark 111, the Gable, the Pavilion, the Courtyard and the Lowline B. It was this
version of the Lowline that was to win one of the first three Project House Design
Awards introduced by the NSW Chapter of the RAIA in 1967. A version of the Split
Level Mark 1, built as a prototype46 for a client, won another. Both awards generated a
significant amount of publicity not only in the architectural and building press but also
in newspapers and magazines.47
41. The main trading company appears to have been ‘Pettit & Sevitt Constructions Pty. Limited’ (Copy of
agreement with Ancher, Mortlock, Murray and Woolley, 18 May 1966, AMW).
42. E. Wilson, ‘Project House Range Widens at Top’, AHB, July 1966, p. 51.
43. Advertisement, SMH, 12 March 1966, p. 7.
44. Australia changed over to decimal currency on 14 February 1966.
46. Pettit & Sevitt built ‘prototypes’ as a way of testing new designs in regard to cost, construction, new
design details, etc, before they were launched as display houses. Not all prototype houses made it that far.
47. ‘1967 Project House Design Awards’, SMH, 14 July 1967, p. 4; E. Buhrich, ‘Project Awards Guide to
Home Buyers’, SMH, 18 July 1967, p. 20; ‘Houses that Won’, DT, 14 July, 1967, p. 9; ‘Project Builders Win
New Awards’, BLE, August 1967, pp. 11-12; ‘NSW Chapter, Project House Design Awards, 1967’, AiA vol.
56, no. 4, 1967, pp. 607-08; ‘Design for Today’s Needs’, Our Women, September-December 1967, pp. 12-13.
213
The Pavilion, Gable and Courtyard were all new designs. Unlike its namesake from
1964, the Courtyard was almost L-shaped in plan, enclosing an open space on two
sides. The remaining two were screened by brick walls. Two of the bedrooms and
the living and dining rooms faced onto this courtyard area. A separate enclosed space
adjoined the kitchen and laundry externally, and it was from this external point that the
roof-line formed a dramatic composition of unequal pitches, culminating in a sharp
rake down to the courtyard. The Gable, in unpainted clinker brick, was rectangular in
plan and distinguished by a low-pitched tiled roof that extended out over the length of
the entry side of the house to create a veranda. According to the advertising, it gave the
house ‘a farmhouse’ atmosphere.48
The most ambitious and distinctive of Woolley’s new designs was the Pavilion. It was
described as ‘more of a system than a specific house’.49 This was because Woolley had
designed a basic unit — a square pavilion (with optional pyramid tile roof) — that could
be repeated and arranged in various configurations and at differing levels according to
client need and site requirements. Each pavilion housed a ‘living zone’. In the display
house, for example, sleeping areas were in one pavilion, family, dining, kitchen and
laundry in another, entry, study and living room in a third, with a carport and storage
housed in a fourth. A glazed, centrally located gallery with timber mullions connected
all the units.
On the other side of Wembury Road were three houses designed by another Sydney
architect Russell Jack. Pettit & Sevitt had worked with Jack back in 1961, constructing
the house he had designed for artist Tony Tuckson50 and potter Margaret Tuckson in
Wahroonga.51 This flat-roofed, distinctly modern house incorporated the use of painted
bagged brickwork and exposed timber joinery. According to Trevor Howells in his

49. ibid.
50. Tony Tuckson was then also Deputy Director of the Art Gallery of New South Wales.
51. Illustrated in AiA, vol. 53, no. 2, 1964, pp 87-88.
214
Fig. 24. The Property, designed by Russell Jack for Pettit & Sevitt, as featured in the
Australian Home Journal, January 1967.
215
study of the architect’s work,52 these characteristics, and more particularly the fact
that they had appeared in earlier houses that Jack had designed, made him one of the
earliest proponents of the ‘Sydney School of Architecture’. The three houses that Jack
designed for the exhibition centre — the Farmhouse, Homestead and The Property
(Fig. 24) — were significantly different in style. Collectively they were described as
‘three contemporary Pettit & Sevitt homes with a traditional Australian look’.53 This
was expressed externally through the use of long verandas, French doors and pitched
tiled roofs. A distinctive chimney stack was also incorporated into the end wall of all
three houses. Internally each had an open brick fireplace in the living area and some
exposed brick and timber surfaces, which stylistically were more in keeping with the
‘Sydney School’ aesthetic than any colonial model. Three variations were available for
both the single-storey Farmhouse and two-storey The Property, while the single-storey
Homestead offered seven.54
The exhibition centre generated a substantial amount of media attention. It was featured
in Vogue Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Home Journal,
as well as three times in the Australian Home Beautiful.55 Of the Woolley houses,
the Pavilion attracted the greatest interest. Although the most expensive at $24,000,
according to Eva Buhrich’s report in the Herald: ‘in its originality, roominess and
flexibility’ it represented ‘good value for the price’.56 Importantly, the media was also
alert to the significance of the Jack designs in the sense that they did not fall within the
cliché of ‘Colonial’ adopted by other project and speculative builders that found their
sources in ‘English Georgian, Cape Cod, Colonial Dutch and French Provincials’.57
Rather, Jack’s houses were seen to draw on the best aspects of the vernacular Australian
52. T. Howells, Allen Jack + Cottier, 1952-2002, Focus Pub., Edgecliff, NSW, 2003, p. 16.
53. Pettit & Sevitt brochure, c 1966.
54. ibid.
55. E. Wilson, ‘Shift to Quality Homes’, AHB, May 1966, pp. 42-43 and ‘Project House Range Widens
at Top’, AHB, July 1966, pp. 48-55; ‘A Fair Dinkum Colonial Reflects Pioneer Experience’, AHB,
November 1966, pp. 15-17; E. Buhrich, ‘Good Neighbourhood Planning in Display Village’, SMH, 17
May 1966, p. 21; ‘Concept for Living, Varied to Suit any Building Site’, Vogue Australia, June/July 1966,
pp. 94-97; ‘New Houses Country Style’, AHJ, January 1967, pp. 24-28.
56. Buhrich, SMH, p. 21.
57. ‘A Fair Dinkum Colonial Reflects Pioneer Experience, AHB, November 1966, p. 15.
216
homestead. According to Australian Home Beautiful:
Homes in this new land were expansive and outward-looking, in keeping with
the great spaces of the country and the large town and city allotments…It is
refreshing…to find an attempt to rescue the earlier and true Australian colonial
style and present on the market houses that spring from our own conditions and
experiences, as an alternative to the exotic pseudo-Continental and American,
and the fading Victorian.58
Similar observations were made by both the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian
Home Journal. Nonetheless, Pettit & Sevitt found the range difficult to sell: ‘People
didn’t even appreciate or understand early Australian architecture…[They were]
too early, far too early’.59 In retrospect, it is difficult to judge if this was an accurate
assessment. The gentrification of inner Sydney suburbs such as Paddington, which
entailed the restoration (as well as the mutilation) of colonial and Federation housing
stock, had already commenced by the latter part of the 1960s.60 A number of important
books on aspects of colonial architecture in New South Wales had also recently been
published, notably four by Morton Herman since 1954.61 Perhaps it was more a case of
Pettit & Sevitt misreading the aspirations of its own niche market – one that had been
cultivated on the basis of Woolley’s distinctly contemporary designs.
The village created off Mawson Road was the last exhibition centre that Pettit & Sevitt
constructed at St Ives. It was also to be the largest display grouping ever attempted by
the company. The village continued to be marketed through the early part of 1967,62 and
by the time a new centre was opened later in the year, Pettit & Sevitt had added Albury,
in regional New South Wales, to its list of operational locations.63 This marked the
beginning of a more formalised approach to franchising that was to become a major part
of the business during the 1970s.
58. ibid., pp. 16-17.

59. Interview: Sevitt, 28 July 1992 (PHM).
60. H. Kendig, New Life for Old Suburbs: Post-war Land Use and Housing in the Australian Inner
City,George Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1979.
61. M. Herman: The Early Australian Architects and Their Work, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1954;
The Architecture of Victorian Sydney, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1956; Early Colonial Architecture,
Longmans, Croydon, Victoria, 1963; The Blackets: An Era of Australian Architecture, Angus and Robert-
son, Sydney, 1963.
62. Advertisement, SMH, 4 February 1967, p. 4.
63. Advertisement, SMH, 16 September 1967, p. 4.
217
The new demonstration centre was located in Kyeema Parade, Belrose, to the east of
St Ives. It began with a slightly modified Lowline — the Lowline D — to which an
enlarged version of the Gambrel and a Split Level 2D were subsequently added.64 The
Gambrel D won its category in the NSW Chapter’s Project House Design Awards the
following year. The 12.5 square (116.1 square metres) 2D at $9950 cost around the
same amount as the original Mark 2 of 1964. This appeared to be a deliberate strategy
on the part of Pettit & Sevitt to cater to a broader market. Certainly that was Eva
Buhrich’s understanding when she wrote about the house in the ‘Homes and Building’
section of the Sydney Morning Herald. Under the headline ‘A split-level house for less
than $10,000’, she noted:
[Pettit & Sevitt] was among the first in Sydney to bring well-designed modern
houses within the reach of the middle-income home buyer. However, two-thirds
of all home buyers in N.S.W. spend less than $10,000 on their homes and it is
for this market that the latest Pettit-Sevitt house…has been designed by Mr K.
Woolley.65
By the end of the article however Buhrich concluded that whatever the intention,
responding to site conditions usually meant ten per cent being added to the cost: ‘Thus,
sadly, this house (or any other offered for just under $10,000) is still out of reach of very
many home buyers’.66
From this point on, the pace of producing display homes quickens significantly,
however not all were constructed in ‘centres’. Some were advertised as single houses
such as the Split Level 1D located on a site at Cheltenham Heights. A Lowline E and a
Split Level 2E were then opened in two cul-de-sacs that ran parallel to each other: The
Crest and The Ridge in Belrose.67 Shortly after, a new Split-Level 1E was advertised as
being under construction in Elouera Road, Thornleigh, a neighbouring suburb.68 Both
Split Level houses won their categories in the NSW Chapter’s Project House Design
64. Advertisements, SMH, 26 August 1967, p. 7 and 16 September 1967, p. 4.

65. E. Buhrich, ‘A Split-Level House for Less than $10,000’, SMH, 19 March 1968, p. 18.
66. ibid.
67. Advertisement, SMH, 9 November 1968, p. 9.
218
Awards of 1969. By the middle of that year, a new house — the Shingle — had been
added to The Ridge site.69 Designed by Woolley, this was a single-storey three-bedroom
house, rectangular in plan, that had a distinctive gambrel roof extending into wide
overhanging eaves. Cedar shingles clad the gable ends. At 13.5 squares (125.4 square
metres) and priced at $11,690, the Shingle was located at the modest end of the Pettit &
Sevitt range.
A few months later a new display centre was opened a long way west of Belrose
at Duffy Avenue, Thornleigh, just north of Pennant Hills.70 This centre originally
comprised five houses, four of which were designed by Ken Woolley including another
Shingle which shared the award for the ‘under $12,000’ category in the NSW Chapter
Awards in 1970. The group also included the Curvilinear House designed by Harry
Seidler. Ron Sevitt was a great admirer of Seidler’s work71 and the feeling was mutual
in terms of Seidler’s respect for Pettit & Sevitt.72 Although the Curvilinear was to be
the only house that the architect contributed to the Pettit & Sevitt range, Sevitt later
commissioned Seidler to design Kooralbyn Valley, a Queensland resort, in the early
1980s. The 15 square (139.3 square metres) Curvilinear was advertised as a split-
level, though its adaptable plan meant that it could be built on either level or sloping
ground. Almost square in plan, the curvilinear theme was introduced externally by brick
walls that enclosed a courtyard and delineated the entrance, and internally by a wall
separating the living from the dining area. According to a review in Today’s House:
The house creates a sense of space within, not normally offered by comparable
size project houses. It aims at the intangible effects of spaces beyond those
expected from the actual floor area. Curved lines are introduced in the form of
quadrants inside and out, to offset the routine rectilinearity of project housing.73
In selecting the Curvilinear as the winner of the $12,000-$16,000 category of the NSW
69. Advertisement, SMH, 28 June 1969, p. 6.

70. Advertisement, SMH, 23 August 1969, p. 6.
71. Interview: Sevitt, 28 July 1992 (PHM).
72. The Curvilinear House for example has been referenced in a number of monographs on Seidler’s
architecture. See P. Blake, Architecture for the New World: The Work of Harry Seidler, Horwitz Australia,
Sydney, 1973, pp. 34 & 209; K. Frampton & P. Drew, Harry Seidler: Four Decades of Architecture,
Thames and Hudson, London, 1992, p. 412; H. Seidler, Houses & Interiors 1 1948-1970, Images Publish-
ing Group, Mulgrave, Victoria, 2003 pp.142-143.
73. ‘Annual Domestic Architecture Awards’, Today’s House, no. 4, Spring 1970, p. 8.
219
Chapter’s Project House Design Awards of 1970, the jury was effusive in its comments.
Not only did it judge it ‘the most versatile house seen, from the point of view of
orientation, prospect and slope of site’, but ‘the spatial experience’ was found to be
‘exhilarating’.74
At the beginning of 1970, another house was added to the Thornleigh group — Neil
Clerehan’s 3136. This too was to win in its price category of the Project House
Design Awards of 1970, sharing the award with Woolley’s Shingle. Clerehan was
a well-established Melbourne architect by the late 1960s, specialising in domestic
architecture.75 He also had been actively involved in the RVIA’s Small Homes Service,
being its director in 1951 and again from 1954 to 1961. When Pettit & Sevitt had
decided to extend into Melbourne, Woolley had approached Clerehan to supply
the architectural services that he and his practice would have normally provided.76
Essentially this involved undertaking interviews with clients and preparing plans and
specifications for lodgement with local councils and lending institutions.77 The 3136
was the first of two houses designed by Clerehan, in association with Ancher Mortlock
Murray and Woolley, that entered the Pettit & Sevitt range in the early 1970s.
The name assigned to Clerehan’s 3136 reflected the external dimensions of the basic
model: thirty-one feet by thirty six.78 Dubbed a ‘Small sensation’ in a suitably tiny
Pettit & Sevitt advertisement,79 the house contained three bedrooms and came in eight
variations. Advertised at $8790, it extended the lower end of the Pettit & Sevitt price
range significantly. Within just a few months however this price had increased to
$9250.80 In fact, the cost of all Pettit & Sevitt’s houses had increased over this time,
reflecting a rapid rise in materials and labour costs within the Australian housing
74. RAIA NSW Chapter, ‘Press Release’, July 1970 (AMW).

75. H. Edquist & R. Black, The Architecture of Neil Clerehan, RMIT Publishing Press, Melbourne, 2005.
For discussion of the 3136, see p. 48.
76. Interviews: Woolley, 10 November 2005; Pettit, 3 October 2005.
77. Letter from P.J. Ferris to K. Woolley, 18 July 1966 (AMW).
78. 9.4 metres by 10.9 metres.
220
industry at the end of the 1960s.81 Not surprisingly, in August and September 1970 Pettit
& Sevitt devoted a series of advertisements in the Herald purely to promote the fact that
it could arrange finance for its houses.
Speculative Interests
Perhaps as a response to these changes within the industry or just by virtue of
opportunities that arose, Pettit & Sevitt began placing advertisements for completed
houses early in 1970.82 Importantly, these were not display houses but ones that had
been built on a speculative basis. One of the first was a three bedroom ‘brand new,
award winning Architect Designed house’ situated on the corner of Warrangi Street and
Berrillee Lane, Turramurra. The price was $45,000.83 While not advertised as such, this
and all subsequent houses of its type were designed by Ken Woolley.
The advertisement placed in the Herald was not the conventional Pettit & Sevitt type.
It was small and unassuming, and the name ‘Pettit & Sevitt Constructions’ was used
rather than ‘Pettit & Sevitt Merchant Builders’. In July, another small advertisement
was placed in the Herald, but this time it included one of the conventional portraits of
Sevitt having a one-way conversation. This read “P*tt*t and S*v*tt built these North
Shore houses…If we hadn’t built them, I suppose you’d call them spec houses’. No
exact details were provided, other than that the houses were located in ‘selected parts
of the North Shore’ with prices ranging from $35,000 to $50,000.84 Later, when the
enterprise began promoting its new display centre at Windam Place, Westleigh, at the
bottom of the adverstisements was the note: ‘Also, a few houses ready for occupancy’.85
This became the norm in standard Pettit & Sevitt advertisements for some time after.
81. Housing Industry Association, Economic Research Department, The Structure and Operations of the
Housing Industry in New South Wales, Housing Industry Association, Economic Research Department,
Sydney, 1970, pp, 9-10.
82. Pettit cannot recall that the company ever purchased the land on which these houses were built or
indeed the plots of land that were later also advertised. He suggest that it may have been a collaborative
venture with the land owner (Interview: Pettit, 21 November 2005).
84. Advertisement, SMH,25 July 1970, p. 9.
221
One advertisement, for example, that was devoted to expounding the virtues of the Split
Level 2H, noted: ‘Incidentally, they can buy the 2H already built, too – just like all P
and S houses’.86 By December 1970, this alternative option for potential clients was
described as ‘a package deal on one of our specially selected blocks’.87 While there was
nothing unusual about project builders extending into speculative building and package
deals at that time, this does provide a new perspective on the Petitt & Sevitt operation
which has always been described purely in terms of project building.
By the time the next display centre was advertised in October 1970, the company
also had a new logo ‘Pettit + Sevitt’. The new centre was located in Westleigh, a
neighbouring suburb to Thornleigh, and was to be the second largest attempted by the
company. Ultimately it comprised seven display houses, the 3136 by Neil Clerehan
and six designs by Ken Woolley, assembled over a period of some months. Three of
Woolley’s houses were developments of existing designs, but there were also three new
houses: the Two Storey, the Square House and the Dormer House. This new Two Storey
was just that, a large (185.7 square metre) two-level house – but quite different in style
from the original. The side elevation of the new design revealed a dramatically angled
roof that afforded three of the four bedrooms on the upper level a generous view that
projected over the pitched roof of the living areas below. The interior also featured a two-
way fireplace in the open living and dining area as well as a distinctive half-cylinder wall,
following the line of the internal staircase and forming part of the entry elevation. Both the
Square House and Dormer House were more modest in size, ‘over thirteen squares’, and
price, ‘under $14,000’.88 They were single-level houses, the first being square in plan with
a broken pitched roof and the latter having a more rectangular plan89 with a roofline sliced
lengthways by a dormer window.

87. Advertisement, SMH, 5 December 1970, p. 4.
88. Advertisements, SMH, 3 April 1971, p. 2 and 24 April 1971, p. 5.
89. Though a square plan was available as a variation (Pettit &Sevitt brochure, c1971, AMW).
222
At under $14,000, these two new designs fell around the middle of the Pettit & Sevitt
range. The Two Storey originally listed at $22,50090 represented the top end, while the
3136 at $9,900 represented the bottom. Again, however, prices rose significantly during
the lifetime of the centre. Within less than twelve months for example the cost of the
Two Storey had increased by $1300,91 while within eighteen months another $700 had
been added to the price of the 3136.92 Again, advertisements began to include lines such
as ‘Pettit: Memo to Sevitt: please stress “Loans available”’.93
Late in 1971, Pettit & Sevitt also introduced what it called ‘Multiplan’. Essentially it
involved ratifying the existing system of offering clients variations on standard plans
by fully detailing a range of variations. According to the advertising, ‘Multiplan’ offered
the client direct economic benefits: ‘The tradesmen know exactly what to do. They don’t
waste time and money working it out’.94 What it also meant was a saving in time and
money for the company. An office memorandum on ‘Multiplan’, addressed to all Pettit &
Sevitt sales personnel, reveals the heavy cost of offering clients an individualised product:
We want to cut down on wide variety of variations made available to our

clients…flowing on from this flexibility in our attitude comes the strain of our
Estimating Department, the pressure on Draughting, the high incident rate of
misinterpretation of the client’s brief, the great lack of detail that is available
to the tradesmen in building the non-standard house and the consequent “botch
up job” that follows on. The end result…a) excessive overhead b) poor client
relationship c) loss of margins.95
Meanwhile the franchising side of the Pettit & Sevitt operation had grown dramatically since
the late 1960s. An information sheet issued in 197496 shows that Pettit & Sevitt houses were
available in nearly sixty locations in New South Wales, in addition to Sydney. They could
also be obtained in Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory, Adelaide in South Australia,

94. Advertisement, SMH, 4 December 1971, p. 10.
95. Memorandum from P. Kelly and R. Sevitt, 1 September 1971 (AMW). Paul Kelly was the marketing
manager for Pettit + Sevitt.
96. AMW.
223
Brisbane, Townsville and the Gold Coast in Queensland, as well as Melbourne, Wodonga
and Wangarrata in Victoria. Christchurch in New Zealand was also now on the list, making
Pettit & Sevitt an international operation. At the same time, another side of the business that
was quite separate to project housing was also fast developing.
Other Building Interests
From early on the partners had been involved in a number of independent building
projects, such as the Tuckson House in 1961. According to Brian Pettit, these projects
were undertaken more ‘by invitation’, as one-offs: ‘We didn’t go looking for that sort
of work’.97 From the late 1960s onwards this approach was to change dramatically as
a building operation developed that was quite separate to the project building interests
of the enterprise. The range and size of projects with which it was involved varied, but
the primary activity was housing – in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Canberra.
Some of the bigger projects were for mining companies such as the one hundred
houses built for BHP in Blackwater or the entire town constructed at Greenvale for a
nickel mine. There was also housing undertaken for government agencies, such as War
Service Homes and the National Capital Development Commission in Canberra. Some
of these projects were designed by Ken Woolley, some not. This side of the Pettit &
Sevitt operation went international in 1973 when Pettit & Sevitt (Fiji) Limited took on
the design and construction of over one hundred self-contained villas on the island of
Viti Levu in Fiji. The resort was called Pacific Harbour and Ken Woolley was again
the architect. Group housing projects were obviously lucrative; ‘worth more than
$18 million’98 to Pettit & Sevitt according to the advertisement placed for a national
expediter in mid 1973.
As this part of the business was steadily growing in the early 1970s, the selling of land
and land-house packages came to the fore again with large advertisements appearing
in the Sydney Morning Herald at the beginning of 1972. One of these listed nineteen

224
house and land packages located to the north of Sydney — in Belrose, Cromer, St Ives,
Wahroonga, Warawee, Westleigh and Winston Hills.99 Eight were already marked off as
sold. Prices ranged from $27,000 in Cromer, east of Belrose near the coast, to $49,500
in Wahroonga, across from St Ives. Eighteen lots of land were also listed — in Pymble,
St Ives, Cromer and Warrawee — and ranged from $12,950 in Cromer to $24,500 in
Warrawee, next to Wahroonga.
In the meantime, the pace of producing new display centres had slowed significantly.
When the next was advertised at Westleigh Drive in Westleigh it had been over two
years since Windam Place had opened a short distance away. Initially the Westleigh
Drive centre was presented as a collaborative effort between Habitat, Lynton and Pettit
& Sevitt: ‘The three leaders in modern architecture’.100 Each of the three project builders
presented four architect-designed houses. Michael Dysart was responsible for the
Habitat group, Peter Vaalburg, R. Lindsay Little and Bruce Rickard for Lynton’s, with
Ken Woolley and Neil Clerehan listed for Pettit & Sevitt. The collective approach was
meant to have created a distinctive environment. According to the advertisement:
The new Westleigh Drive model home centre is just as advanced as the houses
themselves. No indiscriminate bulldozing. No ugly scars…Park in off-street
parking areas, and stroll through the twelve most interesting new houses in
Australia’.101
The houses, which Pettit & Sevitt ambitiously billed as the ‘Four new prize-winning
houses of 1983’,102 included three Woolley designs as well as a new house by Neil
Clerehan — the 2937. Like the 3136, the name given to Clerehan’s design was derived
from its external dimensions: 29 feet by 37 feet.103 This small flat-roofed house was
very close in plan to its predecessor with the three bedrooms ranged down one side and
living, family/dining, kitchen, laundry and bathroom on the other. The main difference
was that the open dining living area of the 3136 was now divided into two distinct

101. ibid.
103. 8.8metres by 11.2 metres.
225
spaces: living and family rooms. The 2937 won the ‘lower priced category ($11,500 -
$14,500)’ of the NSW Chapter’s Project House Design Awards in 1973, being described
as ‘a basic house which uses space well, although it could be criticised for lack of
storage rooms or cupboards’.104 One of Woolley’s houses, the Lowline J, also won an
award in the ‘Middle income category ($17,500 and over)’. According to the jury, it
‘represented very good value for money…happily free from the gimmicks so common
in project homes’.105 Pettit & Sevitt however was not beyond a gimmick in terms of
advertising. It promoted the Lowline J as the ‘upside down house’ by virtue of its cedar-
lined ceilings. It sold for about $21,000.106
Woolley had also produced a new version of the small Split Level 4107and the Gable.
Early in May, Pettit & Sevitt announced the completion of two more Woolley designs:
the Split Level 1J (Fig. 22) and the Courtyard J 108 — which won the ‘over $20,000’
category of what had become the NSW Chapter’s ‘Merchant Housing Awards’ in 1974.
Very soon after, the architect added a new design to the group, the 23 square (213.6
square metres) Mezzanine J.109 With its four levels and double height garden room, the
house was aimed at the top end of the market. The garden room was overlooked by a
self-contained suite on the third level comprising sitting room, bedroom, dressing room
and bathroom. This was meant for the parents, while the children’s rooms were located
on the fourth level across a central stairwell. As described in the advertising, ‘So the
oldies can play their own kind of music in peace and quiet, no matter how many friends
their kids are entertaining’.110 The Mezzanine J, originally priced at $26,950, was now
the most expensive in the Pettit & Sevitt range.111
104. ‘NSW Architectural Merit Awards 1973’, AiA, vol. 62, no. 6, 1973, p. 94.
105. ibid., p. 95.
106. ‘Cover’, VL, 15 July-14 September 1973, p. 2.
107. Which belatedly won it price category in the NSW Chapter’s Merchant Housing Awards in 1977.
110. ibid.
111. Pettit + Sevitt ‘Sydney Price List’, 31 January 1973 (AMW).
226
A Change in Ownership
By the time the Mezzanine had been launched, Pettit & Sevitt had undergone a major
change – one that ultimately had disastrous consequences . On 1 April 1973, the partners
sold out to the West Australian company Landall. According to Brian Pettit ‘we needed
a fairly large cash injection in order to be with the way things were going at that time…
They came to us. We didn’t go to them. We discussed things and they made us an offer
and we took it. We took it in shares and then the shares we took were worthless as it
turned out’.112
After the takeover, both Brian Pettit and Ron Sevitt stayed on in their positions as
employees of the company. Then, early in 1974, there was another major development.
A Victorian company, Consolidated Home Industries Limited (CHI), bought part of
Pettit & Sevitt from Landall. According to a letter that was sent to Ken Woolley by
the General Manager of Pettit & Sevitt outlining the intended changes,113 the Landall-
owned part of Pettit & Sevitt would continue to carry out its ‘normal business of selling
and building within the Northern part of the Sydney area’ while ‘foregoing that right
elsewhere’. It was also going to ‘retain the right to build multiple housing contracts
anywhere throughout Australia and similarly build Town Houses and in some instances
tract buildings’. Meanwhile CHI was to take on the franchising side of the operation
in addition to having the right to sell and build Pettit & Sevitt houses anywhere in
Australia and New Zealand apart from the northern half of the Sydney metropolitan area
– defined as extending ‘north of the Harbour and the Parramatta River and west as far as
Penrith’. Under this arrangement, both companies had to enter separate agreements with
Ancher Mortlock Murray and Woolley, with each retaining the right to both commission
or veto new designs ‘to ensure that houses being marketed as P. & S. will be compatible
with our product range, our corporate image etc’. In terms of marketing, it seems
that from this point the advertising of display homes and franchising operations that

