House of Meaning Podcast
In each episode, we’ll share practical advice, design insights, and real stories to help you plan and build your dream sustainable home with confidence.
House of Meaning Podcast
Rethinking Architecture with Izzie White: Building Sustainable Homes and Communities That Last
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Most of us have never stopped to ask whether the city we live in makes our lives better. Not bigger. Better. It turns out that question sits at the heart of everything wrong, and everything still possible, about the way we build our cities and the homes within them.
In this episode of House of Meaning, Simon sits down with Izzie White, Australia's most compelling architecture advocate for a conversation about sustainable homes, heritage, community and what we've quietly stopped expecting from the places we call home.
Izzie has never held an architect's licence. What she does have is tens of thousands of people on social media following her through Melbourne's streets, learning to see streets and buildings in a totally new way.
They cover what architecture really is, what Australian cities reveal about who we are as a country, and how to evaluate good design and architecture. The conversation moves into territory that rarely gets discussed: the slow erosion of community in Australian cities, the places in Scandinavia and the UK where community has been deliberately designed in through alternative housing models, and whether Australians have simply accepted a version of home that may not be adaptable to our growing cities.
You'll learn:
- Why sustainable homes and thoughtful architecture are inseparable from the communities they sit within
- What a city that takes design seriously actually looks and feels like compared to one that doesn't
- What countries in Northern Europe are doing to re-engage communities and create better places to live.
- Why Melbourne and Sydney are at a genuine turning point and what that means for the homes and neighbourhoods being built right now.
- What great architecture does to the people inside it that they often can't name or explain
Who it's for: Melbourne homeowners, architects, planners, urban designers and anyone who cares about building homes and communities that are worth living in for generations.
If you'd like to know more, please reach out to Sustainable Homes Melbourne or call us on 1800 683 697.
Izzie can be found at:
https://www.izziewhite.com/
If you're planning to build or renovate and want a home that's sustainable, considered and do we care if you're in the right place. This is House of Meaning by Sustainable Homes Melbourne, and I'm your host, Simon Clark, an Australian builder with a passion for meaningful design. Since 2014, we've had our boots on the ground designing and building homes that are beautiful to live in, firmly comfortable, and built to last. In each episode, we'll share practical advice, design insights, and real stories from experts in the industry to help you plan and build your dream sustainable home. Is he right? Not registered, but architecture's biggest advocate.
SPEAKER_01That's right.
SPEAKER_00How do you describe yourself to somebody that you meet at a dinner party?
SPEAKER_02First, I'd probably have to understand if they have any understanding of what architecture is. I I sort of, by way of introducing myself, I make architectural content online. And my my sort of big big descriptor of why I do this and what I do this for is because I really want people to have great, livable, amazing cities. And I'm not convinced we're going to get there without a really good public understanding of what makes great architecture and great cities. So I I take my role as an online uh content creator and educator pretty seriously to help sort of explain and connect the public with what a great architectural outcome is for their community and and why they shouldn't be afraid of new developments and new ideas entering their cities.
SPEAKER_00I can feel your passion and you're almost like almost forcing it on me, but I I'm passionate about similar things.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, I can feel it.
SPEAKER_00I can feel it. Where does that passion come from?
SPEAKER_02You know, I do think there is an element of personality here. Um I am interested in everything and everything, honestly, which is a very diplomatic way of saying that. But I'm hugely motivated by the environment. And also quite selfishly, I I would love a beautiful city to live in where I could age there if I wanted to, I have a family if I wanted to. And at the moment, our cities aren't um aren't doing that super well, or at least could be doing it better. And so I think the passion comes from uh wanting that life for not just everyone else, for myself too, very selfishly, but also sort of coming up in the my mum was an architect, and I did my bachelor and masters of architecture in Brisbane. And during that process, pretty quickly realized that building is is super has a profound impact on our built environment and our planet. And it didn't take that long to work out that business as usual was actually not gonna cut it. We're not gonna get there and have these super biodiverse and successful cities if we continue business as usual. So very quickly I realized I wanted to change a system, if not all the systems. And so, yeah, the passion to build better, do better, think about new ideas is really often for me rooted in approach in an approach to building and design that is a much more sustainable outcome for not just people, but also for animals, plants, and the kind of the future of our cities. Yeah, it's almost it felt it feels inevitable that we want to go there in our building and design. So I'm just one voice of many, I think, who who are willing to take that conversation to the public.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I've noticed there's uh there's a lot of content that's delivered around this sort of topic. So it's clearly recognized as an issue in our first world or our developed world. Um why does architecture need an advocate?
SPEAKER_02This depending on who you ask, you might get different different answers to this question. From my perspective, I graduated my master's, I think, like six or seven years ago. Um and during that time, so it's nearly ten years sort of coming out from studying through early career through to now, and during that entire time, there was a constant conversation in architecture about needing to get the public's interest back. We we needed to become more public-facing. And also during those 10 years, I didn't see that much change within the industry of how we were doing that. We have incredible media internally, peer-to-peer, within architecture, talking to architects about architecture, but very little dedicated public engagement forums. Um and I think maybe we're not that good at talking to the public and remembering how how little most people get taught about the world and city getting built around them. So I the first thing to sort of identify there is that there was there was a comms bubble. And then the second thing is to say, well, why is it that important to burst that bubble? Why is it a problem if people don't know about architecture? And I think it's it probably feels more relevant than ever today because our cities, almost across all of us, all Australian cities, are going through these rapid changes to try and deal with the housing supply conversation. And we're getting a lot of community pushback. People don't understand what's coming for their community. I would say it's been communicated poorly, what it could look like. And so they get fed this very negative conversation around losing things from their community instead of what they could be gaining. So the advocacy piece for me fits into this incredible tipping point in Australian cities right now, where we, I kind of think for the first time in Australia's, I should say, colonized history, our cities are tipping into this point of becoming mega, you know, really exciting sort of metropolis, metropolises, and we we aren't, we haven't reached this time before in our cities. So there's new pressures on space not being as available, on our transport not working as it should, not being able to just pile more and more cars onto highways. Um these things are kind of at a breaking point. So it's it's a conversation now that all of a sudden the public I think are more interested in than ever is what what the hell is our city gonna look like in 15, 20 years? And I don't I don't think we've reached this point before. So the advocacy piece really is to not only provide a public education piece that says this isn't scary, this is totally the like normal and the way it's gonna go, and here's all the wonderful things that could happen because of it. But the flip side of that is the the sort of negative community pushback. And I really we haven't had an amazing design literacy in our sort of general culture before. If you compare it to scandy countries, for example, it's not something that's embedded. It's um often very builder or developer focused when we have big public conversations around new work. And I really think does the design part of that convo is what's gonna solve most of the community fear and pushback. So wanting to sort of fill that void, that's like another part of it. But then lastly, having worked in architecture now for five, six, seven years, whatever that was, I've realized that architects are actually very hamstrung when it comes to communicating because they are required to sort of reflect and protect their client relationship. And if you do have a critique or if you are trying to do better or raise awareness of something, if you're an architect, it comes directly at the cost of your pipeline of work that's coming in. And so they're incredibly hamstrung about putting out information that could potentially damage a future client relationship. I sort of say this largely from the perspective of having worked with commercial firms mostly for most of my career. I'm sure the same might apply to some Resi, some Resi elements as well. Um, but yeah, so it became pretty clear after working for a few years that we we needed public conversation and that architects were it was really hard for them to do it. And there was kind of this missing middle character between the public and what a really good outcome is for our city. And we're not going to get there unless we have good, critical, and constructive conversations around what we're doing now. So that's that's why it needs an advocate. A long, a long answer.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, that's a it's there's a lot of depth there. Isn't that third party supposed to be a planning department?
SPEAKER_02Oh, I'd love to answer that. I I don't know. I don't know. Uh planners aren't architects, and they're that's you know, that's not an insult. They're just two totally different professions.
SPEAKER_00They're urban designers, aren't they? Planners?
SPEAKER_02Technically, no. Okay. So planners there's and I'm just getting into this world, I should say. It's amazing how related they seem, and yet are actually totally different and don't get educated on each other's professions. You learn all of this in practice, or at least I did. Learn all of this in practice once I graduated. Um, what's a good way to sum it up? An architect looks after the design and delivery of the building.
unknownYep.
SPEAKER_02Where the boundary of the building touches the rest of the city, it tips over into urban design. Town planning, planning, I should say, dictates the rules that both of those things respond to. So each of them impact one another, but I wouldn't say they are the same. And I wouldn't say that any of them are have a dedicated comms outreach piece. And I would actually say that all three of them probably could do with that missing middle, missing middle person, to be totally honest. I'm I'm sure if you ask other people, you might get slightly different tweaks to that answer. But for the sake of this conversation, it's probably a really good way to think of it. Urban design is sort of all the bits that that architecture can be a part of, but architecture is technically the delivery of the building. And then town planning is the rules and regulations that that dictates what can be allowed in either of those spheres.
SPEAKER_00So is there a missing piece that's the overall strategy, which presumably that's planning? Presumably it's planning.
SPEAKER_02And um there is ongoing debate in Australia's planning community that I am only just becoming privy to about how reactive planning can be in Australia versus proactively visioning new new ways of living in our cities. And um, you know, if you look at, for example, in Melbourne with the activity centres stuff, there's a lot of debate around um couldn't we or shouldn't we have done a master plan that for each of the communities that identified really specific opportunities for if you close down that street, that could have been a park. But once you open it up to development, you've sort of lost that opportunity if even just one project breaks the the ability to be able to convert something, and you don't you don't get that without a master plan. That's probably a piece that we would call visioning, visioning something for a community, so proactively planning something versus reactively, which is letting it rip with development, which is very fast, and and that is a sort of a crucial element to the pros and cons of each. But you are then reacting to what gets built the whole time. So more people move in, okay, now we have to build back paths, as opposed to it being the other way around. I think I'm safe in saying that mostly in Australia we have been reactive as a as far as planning goes. However, I kind of think this comes back to that piece of it's the first time in our city's histories that we are hitting this point where stuff is finite. We don't have heaps of land. We've, you know, our roads are really chokers already. And so pressures are being felt that we haven't felt before. And I, you know, there's huge planning reforms coming through at the moment, which I think is probably reflective of that. So not to criticize not a criticism of either, either how we're doing it, but probably um an opportunity for the way we think about how our cities are developed to evolve now. It's it's this is sort of these are new pressures, and we we could evolve to be to be more design focused and long-term, have longer-term visions for our communities, than um only letting it rip, if that makes sense. Yeah, yeah, it does.
SPEAKER_00It does. And so what you're saying is the the way we've always done it isn't the way that's going to service as at this tipping point.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, it could be better. Yeah, it could be better. It could be better. Yeah. And I think again, this comes back to um what motivates you in the built environment. For me, if I I always come back to sort of environmental and community spaces, and it's just incredibly difficult for private development to be able to deliver that without a tenure plan of what's getting built next to them. They if you don't know, you can't respond to it. And so that um ability to identify opportunities early in our cities really relies on that overarching piece across planning, urban design, architecture that leads with vision, which then reassures everyone in their communities what they're gonna get.
SPEAKER_00Mm-hmm. Yeah, wow. Okay. Can you define what architecture is before we step too far into this world?
SPEAKER_02I I can I can try.
SPEAKER_00You can try, yeah.