113. Dated 8 February 1974 (AMW).
227
appeared in the press represented Landall’s and CHI’s interests conjointly. As far as the
general public was concerned, Pettit & Sevitt remained a single entity.
This was the point at which Brian Pettit and Ron Sevitt parted ways. Pettit, who had managed
the company’s major building projects for some years, stayed on with the Landall operation.
Sevitt, on the other hand, left Landall to take on the role of Managing Director of the CHI
company which took the name ‘Pettit + Sevitt Sales Pty. Limited’. He was also to stay on as
Marketing Consultant to Landall’s ‘Pettit + Sevitt’ on a part-time basis.114
While these major changes were occurring within the Pettit & Sevitt enterprise, conditions
within the local housing industry were becoming more difficult. As Brian Pettit recalls:
There was galloping inflation in those days and that was one of the things
that killed us more than anything else. By the time that we got the building
completed, the costs had gone up about 10 times. So it was hard to look
forward.115
1974 was a particularly bad year. According to Greig’s study of the Australian housing
industry:
The property crash of the mid-1970s was far more severe that that experienced
during 1960-1961. The boom of the early 1970s, in association with spiralling
land prices, had encouraged the entry of numerous large developers and
investors in the housing market. During the crash of 1974, many large (as well
as small) builders found themselves overcommitted.116
The worsening situation revealed itself in the way Pettit & Sevitt came to promote its
houses. The first advertisement it placed in the Herald for 1974 noted:
Building costs have increased. They will continue to increase. Finance is hard
to get right now. Finance should soon be easier. If you plan now, you’ll be ready
when the money is available. Come and talk to us about it. No obligation. Just
skilled help.117
Inserted between the sentences were cuttings from a recent article in the Australian on
‘Australia’s housing squeeze’ that reported how ‘rapidly soaring prices for both land
114. ibid.
115. Interview: Pettit 6 June 2002.
116. Greig, Structure, Organisation and Skill Formation in the Australian Housing Industry, p. 25. See
also Australian Institute of Urban Studies, Housing for Australia: Philosophy & Policies, Australian Insti-
tute of Urban Studies, Canberra, 1975.
228
and housing coupled with higher interest rates’ had resulted in ‘thousands of moderate
wage earners who previously could afford to buy their own house’ being priced out
of the market.118 As a price comparison of the Pettit & Sevitt range over the period
January 1974 to May 1976 reveals, housing costs continued to climb. Using the two
most enduring designs — the Split Level (‘1J Basic’) and the Lowline (‘J Basic’) — as
examples, their prices rose respectively by 52.64 per cent and 55.16 per cent over that
two and a half year period.119
In addition to these external forces, cracks began to appear within Pettit & Sevitt
itself. In October 1974, Landall went into receivership. Advertising of the Westleigh
Drive centre in the Herald petered out during that last quarter of the year, and when
it reappeared briefly in February 1975 no display centre was listed. The headline was
devoted to ‘Pettit + Sevitt houses now building at Gosford, Blue Mountains, and
South Sydney from $16,000 to $45,000’.120 Access to plans and drawings of what was
described as a newly added ‘range of low-cost houses’ was through the office of Pettit +
Sevitt Sales in St Ives. Houses could be seen only by appointment.121
Sometime early in 1975, it appears that a Sydney company, MAPC No. 10 Pty Limited,
took over Landall’s rights to the northern metropolitan area.122 By that point Brian Pettit
was no longer part of the operation. He had left about Christmas 1974 to set up his own
building operation in Canberra under the name Whiteholme.123 While the Pettit & Sevitt
advertisements in the Herald do not officially acknowledge Pettit’s departure, from
July 1974 they took on a decidedly new look. Purportedly designed and written by Ron
Sevitt, they are deliberately amateurish in presentation, featuring a ‘typed’ message
118. G. Williams, M. Roberts & J. Templeton, ‘Priced Out of a Home’, Australian 2 January 1974, p. 3.
119. Dated with Ancher Mortlock Woolley stamp, 19 July 1976 (AMW).
120. By April, the price range had increased to between $18,000 and ‘around’ $55,000 (Advertisement,
SMH, 19 April 1975, p. 23).
122. Deed, dated 8 April 1975, between Ancher Mortlock Murray & Woolley and Pettit & Sevitt Sales
Pty Limited and MAPC (No. 10) Pty Limited (AMW).
229
accompanied by a photograph mounted like an album snap.124 The content was also
quite revealing:
I’m the first to admit that we’re not in the middle of a building boom like we
were a few years back. In fact, quite a few companies have been nailed to the
wall. Only the good strong ones have survived. Well, we’re very much alive and
kicking and building homes…Right now is a good time to build. Land prices are
deflated, and there’s no shortage of good tradesmen or materials. Which means
we can probably build your house in about half the time it would have taken
twelve months ago.125
It took another four months for Pettit & Sevitt to advertise the opening of a new
‘Exhibition Centre’, nearly three years since the last had been announced. The new
centre was located at Fishburn Crescent, Castle Hill – a suburb west of Westleigh. The
centre comprised only two houses, both by Woolley: The Split Level 3K and the Garden
Room House. Unlike previous tri-level ‘split-levels’ the Split Level 3K, with its single
pitch roof, was designed to follow the line of a slope without the levels overlapping.
As noted in the accompanying brochure,126 this degree of ‘siting flexibility’ was ‘very
difficult to achieve but helpful in marketing to the greatest number of potential sites’.
According to the brochure for the Garden Room House,127 it came about in ‘response
to the demand for a smaller, lower cost house in a similar vein to the well established
Lowline design. This demand was created to a great extent by the restriction in available
finance and the high cost of land’. A garden room, as a semi indoor-outdoor space, had
already become an optional feature of the Lowline. In the Garden Room House it was
similarly designed as an extension to the living areas but now it adjoined a square rather
than a linear plan. While the Garden Room House was advertised at ‘approximately
$25,000 depending on locality’128 and the larger Split Level 3K at $36,414,129 the Pettit &
Sevitt price range was now advertised as extending from $21,000 to $100,000,130 though
no house design or its variation was actually listed at the latter price.
124. Advertisements beginning SMH, 12 July 1975, p. 9.

126. Pettit & Sevitt brochure, c1975 (AMW)
127. Pettit & Sevitt brochure, c1975 (AMW)
129. Pettit + Sevitt Houses ‘Sydney Price List’, October 1976 (AMW).
230
The last of the Pettit & Sevitt exhibition centres opened at Tuckwell Road in Castle
Hill in October 1976, not far from Fishburn Crescent. All three houses on show were
designed by Ken Woolley, with the most outstanding and challenging of the group
being the Linear House. Its plan essentially combined two systems. The primary unit
was, as Woolley described it, ‘a clear span linear space’.131 In other words a flat roof
structure where the load was taken by the external walls. The space could be subdivided
into living areas and bedrooms with corridors and circulation space. The divisions or
walls between these spaces, by virtue of being non-load bearing, could be changed
according to need. The primary unit could also be arranged in various configurations: a
straight line or in the shape of a U, an H or an L. The secondary components comprised
kitchen, bathroom and laundry units that were available in a range of sizes and designs.
Essentially however they were cubical structures that were ‘plugged into’ the outside
walls of the primary unit. Standard supplementary components, such as carports and
decks could also be added.
The Linear House generated considerable media interest. It was ‘showcased’ in Vogue
Living (Fig. 25) which considered the design ‘revolutionary…We think the Linear
House is a giant step forward in project houses – a good looking and workable house
that suits almost any Australian family’.132 The magazine was so impressed that it
commissioned interior designer John Siddley to furnish and decorate the house. He
reported that: ‘The architect produced the answer for every problem and Pettit and
Sevitt can offer the line with so many variations. I was delighted with the freedom of
space and variety of situations in this architectural project’.133
Following the opening of the Tuckwell Road centre, ominous signs began to creep into
the Pettit + Sevitt’s advertising. Along of the bottom of at least three advertisements that
131. ‘The Linear House Showcase’, VL, December-February 1976-77, p. 83.

132. ibid., p. 82.
133. ibid., p. 86.
231
Fig. 25: The Linear House, designed by Ken Woolley, as featured in Vogue Living,
December 1976 – February 1977..
232
appeared in the Herald ran the line:
Important: Severe credit restrictions forecast for the June quarter 1977 make an
early home buying decision a prudent choice. Pettit + Sevitt are able to assist
qualified client with finance for a Pettit + Sevitt home but an early decision
should be made as limited funds are available.134
By May 1977 Pettit + Sevitt was no longer promoting the three display houses in the
Herald, only a free ‘Design catalogue’ that could be obtained from Ron Sevitt by
telephoning or writing to the exhibition centre. The ‘new’ design catalogue featured
‘13 of the very latest in individual architect design houses’. The price range had now
contracted to between $29,000 and ‘around $75,000’.135 Nevertheless, it appears
that there was still an impressive, if substantially depleted list of franchise builders
and licensees operating in New South Wales, Adelaide and at various locations in
Queensland and Victoria as well as Auckland, New Zealand.136
Advertising in the Sydney Morning Herald — the primary vehicle for marketing and
publicity — petered out in the latter half of 1977. It briefly reappeared in 1978, when
ironically the advertisements were based on the old dialogue format that had been so
successful for the company during the period of Brian Pettit’s involvement. This time
however the amusing banter was between Ron and Val Sevitt. The Tuckwell Road
exhibition centre was still operating, but it appears almost as a distribution centre for
‘their catalogue of beautiful houses’.137 Demonstration homes were noted, but these
were now in Newcastle and Canberra. There was no mention of the franchising network
that had once encompassed Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and New Zealand.
While the upper end of the price range was now advertised as $200,000, affordability
was still an underlying theme: ‘a range of exclusive three bedroom homes under
$20,000’, that even ‘a tea lady’ could afford.138 In June one of the advertisements noted
the opening of a ‘new “super version” of our award winning 4J house’: a four bedroom
134. Advertisements, SMH, 4 December 1976, p. 6; 11 December 1976, p. 10; 22 January 1977, p. 19.
136. ‘Pettit + Sevitt Sales Pty Ltd Franchise Builders & Licensees’, dated 21 April 1977 (AMW).
233
split-level priced at approximately $34,000.139 It has not been possible to locate this
house however and Ken Woolley cannot recall that it was ever built.140
The last of these advertisements appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald in October
1978 and this is the year that most sources141 — including Brian Pettit and Ron Sevitt
— quote as marking the end of Pettit & Sevitt. It was then that Landall finally went into
liquidation, owing a substantial debt to CHI among others. As reported in the Financial
Review:
Landall Ltd, key operating company in the Landall group which collapsed
in 1974 owing some $22 million, has gone into liquidation…According to a
statement of affairs, CHI Ltd of Melbourne is owed $675,000. It stands to lose
around $600,000. Other big unsecured creditors include…Anchor [sic] Mortlock
Murray and Woolley $47,000.142
The enterprise was not entirely extinguished however. While Ron Sevitt may have
ended his association with the business he co-founded in 1978, Ancher Mortlock and
Woolley were still providing drawings for ‘CHI Properties for Pettit + Sevitt Sales
Pty Ltd, Tuckwell Road, Castle Hill’ until at least October 1979.143 The death knell
appears to have finally sounded on 22 January 1981 when CHI Limited Group went into
receivership.144 Its collapse would have had a direct impact on MAPC (No 10), however
it took some years before that company was finally deregistered with the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission at the beginning of 1992.145
In summary, Pettit & Sevitt’s history was complex not only in terms of its varying fortunes
and ownership but also in relation to its business interests. Unlike the way in which the
enterprise has been traditionally portrayed, those interests extended beyond the production
of project housing into other areas of building and speculative activity. Furthermore,
141. Royal Australian Institute of Architects Education Division, p. 32; Ancher, Mortlock & Woolley,
Ken Woolley and Ancher Mortlock & Woolley: Selected and Current Works, Images Publishing Group and
Craftsman House, Mulgrave, Victoria, 1999, p. 58.
142. FR, 7 December 1978, p. 19.
143. Copies of drawings dated 11 October 1979 (AMW).
144. ‘Letter to Creditors’ from A.G. Hodgson of Ferrier Hodgson & Co, Chartered Accountants, dated 23
January 1981 (AMW).
145. Available at http://www.search.asic.gov.au (accessed 6 January 2006).
234
whatever the market forces involved, the demise of Pettit & Sevitt was also directly
related to factors that were specific to the business and its ownership. Nevertheless, in
terms of the critical period of the 1960s, Pettit & Sevitt provided an important model
of a highly successful enterprise based on a working relationship between builder and
architect; a model that seemed to hold enormous potential.146
CULTURE OF PRODUCTION
The culture of production that developed at Pettit & Sevitt was as much concerned with
what Bourdieu would describe as the ‘presentation and representation’147 of itself and
its product as it was with the actual production of housing. This culture had its origins
in Sun-Line Homes which had pioneered the commissioning, production and marketing
of architect-designed project homes in Sydney. Ron Sevitt and Brian Pettit invested this
form of enterprise with a new level of complexity and sophistication.
At the beginning of the 1970s, during the height of its success, Pettit & Sevitt
contributed a statement on its mode of operation to Ian Mckay et al’s review of
contemporary Australian housing, Living & Partly Living:
Pettit & Sevitt Pty Ltd was set up ten years ago, with the specific intention of
catering for the home buyer who had a need for a better environment within which
to live but who did not, in many cases, have the pocket-book to go with it…By
marketing houses designed by architects but built employing mass production
techniques, we felt that we could pass on the ensuring economic benefits to the
public. The prototype of each house which we build as an exhibition home has
a twofold purpose: it enables us to estimate the cost of the finished product and
shows the prospective customer the quality that he can expect if he enters into
a contract with us. Over the past ten years this fairly simple, straightforward
marketing approach has been sophisticated to the extent that by analysis of consumer
requirements and profiles, we have been able successfully to produce a range of
basic houses that meet with general acceptance within the strata of the market at
which we are aiming…The end result of our product development and marketing
techniques is an economically priced house, designed by outstanding architects, that
incorporates a built-in flexibility to cater for the needs dictated by the site, and the
clients, and a system that will allow the client to express his own personality.148
146. As a postscript to this history, Val Sevitt is currently attempting to revive Pettit & Sevitt as a project
building enterprise, with an updated Lowline and Split Level designed by Ken Woolley providing the basis
of the range. See S. Lacey, ‘Surburban Revival’, essential supplement, SMH, 13 September 2007, p. 26.
147. Bourdieu, Distinction, p. 359
148. McKay et al, p. 128
235
Pettit & Sevitt in other words represented itself in much the same way as a commercial
manufacturer. Its operation centred on product — its design, production, marketing and
sales. Even the fact that Pettit & Sevitt came to describe itself as a ‘merchant’ builder,
rather than a project builder, served to emphasise this position. As Ken Woolley recalled,
‘Ron was promoting ‘merchant builder’ because it recognised the notion of having a
product which you sell…‘project’ tends to mean that you’re building a project and then
you’re selling it’.149 Furthermore, Pettit & Sevitt’s product was distinguished by the fact
that although it was ‘mass produced’ it could be customised (within limits) to the client’s
requirements and ‘personality’. This was made possible through the involvement of an
architect in both the production of standardised plans and in their modification.
The Target Market
Brian Pettit and Ron Sevitt knew from the beginning that prospective homebuyers who
were prepared to buy ‘straight off the hook’ were not their target group. They aimed
instead for:
the upper end of the market…people who had either tried to have houses
designed by an architect and found that they couldn’t build for the price or…
would like to, or were scared to try, or didn’t have the money…We picked out
a market segment and we aimed for the young professionals, for people who
travelled.150
Originally drawing on their own experience and intuition, the partners eventually
contracted a firm to undertake market research on their client base.151 Brian Pettit recalls
that the results of the research showed that ‘the largest group of clients by occupation
were Qantas pilots, the next lot were advertising people, and the third lot were
architects’.152
Knowing its market, Pettit & Sevitt then sought to distinguish it. An advertisement from
1976, that was devised to promote its display homes at Castle Hill, provides an obvious
150. Interview: Sevitt, 28 July 1992. (PHM)
151. It is interesting to note that Ancher Mortlock Murray & Woolley encouraged this market research.
‘Concerning the purposes and methods of research possible on Pettit Sevitt Houses & Pettit Sevitt Purchas-
ers’, undated report from Ancher Mortlock Murray & Woolley to Pettit, Sevitt & Partners, c1964. (AMW)
236
example:
“The Different Australian”. A person of varied and interesting facets, an opinion

maker concerned with social issues. They are not stationary but on the way
up, they are critical but know that there are two sides to an issue. Theirs is an
exciting world of new experiences even in little things. They like shopping and
discovering new foods. They are adventurous and search for quality in life. “The
Different Australian” will enjoy living in a “Pettit + Sevitt House”.153
In order to engage ‘The Different Australian’, ‘individuality’ became one of the
cornerstones of Pettit & Sevitt’s culture of production. Difference was established
in the first instance through the product itself — ‘architect-designed’ being the first
determinant. Then, even the basic level of standardised product, modular floor plans and
variations in roof-lines meant that the product could be ‘tailored to your family’s own
requirements’.154 Added to this was the fact that it could be further customised during
the course of an interview with the architect. As summed up by Ron Sevitt in the first
issue of dimension:
“We do not believe that sameness, dullness or rigidity of plan have any place
in our view of the merchant builders’ role today,” Ron Sevitt says. “In fact, we
refuse to build any two houses in near proximity which even faintly resemble
each other. Our clients want original homes which answer their own individual
tastes and ways of life. We adapt our base designs to suit these”.155
Individuality, Quality and Value
Ultimately however, it was the way in which Petitt & Sevitt combined ‘individuality’
with economy that provided the ultimate selling point. It was central to the way it
represented its culture of production: ‘By marketing houses designed by architects but
built employing mass production techniques, we felt that we could pass on the ensuing
economic benefits to the public’.156 Although the enterprise was willing to explore the
potential of ‘mass production’ in the form represented by the Linear House, their normal
approach to production was not the same as that of a commercial manufacturer. It was
more a matter of streamlining production to the point that Pettit & Sevitt could promise

154. Pettit &Sevitt brochure c1966.
155. ‘P& S Experts Talk…About Merchant Building’, dimension, vol. 1 no. 1, May 1964, unpag.
156. McKay et al, p. 128.
237
the completion of a house in ten weeks, weather permitting.157 This was achieved
through integrating rather than sequencing the building operation, along similar lines
to what Sun-Line had trialled. As Pettit recalls, ‘It meant that the carpenters were
employed fulltime on that job. They didn’t have to go away to another job and then
come back again to fit the doors’.158 It also provided an incentive for efficient work
practices: ‘They still got paid the same amount of money no matter how long it took.
So if they finished it more quickly, well they got paid more.159 The downside was that
supply of materials was critical to this process. This was something beyond the direct
control of Pettit & Sevitt and was to prove a problem in later years.
Economies of scale also supported efficient production. Of particular importance to
Pettit was having the timber framing constructed off site:
We had our own platform at the Gordon timbers where we bought all our timber.
They made the space available to us. And the carpenters for each job would go
and make the frames there and then we’d put them on a truck and send it [to the
site].160
Economies of scale also provided opportunities for investing the product with points of
difference. Manufacturers for example were more open to respond to unconventional
specifications, such as the eight foot (2.4 metre) doors Woolley designed for some of the
Split Level houses.
While the ‘economic benefits’ of Pettit & Sevitt’s production techniques was a major
selling point, they were never presented as the primary outcome. In addition to
individuality, it was the quality of the end product that was meant to set it apart from
what else was on the market. ‘Architect-designed’ was again used to substantiate this
claim, however there was also the level of supervision and after sales service that Pettit
& Sevitt provided. Building supervisors were employed to maintain high production
standards and there was also a three month warranty period during which Pettit &
157. Pettit &Sevitt brochure, c1966.

159. ibid.
160. Interview: Pettit, 21 November 2005
238
Sevitt would ‘attend urgent maintenance needs’. After that the company would correct
any faults ‘at a mutually convenient time’.161 Even Melbourne’s Cross-Section was
impressed: ‘their after-sales radio controlled service vans are becoming a familiar sight
around Sydney’.162 As Pettit & Sevitt chose to describe it: ‘Sloppy detail can defeat the
whole intention of great architecture’.163
Quality and individuality were not only identified with the product but the Pettit &
Sevitt enterprise itself. This began with the two partners — Brian Pettit and Ron Sevitt
— who became emblematic of the enterprise and not only in name. By the mid 1960s,
an advertising campaign had developed around the two men that was to achieve a level
of fame, even within the advertising industry itself.164 The first of these advertisements
appeared on page seven of the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, 17 April 1965
(Fig. 26). No houses were featured, only the faces of Brian Pettit and Ron Sevitt across
seven columns. Beneath the two photographs ran the text of a conversation between the
two men. The banter was both amusing and informative, but not hard sell. According
to Pettit, ‘The whole idea of the ad was not promote the houses but to promote people’s
interest’.165 Importantly it also served to reinforce a sense of the personalised approach
and service that was meant to underpin the operation. These were real people who were
happy to stand behind their product. So successful were the advertisements, that they
became Pettit & Sevitt’s signature for many years.
The personalisation of Pettit & Sevitt however did not end with the partners. It extended
throughout the enterprise and even to the clients themselves. For example, the first issue
of Pettit & Sevitt’s own newsletter dimension (Fig. 27) included profiles on ‘award
winning architect’ Ken Woolley, Nerida Lewis-Thorpe ‘No 1 Girl Friday’, Ray Coles
bricklayer and artist and ‘Client of the Month’, ‘top advertising executive’ John P.
161. Pettit &Sevitt brochure, c1966.

162. Cross-Section, issue 154, 1 August 1965, unpag.
163. Advertisement, VL 15 September –14 November 1973, p. 53
164. Interview: Rodgers 12 June 2002.
165. Interview: Pettit 6 June 2002.
239
Fig. 26: The first of Pettit & Sevitt’s ‘dialogue’ advertisements.

(Sydney Morning Herald, 17 April 1965).
240
Fig. 27: The first issue of dimension, May 1964.

241
O’Flaherty.166 The same approach surfaced in advertisements, such as the one featuring
General Manager John Graham under the heading ‘He supervises the Pettit & Sevitt
supervisors’.167
Understandably, those people who played a significant role in representing the company,
particularly those who had face-to-face contact with clients, were carefully chosen. In
terms of building supervisors for example, Brian Pettit recalled:
we had four supervisors…all of whom were qualified civil engineers. And why
was that? It wasn’t necessarily because we needed an engineer…we needed a
tertiary educated supervisor to talk to our clients…These qualified engineers had
the authority and they got on with our clients.168
Maintaining control over this aspect of Pettit & Sevitt’s ‘presentation and representation’
became more difficult when the enterprise began extending its operations interstate.
Again it was an issue of concern for both Pettit & Sevitt and Ancher, Mortlock, Murray
& Woolley. In an early report produced by the practice on the Melbourne operation for
example, the following concerns were expressed about a local agent:
Comments on Mr X169real estate. Though Mr X is a pleasant enough person…

We both consider Mr X was not the sort of person most suitable to represent the
image PS wish to convey in Sydney. He seemed more suitable for selling Gavin
& Shalalla houses than PS, which have a quality, contemporary image.170
Not even architects were immune to such scrutiny:
Comments on Mr Neil Clerehan’s engagement. For the Melbourne client PS

can expect Mr Clerehan seems an excellent choice as he has the distinguished
quality I expect Melbourne people would appreciate and his office location in
Sth Yarra is eminently suitable.171
Presentation and Representation
The primary medium for the ‘presentation and representation’ of Pettit & Sevitt and
its product was the display home. It provided the means by which home buyers could
directly experience the individuality, quality and value promised in the advertising, and
166. dimension vol. 1 no. 1 May 1964, unpag.

167. Advertisement, VL, 15 September –14 November 1973, p. 53
169. Name withheld by author.
170. ‘Report on Melbourne Trip for Pettit & Sevitt’, dated 21 July 1966 (AMW).
171. ibid.
242
potentially identify with the product. While Sun-Line Homes and more particularly
Lend Lease Homes had already realised the benefits of devoting resource to furnishing
and landscaping their display houses, Pettit & Sevitt took it one step further.
To begin with, the physical context of the display homes was carefully considered. The
environment of the exhibition village was composed to reflect the bush sites that most
of Pettit & Sevitt’s prospective buyers would be considering for purchase (Fig. 28).
Native gardens also happened to be gaining in popularity at the time and Pettit & Sevitt
advertised their houses as being ‘designed to blend with the terrain’. A specialist was
brought in for the task, predominantly landscape architect Bruce Mackenzie, known
for his promotion of indigenous planting and the retention of existing vegetation on
building sites.172
Much was also made of the fact that ‘specialists’ were brought in to furnish and decorate
the house interiors. These included included interior decorator Dell Little as well as
suppliers such as Artes Studios, a shop specialising in contemporary furniture and
design.173 Other local suppliers included Marion Best Pty Ltd, the shop and studio of
Sydney’s leading interior designer Marion Hall Best.174 At the large exhibition centres,
each display house was presented in a different design theme. Some of the furniture was
purchased overseas by Pettit and Sevitt together with Ken Woolley and included fine
contemporary Scandinavian, English and American pieces. Visitors could also expect
to see the latest in appliances – dishwashers, counter-sunk cooking tops, wall ovens and
rotisseries.
Sydney furniture designer, Alexander Blair remembers being so impressed with the
style and presentation of Pettit & Sevitt exhibition centres, that he convinced Ron Sevitt
172. B. Mackenzie, ‘The Landscape Environment - A Wasted Potential’, AiA, vol. 55, no. 6, 1966, pp.
111-120; C. Bull, New Conversations With An Old Landscape: Landscape Architecture in Contemporary
Australia, The Images Publishing Group, Mulgrave, Victoria, 2002.
173. ‘Project Houses’, Vogue Guide to Living, May-July 1969, p. 91.
174. List of expenses for south side exhibition centre, 1965 (AMW).
243
Fig. 28: Split Level Mk 1 display home within its landscaped setting in St Ives. Photograph
by Max Dupain (PHM).
244
to allow him to furnish one of the display home interiors.175 Manufacturers and suppliers
also obviously saw an advantage in having their products displayed in this context.
When one company was experimenting with microwave ovens in the early 1970s for
example, Ron Sevitt arranged to have a model installed in one of the display homes.176
Similarly, Caroma trialled a new range of taps.177 But again, the ‘look’ was carefully
monitored down to the fine detail. According to Pettit, when they started using wall
ovens in their houses for example, the brand they chose had knobs that were ‘too fancy’:
‘We wanted much plainer knobs, so…all the ovens they sent to us they put our knobs
on, not the flash ones that were on their standard model’.178
As showcases of contemporary design in all its manifestations, Pettit & Sevitt display
homes were meant to project an image with which the target market could identify or
at least aspire to. While limited in the beginning by a lack of resources, by 1965 the
approach was clearly formulated. During the planning of the 1966 demonstration centre
it was noted that: ‘Every effort to increase the depth of furnishing will be made in order
that we can inject that really ‘lived in’ look’.179 Such emphasis came to be placed on
this process of identification that traces of the ‘ideal family’ were seeded throughout the
display home environments. The idea seems to have originated during a trip that Pettit,
Sevitt and Woolley took to America in the 1960s:
One of the things we saw in America that impressed us was a fire going in the
fireplace and there was the book on the floor and there was a half used cup of
coffee and some biscuits and crumbs where someone you picture had been lying
down in front of the fire having a cup of coffee and reading their book.180
Drawing on the American model, Pettit & Sevitt display houses had dining tables fully
set, selected magazines left on coffee tables and bookshelves stocked with particular
175. Interview: Blair, 9 February 2000.

176. Interview: R. & V. Sevitt, 11 March 1994. (PHM)
178. ibid.
179. ‘1966 Model Home Centre’ report, dated 15 March 1965 (AMW)
180. Interview: Pettit, 6 June 2002. It should be noted that, by virtue of the differences in the way
American merchant builders operated, it was only their marketing and presentation practices that were of
significant interest to Pettit & Sevitt.
245
Fig. 29: Pettit & Sevitt display home interiors. Photograph by Max Dupain (PHM).
246
sorts of books (Fig. 29). Special attention came to be lavished on the kitchen, which
according to Ron Sevitt reflected ‘a recognition that women played a big part in
the decision to buy and build houses and our research showed that the kitchen was
important in the house, so we focussed on it’.181 Accordingly, the shelves and benches
of display homes were stocked with jars of preserved fruit and pasta, sausages, bread
loaves (not sliced and packaged), wine bottles (not beer), and an array of pots, pans
and cooking accessories that implied the presence of an accomplished cook/hostess. As
Val Sevitt put it ‘it was all there…as if you were actually living in the kitchen. It was
a living breathing kitchen’.182 In fact some visitors identified a little too closely with
the constructed settings: ‘We used to have to glue everything down mind you, because
they would pocket them as they went through’.183 The kitchens became showcases in
themselves, with at least one featured on the front cover of Vogue Living (Fig. 30).184
Other forms of innovative marketing techniques included the development of a multi-
screen audiovisual for Pettit & Sevitt’s exhibition centre at Thornleigh. This was
designed to increase the number of actual buyers from the mass of visitors to the display
centres. Multi-screen audiovisuals were then in their infancy in Australia. This one used
slides and a voice-over to tell the story of a young Australian family and their quest to
find a suitable home. As Pettit recalls:
We had this series of slides. They’d walk you through getting a Pettit and Sevitt
house and you’d see a young couple…they’re coming into the exhibition, then it
flashes over…they’re sitting down with the architect…then they go over the job
and a guy who does the excavating is there with the bulldozer…but the last thing
is…the young couple sitting at a candle light dinner in their new house, and
raising their glasses. We’d turn on the lights and, everybody crying, the salesmen
would move in and sign them up.185
The importance of the medium to the message was explicit in all aspects of Pettit &
Sevitt’s ‘presentation and representation’. When photographs, rather than drawings,
181. Interview: R. & V. Sevitt, 11 March 1994. (PHM)

182. ibid.
183. Interview: V. Sevitt 3 May 2002.
184. VL, 15 February–14 April 1974.
247
Fig. 30: Kitchen of Pettit & Sevitt’s Split Level 1J display home at Westleigh as featured
on the cover of Vogue Living, 15 February – 14 April 1974.
248
were used to represent its designs, Sydney’s top architectural photographer, Max
Dupain, was employed for the job. And when Pettit & Sevitt published its own
brochures and newsletter, many of these were printed on unconventional paper stock,
denoting the desired qualities of distinctiveness and authenticity. The newsletter was
itself an inventive way of fostering a more personal relationship with the potential
client. ‘Published in the interests of good design and family living’, dimension kept
buyers up-to-date with the firm’s activities, philosophy, prominent clients as well as
providing a catalogue of designs. It was eventually replaced by a system of printed
sheets — one for each design — that provided photographs, descriptions and floor plan
variations.
Careful consideration was also given to the placement of Pettit & Sevitt advertisements.
In terms of magazines, the partnership focussed on the exclusive Vogue and Vogue
Living. Of the local newspapers, it demonstrated a preference for the Sydney
Morning Herald, a broadsheet not a tabloid. Pettit & Sevitt further distinguished its
advertisements by locating them in the news section of the paper, towards the front,
rather than in real estate towards the back. This technique had already been used most
effectively by Lend Lease Homes – with its full and double-page spreads. As noted
however, by the mid to late 1960s, Pettit & Sevitt advertisements had become a feature
in themselves. This was the work of the innovative advertising team, Rodgers Holland
and Everingham, whom the partners had contracted in 1964.186
In summary, design, marketing and sales held equal weight with production within
Pettit & Sevitt and it is significant that they were combined into one area of overall
responsibility under Ron Sevitt. Production came under Brian Pettit. Even as the
organisation grew, with the appointment of market managers, sales managers and
building supervisors, the division of responsibility between the two men remained. That
is not to say that each was not actively engaged with the business as a whole and that
186. Interview: Rodgers, 12 June 2002.