SPEAKER_02For anyone listening, I think I'll quickly make the distinction just to reinforce what architecture is again in comparison to the urban design and town planning elements. So it's it's the delivery of a building. And in in university, you know, you get taught these amazing and very poetic definitions of architecture, which is to often to do with the experience of being in a space. Um my, you know, and for a long time, I think for most of history that was that was true. You know, the history of architects really they kind of, as as architecture became separated from building, which I believe was in during the Renaissance era era, I just did a whole bunch of research on this in preparation for this podcast, actually, brushed up on my history. Nice. Um basically after that point, architects virtually only worked for the the crown and the church. So it was all about impressing on people wealth, power, authority in different ways. And we're now we're here in 2026. That's a year, isn't it? Yeah. Indeed. 2026. And I think if we only look at architecture through the lens of what happens when you walk into the space, what do you feel? We've completely ignored what happens in the lead up to that point. So I I often come back to the to the question of what is the point of all that if we have completely ruined the earth together? Or if in 20 years' time your building gets demolished and all of it goes into landfill. It's not enough for me anymore as someone who wants to who is self-proclaimed architecture's biggest advocate. I actually think the profession needs to evolve to a point where we consider architecture a much bigger sort of systems-thinking approach to material planet, end of life, and experience. But I I don't think it can any longer relied purely on a very poetic notion of space and spatial experience. Um because if we if we can't get there as a planet, what what was the point of it all? So for me, I I hope the next era, whatever that definition, that's I don't really have a witty one-liner. But I think the definition of architecture needs to see itself as part of a s part of systems that aren't linear, that are that that have an ability to respond to the planet and the materials, um, which we haven't seen, I haven't seen that in a definition of architecture yet. So that's what that's where I'm hoping it goes.
SPEAKER_00So that's well beyond buildings, isn't it?
SPEAKER_02Well, is it? Because a building is made out of materials. And you you know, prior to architecture um becoming this sort of designer's quest through the Renaissance period, architect uh the architect builder was a singular sort of master tradesman. And basically since then, we've been splitting design and building. And to be totally honest, it probably needs to come back together again so that we can better deal with material where materials come from, how they're manufactured, and where the hell they go when a building is at its end of life. Because at the moment its contribution to the degradation of the planet is truly astounding.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, that's um interesting you say about it potentially coming back because Yeah, because of what you're saying with the the degradation of our planet, that it's clear and and and and obvious from the way we've been behaving or or industrial age and so long. Many centuries we've we've impacted it. Bringing it back to one obviously and that kind of then infuses you know the supply chain into design and materiality and the and the the Because the day used to be that architects would use the materials that were available on that space. Yeah. Or on that local area. But those days are gone now. We import it from China and and everywhere. So it's uh Yeah.
SPEAKER_02And I think really what it's pro what I probably should say is that we've just been so incredibly siloed for so long, building, planning, architecture, engineering. Uh again, in the face of sort of like new pressures, new climate realities, new housing that levers and systems and reforms. It's just hopefully the era of siloing each other is is phasing out and that it becomes much more cross-disciplinary from the get-go, because we really need systems thinking approach to be able to do it differently. I like there's no reason to me why a builder shouldn't be at the first meeting so that they can tell you how to take the thing apart at the end. Because ultimately they're the ones doing it. So we're not we're not there yet as far as common practice goes. There's a couple of wonderful exceptional practices and people that are doing this, so it is possible. But really, um yeah, that's hopefully that's where we end up.
SPEAKER_00Your force of will is astounding. Yes, it is. Um I've been told. It's it's inspiring. And how I just wonder how big the challenge is to reshape this industry into or the one that you envision.
SPEAKER_02I would say it's a it's a generation. It's a whole gener, it's a lifetime to do it. But um what's that what's that saying? Like the best time to plant a tree uh was yesterday, the second best time is today.
SPEAKER_03Yeah.
SPEAKER_02I uh yeah, I kind of just feel like that. I um everything's impossible until it's not. I do think what it will take is getting more of the built environment professionals into politics. Not trying to get political at all, but uh really uh through all over the last six months I've been meeting with so many people that have reached out mainly because of the social media I've been creating, and um just having conversations with with everyone on all sides of the the delivery spectrum from government to planners to developers to architects, etc. etc. etc. And um you know, I think what I've learned is that you to to get better outcomes, which is why I started this journey in the first place, you need to be thinking at a policy level. And the people who are making policy need to be educated in this field. Often they are not always, sorry, I should say um politicians, not not not people working in government who are planners and the rest of them, but politicians often aren't educated about this field, which is incredibly specialized. So, yeah, I'm desperate to to sort of like rip off the band-aid and get our professionals into policy-making positions or at least influencing them in way more ways than what we're currently doing. And to me, a huge part of that is public conversation. Because policy is shaped by public sentiment. Without the public being educated in what all of this is and why it matters, we're we're not gonna get there if we can't prove that the public want it or are interested. And um, I actually think that the social media journey has taught me, has validated that they are. I had suspected it. Um but the response online has proved to me that they are interested. They are just given no avenues to engage with with what is happening beyond being able to say no to a DA that hits their community because they've got something getting built next to them. So yeah, that's another long-winded answer.
SPEAKER_00No, uh it's do you think people even people that live in a city and well in our suburbs? In our suburbs, I think it's probably another story, but um in a city actually recognize that there's shortfalls or even know what they want?