249
their roles did not overlap. Indeed it was the commitment and the passion of both men
for what they had created together that underpinned Pettit & Sevitt’s success. ‘We had
a superior product and we believed that and we cared about it. We weren’t prepared
to compromise on it. Now they’re the important things’.187 However it is important
to underline the fact that, unlike the traditional model of the Australian house builder
— and extending on what Sun-Line Homes had pioneered locally — Pettit & Sevitt
was focussed as much on ‘presentation and representation’ as production. Its culture
of production was closer to that of a commercial manufacturer concerned with the
whole cycle of design, production and marketing of product. As in du Gay’s study of
Sony, Pettit & Sevitt’s processes of production supported the way in which its product
was encoded with particular meaning — in other words, customised ‘to the lifestyle
of a particular niche or target market segment’.188 Production thus formed part of the
larger circuit that was concerned with the way in which the product and the company
were respresented and identified through the language of advertising and marketing.
This cultural orientation had obvious implications in relation to the terms under which
architects were engaged by Pettit & Sevitt - or more specifically the ways in which their
professional authority and expertise were employed, presented and represented.
THE ROLE OF THE ARCHITECT
Defining the Terms of Engagement
During the course of Pettit & Sevitt’s operation, six architects contributed to its range
– Geoffrey Lumsdaine, Ken Woolley, Michael Dysart, Russell Jack, Harry Seidler and
Neil Clerehan.189 Of these, Ken Woolley was most closely identified with the enterprise,
having been involved with Pettit & Sevitt from its early days until its closure, and
having produced by far the majority of house designs on offer. The relationship that
developed between Woolley and partners Sevitt and Pettit was close and enduring,

188. Du Gay et al, p. 66.
189. According to Taylor, ‘Some designs for Pettit and Sevitt from the firm of Ancher, Mortlock, Murray
and Woolley were prepared by Bryce Mortlock and Stuart Murray. None of these served as display houses
and few were built’. See Taylor, Australian Architecture Since 1960, p. 251.
250
and extended beyond project housing. The three men were involved in other business
enterprises,190 they met socially and travelled abroad together.
Within the context of Pettit & Sevitt, all three have described their relationship as
collaborative rather than hierarchical. In fact, as Woolley recalls:
I did have an opportunity to join, be part of the company at one point, before
I joined Ancher Mortlock and Murray, and it was tempting…even though it
obviously wouldn’t have been ethical at that time, possibly not even at a later
time, to have had a profit share in their company. My instincts were more along
the professional line. It’s a fee for a service and for the value of the object given,
not a share of how successful it might have been…In other words, it was a
dividing of responsibility and relationship.191
The ethical considerations were significant as such a move on Woolley’s part would
have directly contravened the RAIA’s Code of Ethics at this time. There were also
other factors that informed Woolley’s decision. As a young and talented architect, his
ambitions extended beyond residential work alone. During his years as design architect
in the Government Architects Branch, New South Wales Public Works Department,
he had been given the opportunity to design major public buildings, such as Fisher
Library, University of Sydney (1958–62)192 and the State Office Block (1960–65), the
former winning the Sulman Award and RIBA Bronze Medal. Once Woolley had left
Government Architects and joined the partnership of Ancher Mortlock and Murray
in January 1964, major public and private commissions quickly followed such as the
University of Newcastle Student Union (1964–70) and Staff Club (1967–68), Town Hall
House, Sydney Square (1971–74) and the Australian Embassy, Bangkok (1973–78).
However collaborative the nature of the relationship that existed between Woolley,
Sevitt and Pettit, the terms of his engagement still needed to be established. At the very
beginning, the agreement between Woolley, Michael Dysart and the two partners was
based on an informal arrangement. At this point, there were no guidelines or scale of
190. In addition to Pettit & Sevitt projects such as the Pacific Harbour Resort and the group housing for
mining companies and government agencies. After the collapse of Pettit & Sevitt, Woolley also continued to
provide designs for Brian Pettit’s building projects.
192. In collaboration with T.E. O’Mahony.
251
charges established by the NSW Chapter that pertained specifically to project housing.
There were also no real precedents apart from that provided by Geoffrey Lumsdaine,
who also had to find his way in working with both Sun-Line Homes and Pettit & Sevitt.
The original arrangement between Woolley, Dysart and Pettit & Sevitt essentially
established that the architects would provide house designs as well as standard sets of
plans and specifications for an agreed fee. The architects would also be available to
work with individual clients in modifying the standard designs to suit their particular
needs and site requirements, for which another fee would be paid. Finally the architects
would also receive a royalty once a house was completed or, as later agreed, once plans
and specifications were lodged with local council. In terms of exclusivity, the architects
were not to provide other builders with the same or similar designs, but they were not
prevented from designing for them. Similarly, Pettit & Sevitt could commission designs
from other architects.193
As time went on and the enterprise grew, formal legal agreements were entered into.
These became more complex once Pettit & Sevitt extended into franchising and by
1967 reference to the RAIA’s scale of charges and guidelines were also included.
Project architects at Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley also took on the day-to-
day responsibilities of working with Pettit & Sevitt and its clients, rather than Woolley
himself. Nevertheless, the basic principles of the original agreement persisted until the
end. Importantly they served to clarify the nature of the professional relationship that
existed between the architect and the builder and, most significantly, that the builder
rather than the home buyer was the client. While this was to prove a difficult point for
the local architectural profession in view of traditional ethical codes, there was certainly
no doubt in Woolley’s mind as he made clear in an article written for Building Ideas in
1967:
With the advent of merchant building, the house has become a “product” in the
same sense as other manufactured items, such as washing machines and motor
cars. The architect’s services are thus oriented toward the producer of the houses
— the merchant builder…Whereas formerly the client looked to the architect

252
for contractual and quality safeguards, these are now provided, in the main,
by the demonstration houses, which correspond to the display models of other
manufactured products.194
Architectural Expertise and the Processes of Production
Woolley came to understand that taking on a role within a commercial enterprise such as
Pettit & Sevitt created special demands: ‘You’re designing a product, you’re developing
new product and you’re trying to update current product to a new standard; maintain
your position in the market…if you’re seen as a market leader, then you’ve got to keep
leading. That was the process’.195 On the positive side, this generated opportunities
not only in terms of developing new designs, but also in exploring new materials and
methods of construction that were explicit for example in the Linear House. These
opportunities were enhanced by Pettit & Sevitt’s connection with large companies
such as Hume Concrete, Monier and BHP.196 However, there were also drawbacks: ‘On
the down side, I think we tended to be scratching around at times for novelty or for
unnecessary updating you might say, just for the sake of having a new product’.197
Product development was one thing, but there was also the process of production
and Woolley was very alert to the interdependence of development, production and
consumption: ‘If the production wasn’t good enough, then it would feed back into the
product so that you’d get a bad reputation’.198 Brian Pettit and Ron Sevitt were not the
concern according to Woolley: ‘they had very good ethical standards…They achieved
not only financial success but they also achieved a degree of kudos and personal
achievement out of their status in their profession and in architecture’.199 But as the
organisation grew, control over production became more difficult. The sales personnel
staffing the display centres for example were frequently called to account by Woolley or
194. K. Woolley, ‘The Architect’s Role in Merchant Building’, Building Ideas, vol. 3, no. 6, 1967, p. 12.
196. ibid. A research study that Woolley conducted into prefabricated housing for BHP, for example,
influenced the design of the Linear House.
197. ibid.
198. ibid.
199. ibid.
253
one of his project architects for making promises to clients in relation to house designs
without consultation.200
Franchising, which became a major side of the business, also created difficulties in
terms of quality control (not to mention the payment of architectural fees): ‘They
were all supposed to have local architects and generally they did…[but] there were
the notorious exceptions’.201 These local architects were meant to confer with Ancher
Mortlock Murray & Woolley, which some did but not all. For those franchise builders
operating within New South Wales or the Australian Capital Territory, there was also
meant to be close contact and consultation with the architect. Again, however, the
system frequently failed with houses being built before the architect had had a chance to
check the drawings.202
Architectural Authority
Woolley’s role was central to Pettit & Sevitt, both in terms of its culture of production
and in the way it chose to present and represent itself. However, during the first half
of the firm’s operation, he is not mentioned by name in any of its advertisements, or in
the elaborate descriptions of house designs provided in promotional brochures. This is
not to deny his profile within Pettit & Sevitt and the image it projected to the public at
this time. He was featured in dimension and claimed a major part of any discussion in
the media about the houses he designed for the range. Nevertheless, strictly in terms
of Pettit & Sevitt advertising and general marketing, the emphasis appears to be on
architectural authority rather than the merits or reputation of the individual architect.
The houses embodied ‘architectural excellence and value’203 and ‘the very latest trends
in architectural thought’,204 not the design philosophy of a particular architect. For
200. See for example the unsigned copy of letter from the offices of Ancher Mortlock Murray and
Woolley to P. Ferris, dated 30 September 1966 (AMW).
201. Interview: Woolley,16 November 2005.
202. See for example correspondence between Ancher Mortlock Murray and Woolley and a franchise
builder (name withheld by author), January–May 1970, (AMW).
203. ‘Split Level Mk II’, dimension, vol. 1 no. 2 July 1964, unpag.
254
Woolley, practical concerns lay behind this approach:
I think understandably they didn’t want to feel that their business was totally
reliant on the identification of me…I had a trajectory of my own which they
could see very clearly and I wasn’t necessarily going to be always either able or
willing to focus on what they were doing.
In any case, ‘The notion of ‘architect-designed’ was a market position…because a lot of
people did want an architect designed house. Well you could have one at a reasonable
price. So that was a much more powerful argument than they could have one of my
houses’.205
However there was also the RAIA’s Code of Ethics to consider which insisted that:
‘A member must not advertise or offer his professional services to any person or body
corporate by means of circulars or otherwise’.206 Even after the revisions of 1969,
advertising remained a sensitive issue. In August 1969, Woolley sent a letter to Pettit
& Sevitt to make it clear that he was keen to ensure that both the ‘Institute’s standards’
and his ‘own judgement of suitability’ were met in relation to advertising. Although
an architect could have his or her name associated with illustrations and descriptions
of their work (within certain provisios), Woolley stressed the difference between his
name, or rather the practice’s name being ‘used as a credit for the work, not as an
inducement to buy’. At the same time, he insisted that any description of the work
‘would have to be approved by us and be clear and unambiguous about the authorship
of any particular houses or houses’.207 The message was timely as it was in August 1969
that the Curvilinear house by Harry Seidler was launched at the Duffy Avenue Centre,
Thornleigh. It is in an advertisement for this centre that the first attributions appear.208
From this point on ‘by Ancher Mortlock Murray & Woolley’209 became a standard
inclusion in Pettit & Sevitt advertisements.

206. ‘Code of Professional Conduct’, RAIA Year Book and Diary 1966-67, Royal Australian Institute of
Architects, Sydney, 1966, p. 33.
207. Letter from K. Woolley to J. Graham, dated 13 August 1969 (AMW).
208. Advertisement, SMH, 23 August 1969, p. 6. An advertisement that included an announcement that
the Lowline had won its category in the 1967 Project Home Design Awards, also noted that it was de-
signed by Ancher Mortlock Murray & Woolley (SMH, 26 August 1967, p. 7).
209. The name of the practice changed to Ancher Mortlock & Woolley after Stuart Murray left in 1976.
255
It was not only architectural authority and (later) authorship that was important to Pettit
& Sevitt’s presentation and representation of its product, it was evidence of sanction
and approval by the architectural profession. This was sought after and represented
in various ways, even prior to the inauguration of the NSW Chapter’s Project House
Design Awards. In a Pettit & Sevitt brochure from about 1966 for example, under the
headline ‘The Philosophy that built Pettit & Sevitt’, it was noted that ‘architectural
students are brought regularly to see our exhibition centre’ followed by ‘A high
proportion of our new clients are referred to us by architects’. Two years earlier,
dimension devoted an illustrated article to ‘Students examine P & S Techniques’, where
it explained that ‘Special passes, plans and job details have…been issued by the firm to
[architectural] students who wish to inspect houses in various stages of construction for
practical study purposes’. The article also rather pointedly took the opportunity to report
that ‘student interest in project housing had been further stimulated by discussions held
during the 1964 Australian Architectural Students’ Association Congress’.
Two important resolutions made during the congress included statements that
“architects should endeavour to become active participants in the building teams
which produce houses by mass-production techniques.’ And also that “the Royal
Australian Institute of Architects should revise its code of professional ethics
so as to allow architects to assume executive positions in organisations which
produce low-cost housing.210
Explicit sanction by the profession came in 1967 when Pettit & Sevitt’s Split Level
and Lowline won two of the three categories of the inaugural Project House Design
Awards. The awards were announced publicly in July211 and their importance in relation
to the homebuyer market (and by implication to enterprises such as Pettit & Sevitt)
was quickly recognised by Eva Buhrich in her regular column for the Sydney Morning
Herald. Under the headline ‘Project award guide to home buyers’ she noted:
The project house design award…will give a valuable lead to home buyers in their
search for a home. Today buyers are faced with a wide choice of project houses on
the market, and often have little knowledge with which to evaluate the designs.
210. ‘Students Examine P&S Techniques’, dimension, vol. 1 no. 2 July 1964 unpag.
211. SMH, 14 July 1967, p. 4.; DT, 14 July 1967, p. 9.
256
She went on:
Predictably and deservedly, two awards were won by Pettit and Sevitt, a firm
which has pioneered the whole idea of architect-designed houses and has, during
the past seven years, done much towards raising the standard of housing in
Sydney’s suburbs.212
While the awards generated free publicity such as this, Pettit & Sevitt took a more
deliberate approach to harnessing their marketing potential. At first, this took a fairly
modest form – for example, a note at the bottom of an advertisement for the Lowline
D at Belrose announcing the Lowline’s 1967 award.213 However the following year,
when the Gambrel D won its award category, Pettit & Sevitt posted an advertisement to
‘modestly announce’ the fact. It also took the opportunity to list all the other awards it
had received from the NSW Chapter as well as the Housing Industry Association.214 In
1969 Pettit & Sevitt went so far as to reproduce the Project House Design Award in an
advertisement in the Sydney Morning Herald (Fig. 31) — promoting its Thornleigh and
Belrose display houses.215 Advertisements over the years continued to make reference
to the awards, not only when one was secured, but just as a way of reinforcing the
enterprise’s credentials: ‘We build houses…and win the lion’s share of architectural
awards’.216
In summary, the architect’s role within Pettit & Sevitt’s culture of production was
not limited merely to the provision of designs for project houses. It was embedded
within the whole cycle of product development, production and marketing. In fact,
architects were integral to the processes of production that supported customisation
— the determining element within Pettit & Sevitt’s culture of production. They not
only designed the product, but did so in such a way that it could be ‘individualised’
(within limits) to the particular requirements of the consumer. Furthermore, through
the interviewing process, they were directly involved in the negotiation of those
requirements. As ‘cultural intermediaries’, architects were also ‘pivotal’ to the process
212. E. Buhrich, ‘Project Award Guide to Home Buyers’, SMH 18 July 1967, p. 19.
213. Advertisement, SMH, 26 August 1967, p. 7.
216. Advertisement, SMH, 6 March 1976. p. 11.
257
Fig. 31: Pettit & Sevitt advertisement.

258
of ‘articulating production with consumption’ by associating Pettit & Sevitt’s ‘goods
and services with particular cultural meanings’.217 Their professional authority coupled
with their design expertise were used by Pettit & Sevitt to guarantee its claim to
individuality, quality and value.
CONCLUSION
Pettit & Sevitt’s culture of production posed certain challenges to a traditional
understanding of the professional identity associated with the field of architecture.
Firstly, the relationship that was established between Pettit & Sevitt and its architects
was based on the premise that the builder rather than the home buyer was the client.
This went against the traditional ideal of the three-way relationship that was meant to
exist between architect, builder and client — the architect being the impartial arbiter
and quality controller within that triad. The particular relationship that developed
between Ken Woolley, Brian Pettit and Ron Sevitt also raised the issue of an architect
becoming a principal in a commercial building enterprise, which at the time was
explicitly contrary to the RAIA’s Code of Ethics. Finally, the fact that architectural
involvement was fundamental to the ‘presentation and representation’ of Pettit & Sevitt
and its product raised another delicate matter in relation to the Code. The way in which
Ken Woolley was so publicly associated with the enterprise for example drew a very
fine line between publicity and advertising. In other words it went very close to being
defined under the Code as aggressive competitive practice. Each of these issues was
a subject of intense debate within the NSW Chapter of the RAIA during the 1960s.
Architect-designed project building, and most particularly the model established by
Pettit & Sevitt, offered a rare context in which all three were raised and tested. The
fact that in 1967 the NSW Chapter of the RAIA publicly embraced this segment of the
housing industry through its awards system suggests that these issues were also seen to
be successfully resolved.
217. Du Gay, ‘Introduction’, p. 5

259
7
‘ENTER THE PROFESSIONAL’
Project Housing and the Architectural Profession in Sydney 1960 – 69
____________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
In a paper entitled ‘Enter the Professional’, published in April 1969, RAIA gold
medallist W. Race Godfrey reflected on the dramatic technological, social and cultural
changes that had occurred over recent decades and their impact on the profession.
Adding a colourful twist to a conventional characterisation, he described how the

architect had been caught like ‘a trapped hermaphrodite’ in the ‘bipartite feud’ between
the arts and the sciences.1 He now sensed that a new type of architect was evolving to
meet the changing conditions and emphasised the critical role of the RAIA in assisting
that process:
I believe that the architect, who is now “emerging” will be a professional,

perhaps for the first time in this profession. He[sic] is going to need professional
help. His practice, his administration, his relationship with clients, and his
cooperation with those who help him build are all governed by new values. He is
going to need his institute to be “professional”.2
In particular, Godfrey believed it was essential for the Institute to address its ‘guide
documents’: Scale of Fees, Contract and Code of Professional Conduct.
At a more fundamental level than the RAIA’s position on fees or contracts, the
profession’s ethical code constituted a key element of its identity – just as it did
for other professions. Together with specialised knowledge, professional authority,
community sanction and the professional culture, it served to establish architects’ claim
to professional status. As a result of growing pressure, the Code of Professional Conduct
did undergo a major revision in 1969 indicating a significant cultural shift for the
profession.
1. W.R. Godfrey, ‘Enter the Professional’, AiA, vol. 58, no. 2, 1969, p. 240.
2. ibid.
260
This chapter will investigate the processes associated with the 1969 revision in order to
determine the significance, if any, of architects’ involvement with project housing at this
time. The role of the NSW Chapter will be a prime focus and here Bourdieu’s model of
struggle within a field (or sub-field) of cultural production3 such as architecture will be
considered. Firstly the opposition between ‘the established figures and the newcomers’
will be explored through the relationship that developed between the organised
profession in Sydney and a group of architects involved with an alternative forum, the
Architectural Society. Secondly what Bourdieu describes as the struggle ‘between the
sub-field of restricted production and the sub-field of large-scale production’ will be
considered in relation to the way in which architect-designed project housing came to be
institutionalised within the NSW Chapter through its awards system — in other words,
came to officially assume the status of ‘a legitimate mode of cultural production’.
THE ‘NEWCOMERS’: THE ARCHITECTURAL SOCIETY
Outside of the RAIA’s NSW Chapter in Sydney during the 1960s, the Architectural
Society (AS) provided the most significant forum for the discussion of issues related
to the architectural field outside of the RAIA’s NSW Chapter. Established at the end of
1950s,4 two of the driving forces behind the society’s formation were Peter Johnson of
McConnel Smith and Johnson, and Bryce Mortlock of Ancher Mortlock and Murray.
Johnson and Mortlock were contemporaries and friends who shared a common history.
Both had served in the airforce during the Second World War and afterwards studied
architecture at the University of Sydney, graduating in the early 1950s. Many of
Johnson’s colleagues at McConnel Smith and Johnson were members of the AS and it
was Mortlock who invited his future partner Ken Woolley to join shortly after his return
from overseas in 1957.

4. There are differing opinions as to exactly when the Society was formed. According to Woolley it was
in 1957, the year he returned from overseas. Webber supports this. Taylor places it as 1961 and Fisher as
sometime in the early 1960s. (K. Woolley, The Architectural Society, draft three-page manuscript, 2004.
In possession of K. Woolley; Interview: Webber, 22 August 2006; Taylor, Australian Architecture Since
1960, p.38; Interview: Fisher, 25 July 2006).
261
The society met on a monthly basis, originally in the common room of the University of
Sydney’s School of Architecture. Later, other more lively venues were secured such as
the Belvedere Hotel in Kings Cross. John Fisher, who chaired the society at one point,
recalled ‘it was partly social too in a way, but architectural social’.5 Subjects discussed
at the meetings were broad ranging with recurrent themes including design theory and
practice, architectural education and the environment. Ken Woolley recalls that:
Some members were more interested in the ideas of technical approaches and
design methodology. Others more in the new directions in design then emerging
among our generation(s) worldwide – principally the New Brutalism of the
Smithsons and others and the latent Post Modernism and Contextualism, which
was not then expressed as such.6
In addition to members, other architects as well as artists, writers and photographers
were invited to participate in discussion and debate.
In some circles the Architectural Society was referred to as ‘the top 40’.7 Membership
was by invitation only8 and the younger generation of Sydney architects was well
represented. A significant number of these were also associated with the ‘Sydney
School’ – such as Ken Woolley, Don Gazzard, Tony Moore, Ian McKay and Peter
Johnson – which came to prominence in the mid to late 1960s. However, as Woolley
recalled:
The Sydney School had its sources in the AS but by no means was shared by all
its members or created out of some manifesto. It simply emerged in the work of
some of us, was probably anticipated by some, or prolonged by others and its
expression showed wide differences of style and principle.9
The society was still operating until at least the beginning of 1965 as one of its meetings
was reported in Cross-Section.10 John Fisher suggests that the AS persisted until 1969,11
5. Interview: Fisher.
6. Woolley, The Architectural Society, unpag.
8. See Appendix 4, Membership of the Architectural Society in Sydney. Note that two young engineers,
Peter Miller and Tom Jumikis, were also members.
10. Cross-Section, issue 147, 1 January 1965, unpag.
262
but it had certainly run its course by the end of the decade. Most saw its demise as just
part of a natural cycle. According to Woolley: ‘In the end, we in Sydney nearly all got
too successful and too busy and the work had been done’.12 Nonetheless the influence of
the society or at least some of its most prominent members, continued for some years to
come, notably within architectural education13 but most certainly within the organised
profession in Sydney.
The relationship between the Architectural Society and the NSW Chapter of the RAIA
is highly significant. Like MARS in the 1930s and 40s, the AS provided an alternative
forum to that offered by the Chapter. As one of the members, Peter Webber, recalled
the Institute had ‘talks and conventions but everything was rather formal so there was
no real opportunity to debate theoretical issues...there was a feeling that…it was time
to shake things up a little bit’.14 It was Woolley’s perception that there was ‘a political
undercurrent’ to the society’s agenda, with the ‘new generation’ it represented becoming
actively involved in the NSW Chapter.15 Webber supports this claim to the extent
that some within the Society felt that the Chapter needed to more effectively address
contemporary issues and to be more broadly representative of the profession. For Don
Gazzard, the motivation was personal, deriving from a ‘do-gooder sense of helping
to change things’: ‘The Institute of Architects seemed impossibly conservative at that
time and I thought I could change it’.16 For John Fisher politics were not an issue.
He suggests that the representation of AS members in the Chapter was more a matter
coincidence than deliberate strategy. For him, being involved in the AS in the first place
suggested a significant interest in architectural matters, so involvement with the Chapter
came as a logical extension.17

13. Peter Johnson was appointed Chair of the Department of Architecture, University of Sydney, in 1967.
Tom Heath also joined the department.
14. Interview: Webber.
16. Interview: Gazzard, 26 May 2006.
263
In that context, it is interesting to note that some members of the AS were already
active in the Chapter by the late 1950s. Bill Lucas, Tony Moore and Bryce Mortlock
for example were serving on the Younger Members Committee in 1956,18 and a number
of others such as John Fisher,19 Richard Fitzhardinge, Noel Bell, Neville Gruzman and
Peter Johnson are listed on committees for 1957.20 So links between the membership
of the AS and the NSW Chapter were already established. Nevertheless, it is important
to note that members of the AS assumed highly influential positions within the Chapter
during the critical years that led to the establishment of the Project Design Awards
in 1967 and then the overhaul of the Code of Professional Conduct in 1969. Two
individuals in particular stand out: Peter Johnson and Bryce Mortlock. They not only
participated in numerous committees, they were also Council members and office
bearers during that critical time. From the beginning of the 1962–64 session to the
end of the 1968–70 session, Johnson served successively as Honorary Treasurer, Vice
President, Senior Vice-President and finally President of the NSW Chapter. For the same
period, Mortlock served as Council member, Treasurer and Senior Vice-President.21
Members of the AS were also active in other highly influential capacities within the
organised profession. Ken Woolley for example was appointed to the NSW Board of
Architects in 1960, subsequently representing that organisation on the NSW Board of
Architectural Education. He also served on the NSW Chapter’s Acts and Regulations
Committee and Architectural Education Enquiry Committee during the 1960s.

Important too was the level of representation on the Editorial Committee of the RAIA’s
journal Architecture in Australia by AS members — Peter Keys, Don Gazzard and Tom
Heath — over the period 1964 to 1969. Keys, as one of two Chapter representatives,
also served on the national Council of the RAIA in 1968 and 1969.22
18. AR, 1956.

19. John Fisher did not join the AS until the 1960s. Interview: Fisher.
20. AR, 1957.
21. AR, 1964–70.
22. Together with R.A. Gilling.
264
In summary the Architectural Society provided a significant, alternative forum to the
NSW Chapter during the 1960s. To assert that the members represented a cohesive
group of like-minds agitating for change is to go too far. The struggle between ‘the
established figures and the newcomers’ was much more low key than that suggested
by Bourdieu’s model. Nevertheless there was certainly a sense that the AS represented
a younger force within the local profession. It was also perceived, at least by some
members, that the Chapter was dominated by an older and more conservative
generation. The fact that a significant number of AS members became actively involved
with the Chapter would also would seem to support Bourdieu’s prediction of ‘the
newcomers’ working within the system in order to impose what they considered ‘the
legitimate forms of production’. The critical point here is that certain AS members
who joined the Chapter came to hold highly influential positions during the period in
which architect-designed project housing became insititutionalised and when major
revisions were made to the Code of Professional Conduct. First to be considered will be
the way in which ‘large scale production’ came to assume precedence over ‘restricted
production’ in a continuing area of concern to the profession: housing.
THE CONTINUING IMPORTANCE OF HOUSING AS AN ISSUE
By the early 1960s, Sydney architects were operating within an environment of major
building activity. The surge had commenced in the second half of the 1950s when,
as described by Freeland, ‘The gates opened and Australian building embarked on

the greatest period of expansion in the country’s history’.23 The commercial sector
had finally been revived with the value of office, bank and other business premises
approved for construction in New South Wales dramatically increasing.24 There was also
significant activity in other areas, with schools and hospitals for example accounting for
fifty-two per cent of the total value of government building approved in 1960.25
23. Freeland, Architecture in Australia, p. 286.