SPEAKER_02I think people are incredibly good at finding interesting parts of their city to love. So this is I'm gonna kind of go backwards to go forwards here. There's, I mean, I recently I read for the first time um Jane Jacobs Death. And Life of American Cities, and she kind of has this, which is for anyone who hasn't read it, a very famous, very old school book written on why cities are this very unique ecosystem of business design, urban design, etc. But she has this kind of incredible point that people no one can sniff out something good and cool like people can. So do I think they know the shortfalls? I think, I think they can sense and predict when something is awesome. And they might not be given the tools to be able to understand sort of the language around why something isn't working or that it could be better. But the fact that, you know, I'm even thinking of um I'm even thinking of recently on the weekend, I went to Nico's sandwich bar just off the corner of um Brunswick Road Street, new to Melbourne. No one crucifying me, please, online. Um but in Fitzroy, uh Fitzroy North, and it, you know, that is a that is a knockdown building. The building has nothing to do with the success of that street corner. And people know that it's good because there's public seating, there's a ripper tenant at the bottom doing amazing food, but it has absolutely nothing to do with architecture and design. I think that they that you can sense the act the sort of vibrancy of that that community and what small businesses bring. And that's what people want to protect. I think the missing piece is how come we seem unable to replicate it in so many new and big developments. Which comes back to, to me, policy. Um developers do what they're allowed to do. We need them. There is absolutely, I'm will never criticize development at the at a surface level because they are a crucial part to our cities being able to hit any target. But the policy could, should make sure that what the built outcome is is reflecting those successful parts of our cities. And I don't I don't know if there's any feedback loop. As someone who's been investigating this area now for like nearly a year, it's it does not seem to be agile enough to learn from when something gets built. Did it did it work before we then start replicating it? So um what was the original question? Do people know? I think they do, but they aren't given tools to act on it.
SPEAKER_00It's kind of accidental as well. You just sort of find yourself like a cat veering towards the light of the sun coming through a window. Yeah. You kind of don't quite recognize it until you reflect. You actually have to really deliberately reflect. And it's kind of rare that humans ha even have the capacity to do that.
SPEAKER_02I I agree. And if you're in the middle of trying to deliver a project, if you're working as a planner or a developer, it is so or an architect, it is so hard to pull your head out of the weeds, which again like we need that third party to to be able to sort of explain, talk, document, learn, etc. with the public, with policy, and with designers to make sure we're sort of evolving in the right way.
SPEAKER_00You keep coming back to that third party. Is is is there Has there been cases throughout the w the world there has been like architects, master architects design cities, hasn't there?
SPEAKER_03Yeah.
SPEAKER_00And I'm not saying to do that here. I think that would be a rugby. I mean Canberra is a planned city. Yeah, right. Um did Franklin Wright or Geary do Chicago or some parts of the You know what?
SPEAKER_02I don't know. I'm sure I got taught that in my own. Something like that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But there's a lot of criticism of planned cities. So planned cities came up largely around the same is this true? I think this is true, largely around the same time as cars becoming individual car ownership sort of exploding. And it was largely part of the modernism move movement, um, which was post-war modernism, and it a lot of it had to do with trying to keep people away from working conditions, which was a concept that kind of based itself in the Industrial Revolution when we got all these hectic factories and living conditions were terrible. Blah blah blah. We what what's sort of the the reality of that is that if you visit Canberra Have you been to Canberra?
SPEAKER_00No, I haven't.
SPEAKER_02It's never it is quite beautiful, but it's almost impossible to get around as a pedestrian. Yep. Because by the very very nature of splitting where people live and where people work, which again was based in the in the Industrial Revolution, early zoning ideas came out of that. You you end up with a dead zone where everyone has to leave the suburb to go to work, and then you end up with a dead zone at work when everyone leaves to go home. And we don't really have those sort of like noxious factories anymore spewing, you know, uh we can we should have evolved by this point to make sure that our suburbs are more productive, and likewise to make sure we don't end up with dead city dead cities at nighttime when everyone goes home. Um so the Plan City thing has been tried. It is rare to find, I can't think of a successful example. I'm sure there are. Anyone who wants to school me about good examples, I would love to hear it. Um but it kind of comes back to this missing element of um you actually need people to tell you what they love. And so without people who can seek out the cool sandwich bar or the corner with the you know sunny window, to use that example, with like the cat being lured to something, it's very difficult to get it right. We um there is sort of like a fundamental part of understanding cities, which is to do with people and relationships, which is a very, you know, qualitative thing, but it is ultimately what drives the economy of any city. Um and it that's why it's so hard to get it right, is because the thing that makes the corner store work in in one suburb might have nothing to do with its location or what or whatever. Maybe it's the fact that the person there does something amazing with produce or whatever. And so without having that as a base, um you really there's no success that a a planned suburb will be a great place to live. Sure, people might move in and stay there and live there because that's what their option is, but is it great and could it be better? Probably, yeah, it could probably could have been way better.
SPEAKER_00And it probably sort of comes back to as well, like it's not just the design of like that sandwich shop, that's enabled by really design of the tax system and other incentives for small businesses. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: tram line there. Yeah, of course, public transport. Yeah, definitely. Australian architecture, what does it tell us about Australia? About ourselves?
SPEAKER_02Oh, this is hard because I so where I studied architecture was in Queensland with an incredibly different education approach to what you'd get taught down here, particularly somewhere like RMIT. I don't personally do not believe that there is an Australian, um a consistent Australian line, and I also don't think there should be, because I think it should respond to climate and um to context. I think what does Australian architecture tell us? I I think currently the state of our cities tells us that we are developer and builder led in our public conversations. I think the majority of built work has very little public conversation around sort of creative designed elements of our cities. There's a there's a couple of good exceptions to that. I'm thinking of the Sydney Fish Market that recently got finished. That was a major public public project. Um but I think I think we could do way more to to engage with our specific cities' identities. I'm even thinking about Brisbane. I was up there recently and did a video on, it was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek video on how the whole city should be pink. Oh right. And um that was based in the fact that in the Brisbane Sun, you know, we if you do anything white, it's the glare is almost unbearable. And we also need really light colours because of how hot everything is, you're trying to get maximum solar reflect reflectance. And then sort of the third part of that is that it the bedrock of that city is a pink bedrock called um Brisbane Tough or Tuff, people argue in the comments about that all the time. Uh but uh yeah, I think this sort of for a long time, I think we've looked internationally, and um we I would love us to develop up much stronger vernacular responses to each of our city's identities. And where there are there are lots of architects that do that well, but there's still a lot of projects that I think um could do it better. So that's a bit of a diplomatic answer, isn't it? It is, it's good.
SPEAKER_00I I I get it. Um So builder and developer led. And not enough, am I right by saying you don't believe there's enough community consultation, or is it more just communication?
SPEAKER_02Yeah, good point to try and tease out. I think I think I'm I've been in a series of conversations recently around what are the alternatives to community consultation than what we currently have. Which usually what it looks like in Australia is a project wants to get developed, some concept stuff gets done and it gets shown to the community who are are usually frightened of change in their that's a gross generalization, but often are frightened of um change in their in their suburbs, and it leads to just such an inefficient process to deliver new things for our cities. And I've actually made a couple of videos around this, and there's been so many people know so much about this and have such great ideas. One of the one of the best things that I saw was someone saying we have to do less consultation around just singular projects and more consultation around that 10-year plan and get everyone on board on the 10-year plan so that when and that should come out of the community, that absolutely should come from from they're gonna know what's going on way better than sort of someone in a state government um rezoning a certain streets. But therefore, an individual project that hits those, hits those targets and goals should be allowed to go ahead. So yeah, I think I think there could and should be much better public consultation around cities are always going to change. And this is the this is the tenure vision for this. And so that when we do get projects that hit all those community goals, they can move through and the community are reassured that they know what its long-term role is in in their neighborhood. Um and I do think that that's a missing, a missing element currently to the way that we set things up.
SPEAKER_00Because municipalities have strategies, but they're not as detailed perhaps as they need to be.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, and again, this is sort of pushing into the world of the planners, which is it is outside my it's on the cusp of my my world of knowledge, um, which I'm trying to grow. But uh, you know, I've lived in Melbourne five years, uh, Brisbane before that. I have I've never seen a single one of those how those documents get made. And what documents? Like a big strategy document for the 10-year plan. And um part of the content that I've been making online, which is peop people don't show up to the consultation meetings, local councils do host them. Um and again, the conversation around that, which has been happening online on a bunch of the videos I've made is well then we need new ways to reach people. We can't, if it's not working, we don't go, oh well, we tried. Okay, we need something else. And maybe that's that third person, third party I keep referring to. I don't know. I don't know, I don't have the experience. But um, basically the people who inherit the cities aren't showing up to the meetings. And so the policy that is getting created is based on feedback of people who aren't going to inherit the decisions. You know, a project can take 10 years to deliver. Easy, and there's a pretty high chance that the people who are retired, who aren't working full-time, who can attend, actually won't be there to feel the impacts of what they're voting on. So we absolutely need young people to be there who are trying to have families and what they want for their families and things like that. So I do think the system, again, it comes back to the system enabling that better as opposed to relying on the end product, which is the building, or in architecture's case, is the building, trying to reactively fit this stuff into a brief when the the policy hasn't incentivized it in the first place. So yeah. Complicated.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, so there's there's a gap there, of course. Yeah, the people that inherit it, they're the real they're the ones most impacted.
SPEAKER_02And they can't get to a 6 p.m. thing because they've got sucking training. They're not engaged. So that's it's so easy to say, well, we tried and they didn't show up. But and to be honest, I think maybe I felt like that a little bit too. I I kind of was like, oh, we just need to get them to come. And I I really think the online conversation that I've I've learned is that, uh no, actually, we've got to change the system to fit to fit these these people in who we want to keep so bad. We want young families and we want kids to be able to go to schools and everyone to be able to walk or bike and live near things. Um so we've got to change how we're finding them is the better answer.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, gotcha. There's a lot of opportunity through technology now, gamify, understand how people what preferences just at that level, if if nothing else.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, and I think there are good international examples of that, which I can't list off the top of my head. But um it's possible. Basically, it's possible. And there's lots of lots of ways we could be uh looking up at people who are doing it wonderfully and trying to replicate that. Yeah.
SPEAKER_00Gotcha. So, in your view, how should Australian architecture be changing to support our growing cities?
SPEAKER_02I actually think architects I think architects figured out what makes great density a long time ago. Um sorry, let me I've made a couple of assumptions there. Our growing cities are getting denser. Yes. Well, yes. As cities grow and more people move to cities, which is absolutely the story of Australia. We I think there's incredible stats around the percentage of us that live in cities compared to the rest of our land mass. We have to add places for those people to live. So the homes have to go somewhere. They either get added where where we keep expanding out, so they get added to the fringe because that's where the land is, or we add the homes to areas where we've already built. And that is the densifying conversation. In order to do that, if we are going to add more homes to cities and we want to do it in areas that we've already started building, so that the that expanding edge doesn't just keep getting further and further and further away from where jobs and transport communities. If we want to add those homes, then the question becomes, okay, well, where do we add those homes? And that question usually leads us to anywhere with good amenity, because there is a distinct um uh relationship between dense living, dense uh living, I should say, because Australia has the the lowest density cities basically in the world. So I hate to say sort of high density living, it's actually just normal living. It's just like it's how cities work, it absolutely is how cities work. So uh but when you do live like that, so you're in apartments or townhouses or whatever it is, there is a direct relationship between that lifestyle and how much time you spend in the public realm. Because if you have, you know, the two-bedroom apartment or the one-bedroom apartment, and you don't have that rambling family home that you had the bike workshop in the garage at home, or you had the art studio, it's all of those uses have to then be in the public realm. So it's community halls or it's or it's really like subsidized artist studios or whatever it is. If you want your city to have diversity and interest, all of those sort of side side spaces in a home have to live in the public realm because people can't do it in an apartment. That is not a scary thing. That is what makes cities amazing. If we come back to that Nico's conversation, it's like people are very good at finding that in a city, but it has to be facilitated.
SPEAKER_00So Aussies Aussies are generally really adverse to sharing, which sounds that's a wild thing to say, but it feels like that, doesn't it?