24. Official Year Book of New South Wales No. 57 1961, Sydney, p. 628.
25. ibid.
265
Whatever the larger picture, the greatest area of activity and investment within the
building industry however was still housing. Of the total value of building approved in
1960, houses and flats together accounted for more than half of this, with houses alone
representing forty-four per cent.26 A similar picture emerged at a national level where
housing represented forty-nine per cent of the value of new buildings completed in
1960–61.27 While these figures continued a trend that had started in the postwar years,
a major difference was that the surge in owner-building was now beginning to wane,
while contract-built houses were well on the increase.28
Rather than being encouraged by this apparent boom in the house-building industry,
Architecture in Australia advised its readers in 1962 that a serious ‘problem’ still
existed. In a special edition entitled ‘Housing Australia’, it argued that there was not
only a shortage of housing stock, but that the type and quality of dwellings being
produced were inadequate. There was a clear message to architects that they had an
important role to play in addressing these issues and also in seizing any associated
opportunities.
In his contribution to ‘Housing Australia’, Professor Denis Winston, Chair of Town
and Country Planning at the University of Sydney, took on the task of defining ‘the
problem’.29 This proved difficult as no systematic examination of housing had been
undertaken since the Commonwealth Housing Commission’s survey in 1945. The

housing shortage was then estimated to be 300,000 dwellings and as Winston pointed
out:
Since then over a million new dwellings have been completed, but in the same period
there has also been over a million marriages and new families formed. The grey ring
of slums and semi-slums around the central areas of the capital cities remains virtually
untouched and, partly because of immigration, there is more intense overcrowding in
some of these areas today than in 1945…in short Australia, like every other country,
has a vast housing problem on her hands which has not yet been seriously tackled.30
26. ibid.
27. Official Year Book of the Commonwealth of Australia No. 47–1961, Canberra, p. 384.
28. ibid., p. 381.
29. D. Winston, ‘The Problem’, AiA, Vol. 51, No. 2, 1962, pp.56-58
30. ibid., p. 56.
266
Slum eradication was obviously still considered a priority, but so too was the
reorganisation and modernisation of the house building industry in order to provide not
only cheaper, but better designed houses in quantity. As Winston put it,
Here then is at once a challenge and an opportunity for every architect and for
the architectural profession as a whole: there is a great social and human need
waiting to be satisfied, there are difficult technical problems to be solved, there
are wonderful opportunities for the creation of new visual harmony and social
satisfaction – and there are the financial rewards awaiting those who can find the
right answers to one of the major problems of our time.31
For Winston, finding the answers was not something that architects could achieve in
isolation. Housing was a complex issue and he believed in working ‘in fruitful partnership
with other essential professions and occupations’. Similarly, he stressed the importance
not only of technical but social research in order that the ‘real needs’ of the population
be met. That architects should seek to understand the larger social and economic forces
at work and to recognise the diverse needs of a diverse population were themes that had
arisen in architectural discourse abroad, notably Britain, during the 1950s.
The larger framework for discussion within ‘Housing Australia’ clearly reflected the same
approach. Articles by economists, planners, sociologists, bankers, ministers for housing
and immigration as well as architects provided a comprehensive perspective on the
subject. Similarly the type of projects featured in the issue served to illustrate a diversity
of response according to need, such as housing for the aged, migrants and the poor and
working poor. There was an emphasis too on mass and repetitive housing solutions found
locally and internationally. Importantly, the Australian examples included instances of
architects working in ‘fruitful partnership’ with project builders such as Lend Lease
Homes and George Hudson Pty Ltd as well as plan services such as those offered by
the Victorian and New South Wales chapters of the RAIA and the Australian Women’s
Weekly.32 While the current limitations on architect-designed project housing reaching a
wider market were pointed out, so too was the industry’s inherent potential.
31. ibid.
32. ‘Project Builders’, AiA, vol. 51, no. 2, 1962, pp. 78-80; ‘Kingsdene Estate Sydney’, AiA, vol. 51,
no. 2, 1962, p. 89; ‘Plan Services’, AiA, vol. 51, no. 2, 1962, pp. 90-92.
267
By the time of the next Architectural Convention held in May 1963, the organisers in
Adelaide were keen to take a more introspective approach to issues currently affecting
the profession. Housing however still managed to surface as a key area of concern,
almost by default. The theme established for the convention was ‘Architectural Practice
— repose, reform or revolution’ and many saw it as a stocktaking exercise — the
moment to confront many of the current issues and threats faced by the architectural
profession. Discussion ranged over a number of topics including public relations,
education, the client-architect relationship, the architect as builder or developer and
package dealers.33 That housing came to assume a point of focus within this panoply
was largely provoked by one of the four primary speakers — not an architect but
a layperson, Professor Zelman Cowen, Dean of the Faculty of Law at Melbourne
University.
Cowen’s eloquent address proposed that Australian architects did ‘not have a good
public image’ largely due to the poor state of domestic building.34 As Cowen pointed
out, housing represented the type of architecture of which most people had intimate
experience and was most important to them. If architects were to improve their public
image, this was where they could do the most good. But more specifically, according
to Cowen, architects needed to be involved with industry to provide ‘architecturally
imprinted houses’35 on a large scale. This was the way in which well-designed houses
could be made available to a higher percentage of the population.
In order to make architects’ involvement with domestic building at this level feasible,
Cowen proposed ‘large scale architectural entry into the field now occupied by the
developer’.36 While on the one hand he acknowledged that this would ‘call for a
fundamental reorganisation of the profession’, on the other he saw it as a natural
33. ‘Australian Architectural Convention’, AiA, vol. 52, no. 3, 1963, pp. 74-147.
34. ibid., p. 79.
35. ibid., p. 122.
36. ibid., p. 81.
268
progression for the field:
Since the task of the architect-developer would not be the production of

individualised custom-built houses in the present sense, but the production
of various substantially standardised designs there would be a critical stress
on the planning of what might be called the prototype; and here there would
be a strong demand for all the qualities that are in my view called for in
successful architectural practice. I suggest further that such an organisation of
the profession would allow for increased effective research into many fields of
concern to the architect…problems of design, materials, building techniques and
a multitude of matters which will readily occur to architects will be of major
importance and will become a matter of practical (economic) possibility.37
Cowen’s ideas provoked much discussion and debate during the course of the
convention. Not all agreed with his position, nevertheless in the final session one of five
resolutions passed specifically concerned housing:
This Convention resolves that it is essential for the architectural profession to

become more active in the field of housing and that a sub-committee should be
appointed by the Council of the RAIA to report to its next meeting.38
When the leaders of the organised study groups that helped shape the resolutions spoke
in support of this particular recommendation, it was mass housing such as group or
‘prototype’ housing that was identified as the priority. It was also noted that ‘a minority’
had suggested that the profession should make provision so as to allow architects ‘to
enter the field of group housing development as a member in the developer’s team in
order to make the best possible use of the architect’s specialist knowledge in the housing
field at an economical level to the public’.39 The link that Cowen had made to public
relations was also echoed by one study group:

We agreed quite strongly that the every-day lives of the general public were
touched far more closely in their housing than in any other sphere, and that this
was the best possible way to achieve…better public relations.40
In the months that followed, all five resolutions were discussed by the NSW Chapter
Council which initially appeared more concerned over the inference that important
37. ibid.
38. ibid., p. 145.
39. ibid.
40. ibid.
269
issues needed to be handled at a national rather than a state level.41 As Chapter President
C.P. Farrington made clear in a confidential statement he made to Council, housing was
a case in point:
It is always safe to express the belief that housing is a national responsibility.

This does not mean that the practical method of solving a housing problem
or generally of fulfilling the aim of improving housing standards can be
successfully undertaken on a national level except perhaps by the provision
of housing finance or guarantees and adequate research…Apart for interesting
ourselves in this subject at the national level and perhaps encouraging some
more research, I cannot see that the Institute, as a body, can make any great
impact except through State Chapters’.42
While the Chapter considered its options, the housing issue was again brought to a
large national forum at the Australian Architectural Students’ Association Congress
held in Sydney in May 1964. The congress was organised specifically ‘to consider the
architectural problems associated with the small house, in conjunction with a study of
the habits and patterns of living of the people who dwell in it’.43 The study comprised
a questionnaire that had been distributed to ‘300 houses in selected areas of Sydney’.
While the results were mixed, the need for this type of sociological research was
reinforced throughout the convention by students and guest participants alike. As one of
the latter, Peter Johnson observed that there was:
a changed attitude on the part of the architects and architectural students and
that is, that we are no longer supremely confident of our own ability to solve
problems, we are no longer in the position of what some people call the “God
Architect,” we are not only very willing but we are anxious to find out more
about the way people live and what people’s real needs and desires are’.44
Johnson chaired what was described as ‘probably the most significant session of the
Congress’. Devoted to the subject of ‘Architecture and Town Planning’, it provided
an opportunity for some focussed discussion on project housing. This largely flowed
from Ken Woolley’s involvement as one of three invited to sit on the expert panel.45 As
41. CM, 12 November 1963, p. 13.
42. Attachment, CM, 10 March 1964, p. iii.
43. ‘Who Lives in the Small House?’, AiA, vol. 53, no. 3, 1964, p. 136.
44. ibid., p. 137.
45. The other two members were George Clarke of Clarke Gazzard Yeomans and Harry Weekes, Chief
Design Architect of the Housing Commission of NSW.
270
part of his extensive overview of the session, Johnson concluded that project housing
represented an area in which ‘the architect can perform a tremendous amount of good’.
But here he chose to draw attention to what he saw as a major impediment
again I think, we mention the fact that due to the present code of professional
ethics it is difficult for the architect to properly participate in this field because if
he is going to participate in a really effective manner then he should participate
as a shareholder in companies involved in this and under the present standards of
the Institute he cannot do that.46
The point was not lost and at the conclusion of the congress the following resolution
was made:
That the Royal Australian Institute of Architects should revise its code of
professional conduct so as to allow architects to assume executive positions on
organisations which undertake project building of houses.47
The recommendations also included a plea for the profession to remain actively
involved in housing at a number of levels, most importantly ‘the building teams which
produce houses by mass-production techniques’. Nevertheless, the design of ‘“One-
off” individual homes’ was also considered important in terms of ‘experiment and
development of the type’, but particularly ‘as an investment in good public relations’48.
THE NSW CHAPTER TAKES THE INITIATIVE
At the beginning of 1965 some concrete action began to formulate at Chapter level in
regard to its position on housing. Importantly it was to be directed in a particular way.
The ‘small house’ was still the focus, but now it became the small project-built house.
Indeed it is at this point that the history associated with the establishment of the Project
House Design Awards in 1967 begins to unfold.
Interestingly, the first move came from the Public Relations Central Committee on
which Peter Johnson (Chair) and three other members of the Architectural Society
— Don Gazzard, Bryce Mortlock and David Jackson — were serving at that time.
46. ‘Who Lives in the Small House?’, AiA, vol. 53, no. 3, 1964, p. 137.
47. ibid., p. 139.
48. ibid.
271
However it was a non-AS member, Milo Dunphy,49 who put forward a motion that a
‘Housing’ sub-committee be formed with the following terms of reference:
To make an overall survey of the field of housing, carry out studies where
necessary to fill in gaps in existing knowledge and prepare a report for
Chapter Council assessing the present contribution and possible future roles
of architecture in this field. Should Chapter Council adopt a policy regarding
housing, the Sub-Committee will prepare a programme for implementing this
policy.50
Dunphy’s motion was carried and a formal recommendation made to the Chapter
Council. It was at this next level that the initiative came to be described in more specific
terms. It was resolved by Council that a General Meeting be convened in May ‘to
discuss the problem of small home design and the project builder under the general
heading of, ‘The Architect and Housing’’.51 To this end, an ad hoc committee was
formed with Peter Johnson as chair. Also included on the committee were two other
members of the AS, Ken Woolley and Andy Young. Glenn Murcutt, who had just joined
Ancher Mortlock Murray & Woolley, was also a member. The organisation of speakers
for the General Meeting on housing was an immediate priority and it was agreed that:
‘Attention should firstly be concentrated on the Social, Economic and Professional
problems associated with the Small Home (price range £4000 – £8000)’.52
By the time the advertisement appeared in the July issue of the Bulletin for ‘The
Architect and Housing’, it was obvious that project housing was going to be one of the
main subjects of discussion:
What part should architects play in low to medium cost housing? Are architects
able to economically provide full services for one-off small houses? Is there
better value for money in a project house than in a one-off house? How can well
designed estate housing be encouraged? Are present design standards good
49. Though apparently not a member of the Architectural Society, Milo Dunphy obviously shared a
common understanding with some of its prominent members. See for example ‘Suggestions for a course
in Architecture’, (AiA, vol.52, no. 2, 1963, pp. 112-118), jointly written by Milo Dunphy, Tom Heath,
David Jackson, Peter Johnson, Tony Moore and Bryce Mortlock.
50. PR (Central Committee), 3 February 1965, p. 1.
51. CM, 13 April 1965, pp. 51-52.
52. HC, 10 May 1965, p. 1.
272
enough? What part can the Institute play? …This meeting will give the Chapter
Council information on members’ views to enable it to take action in future.53
The line-up of speakers on the night only served to confirm this emphasis. It included
architects Ken Woolley and Geoffrey Lumsdaine, both of whom had been directly
involved with project builders, and John James who also appears to have had some form
of connection with the industry.54 There was also architect John Toon who lectured in
Town and Country Planning at the University of Sydney and had an expressed interest
in the socioeconomic context of housing.55 The only ‘outside’ speakers were Max
Bowen and Ron Sevitt ‘representing project building organisations’.56
The General Meeting, which was opened by Chapter President R.A. Gilling, was held
on 21 July 1965 and attracted approximately eighty members. At its conclusion, two
resolutions were made. Firstly:
That this meeting considers that although there remains a need for some
individually designed small houses the Institute should encourage the
development of other housing types including group housing and project
housing. It asks the Chapter Council to consider ways in which architects may
make a better contribution to improved standards in these fields and to consider
the possibility of changes to the Scale of Fees and the Code of Professional
Conduct to achieve this purpose.
Secondly:
That this meeting asks the Chapter Council to investigate a method of

approval of project house design and project building organisations including
consideration of such matters as ethical standards, and report to a further general
meeting the result of this investigation.57
The resolutions served to put in train a number of significant initiatives within the
Chapter. With regard to the second resolution, the Chapter’s Executive Committee
assigned one of its own, Bryce Mortlock, to undertake the investigation.58 The first
resolution was more complex. Changes to the Scale of Fees for Mass or Repetitive
53. ‘ General Meeting’, Bulletin, July 1965, p. 1.

54. See E. Wilson, ‘New Ideas in Sydney Projects’, Australian Home Beautiful, May 1964, p. 45.
55. J. Toon, ‘Urban Housing; Some Social Considerations’, AiA, Vo. 51, No 2, June 1962, pp. 63-65.
56. ‘General Meeting’, Bulletin, August 1965, p. 1.
57. ibid.
58. EM, 26 August 1965, p. 76.
273
Housing were already being considered by the Professional Committee on the directive
of the RAIA.59 By 1 November a revised scale was in place and it was noted by the
Chapter Bulletin that ‘the drafting committee members [of the RAIA] felt that the
changes involved in the new scale would enable architects to have a considerable
influence on “whole environment” design in the suburbs as well as enabling architects
to regain a proper place in this large and important sector of building’.60 Changes to
the Code of Professional Conduct were also under consideration by this stage, both at
Chapter and Federal level. Nevertheless, the resolution made by the general meeting
again drew attention to the way in which the existing code specifically limited architects
effective involvement with what were deemed to be highly relevant forms of housing,
notably group and project housing.
Another outcome of the meeting was that Council resolved that the Chapter establish a
Housing Committee, its terms of reference being:
To consider ways in which architects may make a better contribution to

improved design standards in housing to encourage the development of other
housing types including group housing and project housing.61
Again, among those to be invited onto the committee were architects with a particular
interest or experience — Don Gazzard, Ken Woolley, Glenn Murcutt, Russell Jack, John
James, John Toon and Geoffrey Lumsdaine (as convenor)62 — though only the last four
actually ended up serving as members. The first meeting of the Housing Committee
was held on 30 September 1965 and by then its original terms of reference had been
amplified by Council so as to take into account a report that had been undertaken on the
Small Homes Service.63 The report recommended that ‘steps be taken to disband the
Small Homes Service’ and the Committee was asked to ‘consider a recommendation
for an alternative scheme of service to the public in this field’.64 The discussion that
59. PC, 22 April 1965, p. 3.

60. ‘Scale of Fees for Mass Housing’, Bulletin, January 1966, p. 2.
61. CM, 10 August 1965, p. 80.
62. ibid.
63. The report had been conducted by the Chapter and their partners in the Small Homes Service, the
Herald and Weekly Times.
64. HC, 30 September 1965, p. 1.
274
followed revealed a clear shift from a belief in the effectiveness of a service dedicated to
providing standard designs for houses that would be individually constructed. In fact,
the opinion was expressed that, to obtain the greatest effect, architectural
influence should be aimed at the major producers of housing assuming that the
term ‘Producer’ is meant to imply the person who has the primary effect on the
design of housing65.
Eventually the Committee reported that it considered:
That the present service provided by the Small Homes Service of NSW does
not make a significant contribution to the housing needs of the community. It
also considers that the organisation, as at present constituted, would not form a
suitable basis for any alternative service.66.
In the meantime, Bryce Mortlock had been preparing his report, ‘Approval of Project
House Designs and Merchant Builders’, for submission to the Executive in October
1965. The report began with the question: ‘What is there in it for the Chapter?’. The
answer was summarised in three points:
General improvement in project house standards.

More participation by Chapter members in design.
Possibility of Chapter recommending project houses to inquirers with
confidence.67
The report suggested two categories of approval, one for ‘designs’ and the other for
builders. In terms of the first, Mortlock recommended a design award that would be made
to ‘a limited number of demonstration houses’ in each of a number of price categories.
The criteria for the award would involve not only consideration of aesthetic values,
but ‘a check-list of basic functional requirements’ including layout, adaptability to site,

construction standards, finishes and fittings. The other category of approval would
involve registration of builders with the Institute. Builders would apply and pay for this
privilege. Furthermore ‘Registration would not be publicised but would be a precondition
for a builder submitting a design for the Design Award’.68 After Council agreed to the
report in principle,69 Mortlock continued to investigate the implementation of the scheme.
65. ibid., p. 2.
66. HC, 14 February 1966, p. 1.
67. Attachment to EM, 28 October 1965.
68. ibid.
69. CM, 9 November 1965, p. 103.
275
When Mortlock finally presented his draft conditions for the ‘Project House Design
Awards’ to the Executive in May 1966,70 he could not have chosen a more propitious
moment. If anyone on the Executive needed to be convinced of the efficacy of such of
an award, particularly in terms of public receptiveness, they must have been reassured
by the unprecedented level of attention that architect-designed project housing was
receiving in the press that month. On 17 May the Sydney Morning Herald launched
its ‘Project Homes Series’ in its weekly Homes and Building section. Written by Eva
Buhrich, she introduced the series with a background piece on the industry entitled
‘Good design brought into budget house’:
A large and constantly rising proportion of houses — it could be more than 50

per cent — is now built by project builders using production principles new
to the building industry…This new development has brought the homebuyer
many advantages, the greatest perhaps in design…Most owners and speculation
builders believed they could quite well dispense with the expert. The results
of this unfortunate conviction can be seen in thousands of examples in all our
suburbs…Large project builders have realised that the architect can make an
important contribution: their turnover makes it economically feasible to employ
him, either on the staff or as a consultant. Already in some Sydney suburbs an
improvement in housing standards can be seen.71
In the same month, Australian Home Beautiful published its ‘mid-year survey of project
housing’ entitled ‘Shift to Quality Homes’.72 Much of this media interest centred on
the new display village that Pettit & Sevitt had just launched in St Ives. Photographs
of a number of the houses there for example were used to illustrate the Home Beautiful
article and Buhrich’s ‘Project Home Series’ opened with an enthusiastic article on the
venture.73
Subject to some modifications, Mortlock’s conditions were adopted by Council and it
was agreed that the awards be introduced early in 1967 for houses built in 1966.74 In
September, an article appeared in the Bulletin that provided a general introduction to
70. EM, 26 May 1966, p. 136.

71. E. Buhrich, ‘Good Design Brought into Budget House’, SMH, 10 May 1966, p.24
72. AHB, May 1966, pp. 42-43.
73. SMH, 17 May 1966, p. 21. Over following months more was published on the village: Vogue Australia,
June/July 1966, pp. 94-97; AHB, July 1966, pp. 48-55; Architecture Today, July 1966, pp. 14-17.
74. CM, 14 June 1966, pp. 152-153.
276
the annual awards and their conditions75 and in January the following year, the call for
nominations was made.76
By this point the conditions of the awards had been finalised and given that
modifications to Mortlock’s proposal were meant to be relatively minor, it seems
appropriate to credit him as the author.77 The two separate categories of ‘design’ and
‘builder’ originally proposed had been abandoned. Now the awards were to be presented
directly to the project builders on the basis of a prototype (demonstration) house
constructed in New South Wales. Not surprisingly, the houses had to be designed by a
member of the RAIA. There were to be three awards made within three price categories:
$7000–$10,000, $10,000–$13,000 and $13,000–$18,000. Each house was judged
against a comprehensive set of criteria:
(i) Price and the value it represents

(ii) Space arrangement
(iii) Adaptability of the design to typical sites
(iv) Construction standards: strength durability, insulation
(v) Finishes
(vi) Fittings and Fixtures
(vii) Appearance
(viii) Items and services included with the price…
(ix) Quality of contract documents, particularly the conditions of contract,
including provisions for after-sales service
(x) In addition a comparison shall be made between the prototype and the
production house whose address has been furnished.78
By March the constitution of the jury for the award had been decided. There were to
be five members in all79: four architects and one layperson who in this instance was a
master builder.80 Don Gazzard was meant to chair the jury but when he declined the
appointment, another AS member Tony Moore took his place. By the July meeting of
Council the jury had made its recommendations: Lend Lease Homes Pty Ltd in the
$7000–$10,000 category for Casa Blanca on the Kingsdene Estate designed by in-house
75. ‘The Project House Design Award’, Bulletin, September 1966, p. 2.
76. ‘Project House Design Award – 1967’, Bulletin, January 1967, p. 6.
77. A copy of Mortlock’s draft conditions from May 1966 could not be found.
78. ‘Project House Design Award – 1967’, Bulletin, January 1967, p. 6.
79. Not counting the ‘spare member.
80. CM, 14 March 1967, p. 35.
277
architect Nino Sydney; Pettit & Sevitt in the $10,000–$13,000 category for the Lowline
at Staddon Close in St Ives, designed by ‘Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley’ and
Pettit & Sevitt again for the $13,000–$18,000 category for its Split Level at a site in
Lower Plateau road, Avalon, designed by ‘Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley’. The
recommendations of the jury were endorsed, and a press release circulated.81
Acting Chapter President, Peter Johnson, publicly announced the Project House
Design Awards on Thursday 13 July 1967. Illustrated articles appeared in both the
Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph82 the following day, just in time for
the weekend. A full-page spread was then published in the Sun-Herald on the Sunday
and another in the Herald on the Tuesday83 in the ‘Homes and Building Section’ under
the heading ‘Project award guide to home buyers’. The building press was similarly
supportive. Construction published a comprehensive illustrated article on the awards84
while Building Lighting Engineering provided a two-page review.85 Obviously a
successful exercise in public relations, the media consistently reiterated that the aim
of the Chapter in instituting the awards ‘was to recognise prototype houses offering
genuine value to the purchaser’.
In summary, housing was still closely identified with the priorities of the organised
profession in Sydney during the 1960s. However ‘large scale production’ in the form of
project housing had now assumed pre-eminence over ‘restricted production’ even at the level
of architect-designed standardised plans. The institution of the Project House Design Awards
in 1967 formalised this status. In the process, however, the limitations of the RAIA’s Code of
Professional Conduct came to be highlighted. It was argued that the existing code restricted
the profession’s level of effectiveness in this burgeoning area of the building industry.
81. CM, 11 July 1967, pp. 60-61.

82. ‘1967 Project House Design Awards’, SMH, 14 July 1967, p. 4 and ‘Houses that Won’, DT, 14 July
1964, p. 9.
83. N. Ottaway, ‘Split-levels Take Awards in Contest’, SH, 16 July 1967, p. 87 & E. Buhrich, ‘Project
Award Guide to Home Buyers’, SMH, 18 July 1967, p. 19.
84. ‘Three Homes Win RAIA Awards’, Construction, 18 July 1967, p. 3.
85. ‘Project Builders Win New Awards’, BLE, August 1967, pp. 11-12.
278
CHANGES TO THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Identifying the Issues
The August edition of Architecture in Australia that announced the winners of the NSW
Chapter’s new Project House Design Awards in 1967 also included the proceedings of
the 16th Australian Architectural Convention that had opened in Brisbane at the end of
May. The theme of the convention was ‘Facing Facts’ and papers included ‘Architect
and Society?’, ‘Ethics — the last refuge of the scoundrel’, ‘Professional Elasticity?’
and ‘A New Architectural Service?’. The focus was squarely on issues of practice and
professional identity which on the surface could be read as yet another exercise in
introspective rumination. However it became obvious that underpinning the proceedings
was the fact that the RAIA’s Code of Professional Conduct was under review at a
national and state level and the convention presented an opportunity to debate the key
issues at a national forum.
In his address ‘Professional Elasticity?’, Queensland architect Thomas Cross revealed
that he had been asked to address three questions: ‘“Has the profession grown beyond
an ethical code?”; “How should we sell our wares?’; and “Is there any strength in
institute discipline?”.86 A primary concern for many attending the convention was that
the current code did not reflect or respond to the major changes that had occurred within
the architectural field. Max Collard’s paper ‘A New Architectural Service?’ summarised
this concern: ‘changes in the ‘client/architect relationship, sociological changes and
changes in building techniques, technology and industrialisation are producing changes
in practice’.87 Some recognised the challenge that these developments posed, not only
to individual practitioners, but to a professional identity that was based firmly on the
principles of specialised knowledge and professional authority.88
86. T. Cross, ‘Extracts from Professional Elasticity?’, AiA, vol. 56, no.4, 1967, p. 649.
87. M. Collard, ‘Extracts from A New Architectural Service?’, AiA, vol. 56, no. 4, 1967, p. 655.
88. G. De Gruchy, ‘Extracts from The Price of Progress’, AiA, vol. 56, no. 4, August 1967, pp. 627-629.
279
Writing in 1968, Max Freeland observed:
When the erection of large city buildings resumed about 1955 after a fifteen-
year hiatus of small scale austerity construction, the building industry was faced
with providing structures of a size and complexity previously unknown to those
called on to bring them into being. The architectural profession, in particular,
found itself inadequately equipped to handle the challenge with confidence and
assurance. For some six or seven years it struggled to cope with every increasing
demands for larger and more complex building, for ever more impersonal and
demanding clients within a framework in which the gentlemanly standards of
individual professionalism were continually battered by legal attack and the
pecuniary standards of corporate business. By the early 1960s the pace of change
and the strains imposed had become too great.89
It would appear that more was expected of the architect than ever before.90 In addition
to keeping pace with a changing technological and commercial environment, there was
now also the responsibility to understand the larger economic and social processes at
work in order to best respond to the needs of the client, the user and the community.
The difficulty of course was finding all of those skills and knowledge combined in
one person. Architectural specialisation became a key subject of discussion and for
many, a recognised way of dealing with these new demands. In practice, however, the
complexity of building projects also generated a need for specialist input from outside
the profession. On large projects for example, the architect could be just one of a team
that included a range of experts from quantity surveyors and engineers to sociologists.
Traditionally, architects had asserted that they were the natural leaders of any building
project. In this new context, that claim to professional authority was very clearly called
into question.
The emergence of the ‘package dealer’ in the 1950s and 1960s only served to compound
this insecurity. These corporate enterprises offered design, construct and finance
packages to private, commercial and government clients, obviating the need for any
external architectural input. Thus, package dealers not only took business away from
89. J. M. Freeland, ‘Professional Education: Comment 3’, AiA, vol.57, no. 7, 1968, p. 1129.
90. For discussion of how the increasingly complex nature of building projects impacted on architectural
practice in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s, see B.M. Boyle, ‘Architectural Practice in
America, 1865-1965 – Ideal and Reality’ in S. Kostof (ed) The Architect: Chapters in the History of the
Profession, University of California Press, Berkeley, 2000 (1977). See also R. Gutman, Architectural
Practice, pp. 31-42.
280
architects, they also encroached on their traditional area of authority. Additionally, their
‘hard-headed’ business-like attitude had thrown the profession’s lack of management
and business acumen into high relief.
In the context of these threats, the means by which architects could define the
parameters of their specialised knowledge and establish their professional authority was
a consistent source of discussion and debate. Not unnaturally, architectural education
became a key focus at Chapter level and in the architectural press.91 In the early
1960s, both the NSW Board of Architectural Education and the NSW Chapter set up
committees to investigate architectural education in New South Wales.92 As Proudfoot
notes in his study of architectural education in Sydney, by the latter years of the 1960s
both the University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales had revised their
undergraduate courses in architecture: ‘to provide a comprehensive approach to the
teaching of the practical and technical subjects of structures, construction, the various
building sciences and services, and professional practice’.93
Education was one thing, but architects in practice needed a way forward if they were
to compete within the new commercial and industrial environment, much less maximise
the opportunities it offered. The difficulty lay in negotiating new territory with an ethical
code that was based on a traditional understanding of professional identity. Even one of
the most fundamental aspects of that identity — the relationship between architect and
client — had become much more complex. One of the defining features of a profession
and its members was traditionally understood to be ‘an obligation to give only the best
service and to subordinate all personal considerations to the interests of the client’.94
91. M. Dunphy et al, ‘Suggestions for a Course in Architecture’, AiA, vol. 52, no. 2, 1963, pp. 112-118;
R. Thorne, ‘A Comparison of Basic Architectural Training’, AiA, vol. 52, no. 2, 1963, pp.119-122;
S. Encel, ‘Professional Occupations in a Changing World, AiA, vol. 54, no. 3, 1965, pp. 132-136.;
G. Block, ‘Professional Technical Education - (1) Change’, AiA, vol. 57, no. 7, 1968, pp. 1130-1132.
92. Royal Australian Institute of Architects New South Wales Chapter 1963, Report of Chapter Council
1963, (Annual Report), Royal Australian Institute of Architects New South Wales Chapter, Sydney, p. 6
93. P. Proudfoot, ‘The Professionalization of Architectural Education in Sydney, 1948–1985’,
Architecture Australia, vol. 74, no. 4, 1985, p. 59.
94. Carr-Saunders & Wilson, p. 422.
281
Yet now, within the commercial sector at least, those ‘interests’ were becoming not so
clear cut. The ‘owner-builder’ was seen to be disappearing, ‘being replaced with the
investment builder, the investment developer, or the building company in lease, bank or
package sale operations’.95
Max Collard’s paper at the 1967 conference addressed that very issue. Rather than
being concerned by a situation in which ‘a design has been prepared [but] the actual
users are not known or are not able to be consulted’, he could see enormous potential.
Importantly, to support his argument, he drew on the example of architect-designed
project housing:
Here the architect is engaged in a new way. He is essentially a product

designer…here the architect’s services are oriented towards the producer
or the merchant builder. This is a minor revolution in building management
with traditional building techniques, which are still the most economical in
this context. They are being rationalised and modified. This is a forerunner of
much bigger changes yet to come, with the complete industrialisation of house
building.96
So as Collard points out, within the context of project building the architect was now
in a new position in relation to the ‘client’. The builder was the client and the role of
the architect in this relationship was one of ‘product designer’ in the field of large-scale
production. For Collard, this did not represent a lesser role for the architect, but rather
it served to confirm his/her professional strengths. Here was a commercial environment
within which the architect clearly demonstrated the necessary specialised skills and
knowledge to participate successfully. Furthermore, according to Collard, architect-
designed project housing provided a model for a much larger revolution within the
building industry and a new and dynamic role for the architect. But again the road was
hampered by the constraints imposed by the Code of Professional Conduct:
The architect, to have a vital role in design and production of building

components should not only design but should also stimulate component
manufacturing industries, and to be fully effective he must be in a position of
leadership – for example, as a director of a manufacturing company. This is
95. ‘Architecture and Public Relations’, AiA, vol 53, no. 3, p. 118.
96. Collard, ‘Extracts from A New Architectural Service?’, AiA, vol. 56, no. 4, 1967, p. 654.
282
where our Code of Ethics, we find, is outdated. Not only in this, but an architect
should be permitted to be actively engaged in building, for example as a director
of a building company, and here again our Code of Ethics comes into it.97
Collard was endeavouring to point out some of the opportunities offered within the new
industrial environment and how these were limited by the existing Code of Professional
Conduct. At least one of Collard’s colleagues at the 1967 conference,98 and others
before and after him, were more concerned by the fact that architects were prohibited
from actively promoting themselves within that context. The current code prohibited
activities that placed an architect in aggressive competition with his/her colleagues,
such as price-cutting, soliciting and advertisement.99 An architect’s clients were meant
to be attracted by his or her good name, not by unfair competitive practices. While
undercutting or ‘supplanting’ a colleague remained a sore point, some now advocated
a loosening or even a complete rejection of the rules prohibiting architects from
advertising or promoting their services.
In this context, the marketing activities associated with architect-designed project
housing had to some extent blurred the boundaries of what might be considered
advertising. Pettit & Sevitt provided a particularly pertinent example during the first half
of the 1960s. While its consultant architects were not named in advertisements, this was
not the case when it came to magazine articles published about Pettit & Sevitt and its
range. Similarly the first issue of the builder’s marketing newsletter dimension happily
coupled a profile on Ken Woolley with a promotional description of the Lowline
(Fig. 32). It was a very fine line that distinguished this from advertising.
The institution of the NSW Chapter’s Project House Design Awards further muddied
the waters. Firstly, the awards implicitly sanctioned a commercial activity. They and
the publicity that surrounded them clearly applauded the association between architect
97. ibid.
98. Cross, pp. 649-652.
99. Refer Appendix 5.
283
Fig. 32: Double-page spread in dimension, May 1964.

284
and builder and the retail product that resulted. As for the award-winning builders, they
immediately embraced the accolade as another marketing tool. When Eva Buhrich’s
article on the first award-winners appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald in July 1967,
both Pettit & Sevitt and Lend Lease Homes ran advertisements on the same page. In
each case, the comprehensive list of criteria associated with the award was instantly
translated into a marketing formula. The Lend Lease advertisement for example ran:
More than just a styling award! This sought-after award is presented not merely
on the merit of styling alone. It is assessed on · Price and the value it represents
· Space arrangement · Adaptability of the design to typical sites · Construction
standards: strength, durability, insulation · Finishes · Fittings and fixtures ·
Appearance · Items and services included in the price · Quality of contract
documents, particularly the conditions of contract, including provisions for after-
sales service. Assessed on all these points, the 3-bedroom 11½ square split-level
Casa Blanca came out on top.100
The most explicit example followed Pettit & Sevitt’s request that ‘the actual diploma
be made available to them for publicity purposes’.101 Within days of the NSW Chapter
Council’s approval, the award was reproduced as a Pettit & Sevitt advertisement in the
Sydney Morning Herald (Fig. 32).102 Obviously both parties saw that benefit could be
derived from this piggy-back form of publicity.
In summary, architect-designed project housing as it emerged in Sydney during the
1960s suggested an expanded range of possibilities in relation to the architect’s role
within the building and manufacturing industries at a time when the profession was
feeling acutely under threat. Concurrently, it served to highlight outdated aspects of
the existing Code of Professional Conduct in limiting architects’ ability to realise that
potential.
The NSW Chapter Again Takes the Lead
The process of revising the RAIA’s Code of Professional Conduct began in earnest at a
100. SMH, 18 July 1967, p. 19.

101. CM, 8 July 1969, p. 71.
102. SMH, 12 July 1969, p. 11.
285
national and state level in the mid 1960s. Before examining the specific role of the NSW
Chapter in this process, it is important to acknowledge that two external factors also
played a part.
The first of these was the publication of the RIBA’s The Architect and His Office in
1962.103 This detailed investigation of the day-to-day operation of architectural practices
in Britain was based around three key themes: architectural education, fees and salaries,
management and technical competence. According to Andrew Saint’s study of the
British profession, The Architect and His Office was ‘preoccupied with the issue of how
private practice might become more profitable and efficient’.104 He further argued that
the report and its recommendations contributed to ‘the growth of the managerial and
entrepreneurial ideal in British architecture’.105 Certainly it did recommend — within
a very long list — that there should be ‘a review of the RIBA Code of Conduct with a
view to liberalising the ‘professional’ attitude towards getting work’.106
The Architect and His Office was quickly picked up by the profession in Australia. In
Sydney, it could be ordered through the NSW Chapter shortly after its publication.107
Perhaps the RIBA report’s most obvious significance is that it mirrored many of the
concerns that had surfaced in Sydney and established a precedent for some form of
action to be taken. There were numerous calls for the same level of scrutiny to be
applied to the local profession.108
Another important precedent was set by the American Institute of Architects (AIA)
when it revised its Code of Professional Practice in 1964. This initiative generated much
103. Royal Institute of British Architects, The Architect and His Office: A Survey of Organisation, Staff-
ing, Quality of Service and Productivity Presented to the Council of the Royal Institute on 6th February,
1962, Royal Institute of British Architects, London, 1962.
104. Saint, The Image of the Architect, p. 143.
105. ibid., p. 142.
106. Royal Institute of British Architects, p. 16.
107. ‘“The Architect and His Office”’, Bulletin, August 1962, p. 2.
108. For example, ‘Australian Architectural Convention: Discussion by Study Group D’, AiA, vol. 52, no.3,
1963, p.137; S. Encel, ‘Professional Occupations in a Changing World’, AiA, vol. 54, no. 3, 1965, p. 136.
286
interest within the organised profession in Australia and it was the NSW Chapter that
assumed a leading role in investigating its relevance to discussions surrounding the
RAIA’s Code. In 1964 the Chapter’s newly elected President, R.A. Gilling, travelled to
the United States and, according to his own report,109 returned with a copy of the AIA’s
amended Code. As recorded in the Chapter minutes, he passed the document on to the
Professional Committee to investigate and report on any major differences between it
and the RAIA’s Code of Professional Conduct.110
The Professional Committee appointed a special subcommittee for the task and by
March 1965 it could report to Chapter Council that:
The two codes approach the question of professional conduct from an entirely
different viewpoint. The Australian code is in the main a specific list of precise
prohibitions, and is concerned almost wholly with the relationships which
should prevail within the profession and between members of the profession.
The American code takes the much broader approach of trying to set down
how architects should conduct themselves as members of the community, and
therefore aims at a much more far-reaching set of standards than those covered
by the Australian code. As a result the AIA code is much less mandatory in many
of its requirements than the RAIA code and tempers it’s [sic] “shall nots” with a
number of encouraging “shoulds”.111
The sub-committee’s assessment may have been correct in suggesting that the current
RAIA Code was framed in prohibitive rather than proactive terms. Nevertheless the
principle of providing unbiased, fair and impartial service was implicit within the rules.
The job of spelling this out in comprehensive terms had traditionally been left to the
educational activities and awareness campaigns generated by the public relations arm of
the RAIA and its chapters.
Having initiated this investigation into the comparative merits of the Australian and
American codes, the NSW Chapter was now in a good position to play a leading role
in the process that was about to be initiated at a national level. The same month that the
109. R.A. Gilling, ‘Report by President; Revision to Code of Professional Conduct History’, dated 7
October 1966 (ML MSS 4167 ADD-ON 1920).
110. PC, 19 November 1964, pp. 1-2.
111. CM, 9 March 1965, pp. 4-5.
287
Professional Committee made its report to Chapter Council, the RAIA Council formally
received the AIA’s Code and referred it on to the various Chapters for comment ‘with
a view to revising the RAIA Code’.112 Already well advanced in this process, NSW
sent off its interim report in August 1965.113 On 1 February 1966, the secretary of the
RAIA sent a letter to the Chapter noting that the Council had received reports from
the Chapters, and appreciating ‘the work already undertaken by the New South Wales
Chapter’ requested that it be asked:
to refer these documents back to the special sub-committee which has been
studying this question with a request that the sub-committee prepare a report and
a draft revised Code of Professional Conduct for presentation to the Council,
having regard to the comments received from other Chapters.114
The subcommittee was able to prepare its interim draft and report in time for the May
meeting of the Chapter’s Professional Committee.115 The draft was quite a lengthy
document, much longer than the existing code, divided into four parts. The preface went
into some detail about the responsibilities of the ‘men of culture, integrity, acumen,
creative ability, and skill’ called for by the profession. This was followed by three
sections: ‘Obligations to the Public’, ‘Obligations to the Client’ and ‘Obligations to the
Profession’ in that order.
The report attached to the draft is revealing in that it links the profession’s two primary
preoccupations — architectural leadership and package dealers — and suggests that by

fostering the first, a revised code might serve to negate the latter.
The aim of the AIA Code, we feel, is the promotion of the architect as the leader
of the building project, the leader in the development of city and town planning,
112. R.A. Gilling, ‘Report by President; Revision to Code of Professional Conduct History’, dated 7 Oc-
tober 1966 (ML MSS 4167 ADD-ON 1920). Appears to be confirmed in RAIA Council Meeting Minutes,
29 & 30 October 1965.
113. ibid.
114. Letter from R.S. Greig to the Secretary, New South Wales Chapter RAIA, dated 1 February, 1966
(ML MSS 4167 ADD-ON 1920).
115. PC, 19 May 1966, p. 1. A document entitled ‘Code of Professional Conduct Report’ attached to
‘Draft Code of Professional Conduct’ is held in the Chapter archive at the Mitchell Library (ML MSS
4167 ADD-ON 1920). Although undated, the report bears the names of two Professional Committe
members. The content of both documents also suggests that this is the report and draft referred to at this
meeting.
288
in “the total physical environment of man [sic]”. This surely is the primary goal
of the architect in this fast developing country where, in the future, it is to be
the Client-Architect-Builder relationship or Package Dealer. For the architect to
succeed and keep succeeding in this relationship his efforts and skill, integrity
and business acumen must be of the highest order and his code of conduct must
be his constant reminder of the standards he must maintain in the profession.
We think too that this is the answer to the package dealer system rather than the
negative and punitive approach of the AIA.116
The report also asked members to keep in mind ‘the unique events which occurred
during the last few months when architects came face to face with their obligations to
clients, consultants, fellow architects and to the public’. This no doubt refers to Jørn
Utzon’s highly controversial withdrawal from the Sydney Opera House project earlier in
the year. Its impact was far reaching. As Freeland described it:
The Opera House explosion reverberated around Australia, splitting

governments, the community and the architectural profession. Long-standing
friendships were sundered and allegiances strained. The profession, particularly
in New South Wales, was lit by a white glare of publicity that was not always to
its advantage.117
Suffice to say, the divisions within the architectural field that were exposed by the
controversy must have lent greater urgency to the professions’ need to clarify its core,
uniting principles.
When the Federal Council discussed the NSW Chapter’s draft at its November meeting,
it resolved that document be submitted to all RAIA chapters for comment.118 From
this point, the process of review becomes prolonged and bumpy with certain tensions
being revealed between the NSW Chapter and the Federal Council.119 Finally a Federal
Committee was appointed to the task of drafting the new code in October 1968.120 Once
completed, the new draft was referred to the Chapters for comment and a ‘Criticism
of the Federal Draft RAIA Code of Professional Conduct’ as well as a draft ‘Code of
Professional Conduct’ was submitted to the NSW Chapter Council by a subcommittee
116. ibid.
118. RAIACM, 4 and 5 November 1966, p. 77.
119. See for example the minutes of the NSW Chapter Council Meetings for 14 March 1967 and 10
September 1968.
120. CM, 12 November 1969, p. 15. The RAIA in Canberra has been unable to locate the minutes of
RAIA Council Meetings for 1968 and 1969.
289
of its Professional Committee in March.121 It was resolved that ‘a letter be forwarded
to the Federal Secretary commenting on the Federal Committee’s ‘Draft Code of
Professional Conduct’ and submitting the draft prepared by this Chapter as a substitute
for consideration’.122
In the NSW Chapter archive at the Mitchell Library, there is a copy of a document
headed ‘Criticism of ‘Draft RAIA Code of Professional Conduct’’ attached to a copy of
a ‘Draft Code of Professional Conduct’ dated 24 February 1969.123 The first document
concludes: ‘We seriously recommend that the RAIA abandon its present draft and adopt
the version we have prepared. Below this is typed ‘H.B. Mortlock for the Executive
Subcommittee’. In comparing these documents to the Code of Professional Conduct that
was finally approved by the RAIA, it becomes clear that the NSW Chapter had a major
influence on framing the revised code.
The main criticism of the RAIA’s draft code made by the Mortlock paper was that it
represented ‘no more than a drastically abbreviated version of the old’. It was argued
that a professional code of ethics essentially performed two functions: ‘To state
what conduct is not acceptable’ and ‘to indicate generally the ideal conduct towards
which members should aspire’. Taking a much more pragmatic view than previously
expressed, the latter was considered
relatively ineffective as part of a Code of practice. Its statements are either of the
form ‘member should try to be good’, which is no more than a pious hope; or of
the form ‘members are always good’, which is untrue. Both forms of statement
are commonly used in public relations documents. It is not the purpose of a Code
of Professional Conduct to be at the same time a public relations document.124
121. CM, 11 March 1969, p. 37.

122. ibid.
123. (ML MSS 4167 ADD-ON 1920). The Minutes of the NSW Chapter Council meeting on 11 March
1969 note that the draft code of professional conduct submitted by the sub-committee of the Professional
Committee was dated 24 February 1969 (CM, 11 March 1969, p. 37).
124. ibid.
290
A comparison between the ‘Draft Code of Professional Conduct’ attached to Mortlock’s
paper and the final version of the Code of Professional Conduct approved by the
Federal Council, reveals little disparity between the two. The preamble, which had been
particularly criticised, was now almost exactly the same as the draft with one minor
word shift. As to the rest, nearly all the clauses from the Chapter’s draft Code were
incorporated, albeit reordered and slightly reworded in parts.
In May 1969, the NSW representatives on Federal Council — R.A. Gilling and AS
member Peter Keys — reported to Chapter Council that comments from various
Chapters had been received and taken into account, with a revised document being
produced which ‘closely follows the proposals put forward by NSW’. This revised code
was adopted by Council ‘subject to some minor drafting amendments’.125 A few months
later, the newly revised Code of Professional Conduct was ready for publication in the
October edition of the RAIA News.
The revised Code was a substantially shorter document than its predecessor and as the
national President stated in his introductory announcement, it was ‘less restrictive in
character than the old and as far as possible avoids spelling out a lot of unnecessary
detail’.126 Perhaps the biggest change related to the rules regarding sources of
employment or income. The first clause in the previous code clearly stated that: ‘A
member is remunerated solely by his professional fees payable by his client or by a

salary payable by his employer’.127 Not that this excluded an architect from acting as a
125. CM, 21 May 1969, Appendix, p. 2. This is not to say that Mortlock was completely happy with the
outcome. He ‘Undertook to submit to the Executive [of which he was now part] a statement showing the
areas in which the Federal Council had failed to understand the Committee submission’ (PC, 19 June
1969, p. 2). This was done and at the July meeting of Council it was resolved: ‘That representations
be made to the Federal Secretary with a view to adoption of the layout of the NSW draft, noting that
this incorporated a heading “General Responsibilities” with some particular applications (which were
not intended to be exhaustive) whereas the approved document incorporates these under the heading
“Responsibilities of every Member”, implying that they are exhaustive’ (CM, 8 July 1969, p. 69). This
was to have no impact on the final approval of the Code and the Chapter voiced its disappointment (CM,
11 November 1969, p. 104). While it called for an amendment, the Federal President retorted that he
wished the Code to operate for some time before amendments (EC, 24 November 1969, p. 89).
126. RAIA News, October 1969, p. 1.
127. RAIA Year Book and Diary 1966-67, p. 32.
291
consultant to building contractors, manufacturers and estate agents or even taking on
responsibility for organising the construction of buildings. However, remuneration had
to be in the form of a salary, fixed fee, royalty or percentage of the cost of the work in
accordance with the RAIA’s scale of fees. A member could not act as ‘principal, partner
or manager’ of such trades or businesses. In the new Code all of this had disappeared,
opening up a vastly enlarged territory of engagement for Australian architects.
The rules pertaining to publicity or advertising were also significantly modified,
although as a general rule members were still not allowed to advertise their professional
services or have their names included in advertisements. There were exceptions
however, including the clause that a member:
may allow his name to be associated with illustrations and descriptions of his
work in the press or other public media but he shall not give or accept any
consideration for such appearances.128
This was slightly different to the previous rule which had an additional clause
regarding a prohibition against publishers using this as an opportunity ‘for extorting
advertisements from contributors’.129 More significantly, the new Code no longer made
reference to members being prevented from advertising or offering their ‘professional
services to any person or body corporate by means of circulars or otherwise’.130 Even a
published book or brochure on one’s work could not be distributed ‘to potential clients’
under the previous code. Now at last architects were able to promote themselves at least
within their field of practice.
It is clear that the NSW Chapter played a highly significant and influential role in the
lengthy process associated with revision of the RAIA’s Code of Professional Conduct.
It is also important to note that this involvement occurred at a time when the ‘new
generation’ of Sydney architects was making its presence felt within the Chapter. For
that crucial period from May 1968 to April 1969, Peter Johnson as President oversaw
128. RAIA News, October 1969, p. 2.

129. RAIA Year Book and Diary 1966-67, op. cit., p. 32.
130. ibid.
292
an Executive and Council that included Bryce Mortlock and four other members of the
Architectural Society. Bryce Mortlock’s role in this context was particularly crucial. He
had actively participated in re-drafting the code just as he had taken responsibility for
designing the conditions of the Project House Design Award a few years earlier.
CONCLUSION
As predicted by Bourdieu, the ‘newcomers’ chose to work within the system to
promote what they considered were the field’s ‘core values’. Part of that included
formal recognition of ‘large scale production’ — in the form of ‘architect-designed
project housing — as a ‘legitimate mode of cultural production’. Modernists had long
advocated mass or large-scale production as a key area of engagement for architects, but
until this point, opportunities in Australia had been limited, at least within the private
sector. The project housing industry as it evolved in Sydney during the 1960s came to
represent a context in which architects could fulfill this aspiration, and at the same time
demonstrate their specialised knowledge and skills in providing commercially viable
housing options.
The field of architect-designed project housing was also important to the profession in
other ways. It provided a relatively safe commercial environment for architects to test
the water in relation to fundamental ethical issues such as involvement with advertising
and marketing. It also suggested an expanded range of possibilities in terms of the

architect’s role within the building and manufacturing industries at a time when the
profession was feeling acutely under threat. In doing so, it served to highlight outdated
aspects of the RAIA’s Code of Professional Conduct in limiting architects’ ability to
realise that potential.
Max Freeland’s study of the architectural profession in Australia argued that every
code of ethics produced by the Institutes until 1969 had been ‘specific, negative and
restrictive. The 1969 Code was none of these…Instead of limiting an architect’s field
293
of work, it sought to lay down guides to professional behaviour based on responsibility
to the public, clients and colleagues in an unrestricted area of operation’. According
to Freeland, it was meant as a ‘message for architects to get out and fight for their
existence, and to justify it, in a world that threatened to discard them unless they
changed’.131 Hogben’s study of the Australian architectural profession is more specific
in its assessment of the implications of the changes made to the RAIA’s Code of
Professional Conduct. He claims that they ‘paved the way’ for promotion and marketing
to assume a key emphasis within the profession.132 This chapter has shown that
architects’ involvement with project housing had to some extent already ‘paved the way’
for those cultural changes.
131. Freeland, The Making of a Profession, p. 194..

132. Hogben, Fabrications, p. 83.
294
8
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
______________________________________________________________________
OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS
The thesis set out to establish a link between the cultural and political imperatives
operating within the NSW Chapter of the RAIA and architect-designed project
housing as it emerged in Sydney during the 1960s. It has taken the form of an
historical investigation that begins in 1930 with the establishment of the RAIA and
ends in 1969 — the year that major revisions were made to the Institute’s Code of
Professional Conduct. Five themes, drawn from the sociology of professions and the
theories of Pierre Bourdieu, Paul du Gay and Sharon Zukin, provide the interpretative
framework for the study. They comprise professional identity, ‘legitimate modes of
cultural production’, ‘accessibility’ and ‘acceptability’, ‘cultures of production’ and
architect as ‘cultural intermediary’. The first two anchor the study, running through the
investigation from beginning to end, to establish the critical connection between issues
of identity and production. The last three themes are applied at later points within the
chronological span to further explicate the link between the culture and politics of the
NSW Chapter and architect-designed project housing specifically.
The thesis has shown that within the organised profession in Sydney, issues related to
professional identity were invariably linked to considerations of what was or was not
an appropriate area of practice, in other words, a legitimate mode of culural production.
While domestic architecture had always been considered a legitimate area of practice,
its political significance in relation to the organised profession dramatically increased
over the period 1930 to 1969. During the 1930s, for example, the NSW Chapter’s
engagement with the housing reform movement was in part activated by a need to unite
the profession around a common cause as well as enhance its public profile. Later, the
housing crisis of the postwar period later provided an opportunity for the profession to
295
demonstrate its specialised knowledge and skills in providing practical and affordable
housing ‘solutions’ through the Chapter’s Small Homes Services and other focussed
activities. By the 1960s, project housing provided a context in which those professional
attributes could be conspiciously applied to a commercially viable outcome.
At the same time, the culture of the organised profession in Sydney was shifting in
response to both external and internal pressures. Following the Second World War,
architects were operating in an environment that was becoming highly complex and
competitive. A growing tension emerged between the maintenance of traditional ideals,
embodied in the RAIA’s Code of Professional Conduct, and the need to compete
successfully within these changing circumstances. That tension came to a head in the
1960s, resulting in a radical overhaul of the Code in 1969.
Generational change within the NSW Chapter also played its part. In terms adopted
from Bourdieu, that process was associated with a series of ‘struggles’ between
‘newcomers’ and the ‘old guard’. In the 1930s those ‘newcomers’ were represented
by the Modern Architectural Research Society and in the late 1950s and early 1960s
by members of the Architectural Society. The issue of housing was integral to these
‘struggles’ as architects associated with both groups lobbied hard for it to become
a ‘core’ focus for the Chapter. A significant outcome during the 1960s was the
institutionalisation of architect-designed project housing within the Chapter’s awards

system. That initiative had been argued for on the basis that this type of enterprise
represented a fruitful alliance between architects and industry, clearly exemplified by its
market success and the potential opportunities it held for the profession. Concurrently,
the same argument was used to highlight aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct
that were seen to limit that potential.
The thesis has also shown that the market success of architect-designed project housing,
that fed into the reformist agenda of the 1960s, can in part be traced back to the public
296
relations activities of the NSW Chapter during the postwar period. The establishment of
the Chapter’s Small Homes Service, together with other campaigns that identified the
profession with an active commitment to addressing the housing shortage, contributed
to the acceptability and accessibility of architect-designed ‘solutions’, particularly
standardised designs. These had been promoted on the basis that an architect’s
specialised knowledge and skills delivered not only distinctive design, but also
comfort, convenience and, perhaps most importantly, economies for the homebuyer.
During the late 1950s and 1960s, that same message came to underpin the marketing
and promotional strategies of project builders specialising in architect-designed
project housing. Within the cultures of production they represented to the public, the
architect was explicitly cast in the role of cultural intermediary. Architects’ specialised
knowledge and skills were offered as a guarantee to clients that the house designs they
purchased would ‘say the right things’.
In summary, the thesis has established a connection between the cultural and political
imperatives operating within the NSW Chapter and the emergence of architect-designed
housing in Sydney. It has shown that successful models of architectural engagement
with project housing were used to highlight limitations in the way in which the
profession had defined itself, particularly through such systems as the RAIA’s Code of
Professional Conduct. It is argued that the dramatic revision made to that code in 1969
embodied a distinct cultural and political shift for the profession and was the result of a
growing tension between traditional ideals and the realities of practice. It is concluded
that architect-designed project housing served to inform that shift by providing a context
in which aspects of that tension could be tested and, in some cases, reconciled.
RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING LITERATURE
The thesis adds to the literature in two ways: firstly to the history of the organised
profession in Sydney for the period 1930 to 1969 and secondly to the history of
architect-designed project housing in Sydney.

297
By providing a detailed examination of the NSW Chapter in relation to one specific
area of interest and activity, it expands on the only published history of the architectural
profession in Australia: J.M. Freeland’s The Making of a Profession. Freeland was
certainly alert to the complex machinations of Chapter politics and this study has served
to tease out the detail surrounding a number of the critical issues he highlighted, most
notably those associated with the revision of the RAIA’s Code of Professional Conduct.
In its specialised focus, the thesis also complements Paul Hogben’s investigations into
the profession’s public relations activities. It serves to illustrate how the methodology
he elucidates can be applied to the representation and promotion of an issue such as
housing.
In terms of the history of architect-designed project housing in Sydney, the investigation
of a number of early, influential enterprises adds significantly to the literature. At
a basic level, it serves to correct some historical inaccuracies as well as clarify the
nature of particular projects. A good example is the Carlingford Homes Fair of 1962
which is consistently cited in the literature as a major turning point in the history of
project housing. According to Jennifer Taylor, for example, ‘The project house was not
launched on the market as a viable alternative to individual architect designed or builder
housing until the Carlingford Exhibition Village in Sydney of 1961’.1 This study shows
in the first instance, that project housing — including that at the Fair — was in fact
‘builder housing’. Secondly it serves to qualify the significance of the Fair as a one-off
exercise, not only in relation to the operational strategies of its instigator and sponsor,
Lend Lease Homes, but also to precedents provided by Sun-Line Homes and the Parade
of Homes. As shown, these entreprises had provided ‘viable alternatives’ that in various
ways had anticipated the Fair.
1. Taylor, Australian Architecture Since 1960, p. 143.