SPEAKER_02It does feel like that. And it it for me, this is part of that conversation where we've never had to deal with this before. Our cities have just hit a point that we've ne we haven't crossed this threshold before. And without these sort of really good public conversations around all the cool stuff that that brings, it feels like you're taking stuff away from people. It's it's like, oh well, I grew up with a you know, a third bedroom where we the stuff room or whatever, and now I don't get that. And I'm paying the same amount but for an inner city apartment. And what what these kind of conversations aren't doing is like, yeah, but you get access to XYZ. You get you're part of this, and that might not suit everyone. That's fine. There's always gonna be like the suburban model, there's no shortage of that. But it shouldn't, that should not prevent the ability of other people to live in those inner city life, those inner city lifestyles. And so the pushback that we get from community is really the loss there. It's like your preference of life doesn't get to overtake someone else's preference of life. We need both. We need more of sort of every option possible because the more diverse housing choices we have, the more types of lifestyles it facilitates. So someone living, you know, in a two-bedroom inner city apartment is probably gonna be way better for the economy because they're outspending, well, probably outspending and being part of the community and adding like just feet on streets and seats on bums, because that's what it enables.
SPEAKER_00Yep.
SPEAKER_02You might not want that when you have three toddlers. That's totally fine, but that is also not probably not the majority of your life. So for the, you know, the my entire life, I've never wanted that. Of course, of course, I have wanted an inner city sort of one-bedroom apartment, and and that's being able to sort of facilitate all of that is what architecture in cities should do. I just realized I have to come back to answer the question, which is what should architecture be doing for our growing cities? So, long story, a couple of side tangents later. I think that the architects have actually figured out a really good response to to most of these things before. What is lacking at the moment is the coordination of projects and who does that. And what I mean by that is you can have 10 of the best apartment buildings ever go up one after the other, right next to each other. But if if no one is investing in sort of building the foot, the footpath or the bike path, that means that all 10 of those buildings need basement car parks full of cars because there's been no alternative modes of transport built in, which means there's worse traffic, which means if that road's always chuckle block, probably no one's gonna sit in the cafe because it's a bad experience. And so I actually think architecture within its remit has solved most of these issues, which is why I want architects in to influence policy or built environment professionals to influence policy, because the bit that currently isn't working is not necessarily the building, it's it's the thing that stitches all the buildings together. And architects have a role in that, absolutely, to do to do well-designed buildings that are neighborly and and can facilitate good small local business opportunities and housing diversity, but they actually know how to do that. And there's so many good case studies of that. I mean, Nightingale Village really is the benchmark for Australian inner city density and and how to how it can facilitate business and greenery and all those things. And that was possible because they were designed together and coordinated, which meant that they could, you know, they got cars off one end of the street, which meant that they could add in uh a street garden, which has increased biodiversity, but without knowing what those 10 projects were doing, each of them probably would have had a basement entrance, which meant cars would have been throughout the entire precinct, which so on and so forth.
SPEAKER_00So it's actually not in those really narrow little streets, just choked with cars.
SPEAKER_02So um until we sort of get that holistic planning visionary piece sorted out, and I don't I don't really have the answer to who should be responsible for that, whether it's you know, an arm of state government or if it's local or plant council or if it's I don't know. Um, but it does seem to be the missing piece. And I think you're only going to figure it out if we all start talking to each other. So this is conversation for me number 20.
SPEAKER_00Good. Is the biggest challenge culture? Australian culture, and I I feel like you mentioned earlier. So much of Australia is designed around the car. Like our suburbs stretch for miles where the least dense cities in the world. And then that has sort of enforced an expectation of You have all yeah, the what is it, a quarter acre block with three three bedrooms, two bathrooms.
SPEAKER_02Is it culture? I think that's a massive part of it. But that's not sometimes I wish we had politicians that weren't scared of public opinion and led proactively. Um there's yeah, I think so uh a good example of this is um in Paris, there was a mayor called Anne Hidalgo or Hidalgo. I I'm gonna get that delivery wrong. But she's largely the person that is credited with um I'm not sure if it's been in any of your news feeds, but she's been going through a process of pedestrianizing a whole bunch of streets all over Paris and ripping up pavement after pavement and putting in garden after garden. And got huge pushback. It was super unpopular, but went ahead with it. And she ran, she I think she a really key part of the strategy was running, um, or we'll just do it for a year and see how you feel. And of course, what ends up happening is that the nicer environment you create, more people attend, which means business gets more foot traffic, which we et cetera. But you ha you have to have someone who is willing to go against public sentiment to show them what it could be on the other side. I don't have a good example of us doing that well at the moment. It's not to say it can't be done. Um so I think culture is part of it, but that's not some that's not really an excuse for me. Uh that's the same everywhere all over the world. And that if you only listen to that, we would never necessarily like move forward.
SPEAKER_00Um My horse is fine, I don't need a car.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, totally, totally. And I love my car, I can't get rid of it is the next is the next level to that. So I think it's true. I just, you know, I another thing I often I when I'm in these conversations, a good example is that sort of fifth within the last 50 years, people used to use the Mary Creek as a rubbish chip.
SPEAKER_00Well, yeah.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. So like that wasn't good. So I think there's there is nothing to say that what we have been doing is the best and final answer. And there is nothing to say that what we pose as the solutions won't have their own problems. But that's kind of the whole point of having something agile that is tracking its outputs and seeing if it's performing, and it's just possible. It's so possible. So, yes, culture is a huge part, it's embedded in our psyche. But again, if the socials journey, my own socials journey has taught me anything, it's that people actually are pretty willing to have the combo if if there was better forums to do it in, um, and more people, probably more people doing it.
SPEAKER_00And but with our growing city getting denser and denser, what what are we at risk of?
SPEAKER_02What's the risk? That for a dense city, if we get it, if we don't do it well, we exacerbate the tensions that are already in the city. So this comes back to that idea of uh when you m live in something like an apartment and you which means you want a bigger public life, if you aren't building in that public life and people don't have anywhere to go, I I mean technically you could exacerbate isolation, you'd probably get more cars on the road because you're not building in those alternative modes of transport. Having said that, it'll probably work out. It's just that it could have been done better. So eventually the market will let you know that actually what would what would pop off here is a great little sandwich bar. Eventually the market's gonna figure that out. It's just that it could have been done better, is really the risk. So it's not as though we're gonna fall over and everything's gonna grind to a halt. It's just that we've mi if if if we did it badly, we've missed opportunities that probably came and went from those initial phases. And um, you know, I I don't think that's that's what we're in for whatsoever. I think don't want to fear monger at all. Um, but that is I really the message there is like that's why it's so important to get educated about it all and the big public conversations and getting involved in your local community is relevant. I think a sort of a missing piece to this that um I've made some content around before as well. The sort of layer over the top of why can't we get young people to show up to these things is that all of us have to rent. And so well, and I say us, but people between 28 to 35 who might have maybe used to be homeowners, which meant they probably had more buy into their community, but I think first-time homeowners now at average is 40 ages recently. There you go. So you're probably not that likely to show up to your local council if you're a renter. Like you might be moving suburbs next year, your your lease is up. And so there's this the the temporality of where people are living compared to maybe older models is again one of these like changing of the guards thing that I think um it's why our systems need to change, because the re the reality that we have now of where those younger generations are is not the same as it was 50 years ago. And so it's harder to reach them because they're not necessarily there, but they're the ones living there spending the money in your community and and kind of need to be con seen as the main consumer. And I think Collingwood's a really good example of it. It's like the the people who live there, I think, are between, I looked this up not that long ago for a council meeting, but something like around the 30 mark is the majority of people who live there, but homeowners are in the 50s, 60s, so everyone's just renting. But they're the ones that show up to any of the community consultation. So yeah, it's like a very interesting, weird, unique tension. And I think quite specific to um this sort of incredibly low density, but the scale we have in our cities is very specific to Australia. It's hard to find kind um other cities that are as young as ours, again post-colonisation, um, are as young as ours, but have the scale of ours. Um so yeah, we do have unique challenges. It's not they're not easy to fix, but that's that's not an excuse either.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. To your point, you've I think it's real opportunity, isn't it? Like, we're in this tipping point, and there's a real opportunity to create really strong communities.
SPEAKER_02I can feel amazing cities with like awesome, diverse interests and niche groups and make them bi-diverse, and the ability to have old people and young people and animals about of course. That's the other side. That's what's on the other side. If we sort of engage and accept that that's gonna change, and if it's gonna change, how do we do it really well? And I wish people more people had that mentality rather than don't change my suburb. I wish it was, oh, if it's gonna change, what could we get in and how could we that would be a way better public conversation than don't touch my suburb, which has never worked.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, and we've got this huge loneliness epidemic. It's clearly not helped by well people living so far out and and having just this disconnection from community. Like obviously, as I was saying, I've moved out from Carlton to Massed and Rangers. And it's I mean, people talk about country, town, community, it's like it's not really there for me for me. But I can imagine a community, let's say Brunswick or anywhere around inner city Melbourne, with a you know, you live in an apartment and you've got those shared spaces, and you've got the like the bicycle repair shop that everyone contributes to, you got the cafe that everyone goes to, pub. It seems it seems to be a piece that's missing from so many people's lives, I think, because so many people spend so much time on social media, and that's it's great. I mean you you can learn, but it can also go the other way.
SPEAKER_01For sure.
SPEAKER_00Where you're just in your own little world. Yeah. And a lot of young people are falling into that.
SPEAKER_03Yeah.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. It's uh there's plenty of problems to solve, but but there's plenty of opportunities to gain.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_00Um there places in the world that have done this well that you know of. You mentioned um Paris. That's only is that recent? That's really recent, isn't it?
SPEAKER_02I think I'm safe in saying it kind of happened. Or the plan started happening after they hosted the Olympics. It was sort of part part of that um part of that era and planning for their city. But I mean, yeah, I mean, density, if you look at cities around the world, the the cities that are often the most traveled to are hugely dense. I New York, London, like Tokyo. So density is not in and of itself a bad thing whatsoever. And I think the reason those cities are so fantastic is because their street life, which is the public realm part, is so vibrant. It is you're not in your apartment doing your what like you would be in a five-bedroom family home. You're just you're they're two different things. Neither is good or bad. It's just that in Australia, I I was recently doing a whole bunch of research on this. I think the stat is 70% of our housing um is low density. So we just we haven't been building in the diversity that we need. Um it's really we a third, a third, a third. It'll be great if we had a third good dense living, a third in between, a third in the housing market. We we low density housing market, but we aren't doing that. So, yes, there's heaps of cities that do this well. Um density is not at all something to be scared of. We are, we do there is limited ava um sort of lessons to be applied when you visit somewhere like Europe and they have a medieval town center. We don't have that. We came up with uh again, our sort of the our European history came up m mostly with car planning, our cities, our big cities, I think I'm right in saying that. Yeah. And so we have different we have different realities. America has an interesting parallel to us with very different cultural issues. Um, but they have big car-based planning challenges as well. So absolutely, we could look up and look at good precedents. You know, the the sort of Copenhagens of the world are do amazing things. Um, the Netherlands do amazing things with good dense living. There's there's lots of solutions out there, yeah.
SPEAKER_00And as young as Melbourne is, it's it's still got this beautiful, rich architectural heritage uh history. How does that get applied, I suppose, or r preserved uh as we move towards you know more density? Ultimately we need more density, it's pretty clear. Because I mean there's a just the price of housing alone, I think it's gonna see a lot of people, of course, yeah. Buy apartments. Yeah. So how do we respect and retain our existing heritage while we do build new modern modern buildings?