298
At another level, the thesis draws attention to the limitations of certain architectural
histories regarding the way in which ‘architect-designed’ has been defined. In the
context of project housing, restricting that definition to the work of independent
architects has led to some major omissions, notably the early initiatives of the MBA2
and the work of salaried architects such as those employed by Lend Lease. In terms of
the much celebrated Pettit & Sevitt, the investigation provides the first comprehensive
history of its project building operation. It has also revealed that the company’s interests
extended to speculative housing as well as a range of major construction projects.
FUTURE RESEARCH
There is more to be said about Pettit & Sevitt and its business interests as there is about
the numerous building enterprises established in Sydney during the 1960s and 1970s
that specialised in architect-designed project housing, such as Civic Constructions,
Program Building Industries, H.U.D. and Habitat. There is also the larger history still
to be written that charts the emergence and apparent demise of the industry as a whole
during the late 20th century. Within such a study, cultures of consumption as well as
cultures of production would need to be considered. Indeed, as Greig suggests,3 it is
the territory of interaction between the various cultures of production and consumption
associated with the industry that potentially offers the most rewarding area for
investigation.
What led to the dissolution of the Merchant Housing category within the NSW
Chapter’s annual awards in 19844 also warrants close attention. As it has been argued
that the local market for architect-designed project housing had by then turned its
attention to ‘renovation and inner suburb gentrification’,5 it could be suggested that
2. The only published reference to date within that context is C. Johnson 2004, Homes Dot Com:
Architecture for All, Government Architect’s Publications, Sydney, pp. 36-38. That reference, to the first
Parade of Homes, was based on information provided by the author.
3. Greig, ‘Project Homes or Homes-as-Projects’.
4. ‘New Chapter Awards for Architecture 1984’, Architecture Bulletin 1.2/1984, p. 22.
5. Royal Institute of Australian Architects Education Division, p. 32.
299
the Chapter was merely responding to trends within the industry.6 However, while the
profile of architect-designed project housing may have receded during the 1980s, the
project housing industry continued as a significant force within residential building.
So what had happened to the housing agenda that had supported the establishment
of the award in the first place? This had been explicitly concerned with fostering the
involvement of architects with the project housing industry. Had the priorities and
profile of the local profession changed so dramatically since the mid 1960s? Perhaps
this study’s interpretative framework might offer a model for an investigation into these
and other related questions. Certainly, the relationship between professional identity and
legitimate modes of cultural production would need to be considered in this context.
Over the last few years there has been a growing level of public concern expressed
over the planning, type and style of housing development in Sydney’s ever expanding
suburbs.7 The general design and sustainability of the project housing that dominates in
many areas — the now mythologised ‘McMansions’ — attracts much of the negative
attention (Fig. 33). Some of the most savage criticism has come from architects who
actively contribute to the debate, but generally from a vantage point quite distant from
the industry.. Rather than suggesting an unbiased view, that point of distance can
imply a disengagement from the fundamental wants and concerns of the majority of
homebuyers. It may be time to question what has determined the line of demarcation.
6. ‘Merchant Housing’ was replaced by a new category ‘Renovations’.

7. See C. Hamilton and R. Denniss, Affluenza: When Too Much is Never Enough, Allen & Unwin, Crows
Nest NSW, 2005 and E. Farrelly, Blubberland: The Dangers of Happiness, University of New South
Wales Press, Sydney, 2007. Examples from the media include: ‘Architecture and the City Forum’, The
Comfort Zone, radio program, ABC Radio National, 7 April 2001, broadcast transcript, available at http://
www.abc.net.au/rn/czone/stories (accessed 20 Feb 2007); A. Dennis & V. Wilson, ‘West Needs Quarter-
Acre Dreams, Not Creepy-Crawly Villas, Says Keating’, SMH, 27 September 2001, p. 3; S. Lacey,
‘This Whopping Life’, Spectrum supplement, SMH, 8-9 March 2003, pp. 4-5; E. Farrelly, ‘Size Does
Count to Architects’ Despair’, SMH, 17 June 2003, p. 14; J. Hawley, ‘Be it Ever so Humungous’, Good
Weekend magazine, SMH, 23 August 2003, pp. 24-25, 27-28, 30-31; A. Smith, ‘City Risks Becoming
Barren Wasteland, Top Architect Says’, SMH, 21 October 2004, p. 2; ‘Housing Trends in Australia
Not Changing’, The 7.30 Report, television program, ABC TV, 17 February 2005, broadcast transcript,
available at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005 (accessed 18 May 2006); D. Dale, ‘Forget The
Castle, It’s not Nearly Big Enough’, SMH 22-23 January 2005, pp. 1 & 10; E. Farrelly, ‘The End of the
Great Australian Dream Can’t Come Soon Enough’, SMH, 13 December 2006, p. 11.
300
Fig. 33: ‘Welcome to McMansion Land’, Good Weekend magazine cover.

(Sydney Morning Herald, 23 August 2003).
301
BIBLIOGRAPHY
______________________________________________________________________
Archival Material
Institutions and organisations:
Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales, Sydney.
Master Builders’ Association of New South Wales, Sydney.
Powerhouse Museum Design Archives, Sydney.
Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Canberra.
Royal Australian Institute of Architects, New South Wales Chapter, Tusculum, Sydney.
Royal Australian Institute of Architects, New South Wales Chapter, Mitchell Library,
State Library of New South Wales, Sydney.
Privately held:
Geoffrey Lumsdaine’s personal papers, Sydney.
Max Bowen’s personal papers, Sydney.
Nino Sydney’s personal papers, Sydney.
Pettit and Sevitt files, Ancher Mortlock & Woolley archive, Sydney.
Books and Journal Articles
Abbott, A., The System of Professions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988.
Adams, J, Clemens, E.S. & Orloff, A.S. (eds), Remaking Modernity: Politics,
History, and Sociology, Duke University Press, Durham, 2005.
Allport, C., ‘The Unrealised Promise: Plans for Sydney Housing in the Forties’, in
J. Roe (ed.), Twentieth Century Sydney: Studies in Urban & Social History,
Hale & Iremonger, Sydney, in association with The Sydney History Group, 1980.
Ancher Mortlock & Woolley, Ken Woolley and Ancher Mortlock & Woolley: Selected
and Current Works, Images Publishing Group and Craftsman House, Mulgrave,
Victoria, 1999.
Anderson, A.W., ‘Presidential Address’, Architecture, vol. 24 no. 4, 1935, pp. 69-72.
302
____________ ‘The Future of the Architectural Profession in Australia’, Architecture,

vol. 24, no. 8, 1935, pp. 174-175.
____________ ‘The Problem of the Slums’, Architecture, vol. 24, no. 12, 1935,
pp. 286-287.
Archer, J., Building a Nation: A History of the Australian House, Collins, Sydney, 1987.
Ashworth, H.I., ‘Fourth Australian Architectural Convention, 1954’, Architecture,

vol. 42, no. 1, 1954, p. 9.
Australian Broadcasting Commission, Design in Everyday Things; Conflict,

Australian Broadcasting Commission, [Sydney], 1941.
Australian Institute of Urban Studies, Housing for Australia: Philosophy &

Policies, Australian Institute of Urban Studies, Canberra, 1975.
Baird, J., By Design: Changing Australian Housing, Australasian Educa Press,

Melbourne, 1984.
Bannister, T.C. (ed.), The Architect at Mid-Century: Report of the Commission for
the Survey of Education and Registration of the American Institute of Architects,
Reinhold, New York, 1954.
Barnett, F.O. & Burt, W.O., Housing The Australian Nation, Research Group of the Left
Book Club of Victoria, Melbourne, 1942.
Barnett, F.O., Burt, W.O. & Heath, F., We Must Go On: A Study in Planned
Reconstruction and Housing, Book Depot, Melbourne, 1944.
Baudrillard, J., Selected Writings, M. Poster (ed.), Stanford University Press,

California, 1988.
Beiers, G., Houses of Australia: A Survey of Domestic Architecture, Ure Smith,

Sydney, 1948.
Bercedo, I. & Mestre, J. (eds), Quaderns: Used City 1, Catalan Architects’ Association,
Barcelona, 2002.
Blake, P., Architecture for the New World: The Work of Harry Seidler, Horwitz
Australia, Sydney, 1973.
Block, G. E., ‘Professional Technical Education – (1) Change’, Architecture in

Australia, vol. 57, no. 7, 1968, pp. 1130-1132.
Boudon, P., Lived-in Architecture: Le Corbusier’s Pessac Revisited, Lund Humphries,

London, 1972.
Bourdieu, P., Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. R. Nice, Cambridge University

Press, 1977.
303
_________ Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. R. Nice,

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984.
_________ ‘The Field of Cultural Production, or: The Economic World Reversed’ in P.
Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, ed.
and intro. R. Johnson, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1993.
_________ ‘The Production of Belief: Contribution ot an Economy of Symbolic

Goods’ in P. Bourdieu The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and
Literature, ed. and intro. R. Johnson, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1993.
_________ The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, ed.
and intro. R. Johnson, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1993.
_________ Acts of Resistance: Against the Tyranny of the Market, trans. R. Nice,
The New Press, New York, 1998.
_________ ‘Habitus’, in J. Hillier & E. Rooksby (eds) Habitus: A Sense of Place,

Ashgate, Aldershot, 2002.
_________ ‘Site Effects’, in I. Bercedo & J. Mestre (eds), Quaderns: Used City 1,
Catalan Architects’ Association, Barcelona, 2002.
Bourdieu, P. & Darbel, A., The Love of Art: European Art Museums and their Public,
Polity Press, Cambridge, 1997 (1991).
Boyd, R., ‘Death of the Architect’, Smudges, vol. 4, no. 32, 1942, unpag.
_______ ‘Death of the Architect’, Pencil Points, vol. xxiii, no. 4, 1942, p. 182.
[Reprinted from Smudges, vol. 4, no. 32, 1942].
_______ ‘Houses in the Air’, SALT, vol. 7, no. 2, 1943, pp. 32-35.
_______ ‘Is This Your City? No, Because Your City’s Out-of-Date’, SALT vol. 7
no.13, 1944, pp. 28-31.
_______ ‘The Ghost Walks’, guest editorial, Smudges, vol. 5, no. 35, 1946, unpag.
_______ ‘Reach-Me-Down Architecture’, Architecture, vol. 37, no. 3, 1949, pp. 84-86.
_______ ‘The Architect and the Anchor’, Meanjin, no. 48, vol. xi, no. 1, 1952, pp. 31-35.
_______ ‘The Future of Design Practice’, Architecture, vol. 46, no. 3, 1957, pp. 73-76.
_______ ‘Look Back in Apathy’, Meanjin, no.73, vol. xvii, no. 2, 1958, pp. 175-178.
_______ ‘The State of Australian Architecture’, Architecture in Australia, vol. 56,

no. 3, 1967, pp. 454-465.
304
_______ Australia’s Home: Its Origins, Builders and Occupiers, 2nd edn, Penguin
Books Australia, Ringwood, Victoria, 1968.
_______ ‘The Neighbourhood’ in I. McKay et al, Living & Partly Living: Housing in
Australia, Thomas Nelson (Australia), Melbourne, 1971.
Boyle, B.M., ‘Architectural Practice in America, 1865-1965 — Ideal and Reality’ in

S. Kostof (ed.), The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession,
University of California Press, Berkeley, 2000 (1977).
Briggs, M. S., The Architect in History, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1927.
Bull, C., New Conversations with an Old Landscape: Landscape Architecture in

Contemporary Australia, The Images Publishing Group, Mulgrave, Victoria, 2002.
Bullock, N., Building the Post-War World: Modern Architecture and Reconstruction in
Britain, Routledge, London, 2002.
Bunning, W. R., ‘In Search of Architecture’ [an address], Architecture, vol. 28, no. 6,
1939, pp. 112 -119.
____________ ‘Commodity, Firmness and Delight’, Architecture, vol. 29, no. 7, 1940
pp. 133-137
____________ ‘Housing the Munition Worker: A Vital Problem of War’, Architecture,

vol. 30, no. 2, 1941, pp.23-25
____________ Homes In The Sun: The Past Present and Future of Australian Housing,
W.J. Nesbit, Sydney, 1945.
____________ ‘Town Planning in New South Wales’, Architecture, vol. 35, no. 1,
1947, pp. 38-42.
____________ ‘The Housing Problem in Australia’, in W. Bunning et al, The Housing

Problem in Australia: Papers read at the Winter Forum of the Australian
Institute of Political Science, held in Wollongong, June 20-22, 1947, Angus and
Robertson, Sydney, in conjunction with The Australian Institute of Political
Science, 1947.
Bunning, W., Ifould, W.H., McKerihan, C.R. & Luker, S.J., The Housing Problem
in Australia: Papers read at the Winter Forum of the Australian Institute of
Political Science, held in Wollongong, June 20-22, 1947, Angus and
Robertson, Sydney, in conjunction with The Australian Institute of Political
Science, 1947.
Bunning, W. & O’Mahony, T., ‘What is the Character of Australia’s Architecture?’,

Architecture, vol. 30, no. 1, 1941, pp. 11-13.
Calhoun, C., LiPuma, E. & Postone, M. (eds), Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives,

The University of Chicago Press, 1993.
305
Campbell, L., ‘The MARS Group, 1933-1939’, Transactions 8, vol. 4, no. 2, 1984/5
pp. 68-79.
Carr-Saunders, A.M. & Wilson, P.A., The Professions, Frank Cass & Co., London,
1964 (1933).
Clark, L., Finding a Common Interest: The Story of Dick Dusseldorp and Lend Lease,
Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Clerehan, N., ‘The Age RVIA Small Homes Service’, Transition, No. 38 Special Issue
Robin Boyd, 1992, pp. 57-64.
Collard, M., ‘Harry Seidler “Houses, Interiors, Projects”’, Architecture, vol. 44, no. 1.,
1955, p.18.
_________ ‘The Architect’s Position with the Package Deal and the Developer’,
Bulletin, December, 1959, p. 1.
_________ ‘Extracts from A New Architectural Service?’, Architecture in Australia,

vol. 56, no. 4, 1967, pp. 653-656.
Collins, J., ‘Raising the Architectural Standard of Small Homes: The Small Homes
Service of South Australia’, Fabrications, vol. 62, no. 2, 2006, pp. 6-27.
Committee convened by the Ministry of Post-War Reconstruction in collaboration

with the US Government Department of War Information, Follow the Red
Footprints: Souvenir of the Sydney Housing Exhibition 8th to 28th August,
1944, (exhibition brochure), Committee convened by the Ministry of Post-
War Reconstruction in collaboration with the US Government Department of
War Information, Sydney, 1944.
Costello, F.G., ‘Letter to the Editor’, Architecture, vol. 26, no. 7, 1937, p. 150.
___________ ‘A Philosophy for an Architectural Community’, Architecture, vol. 28,

no. 11, 1939, pp. 221-223.
___________ ‘Reconstruction’, Architecture, vol. 31, no. 6, 1942, pp. 65-68.
Crawford, M., ‘Can Architects be Socially Responsible?’, in D. Ghirardo (ed.), Out of

Site: A Social Criticism of Architecture, Bay Press, Seattle, 1991.
Crilley, D., ‘Architecture as Advertising: Constructing the Image of Redevelopment’,

in G. Kearns & C. Philo (eds), Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past
and Present, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1993.
Crinson, M. & Lubbock, J., Architecture – Art or Profession: Three Hundred Years
of Architectural Education in Britain, Manchester University Press, 1994.
Cross, T., ‘Extracts from Professional Elasticity?’, Architecture in Australia, vol. 56,
no. 4, 1967, pp. 649-652.
306
Cuff, D., Architecture: The Story of Practice, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1991.
______ ‘Foreword’ in S. Kostof (ed.), The Architect: Chapters in the History of the
Profession, University of California Press, Berkeley, 2000.
Cuthbert, A.R., ‘Bureaucratic Ideology, Socialism and Space: 1997 and the
Environmental Professions in Hong Kong’, Planning & Development, vol. 5,
no. 1, 1989, pp. 18-25.
___________ (ed.), Designing Cities: Critical Readings in Urban Design, Blackwell

Publishers, Oxford, 2003.
Davison, G., Dingle, T. & O’Hanlon, S. (eds), The Cream Brick Frontier: Histories of
Australian Suburbia, Monash Publications in History No. 19, Clayton,
Victoria, 1995.
De Certeau, M., The Practice of Everyday Life, University of California Press,

Berkeley, 1984.
De Gruchy, G., ‘Extracts from The Price of Progress’, Architecture in Australia, vol. 56,
no. 4, 1967, pp. 627-629.
Divola, H., Truth Home Plan Book, Invincible Press, Melbourne, [195-].
Dovey, K., ‘Model Houses and Housing Ideology in Australia’, Housing Studies,
vol. 7, no. 3, 1992.
________ ‘Dreams on Display: Suburban Ideology in the Model Home’, in S. Ferber,

C. Healy & C. McAuliffe (eds), Beasts of Suburbia: Reinterpreting Cultures in
Australian Suburbs, Melbourne University Press, 1994.
________ Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form, Routledge, London, 1999.
________ ‘The Silent Complicity of Architecture’, in J. Hillier & E. Rooksby (eds),

Habitus: A Sense of Place, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2002.
Dowling, R., ‘Residential Building in Australia, 1993-2003’, Urban Policy and

Research, vol. 23, no. 4, 2005, pp. 447-464.
Du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H. & Negus, K., Doing Cultural Studies:
The Story of the Sony Walkman, Sage/The Open University, London, 1997.
Du Gay, P., ‘Introduction’ in P. du Gay, (ed.), Production of Culture/Cultures of

Production, Sage/The Open University, London, 1997.
Du Gay, P. (ed.), Production of Culture/Cultures of Production, Sage/The Open

University, London, 1997.
307
Dunphy, M., Heath, T., Jackson, D., Johnson, P., Moore, T. & Mortlock, B.,‘Suggestions
for a Course in Architecture’, Architecture in Australia, vol. 52, no. 2, 1963,
pp. 112-118.
Edmunds R.M., ‘Educating Australian Architects’, Architecture, vol. 27, no. 12, 1938
pp. 289-291.
Edquist, H., ‘The Legend of Australian Architecture Since 1960’, Transition, no. 20,
May, 1987, pp. 37-42.
Edquist, H. & Black, R., The Architecture of Neil Clerehan, RMIT Publishing Press,
Melbourne, 2005.
Eggleston, A.S., The Practising Architect, Melbourne University Press, 1955.
Eichler, N., The Merchant Builders, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1982.
Ellis, R. & Cuff, D. (eds), Architects’ People, Oxford University Press, New York, 1989.
Elwall, R., Building a Better Tomorrow: Architecture in Britain in the 1950s,

Wiley-Academy, Chichester, West Sussex in collaboration with the Royal
Institute of British Architects, 2000.
Encel, S., ‘Professional Occupations in a Changing World’, Architecture in Australia,

vol. 54, no. 3, 1965, pp. 132-136.
Farrelly, E., Blubberland: The Dangers of Happiness, University of New South Wales
Press, Sydney, 2007
Ferber, S., Healy, C. & McAuliffe, C. (eds), Beasts of Suburbia: Reinterpreting

Cultures in Australian Suburbs, Melbourne University Press, 1994.
Fiske, J., Hodge, B. & Turner, G., Myths of Oz: Reading Australian Popular Culture,
Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, NSW, 1987.
Fooks, E., X-Ray The City! The Density Diagram: Basis For Urban Planning,
E. Fooks, Melbourne, 1946.
Frampton, K. & Drew, P., Harry Seidler: Four Decades of Architecture, Thames and
Hudson, London, 1992.
Freeland, J.M., ‘Professional Education: Comment 3’, Architecture in Australia,

vol. 57, no. 7, 1968, pp. 1129-1130.
___________ Architecture in Australia: A History, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth,

England, 1974 (1968).
___________ The Making of a Profession: A History of the Growth and Work of the
Architectural Institutes in Australia, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, in
association with The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, 1971.
308
Freestone, R., ‘Sulman of Sydney: Modern Planning in Theory and Practice

1890-1930’, Town Planning Review, vol. 67, no. 1, 1996, pp. 45-63.
___________ ‘From City Improvement to the City Beautiful’, in S. Hamnett &

R. Freestone (eds), The Australian Metropolis: A Planning History, Allen &
Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW, 2000.
Freidson, E., Professional Dominance: The Social Structure of Medical Care, Atherton
Press, Chicago, 1970.
Fung, S., ‘The ‘Sydney School’?’, Transition, vol. 4, no. 3, 1985, pp. 38-43.
Gamble, A., ‘Dilemma’, Architecture, vol. 35, no. 1, 1947, pp. 16-18.
Garden, D., Builders to the Nation: The A.V. Jennings Story, Melbourne University
Press, 1992.
_________ “Type 15’, ‘Glengarry’ and ‘Catalina’: the Changing Space of the A.V.
Jennings Home in the 1960s’, in G. Davison, T. Dingle & S. O’Hanlon (eds),
The Cream Brick Frontier: Histories of Australian Suburbia, Monash
Publications in History No. 19, Clayton, Victoria, 1995.
Gartner, A., ‘Robin Boyd’s Social Images’, Transition, No.38 Special Issue Robin
Boyd, 1992, pp.87-94.
_________ ‘Death of the Project House? Reflections on the History of Merchant

Builders’, in G. Davison, T. Dingle & S. O’Hanlon (eds), The Cream Brick
Frontier: Histories of Australian Suburbia, Monash Publications in History
No. 19, Clayton, Victoria, 1995.
Gawler, J.S., A Roof Over My Head, Lothian Publishing Company, Melbourne, 1963.
Gazzard, D., ‘Speculative House, Carlingford Sydney’, Architectural Design, August,

1964, p. 410.
__________ Sydneysider: An Optimistic Life in Architecture, The Watermark Press,

Boorowa, NSW, 2006.
Ghirardo, D. (ed.), Out of Site: A Social Criticism of Architecture, Bay Press, Seattle, 1991.
Goad, P., ‘An Ongoing Preoccupation: Australia and the Small House’, in G. London
& P. Bingham-Hall (eds), Houses for the 21st Century, Pesaro Publishing,
Sydney, 2003.
______ ‘A Reflective Landscape: The Architecture of Neville Gruzman’

in N. Gruzman & P. Goad, Gruzman: An Architect and His City, Craftsman
House, Fishermans Bend, Victoria, 2006.
309
Goad, P. & Willis, J., ‘War and the Necessity of Invention: A Circumstantial Modernism
for Postwar Australian Architecture’, in In the Making: Architecture’s Past,
Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Society of Architectural
Historians Australia and New Zealand (SAHANZ), Perth, 2001.
Godfrey, W.R., ‘Address by Retiring President, Mr. W. Race Godfrey’, Architecture in

Australia, vol. 46, no. 2, 1957, p. 61.
___________ ‘Enter the Professional’, Architecture in Australia, vol. 58, no. 2, 1969,
pp. 238-240.
Gold, J.R., The Practice of Modernism: Modern Architects and Urban Transformation,
1954-1972, Routledge, London, 2007.
Goldhagen, S.W. & Legault, R. (eds), Anxious Modernisms: Experimentation in

Postwar Architectural Culture, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2000.
Goldhagen, S.W. & Legault, R., ‘Introduction: Critical Themes of Postwar Modernism’
in Goldhagen, S.W. & Legault, R. (eds), Anxious Modernisms: Experimentation
in Postwar Architectural Culture, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2000.
Goode, W., ‘Community within a Community: The Professions’, American

Sociological Review, vol. 22, no. 2, 1957, pp. 194-200.
Goodwin, M., ‘The City as Commodity: The Contested Spaces of Urban Development’,
in G. Kearns & C. Philo (eds), Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past
and Present, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1993.
Grace Bros., Thirty Home Plans, Grace Bros. Home Plans Service, Sydney, in
association with the Sunday Telegraph, [1954].
_________ Thirty Three Home Plans, Grace Bros., Sydney, in association with the
Sunday Telegraph, [196-?].
Greig, A., Structure, Organisation and Skill Formation in the Australian Housing
Industry, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1992.
_______ The Stuff Dreams are Made of: Housing Provision in Australia 1945-1960,
Melbourne University Press, 1995.
_______ ‘Home Magazines and Modernist Dreams: Designing the 1950s House’,
Urban Research Program, Working Paper No.47, April 1995, Research School
of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, 1995.
_______ ‘Project Homes or Homes-as-Projects: Fashion and Utility in Twentieth-

Century Australia’, in P. Troy (ed.), A History of European Housing in Australia,
310
Greenwood, E., ‘The Elements of Professionalization’, in H.M. Vollmer & D.L. Mills (eds),
Professionalization, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1966. Reprinted
from ‘Attributes of a Profession’, Social Work, 2, no. 3, July 1957, pp. 44-45.
Griggs, M. & McGregor, C. (eds), Australian Built: Responding to the Place,

(exhibition catalogue), Design Arts Board of the Australia Council, North
Sydney, NSW, 1985.
Gruzman, N. & Goad, P., Gruzman: An Architect and His City, Craftsman
House, Fishermans Bend, Victoria, 2006.
Gutman, R., The Design of American Housing: A Reappraisal of the Architect’s Role,
Publishing Center for Cultural Resources, New York, 1985.
_________ Architectural Practice: A Critical View, Princeton Architectural Press,

Princeton N. J., 1988.
_________ ‘Human Nature in Architectural Theory: The Example of Louis Kahn’, in

R. Ellis & D. Cuff (eds), Architects’ People, Oxford University Press,
New York, 1989.
Gye, E. (ed.), Home Plans, Australian Women’s Weekly, Sydney, 1946?.
Hall, R. H., Occupations and the Social Structure, 2nd edn, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, 1975.
Halmos, P., ed., Professionalisation and Social Change, The Sociological Review
Monograph 20, The University of Keele, Staffordshire, 1973.
Hamilton, C., Growth Fetish, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW, 2003.
Hamilton, C. & Denniss, R., Affluenza: When Too Much is Never Enough, Allen &
Hamnett, S. & Freestone, R. (eds), The Australian Metropolis: A Planning History,

Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW, 2000.
Hann, G. R., The Book of 150 Low Cost Homes, Building Publishing Co., Sydney,
[between 1940 and 1944].
Herman, M.E., ‘Board of Architects of New South Wales Reports of Travelling Scholarships:
Report No. 3, By Morton E. Herman’, Architecture, vol. 21, no. 7, 1932, p. 161.
___________ ‘Board of Architects of New South Wales Reports of Travelling Scholars:

Report of Morton E. Herman’, Architecture, vol. 22, no. 10, 1933, pp.229-230.
___________ ‘Board of Architects of New South wales Reports of Travelling

Scholars: Morton E. Herman’, Architecture, vol. 23, no. 4, 1934, pp. 83-87.
311
___________ ‘Publicity and Architecture’, Architecture, vol. 26, no. 7, 1937, p. 139.
___________ ‘Urban Housing’, Architecture, vol. 26, no. 10, 1937, pp. 221-227.
___________ ‘Housing and Health’, Architecture, vol. 29, no. 12, 1940, pp. 253-254.
___________ The Early Australian Architects and Their Work, Angus and Robertson,
Sydney, 1954.
___________ The Architecture of Victorian Sydney, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1956.
___________ Early Colonial Architecture, Longmans, Croydon Victoria, 1963.
___________ The Blackets: An Era of Australian Architecture, Angus and Robertson,

Sydney, 1963.
Hill, M.R., Housing Finance in Australia 1945-1956, Melbourne University Press, 1959.
Hillier, J. & Rooksby, E. (eds), Habitus A Sense of Place, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2002.
Hirst, S.G., ‘Community Housing’, Architecture, vol. 29, no. 10, 1940, pp. 201-204.
Hogben, P., ‘Marketing Fever’, Fabrications, vol. 11, no. 1, 2000, pp. 79-95.
_________ ‘Maintaining an Image of Objectivity: Reflections on an Institutional

Anxiety’, Architectural Theory Review, vol. 6, no. 1, 2001, pp. 63-75.
Howells, T., Allen Jack + Cottier, 1952-2002, Focus Pub., Edgecliff, NSW, 2003.
Humphery, K., Shelf Life: Supermarkets and the Changing Cultures of Consumption,
Hutchings, A., ‘From Theory to Practice: The Inter-War Years’, in S. Hamnett and
R. Freestone (eds), The Australian Metropolis: A Planning History, Allen &
Hutton, J., Building and Construction in Australia, F.W. Cheshire, Melbourne, 1970.
Illich, I., Zola, I.K., McKnight, J., Caplan, J. & Shaiken, H., Disabling Professions,
Marion Boyars Publishers, London, 1977.
Irving, R. (ed.), The History & Design of the Australian House, Oxford University
Press, Melbourne, 1985.
James Hardie & Co., Modern Homes of Hardie’s Genuine Fibrolite/ James Hardie &
Coy. Pty. Ltd., The Company, Sydney, 1956.
Jones, G.S., ‘Some Thoughts on the Trend of Australian Architecture’, Architecture,

vol. 1, no.1, 1917, pp. 16-18.
Jones, M.A., Housing and Poverty in Australia, Melbourne University Press, 1972.
312
Johnson, C., Homes Dot Com: Architecture for All, Government Architect’s
Publications, Sydney, 2004.
Johnson, D. L., Australian Architecture 1901-51: Sources of Modernism, Sydney
University Press, 1980.
Johnson, P.A. & Lorne-Johnson, S. (eds), Architects of the Middle Third Programme:
Architects who Commenced Practice in the 1930s and 1940s, School of
Architecture, University of New South Wales, Kensington, 1992.
________________________________ Upholding the Profession of Architecture:

Interviews with Some Key Architectural Executives in New South Wales Since
the 1950s, Board of Architects of New South Wales, Potts Point, NSW, 1998.
Johnson, T. J., Professions and Power, The Macmillan Press, London, 1972.
Judd, B. (with the assistance of J. Gamble), Designed for Urban Living: Recent
Medium-Density Group Housing in Australia, The Royal Australian Institute
of Architects, Red Hill, ACT, in association with the Department of Health,
Housing and Community Services, 1993.
Judd, B & Bycroft, P., Housing Issues 4: Evaluating Housing Standards and
Performance, RAIA National Education Division, Red Hill, ACT, 1990.
Kearns, G. & Philo, C. (eds), Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past and
Present, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1993.
Keay, L.H., ‘Slum Clearance’, Architecture, vol. 24, no. 3, 1935, pp.48-50.
Kendig, H., New Life for Old Suburbs: Post-war Land Use and Housing in the
Australian Inner City, George Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1979.
Kieran, S., ‘The Architecture of Plenty: Theory and Design in the Marketing Age’,
Harvard Architecture Review, Patronage, vol. vi, 1987, pp. 103-113.
Kostof, S. (ed.), The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, University of
California Press, Berkeley, 2000 (1977).
Larson, M. S., The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis, University of

California Press, Berkeley, 1977.
___________ Behind the Postmodern Façade: Architectural Change in Late

Twentieth-Century America, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1993.
Laurie, W.R., ‘The Architect in Relation to the Public’, Architecture, vol. 24, no. 5,
1935, pp. 104-106.
__________ ‘President’s Address at Institute General Meeting’, Architecture, vol. 36,

no. 3, 1948, pp.28-29.
313
__________ ‘The Responsibility of the Architect to the Community’, Architecture,

vol. 40, no. 1, 1952, pp. 11-13.
Lawrence Kay for Pictorial Newspapers, The Sun Post-War Homes: Architects’
Competition Designs, Herald and Weekly Times, Melbourne, 1946.
Lo, M. M., ‘The Professions: Prodigal Daughters of Modernity’, in J. Adams,

E.S. Clemens & A.S. Orloff (eds), Remaking Modernity: Politics, History, and
Sociology, Duke University Press, Durham, 2005.
London, G. & Bingham-Hall, P., Houses for the 21st Century, Pesaro Publishing,
Sydney, 2003.
Luker, S.L., ‘The Cumberland Country Council Scheme’, Architecture, vol. 36, no. 3,
1948, pp. 43-48.
Mackenzie, B., ‘The landscape environment — a wasted potential’, Architecture in

Australia, vol. 55, no. 6, 1966, pp. 111-120.
McLeod, M., ‘Architecture and Politics in the Reagan Era: From Postmodernism
to Deconstruction’, assemblage 8, February 1989, pp. 23-59.
McConnel, K., Planning the Australian Homestead, Ure Smith, Sydney, 1947.
McCredie, J., Study of Project Housing: An Investigation of the Operation of the Project
House Industry and Market in Sydney, Faculty of Architecture, University of
Sydney, 1969.
McDonald, K., The New Australian Home, K. McDonald, Melbourne, 1954.
___________ Homes for Today, Horwitz Publications, Sydney, 1957.
McKay, I., Boyd, R. Stretton, H. & Mant, J., Living & Partly Living: Housing in
Australia, Thomas Nelson (Australia), Melbourne, 1971.
MARS, The Post-War Home: In Towns, in Country, in Flats, in Communities, The

Society, Sydney, [between 1945 and 1950].
Miles, S., Anderson, A. & Meethan, K. (eds), The Changing Consumer: Markets and
Meanings, Routledge, London, 2002.
Millerson, G., The Qualifying Associations: A Study in Professionalization,

Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1964.
Moore, J. D., Home Again! Domestic Architecture for the Normal Australian,
Ure Smith, Sydney, 1944.
Moore, W.E., The Professions: Roles and Rules, Russell Sage Foundation, New
York, 1970.
314
Morgan, A.L. & Naylor, C. (eds), Contemporary Architects, 2nd edn, St. James Press,
Chicago, 1987.
Morris, S.A., ‘Small Homes Service NSW’, Architecture in Australia, vol. 51, no. 2,
1962, p. 91.
Murphy, M., Challenges of Change: The Lend Lease Story, Lend Lease Group of
Companies, Sydney, 1984.
O’Callaghan, J. (ed.), The Australian Dream: Design of the Fifties, Powerhouse

Publishing, Sydney, 1993.
____________ ‘The New Suburban Dream: The Marketing of Pettit & Sevitt Project
Houses 1961–1978’, in Additions to Architectural History, Proceedings of the
XIX Annual Conference of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and
New Zealand, SAHANZ, Brisbane, 2002.
Orchard, E.R., The Book Of 36 Distinctive Homes, With Contrasting Contemporary And
Traditional Types From Abroad. And an Appeal To Safeguard Our Heritage — The
Art Of Graceful Living Which Is Created And Fostered In The Home, Building
Publishing Co., Sydney, [1944 or 1945].
Official Year Book of New South Wales, No. 57 1961, Sydney.
Official Year Book of the Commonwealth of Australia, No. 47–1960, Canberra.
Paris, C., Housing Australia, MacMillan Education Australia, South Melbourne, 1993.
Parkes, C., ‘Architecture and Australia’, Architecture, vol. 39, no. 1, 1951, p. 3.
________ ‘Seizing an Opportunity’, Architecture, vol. 40, no. 4, 1952, p.113.
Patton, M.Q., Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd edn, Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, California, 1990.
Perrucci, R., ‘In the Service of Man: Radical Movements in the Professions’, in
P. Halmos (ed.), Professionalisation and Social Change, The Sociological
Review Monograph 20, The University of Keele, Staffordshire, 1973.
Philo, C. & Kearns, G., ‘Culture, History Capital: A Critical Introduction to the
Selling of Places’, in G. Kearns & C. Philo (eds), Selling Places: The City as
Cultural Capital, Past and Present, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1993.
Philipp, F., ‘Australia’s Home’, Meanjin, No. 48, volume xi, number 1, 1952, pp. 36-41.
Pickett, C., ‘Modernism and Austerity: The 1950s House’, in J. O’Callaghan (ed.),
The Australian Dream: Design of the Fifties, Powerhouse Publishing, Sydney, 1993.
________ The Fibro Frontier: A Different History of Australian Architecture,

Powerhouse Publishing and Doubleday, Sydney, 1997.
315
Podmore, J., ‘(Re)Reading the ‘Loft Living’ Habitus in Montreal’s Inner City’,
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 22, no. 2,
1998, pp. 283-302.
Proudfoot, P., ‘The Professionalization of Architectural Education in Sydney,

1948–1985’, Architecture Australia, vol. 74, no. 4, 1985, pp. 59-63.
Richards, J.M., Architecture, David & Charles (Holdings) Limited, Devon, 1974.
Roe, J. (ed.), Twentieth Century Sydney: Studies in Urban & Social History, Hale &
Iremonger, Sydney, in association with The Sydney History Group, 1980.
Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Wanted! A Plan! 194X. Post-War Development!,

Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Sydney, [194-?].
_______________________________ The Year Book of the Royal Australian Institute

of Architects,1957-1958, Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Sydney, 1957.
_______________________________ RAIA Year Book and Diary 1966–67, Royal

Australian Institute of Architects, Sydney, 1966.
Royal Australian Institute of Architects Education Division, Australian Architects:

Ken Woolley, Royal Australian Institute of Architects Education Division, Red
Hill, ACT, 1985.
Royal Australian Institute of Architects New South Wales Chapter, Report of Chapter
Council 1963, Royal Australian Institute of Architects New South Wales
Chapter, Sydney, 1963.
Royal Institute of British Architects, The Architect and His Office: A Survey of
Organisation, Staffing, Quality of Service and Productivity Presented to
the Council of the Royal Institute on 6th February, 1962, Royal Institute of
British Architects, London, 1962.
Sack, R. D., ‘The Consumer’s World: Place as Context’, Annals of the Association
of American Geographers, vol. 78, no. 4, 1988, pp. 642-664.
Saint, A., The Image of the Architect, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1983.
Sandercock, L., Property, Politics, & Urban Planning: A History of Australian City
Planning 1890-1990, 2nd edn, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 1990.
Saunders, D. & Burke C., Ancher, Mortlock, Murray, Woolley: Sydney Architects
1946–1976, Power Institute of Fine Arts University of Sydney, Sydney, 1976.
Serle, G., Robin Boyd: A Life, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1995.
Seidler, H., Houses, Interiors and Projects, Associated General Publications, Sydney, 1954.
316
________ Houses & Interiors 1 1948–1970, Images Publishing Group, Mulgrave,

Victoria, 2003.
Shaw, W.S., ‘Sydney’s SoHo Syndrome? Loft Living in the Urbane City’, Cultural
Geographies 13, 2006, pp. 182-206.
Sheridan, S., Who Was That Woman?: The Australian Women’s Weekly in the
Postwar Years, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 2002.
Simmel, G., ‘The Metropolis and Mental Life’ (1903), in The Sociology of Georg
Simmel, trans. ed. K.H. Wolff, Free Press, New York, 1950.
Smith, R.C., Modern Homes: A Book for Home Planners, Monier Pipe Company,
Sydney, [194-].
Sowden, H. (ed.), Towards an Australian Architecture, Ure Smith, Sydney, 1968.
Spearritt, P., Sydney Since the Twenties, Hale and Iremonger, Sydney, 1978.
Spigelman, A., Almost Full Circle: Harry Seidler, Brandl & Schlesinger, Rose Bay,
NSW, 2001.
Spooner, R.L. & Eeles, C.T., Practical Homes, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1947.
Stephen, A, McNamara, A. & Goad, P., Modernism & Australia: Documents on

Art, Design and Architecture 1917-1967, Miegunyah Press (Melbourne
University Publishing), Carlton, Victoria, 2006.
Stevens, G., The Favored Circle: The Social Foundations of Architectural Distinction,
The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1998.
Storey, J., Cultural Consumption and Everyday Life, Arnold, London, 1999.
Sulman, J., An Introduction to the Study of Town Planning in Australia, William

Applegate Gullick, Govt. Pr., Sydney, 1921.
Tanner, H., Australian Housing in the Seventies, Ure Smith, Sydney, 1976.
Taylor, F.M.,Clark, A.L. & Hann, G.R., Fifty Modern Homes, Designed by
A. Lanyon Clark, Architect, Geo. R. Hann, Associate: With Other Drawings
and Photographs to Show the Trend Here and Abroad and to Demonstrate that
Modern Buildings can be Interesting and Even Beautiful/Published by Florence
M. Taylor, Building Publishing Co., Sydney, 1940.
Taylor, J., An Australian Identity: Houses for Sydney 1953-63, Department of

Architecture, University of Sydney, 1972.
_______ ‘Ken Woolley: Appropriate Architecture’, in Royal Australian Institute of

Architects Education Division, Australian Architects: Ken Woolley, Royal
Australian Institute of Architects Education Division, Red Hill, ACT, 1985.
317
_______ ‘Beyond the 1950s’, in R. Irving (ed.), The History & Design of the Australian
House, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1985.
_______ ‘Ken Woolley’, in A.L. Morgan & C. Naylor (eds), Contemporary Architects,
2nd edn, St. James Press, Chicago, 1987.
_______ Australian Architecture Since 1960, 2nd edn, National Education Division,
Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Red Hill, ACT, 1990.
_______ ‘Introduction: Ancher Mortlock & Woolley’, in Ancher Mortlock & Woolley,
Ken Woolley and Ancher Mortlock & Woolley: Selected and Current Works,
Images Publishing Group and Craftsman House, Mulgrave, Victoria, 1999.
_______ ‘Peter Johnson and the Architecture of McConnel Smith and Johnson:
The First Forty Years’, Architecture Australia Special Issue, Architecture Media,
Melbourne, 2007.
The Macquarie Dictionary, 3rd edn, The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd, Macquarie
University, NSW, 2001.
Thorne, R., ‘A Comparison of Basic Architectural Training’, Architecture in Australia,

vol. 52, no. 2, 1963, pp. 119-122.
Thrift, N. & Glennie, P., ‘Historical Geographies of Urban Life and Modern
Consumption’, in G. Kearns & C. Philo (eds), Selling Places: The City as
Cultural Capital, Past and Present, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1993.
___________________ ‘Modernity, Urbanism, and Modern Consumption’,

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, vol. 10, no. 4, 1992,
pp.423-443.
Timber Development Association of Australia (NSW Branch), Build Your Home in Timber,
Timber Development Association of Australia (NSW Branch), Sydney, [195-?].
Toon, J., ‘Urban Housing; Some Social Considerations’, Architecture in Australia,

vol. 51, no 2, 1962, pp. 63-65.
Towndrow, F., ‘Sketch Design for an Ideal Architect’, Architecture, vol. 36, no. 2,
1948, pp. 49-54.
__________ ‘The Architect and the Future’, Architecture, vol. 41, no. 1, 1953, p. 9.
Travers, M., ‘Qualitative Interviewing Methods’, in M. Walter (ed.), Social Research

Methods: An Australian Perspective, Oxford University Press, South
Melbourne, 2006.
Troy, P. (ed.), A History of European Housing in Australia, Cambridge University

Press, 2000.
318
Veblen, T., The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions,
New American Library, New York, 1953 (1899).
Vollmer H. M. & Mills, D. L. (eds), Professionalization, Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey, 1966.
Wacquant, L.J.D., ‘Bourdieu in America: Notes on the Transatlantic Importation of

Social Theory’, in C. Calhoun, E. LiPuma & M. Postone (eds), Bourdieu:
Critical Perspectives, The University of Chicago Press, 1993.
Walter, M. (ed.), Social Research Methods: An Australian Perspective, Oxford

University Press, South Melbourne, 2006.
Ward, D. C., ‘Who’ll Plan It?’, SALT, vol.2 no.6, 1942, pp. 2-8.
Ward, D. , ‘World-Wide Problem of Low-Cost Housing’, Architecture, vol. 24, no. 8,

1935, pp. 156-159.
______ ‘Slum Clearance’, Architecture, vol. 24, no. 11, 1935, pp. 264-268.
Watson Sharp, W., Your Post-War Home, K.G. Murray Publishing, Sydney, c1945.
Weller, E.J.A., ‘The President’s Letter’, Architecture, vol. 42, no. 3, 1954, p. 112.
Willis, A.J., The Architect in Practice, 3rd edn rev., Crosby Lockwood, London, 1964.
Willis, P., Common Culture: Symbolic Work at Play in the Everyday Cultures of the
Young, Westview Press, Boulder, 1990.
Winston, D., ‘The Problem’, Architecture in Australia, vol. 51, no 2, 1962, pp. 56- 58.
Woods, M.N., From Craft to Profession: The Practice of Architecture in Nineteenth-

Century America, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1999.
Woolley, K., ‘The Architect’s Role in Merchant Building’, Building Ideas, vol. 3, no. 6,
1967, pp. 12-16.
__________ ‘Ken Woolley’, Art and Australia, vol. 9, no. 1, 1971, pp. 40-42.
Zukin, S., Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change, Radius, London, 1988 (1982).
_______ ‘The Postmodern Debate over Urban Form’ (1988), in A.R. Cuthbert (ed.),
Designing Cities: Critical Readings in Urban Design, Blackwell Publishers,
Oxford, 2003.
319
Newspaper and Magazine Articles
Beirman, B., ‘System Dangerous and Open to Abuse’, Sydney Morning Herald,
13 March 1962, p. 14.
Buhrich, E., ‘Good Design Brought into Budget House’, Sydney Morning Herald,
10 May 1966, p. 24.
_________ ‘Good Neighbourhood Planning in Display Village’, Sydney Morning

Herald, 17 May 1966, p. 21.
_________ ‘Project Award Guide to Home Buyers’, Sydney Morning Herald,

18 July 1967, p. 19.
_________ ‘A Split-Level House for Less than $10,000’, Sydney Morning Herald,
19 March 1968, p. 18.
Cooper, N., ‘Architect’s Office Flat’, Australian Home Beautiful, April 1950,
pp.21 & 44.
________ ‘Sydney Showpiece’, Australian Home Beautiful, February 1951,

pp. 14-15, 17, 39-40.
Dale, D., ‘Forget The Castle, It’s not Nearly Big Enough’, Sydney Morning Herald
22-23 January 2005, pp. 1 & 10.
Dennis, A. & Wilson, V., ‘West Needs Quarter-Acre Dreams, Not Creepy-Crawly
Villas, Says Keating’, Sydney Morning Herald, 27 September 2001, p. 3.
Dickinson, M., ‘The Changing Australian Home’, National Times, 8 February 1981,
pp. 31-38.
Dusseldorp, G.J., ‘Best Argument is Performance’, Sydney Morning Herald,

13 March 1962, p. 14.
Farrelly, E., ‘Size Does Count, to Architects’ Despair’, Sydney Morning Herald,
17 January 2003, p. 14.
_________ ‘Shoebox or Gingerbread House?’, Spectrum supplement, Sydney Morning

Herald, 31 December-1 January 2005-2006, p. 18.
_________ ‘The End of the Great Australian Dream Can’t Come Soon Enough’,
Sydney Morning Herald, 13 December 2006, p. 11.
_________ ‘Smaller But Perfectly Formed Could be the Super Model for Our
Future’, Sydney Morning Herald, 20 December 2006, p. 15.
Greenwood, H., ‘Behold The Creator’, domain supplement, Sydney Morning Herald,
1 April 1999, pp. 6-7.
320
____________ ‘Home Delivered’, domain supplement, Sydney Morning Herald,

9 September 1999, pp. 6-7.
Gropius, W., ‘Can Australia Develop Her Own Form of Architecture?’, Daily Telegraph,
10 May 1954, p. 8.
Halstead, J., ‘A Parade of Homes on Woodland Site’, Australian Women’s Weekly,

25 November 1960, pp. 68- 69.
Hawley, J., ‘Be it Ever so Humungous’, Good Weekend magazine, Sydney Morning
Herald, 23 August 2003, pp. 24-25, 27-28, 30-31.
Herman, M.E., ‘Display Shows Architectural Advances’, Sydney Morning Herald,

15 May 1956, p. 10.
Horin, A., ‘Builder’s Vision saw Sydney Grow and Fortune Shared’, Sydney Morning
Herald, 23 October 2002, p. 2.
Lacey, S., ‘This Whopping Life’, Spectrum supplement, Sydney Morning Herald,
8-9 March 2003, pp. 4-5.
_______ ‘Don’s Place’, domain supplement, Sydney Morning Herald, 20-21 March
2004, pp. 8H-9H.
_______ ‘Archiphobia’, A2 supplement, Age, 25 March 2006, p. 16.
_______ ‘Surburban Revival’, essential supplement, Sydney Morning Herald,

13 September 2007, p. 26.
Molnar, G., ‘Australian Architects Hold Exhibition’, Sydney Morning Herald,

15 May 1956, p. 2.
Newman, K., ‘Another K.O. by Young Fighter’, Sydney Morning Herald, 22 March
1952, p. 9.
_________ ‘Public’s Shock Verdict in Design Quiz’, Australian Home Beautiful,

July 1952, pp. 8-11.
_________ ‘Sulman Prize House’, Australian Home Beautiful, September 1952,

pp. 8-10, 14 & 18.
Nye, M., ‘In the Beginning…’, Homes supplement, Daily Telegraph, 2 December 2000,
pp. 5-6.
O’Brien, G., ‘P+S To Taste’, Australian Financial Review Magazine, November 2004,
pp. 56-60.
Ottaway, N., ‘Split-levels Take Awards in Contest’, Sun-Herald,16 July 1967, p. 87.
321
Richardson, J., ‘Project: Housing’, Weekend Australian Magazine, 29 September 2001,

pp.36-39.
Schlicht, R., ‘Suburbs Cry Out for Pettit and Sevitt’, Spectrum supplement, Sydney
Morning Herald , 15 October 1994, p. 15A.
Seidler, H., ‘The Architect’s Role in Home Furnishing’, Sunday Telegraph,

21 September 1952, p. 41.
________ ‘Stopgap to Progress! Building Regulations and Ordinance 71’, Australian

House and Garden, May 1954, pp. 14-15 & 81-82.
Smith, A., ‘City Risks Becoming Barren Wasteland, Top Architect Says’, Sydney
Morning Herald, 21 October 2004, p. 2.
Sydney, N., ‘A New Basis for Housing Development Advocated’, Sydney Morning
Herald, 16 November 1965, p. 17.
Wentworth, J., ‘Designed to Cost Less’, Australian Home Beautiful March 1950,
pp. 18 & 74.
___________ ‘House on Two Levels’, Australian Home Beautiful, May, pp.38-39.
Williams, G., Roberts, M. & Templeton, J., ‘Priced Out of a Home’, Australian,
2 January 1974, p. 3.
Wilson, E., ‘What You Really Get in an “Off-The-Hook” House’, Australian Home
Beautiful, March 1964, pp. 5-9.
________ ‘New Ideas in Sydney Projects’, Australian Home Beautiful, May 1964,
pp. 45-55.
________ ‘Shift to Quality Homes’, Australian Home Beautiful, May 1966,

pp. 42-44, 47-50.
________ ‘Project House Range Widens at Top’, Australian Home Beautiful,

July 1966, pp. 48-55.
Theses
Evans, D., Indistinct: Pierre Bourdieu and the Field of Architectural Production,
PhD thesis, RMIT University, 2002.
Gartner, A., Merchant Builders: From Reform to Receivership, MA thesis,

Monash University, 1994.
Goad, P. J., The Modern House in Melbourne 1945-1975, PhD thesis, University of
Melbourne, 1992.
322
Hamann, C., Modern Architecture in Melbourne. The Architecture of Roy Grounds, Frederick
Romberg and Robin Boyd 1927-1971, PhD thesis, Monash University, 1979.
Hanna, B. J., Absence and Presence: a Historiography of Early Women Architects

in New South Wales, PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, 1999.
Hogben, P., PR for Architects: The Public Relations Industry and the Profession of
Architecture, PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, 2004.
Holman, G. H., Arthur Baldwinson: His Houses and Works, BArch thesis, University of
New South Wales, 1980.
Margalit, H., Reasoning to Believe: Aspects of Modernity in Sydney Architecture and

Planning 1900-1960, PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 1997.
Marshall, N.G., Into the Third Millennium: Neocorporatism, the State and the Urban
Planning Profession, PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, 2000.
Remington, M.K., Diffusion of Design Innovations in Architecture: The Late Work

of Anatole de Baudot, PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, 2002.
Sandercock, L., Property, Politics and Power: A History of City Planning in Adelaide,
Melbourne and Sydney Since 1900, PhD thesis, Australian National University, 1974.
Skinner, G. J., Project Homes in New South Wales: A Selective Approach, BArch thesis,
University of New South Wales, 1981.
Trimble, J. A., Graeme C. Gunn: A Critical Art History 1961-1981, PhD thesis,
Monash University, 1985.
Transcriptions of Radio and Television Broadcasts
ABC Radio National, ‘Architecture and the City Forum’, The Comfort Zone, 7 April
2001. Available at http://www.abc.net au/rn/czone/stories (accessed 20
February, 2007).
ABC TV, ‘Housing Trends in Australia Not Changing’, The 7.30 Report, 17 February 2005.
Available at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005 (accessed 18 May 2006).
Unpublished Material
Seidler, H., ‘The Story of Modern Architecture’, display panel text for Architecture and
Building Exhibition, Sydney Town Hall, 1954. In possession of Harry Seidler
and Associates.
Woolley, K., Pettit and Sevitt, draft three-page manuscript, 2004. In possession of
K. Woolley.
323
_________ The Architectural Society, draft three-page manuscript, 2004. In possession

of K. Woolley.
Hassell in conjunction with Schwager Brooks & Partners, West Pennant Hills Heritage
Conservation Area Draft Development Control Plan Study Report, Hornsby
Shire Council, 1996.
323
APPENDIX
1
_______________________________________________
LIST OF INTERVIEWS AND CORRESPONDENCE
Alex Blair (designer) Interview, 9 February 2000.

Email, 16 July 2002.
Max Bowen (developer) Taped interview, 23 April 2002.
Neil Clerehan (architect) Taped interview, 21 September 2002.
Michael Dysart (architect) Taped interview, 23 July 2001.
John Fisher (architect) Taped interview, 25 July 2006.
Don Gazzard (architect) Taped interview, 26 May 2006.
Arthur Holland (advertising) Letter, 28 June 2002.

Letter, 8 July 2003.
Russell Jack (architect) Taped interview, 11 September 2002.
Geoffrey Lumsdaine (architect) Taped interview, 3 July 2001.

Email, 4 July 2001.
Email, 19 July 2001.
Ian McKay (architect) Taped interview, 12 October 2006.
Brian Pettit (builder) Facsimile, 3 June 2002.

Taped interview, 6 June 2002.
Facsimile, 3 October 2005.
Facsimile, 7 November 2005.
Taped interview, 21 November 2005.
Dirk Reitsma (builder) Taped interview, 10 August 2006.
Bill Rodgers (advertising) Taped telephone interview, 12 June 2002.
Ron Sevitt (builder) Taped interview, 28 July 1992 (Powerhouse

Museum Design Archives).
Ron and Val Sevitt Taped interview, 11 March 1994 (Powerhouse

Museum Design Archives).
Val Sevitt Taped interview, 3 May 2002.

324
Nino Sydney (architect) Taped interview, 14 July 2000.

Taped interview, 13 August 2000.
Email, 25 June 2001.
Email, 11 October 2004.
Email, 14 October 2004.
Ross Thorne (architect) Taped interview, 7 November 2006.
Peter Waite (builder) Taped interview, 24 July 2000.
Peter Webber (architect) Taped interview, 22 August 2006.
Ken Woolley (architect) Taped interview, 6 July 2004.

Taped interview, 12 August 2004.
325
APPENDIX
2
_______________________________________________
MAP OF SYDNEY METROPOLITAN AREA SHOWING AREAS IN WHICH

SUN-LINE HOMES, THE MASTER BUILDERS’ ASSOCIATION OF NSW,
LEND LEASE HOMES AND PETTIT & SEVITT CONCENTRATED THEIR
ACTIVITIES AT SPECIFIC TIMES DURING THE PERIOD 1959–78.

326
327
APPENDIX
3
_______________________________________________
PETTIT & SEVITT DISPLAY HOMES ADVERTISED IN SYDNEY
Year of Opening Location and Houses
1962 24 Richard Road St Ives

Split Level by Ken Woolley and Michael Dysart
1963 Cnr Pennant Hills Road & North Rocks Road, Carlingford
Split Level by Ken Woolley and Michael Dysart
Lowline by Ken Woolley and Michael Dysart
1964 Richmond Ave & Mona Vale Road, St Ives

Split Level Mk 1 by Ken Woolley
Lowline by Ken Woolley
Courtyard by Ken Woolley
1965 Gambrel by Ken Woolley
Two Storey by Ken Woolley
1965 Chester Street, Sylvania

Design unknown
1966 Mawson Road, St Ives (Edgecombe Road, Wembury Road &

Staddon Close)
Gambrel 7 by Ken Woolley
Gable by Ken Woolley
Pavilion by Ken Woolley
Courtyard by Ken Woolley
Lowline B by Ken Woolley
Farmhouse by Russell Jack
Homestead by Russell Jack
The Property by Russell Jack
1967 Kyeema Parade, Belrose

Lowline D by Ken Woolley
Gambrel D by Ken Woolley
Split Level 2D by Ken Woolley
1967 Boundary Road & Blackbutts Avenue, Cheltenham Heights

Split Level 1D by Ken Woolley
328
1968 The Crest, Belrose

Lowline E by Ken Woolley
The Ridge, Belrose
Split Level 2E by Ken Woolley
1969 Shingle by Ken Woolley
1969 Elouera Road, Thornleigh

Split Level 1E by Ken Woolley

1969 Duffy Avenue, Thornleigh
Shingle by Ken Woolley
Split Level 1F by Ken Woolley
Split Level 2F by Ken Woolley
Lowline F by Ken Woolley
Curvilinear by Harry Seidler
1970 3136 by Neil Clerehan (in association with Ancher, Mortlock,
Murray & Woolley)
1970 Windam Place, Westleigh

Split Level 1H by Ken Woolley
Lowline H by Ken Woolley
Square House by Ken Woolley
Dormer by Ken Woolley
3136 by Neil Clerehan (in association with Ancher, Mortlock,
Murray & Woolley)
1973 Westleigh Drive, Westleigh

Gable by Ken Woolley
Lowline J by Ken Woolley
Split Level 4J by Ken Woolley
Split Level 1J by Ken Woolley
Courtyard J by Ken Woolley
Mezzanine J by Ken Woolley
2937 by Neil Clerehan (in association with Ancher, Mortlock,
Murray & Woolley)
1975 Fishburn Crescent, Castle Hill

Split Level 3K by Ken Woolley
Garden Room House by Ken Woolley
1976 Tuckwell Road, Castle Hill

Linear House by Ken Woolley
Verandah House by Ken Woolley
Split Level 1L by Ken Woolley
1978 Split Level 4J by Ken Woolley
329
APPENDIX
4
_______________________________________________
ROYAL AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,
NEW SOUTH WALES CHAPTER PROJECT HOUSE DESIGN AWARDS 1967– 78*
1967
$7000-$10,000: Lend Lease Homes Pty Ltd for ‘Casa Blanca’, Lot 445 Empire Court,
Demonstration Village, Kingsdene Estate, Carlingford (architect: Nino Sydney).

$10,000-$13,000: Pettit & Sevitt Constructions Pty Ltd for ‘Lowline House’, Lot 10
Staddon Close, St Ives (architects: Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley).
$13,000-$18,000: Pettit & Sevitt Constructions Pty Ltd for ‘Split Level House’, 125
Lower Plateau Road, Avalon (architects: Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley).
Source: Architecture in Australia, August 1967, p. 607.
1968
$7000-$10,000: Pettit & Sevitt Constructions Pty Ltd for ‘Gambrel D’, Lot 67, Kyeema
Parade, Belrose (architects: Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley).
$10,000-$13,000: Program Building Industries Pty Ltd for a three bedroom split-level
house, Lot 19, Aminya Place, Hunters Hill (architect: Michael J. Dysart).
$13,000-$18,000: No award.
Source: Architecture in Australia, November 1968, p. 936.
1969
$7000-$10,000: No award made.
$10,000-$13,000: Pettit & Sevitt Constructions Pty Ltd for ‘Split Level Mark 2 ‘E’’, Lot
28, The Ridge, Belrose (architects: Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley).
$13,000-$18,000: Pettit & Sevitt Constructions Pty Ltd for ‘Split Level Mark 1 ‘E’’, Lot
330
53 Elouera Road, Thornleigh (architects: Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley).
Source: Architecture in Australia, August 1969, p. 643.
1970
Under $12,000: Joint award to Pettit & Sevitt Constructions Pty Ltd for ‘Shingle’ house,
Lot 275 Duffy Avenue, Westleigh (architects: Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley)
and Pettit & Sevitt Constructions Pty Ltd for ‘The 3136 House’, Lot 276 Duffy Avenue,
Westleigh (architects: Neil Clerehan, Melbourne, in association with Ancher, Mortlock,
Murray & Woolley).
$12,000-$16,000: Pettit & Sevitt Constructions Pty Ltd for ‘Curvilinear’ House, Lot
298, Duneba Drive, Thornleigh (architects: Harry Seidler & Associates).
Over $16,000: Civic Construction Co (Aust) for ‘X-2’ house, Lot 302 Duneba Drive,
Thornleigh (architect: Peter Carmichael, Melbourne).
Source: Bulletin, August 1970, p. 3.
1971
Under $10,000: Pettit & Sevitt Constructions Pty Ltd for ‘The 3136 House (Basic H)’,
Lot 238 Windam Place, Westleigh (architects: Neil Clerehan, Melbourne, in association
with Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley Pty Ltd).
$10,000-$13,000: Pettit & Sevitt Constructions Pty Ltd for ‘The 3136 House (Variation
3H)’, Lot 24, Langdon Road, Winston Hills (architects: Neil Clerehan, Melbourne, in
association with Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley Pty Ltd).
$13,000-$16,000: Civic Construction Co (Aust) for ‘Civic X3’, Lot 243 Duneba Drive,
Westleigh (architect: Peter Carmichael, Melbourne).
Over $16,000: Civic Construction Co (Aust) for ‘Civic X2’, Lot 245 Duneba Drive,
Westleigh (architect: Peter Carmichael, Melbourne).
Source: Bulletin, June 1971, p. 2.

331
1972 – No award made in any price category
Source: Bulletin, November 1972, p. 4.
1973
$11,500-$14,500: Pettit & Sevitt Pty Ltd for ‘2927J’, Lot 634, Westleigh Drive,
Westleigh (architect: Neil Clerehan & Associates, Melbourne).
$17,500 and over: Pettit & Sevitt Pty Ltd for ‘Lowline J’, Lot 632 Westleigh Drive,
Westleigh (architects: Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley Pty Ltd).
Source: Bulletin, September 1973, p. 8.
1974
$16,001-$20,000: Minter Developments for ‘LC1’, 126 Joseph Banks Drive, Kings
Langley (architects: Fombertaux, Rice & Hanly Pty Ltd).
Over $20,000: Pettit & Sevitt for ‘Courtyard J’, 637 Westleigh Drive, Westleigh
(architects: Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & Woolley Pty Ltd)
Source: Bulletin, October 1974, p. 1.
1975
Under $15,000: Bisley Homes Pty Ltd for ‘Eyre II’, Lot 866 Matron Porter Drive,
Mollymook (architects: Robert Stafford Sheldon Pty Ltd).
No awards made in the other three price categories.
1976
Under $19,000 – No award made.
$19,001-$22,000: Bisley Homes Pty Ltd for ‘Eyre II’, Lot 42, Donlan Road Mollymook
(architects: Robert Stafford Sheldon Pty Ltd).
$22,001-$26,000: Pettit & Sevitt Sales Pty Ltd for ‘K’ Series – Type ‘D’, Lot 9, Fishburn
Crescent, Castle Hill (architects: Ancher, Mortlock Murray & Woolley Pty Ltd).
332
$26,001-$30,000: Civic Construction Co (Aust) for ‘LC4 Growth House’, Lot 13,
Showground Road, Castle Hill (architects: Cocks & Carmichael).
Over $30,000: Pettit & Sevitt Sales Pty Ltd for ‘Split Level K’, Lot 10, Fishburn
Crescent, Castle Hill (architects: Ancher, Mortlock, Murray & WoolleyPty Ltd).
1977
No awards made in the first two price categories.
$24,001-$29,000: Pettit & Sevitt Sales Pty Ltd for ‘SL4J’, Westleigh Drive, Westleigh
(architects: Ancher Mortlock & Woolley Pty Ltd).
$29,001-$35,000: No award made.
Over $35,000: Civic Constructions Pty Ltd for ‘The Farm’, Lot 77 Britannia Road,
Castle Hill (architects: Philip Cox and Partners Pty Ltd).
1978
No awards made in first three price categories.
$31,001-$38,000: Graham McGovern Constructions for ‘Domus 1 House’, Lot 4 Henry
Street, Merewether (architects: Brian Suters and Associates Pty Ltd).
Over $38,000: Civic Constructions Pty Ltd for ‘Three Level’, Lot 74 Ensign Place,
Castle Hill (architects: Cocks and Carmichael).
Source: Bulletin October 1978, p. 1 and Architecture Australia, December 1978/January
1979, pp. 43-45.
* Became ‘Merchant Housing Awards’ in 1974

333
APPENDIX
5
_______________________________________________
MEMBERSHIP OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SOCIETY IN SYDNEY
Bell, Noel
Carle, Cedric
Cassidy, Brian
Chesterman, David
Clarke, George
De Monchaux, John
Fisher, John
Fitzhardinge, Richard
Gazzard, Don
Gruzman, Neville
Hall, Peter
Heath, Tom
Hely, Bert
Horn, Duncan
Jackson, David
Johnson, Peter
Jumikis, Tom
Keys, Peter
Kollar, Peter
Lucas, Bill
McKay, Ian
Middleton, Peter
Miller, Peter
Moore, Tony
Mortlock, Bryce
Smith, Stan
Teece, Gus
Webber, Peter
Wiley, Don
Willis, David
Woolley, Ken
Young, Andy
Source: Ken Woolley, ‘The Architectural Society’, draft three-page manuscript, 2004, in
possession of Ken Woolley, supplemented by information gained in interviews.
334
APPENDIX
6
_______________________________________________
Royal Australian Institute of Architects Code of Ethics [1932]
1. No member shall enter into partnership, in any form or degree, with any builder or
contractor.
2. A member having any ownership or beneficiary interest in any building material,

device, or invention proposed to be used on work for which he is architect, shall
inform his employer of the fact of such ownership or interest.
3. No member shall be a party to a building contract, except as “Architect” or

“Proprietor.”
4. It is unprofessional to advertise other than when changing address, and then

for not more than six insertions in any particular paper, giving name, address,
profession, office hours, and special branch of practice if desired.
The Institute approves of the displaying of the name and address of the Architect
on any facade of a building in course of erection, provided that the space occupied
by name and address does not exceed 5 feet super. A member may sign his
buildings when completed, and/or publish illustrations or descriptions of his work.
5. It is unprofessional to solicit work or attempt to supplant an Architect after

definite steps have been taken towards his employment.
In cases where the services of an Architect are dispensed with and another
Architect is approached to act professionally, the latter must get into touch with
the original Architect and satisfy himself that all professional charges due by the
client have been made. If any Architect has any doubt in regard to his position in
relation to a dispute with a client, he is recommended to consult the President of
the R.A.I.A. or his local representative.
6. It is unprofessional for a member to criticise in the public prints the professional

conduct or work of another member, except over his own name or under the
authority of a professional journal.
7. It is unprofessional to furnish designs or to act as adjudicator in a competition

for private or public work, unless the conditions are in accordance with the
Competitions Code of the R.A.I.A.
8. No member shall submit drawings, except as an original competitor in any

competition, or attempt to secure any work for which such a competition remains
undecided.
335
9. A member is remunerated solely by his professional fees, and is debarred from

any other source of remuneration in connection with the works and duties
entrusted to him. It is the duty of a member to observe and uphold in every way
possible the Scale of Professional Charges adopted by the Royal Australian
Institute of Architects. A member must not accept any work which involves the
giving or receiving of discounts or commissions, nor must he accept any discount,
gift or commission from contractors or tradesmen, whether employed upon his
works or not.
10. It is unprofessional to practice with a person who has been expelled from, or who
is not a member of, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, unless in the latter
case his qualifications are approved by the Council.
11. In all cases of dispute between employer and contractor the Architect must act
in an impartial manner. He must interpret the conditons of a contract with entire
fairness as between the employer and the contractor.
12. A member should so conduct his practice as to forward the cause of professional
education and render all possible help to juniors, draughtsmen and students.
Reprinted from ‘The Standard Documents of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects
Revised and Corrected to 1932’, Architecture, vol. 21, no. 1, 1932, p. 12.
336
Royal Australian Institute of Architects Code of Ethics [1939]
A member of the R.A.I.A. is governed by the Articles of Association, By-laws, and

Codes of the Institute. The following clauses indicate in a general way the standard of
conduct which members of the R.A.I.A. must adhere to, failing which the Council may
judge a member guilty of unprofessional conduct, and either reprimand, suspend, or
expel him or her.
Cases of unprofessional conduct not specifically covered by these clauses are dealt with
by the Council, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case.
1. A member is remunerated solely by his professional fees, and is debarred from

any other source of remuneration in connection with the works and duties
entrusted to him. It is the duty of a member to observe and uphold in every way
possible the Scale of Professional Charges adopted by the Royal Australian
Institute of Architects.
2. A member must not accept any work which involves the giving or receiving of
discounts or commissions, nor must he accept any discount, gift or commission
from contractors or tradesmen, whether employed upon his works or not.
A member having any ownership or beneficiary interest in any building material,

device or invention proposed to be used on work for which he is architect, shall
inform his employer of the fact of such ownership or interest.
3. A member must not advertise nor offer his services by means of circulars
or otherwise. He may, however, sign his buildings when completed, publish
illustrations or descriptions of his work, and exhibit his name outside his office
and on buildings in course of execution, including those where he is acting as
Architect for alterations and additions, provided it is done in an unostentatious
manner, and the lettering of his name does not exceed 3in. in height and the
address 2in. in height; that the lettering be black on a white ground and nothing
more than the Architect’s name and address be included on the panel. With the
client’s approval, any such boards may remain for a period not exceeding two
months after the completion of the building, provided they do not display “to let”
or “for sale,” or similar notices, but they may indicate that the plans can be seen at
the Architect’s office. Not more than one board may be displayed on a facade.
4. A member must not attempt to supplant another Architect, nor must he compete
with another Architect by means of a reduction of fees or by other inducement.
5. A member, on receiving instructions to proceed with professional work which

was previously entrusted to another Architect, shall, before proceeding with such
work, communicate with the Architect previously employed and inquire and
ensure the fact that his engagement has been properly terminated.
337
6. In all cases of dispute between employer and contractor, the Architect must act
in an impartial manner. He must interpret the conditions of a contract with entire
fairness as between employer and the contractor.
7. A member must not permit the insertion of any clause in tenders, bills of
quantities, or other contract documents which provides for payment to be made
to him by the contractor (except for duplicate copies of drawings or documents)
whatever may be the consideration, unless with the full knowledge and approval
of his client.
8. It is unprofessional to furnish designs or to act as adjudicator in a competition for

private or public work, unless the conditions have been approved by the Institute
and such approval is printed in, or endorsed on, the Conditions thereof, and
further, it is unprofessional for an Assessor to depart from any of the provisions of
the Competitions Code or Directions for Assessors.
Members asked to take part in a limited competition must at once notify the
Institute, submitting particulars of the competition.
NOTE - An invitation to two or more architects (except where each is to be paid

the normal fees) to prepare designs in competition for the same project is deemed
a limited competition.
9. A member must not act as Architect or joint Architect for a work which is, or
has been, the subject of a competition in which he is, or has been, engaged as
Assessor.
An Assessor must not act as Consulting Architect, unless he has been appointed
as such before the inception of the competition, nor in any other professional
capacity in any
matter connected with the work which has been the subject of the competition,
provided always that he may act as Arbitrator in any dispute between the
Promoters and the selected Architect.
If a member is officially approached by the Promoters for advice as to the holding

of a competition with a view to his acting as Assessor, and eventually it is decided
not to hold a competition but to appoint an Architect to carry out the work, the
Architect originally approached in an advisory capacity is precluded from acting
as Architect for the work in question.
A member, upon being appointed to act as Assessor for a Competition must

immediately report his appointment to the Institute, and thereafter comply with all
the “Directions for Assessors.”
10. It is unprofessional for a member to accept articled pupils, except under the
following conditions:
(a) The member shall have been in continuous practice for not less than three
years, provided that the requirements as to the period may be waived in
338
whole or in part at the discretion of the Council on account of special

qualifications.
(b) That the ratio of pupils to draftsmen should not be in excess of one pupil to
two draftsmen and/or principals.
(c) The pupil must have satisfied the entrance qualifications of the Institute.
(d) That the Articles of Apprenticeship be registered with the Institute.
11. It is desirable that in cases where the Architect takes out the Quantities for his
buildings, he should be paid directly by the client, and not through the Contractor,
except with the previous consent of the client.
12. The businesses of Auctioneering and House Agency are inconsistent with the
profession of an Architect.
13. Unless the conditions of his employment otherwise provide, it is unprofessional

for a whole-time Architect or assistant to carry out private architectural
commissions, except they be private commissions of a personal nature. In
executing such commissions, the Code of Professional Practice is as binding on an
official Architect as on a private practitioner.
Reprinted from Year Book of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects 1939, p. 33.
339
Code of Professional Conduct [1966–67]
Members of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects are governed by the Articles of
Association, By-laws and Codes of the Institute. A Member must not hold, assume or
consciously accept a position in which his interest is in conflict with his professional
duty. A Member conducting himself in a manner which in the opinion of Council is
derogatory to his professional character or which is likely to bring the Institute into
disrepute or to lessen the confidence of the public in the Institute or in the profession or
is contrary to the standard of professional conduct from time to time established by the
Institute, or who shall engage in any occupation which in the opinion of the Council is
inconsistent with the profession of an Architect, may be liable to reprimand, suspension
or expulsion.
Cases of unprofessional conduct not specifically covered by these clauses are dealt with
by the Council, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. The following
clauses indicate the standard of conduct to which Members of the Institute, whether
remunerated by fee or salary, must adhere.
1. A member is remunerated solely by his professional fees payable by his client

or by a salary payable by his employer. He is debarred from any other source
of remuneration in connection with the works and duties entrusted to him. It is
the duty of a member to observe and uphold in every way possible the Scale of
Professional Charges adopted by the Institute.
2. (a) A member must not accept any work which involves the giving or receiving of
discounts or commissions, nor must he accept any discount, gift or commission
from contractors or tradesmen, whether employed upon his works or not.
(b) A member having any ownership or beneficiary interest in any building

material, device or invention proposed to be used on work for which he is an
architect, shall inform his client or employer of the fact of such ownership or
interest.
3. (a) A member may be architectural consultant, adviser, or assistant to building

contractors, decorators, manufacturers, house and estate agents, estate
development firms or companies, or firms or companies trading in materials used
in or whose activities are otherwise connected with the building industry, provided
that he is paid a fee, salary or royalty and not by commissions on sales or profits,
and provided that he does not either directly or indirectly solicit orders for the firm
or company.
(b) Where a member is engaged as an architectural consultant or adviser, as

described in clause 3 (a) his name and affix may appear only on the notepaper
used in connection with his professional services.
(c) Where a member is engaged specifically as an architectural consultant, adviser

or assistant, as described in clause 3 (a), he shall not act in a professional capacity
for a third party to whom his principals owe a contractual duty, but if mutually
agreed between all parties he may act as an independent architect on the direct
340
instructions of the said third party provided that he receives the payment of fees
direct.
4. (a) A member may be a director of any company including a Building Society or

Building Centre; but his professional affix may not appear on the notepaper of the
Company.
(b) A member should not be a director of any company or principal in a business

carrying on business as builders, auctioneers or house and estate agents provided
that it is not unprofessional for a member of the Institute to organise the
construction of buildings if his remuneration is a salary, fixed fee or percentage
of the cost of the work and not less that that appropriate person to the Institute’s
Scale of Minimum Professional Charges.
(c) A member should not carry on or act as principal, partner or manager of any
firm carrying on any of the trades or businesses specified in clause 4 (b).
5 A member must not advertise or offer his professional services to any person or
body corporate by means of circulars or otherwise, or make paid announcements
in the press; except that:-
(a) he may apply to prospective employers for a salaried appointment;
(b) he may advertise a professional appointment, open or wanted, provided the

advertisement is directed only to members of the profession concerned;
(c) he may respond to an advertisement addressed to members of the profession

inviting them to submit their names for inclusion in a panel or list of names of
architects, from which the advertiser may select an architect or architects for a
particular project, provided that this response to such an advertisement does not
contravene any other clause of this Code or the Institute’s Regulations for the
Conduct of Architectural Competitions from time to time in force;
(d) he may insert unostentatiously in the public press three notices of change of
address.
(e) he may notify his correspondents by post once of any change of address.
6. A member may allow signed illustrations and descriptions of his work to be

published in the Press, but he shall not:
(a) give monetary consideration for such insertions;
(b) allow such insertions to be used by publishers for extorting advertisements

from contributors.
7 A member may consent to the publication of a series of illustrations either in

circular, brochure or book form, with or without descriptive letterpress, of any
building or buildings for which he has been responsible provided that:
341
(a) clause 6 (b) of the Code is complied with, and

(b) there is no attempt to distribute the publication to potential clients.
8. (a) A member may sign his buildings and may exhibit his name outside his
office and on buildings in course of construction, alteration or extension when
full architectural services are provided. This must be done in an unostentatious
manner, and the lettering must not exceed three inches in height.
(b) A member must not place after his name any letters indicating membership
of an architectural organisation the admission qualifications whereof do not also
qualify for admission to the Institute.
9. A member must not attempt to supplant another Architect, nor must he compete
with another Architect by means of a reduction of fees or by other inducement.
10. A member on receiving or being approached or instructed to proceed with

professional work upon which another Architect was previously employed shall
notify the fact to such Architect in writing.
11. (a) Unless the conditions of his employment otherwise provide, it is

unprofessional for a salaried Architect to carry out private architectural
commissions, except they be private commissions of a personal nature. In
executing such commissions, the Code of Professional Practice is as binding on a
salaried Architect as on a private practitioner.
(b) A member employed as a full-time salaried Architect by a central or local

government department or by a statutory undertaking, and who is by reason of his
office in a position to grant or influence the granting of any form of statutory or
other approval, must not undertake private work notwithstanding any permission
from his employing authority to do so, unless he is satisfied that his position and
action in the matter will be free from any suspicion or suggestion of abuse.
12. In all cases of dispute between proprietor and contractor, a member must act in
an impartial manner. He must interpret the conditions of a contract with entire
fairness as between the building proprietor and the contractor.
13. A member must not permit the insertion of any clause in tenders, bills of
quantities, or other contract documents which provides for payment to be made
to him by the contractor (except for duplicate copies of drawings or documents)
whatever may be the consideration, unless with the full knowledge and approval
of his client.
14. It is desirable that in cases where a member takes out the Quantities for his
buildings, he should be paid directly by the client, and not through the contractor,
except with the previous consent of the client.
15. A member should not furnish designs or act as adjudicator in a competition for
private or public work, unless the conditions have been approved by the Institute
and such approval is printed in, or endorsed on, the Conditions thereof, and
342
further, if acting as an Assessor he should not depart from any of the provisions of
the Competitions Code or Directions for Assessors.
Members asked to take part in a limited competition must at once notify the
Secretary of the Institute submitting particulars of the competition.
NOTE: A formal invitation to two or more Architects to prepare designs in

competition for the same project is deemed a limited competition. In the event
of two or more Architects being commissioned to prepare designs for the same
project, it shall not be regarded as a competition contemplated by the Institute’s
Regulations for the Promotion and Conduct of Architectural Competitions
provided each Architect is paid an appropriate fee in accordance with the Scale
of Minimum Professional Charges of the R.A.I.A. Such appropriate fee referred
to in the previous sentence shall not be less than 2% of the estimated cost of the
project.
16. A member must not act as Architect or joint Architect for a work which is, or has
been, the subject of a competition in which he is or has been engaged as Assessor.
An Assessor must not act as consulting Architect, unless he has been appointed
as such before the inception of the competition, nor in any other professional
capacity in any matter connected with the work which has been the subject of the
competition, provided always that he may act as arbitrator in any dispute between
the promoters and the selected Architect.
If a member is officially approached by the promoters for advice as to the holding

of a competition with a view to his acting as Assessor, and eventually it is decided
not to hold the competition but to appoint an Architect to carry out the work, the
Architect originally approached in an advisory capacity is precluded from acting
as Architect for the work in question.
A member, upon being requested to act as Assessor for a competition must

immediately report the request to the Institute, and thereafter comply with all the
“Directions for Assessors”.
Reprinted from RAIA Year Book and Diary 1966-1967, pp. 32-33.
343
RAIA Code of Professional Conduct [1969]
I am pleased to announce final approval of the new RAIA Code of Professional

Conduct. The Code is published in this issue of the News and later will be published as
a section of the Handbook.
Members will note that the new Code is less restrictive in character than the old and as
far as possible avoids spelling out a lot of unnecessary detail. It assumes, quite properly,
that the Institute is comprised of people of integrity and discretion in their relations both
within and outside the profession. Every architect is charged with a responsibility to
apply himself in every possible way to the ever growing problems of our environment
and to initiate action when such is desirable without necessarily waiting hopefully for
someone to engage his services in the rather more traditional way.
This change is not an example of permissiveness, on the contrary it faces up to our

responsibilities in the context of present and future development in this country.
J. D. Fisher
President
Royal Australian Institute of Architects

Code of Professional Conduct
1. Members of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects are governed by the

Articles of Association, By-Laws and Codes of the Institute. This code indicates
the standard of conduct to which members of the Institute must adhere. Any
member whose conduct is contrary to this Code, or to those standards or rules
established by the Council of the Institute from time to time, shall be liable to
disciplinary action as provided in the Articles of Association.
Cases of unprofessional conduct not covered by specific provisions of this Code

shall be dealt with by the Council, having regard to the particular circumstances of
the case.
It is the duty of every member to report any apparent breach of this Code for
investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Articles of Association.
2. Responsibilities of every member
2.1 To the public

2.11 to ensure that his professional actions do not conflict with his general
responsibility to contribute to the quality of the environment
2.12 to be of constructive service in civic affairs and to apply his skill
to the creative, responsible and economic development of his
community
344
2.2 To clients and employers

2.21 to provide professional services of a high standard
2.22 to inform his client or employer of the existence or likelihood of any
conflict between his own interest and that of his client or employer
2.23 to act with fairness and impartiality when administering a building
contract or when arbitrating in a dispute
2.3 To the Institute and fellow members

2.31 to maintain a high standard of personal integrity
2.32 to promote the advancement of architecture
2.33 to conduct himself in a manner which is not derogatory to his
professional character, nor likely to lessen the confidence of the
public in the Institute or the profession nor bring them into disrepute
2.34 to compete fairly with other members
2.35 to observe and uphold the Institute’s Conditions of Engagement and
Scale of Charges
2.36 not to supplant or attempt to supplant another member
2.37 on being instructed to proceed with professional work to enquire
whether another member was previously engaged in connection with
the work and if advised in the affirmative to notify such member in
writing
2.38 to comply with the Institute’s rules and code for architectural
competitions and not to compete in or act as assessor for an
architectural competition unless it has been approved by the Institute
3. Rules regarding publicity
3.1 A member shall not advertise his professional services nor shall he allow his
name to be included in advertisements or to be used for publicity purposes
subject to the following exceptions all of which are permissible in an
unostentatious form
3.11 advertisements including his name may be published in connection

with the calling of tenders, staff requirements and similar matters
3.12 a notice of change of address may be published on three occasions
and correspondents may be informed once by post
3.13 his name may show outside his office and on buildings under
construction and completed for which he is the architect provided the
lettering does not exceed three inches in height
3.14 he may allow his name to be associated with illustrations and
descriptions of his work in the press or other public media but he
shall not give or accept any consideration for such appearances.
Reprinted from RAIA News, October 1969, p.12-13.

Project Housing & The Architectural Profession in The 1960s

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Housing & The Architectural Profession in The 1960s

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

_____________________________

Submitted to the University of New South Wales

For the Degree of

Faculty of the Built Environment

The University of New South Wales

Professional Status and Identity 41

Domination and Struggle in the Field of Architecture 49

‘Acceptability’ and ‘Accessibility’ 63

Housing and the Architectural Profession in Sydney 1930 – 45

The Political Significance of Housing 73

The War Years 80

The ‘Newcomers’: MARS 81

Only a ‘partial’ revolution 86

Housing and the Future of the Profession 89

Housing and the Architectural Profession in Sydney 1945 – 60

The ‘Acceptability’ and ‘Accessibility’ of Architect-Designed

Architects and the Popular Media 96

‘Another KO by Young Fighter’ 101

The NSW Chapter and Housing 104

‘An Opportunity for Leadership’ 120

A New Industrial Environment 124

Architect as Builder 126

The ‘Package Dealer’ 128

Sun-Line Homes 142

Culture of Production and the Role of the Architect 149

The Profession’s Response 157

Parade of Homes 158

Culture of Production and the Role of the Architect 167

The Profession’s Response 173

Lend Lease Homes, the 1962 Demonstration Village and

Culture of Production and the Role of the Architect 189

The Profession’s Response 194

Pettit & Sevitt

Establishing the Business 200

Beginning of the Boom 207

Speculative Interests 220

Other Building Interests 223

Culture of Production 234

The Target Market 235

Individuality, Quality and Value 236

Presentation and Representation 241

The Role of the Architect 249

Defining the Terms of Engagement 249

Architectural Expertise and the Processes of Production 252

Architectural Authority 253

Project Housing and the Architectural Profession in Sydney 1960 – 69

The ‘Newcomers’: The Architectural Society 260

The Continuing Importance of Housing as an Issue 264

The NSW Chapter takes the Initiative 270

Changes to the Code of Professional Conduct 278

Identifying the Issues 278

The NSW Chapter Again Takes the Lead 284

Overview and Conclusions 294

Relationship to Existing Literature 296

Future Research 298

Archival Material 301

Books and Journal Articles 301

Newspaper and Magazine Articles 319

Transcriptions of Radio and Television Broadcasts 322

Unpublished Material 322

Appendix 2: Map of Sydney Metropolitan Area Showing Areas in

Appendix 3: Pettit & Sevitt Display Homes Advertised in Sydney 327

Appendix 4: Royal Australian Institute of Architects, New South Wales