SPEAKER_02It's such a sensitive conversation. So there's I'm actually I'm not sure if I'm a good person to answer this because I'm actually not that uh romantic of a person. If you look back on the history of anything ever, everything changes. So I kind of I'm like, yeah. Yeah, and there are incredible buildings that deserve protections and maybe certain streets and maybe, you know, really sort of the really iconic ones. But I think about, you know, a lot of the housing, terrace housing that um people are terrified of losing, and that I've had mates in share houses for 10 years. They are terrible to live in. They are so dark, there's mold problems, half of them leak. And I do wonder, like, at what point does your your familiarity outweigh the ability of a city to evolve? Like, that's the character of some of those areas are familiar, but also not appropriate anymore for for housing. I don't know if someone's desire to preserve character of a neighborhood outweighs the need for cities to evolve. I think there should be exceptions to the rule, but I don't think that should be the rule, if that makes sense.
SPEAKER_00It does. I think what you're you're saying generally is I think and I would agree that we need to be really deliberate. Yeah. Like it seems that there's just these sort of blanket heritage overlays and all houses fit the uh within that are treated generally the same and really highly preserved. I've got an issue with like chimneys. I I get it. There's some beautiful chimneys in Melbourne, but we're gonna look back one day. There's gonna be all these chimneys that are just that that have cost thousands of thousands of dollars to retain. And they're not that special. I I feel like retain the special ones. Yeah. And then they are more special. Yeah. Um we act like people, it'll be an attraction. People would go to them. Yeah, I agree.
SPEAKER_02And uh to be I know people will disagree with that. I actually I know I'll probably probably be crucified for saying that. But um yeah, I just you just can't freeze a city. It just doesn't work like that. And uh I the fact that we have people who have to commute in like three hours on a bad traffic day because we haven't let anything develop on our inner inner ring is crazy. Like, as in if you keep adding houses further and further and further out because you don't want anything to change in your suburb, our cities are gonna be hit a breaking point. I would argue are hitting a breaking point, and you get these massive investments trying to build this crazy infrastructure that has to be there to support those people. But that has happened because we have not allowed change in areas that have better amenity. So, yeah, that balance is always gonna be really tense. And uh I do believe there are beautiful things that should be protected, of course, but that should always be re-evaluated. It can't be a set and forget thing.
SPEAKER_00Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. So you're not so big on sort of incorporating it into what we already have?
SPEAKER_02I think, oh yeah. I mean, sure. Like, you know, as new but new buildings go up, um, like a really good example is facadism when you like knock down the back of a building and you keep a big, beautiful facade and build-in behind it. By all means, that go for it. That's a beautiful part of our city. There is no reason. It's more when people stop that development happening because they don't want any change due to only character. I find that hard to hard to to rationalise often. Um yeah, keep the facades, keep keep everything we can, but you gotta let it, you gotta let it keep moving.
SPEAKER_00Gotta let it evolve.
SPEAKER_02You've got to let it evolve. And I mean the Abbotsford Convent is a really good example, actually, of like modern uses being able to maintain, um maintain heritage buildings. It costs an enormous amount of money to protect and use an old building. The mechasaur that just recently went into that big beautiful heritage facade in the city, that's a great example. Um, like this completely glitzy fit-out in a beautiful old heritage building in the city. They're they're great examples of keeping the stuff that's good but letting it evolve and develop.
SPEAKER_00Gotcha. So what is it of we've covered a lot of territory we're we're about up, but I want to just ask you, what is it about great architecture that feels different? Yeah, I I feel like I actually feel like when I've spoken to people in the past about what is great architecture, there's not normally this sort of feeling of you know it when you feel it or when you see it. I feel like you'd come from a more scientific perspective because you have actually been able to explain it quite well.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, I well, scientific's an interesting way to put it. I my I think what you're referring to is like the value system, is that uh which I can talk through. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So so I have made videos on this before in the past, but it was I wanted to help people be able to talk through whether or not something was good design. And I think also in architectural communities, often people don't actually know what to say to one another and they go, oh, it's interesting, or what does that mean? Why? Why is it interesting? So I often teach people how to talk through it by coming up with a value system. And this goes back to my definition of architecture, which is that you can't just see it as the end result of like walking in and what does it feel like? That's only one part of architecture.
SPEAKER_00So you see buildings, correct me if I'm wrong, as a service to Architecture is a service.
SPEAKER_02So an architect needs to deliver on what their client has asked for.
SPEAKER_00But the building's not there to serve?
SPEAKER_02I think it is, but to the extent that the client is willing to let it serve. So let me let me explain that.
SPEAKER_00So that's a spectrum of Yeah. Yeah.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. So let I'll I'll explain what my value system is for really good design. Mine, first up is what what's the big idea? So most proposals will have identified an opportunity on the site or looked up something that happened on the history, and their design response is trying to let you know something, whether or not it's connecting to a laneway or it's reflecting the sky, or it's it's replicating little heritage details it found on site. So what's the big idea? How useful is it? Did they pull it off? That's tier one.
SPEAKER_00Tier two for me is And it's up to you to figure that out, or you just try and interpret theirs?
SPEAKER_02Off. Yeah. Can you figure it out? Did you watch them explain it? Have you read anything on the website? Yeah, however, you find that out, yeah, sure. It's great if you can pick up.
SPEAKER_00Or you can come up with it yourself.
SPEAKER_02You can come up with it yourself for sure. And it's great if you can pick it up on site. You're like, oh, that's where it's that's what it's talking about. And maybe it matches the colour of some bank CR you found. So that's like that's cool. That's great, great piece of design, uh design moment whenever you're out in a city. That's tier one for me. Tier two is what was its environmental response. Because I I don't think if something looks beautiful but it's made, it's terrible for the planet. I'm like, is that good design?
SPEAKER_01Is that good?
SPEAKER_02If everything was made like that, where would we be? So I can't look at the end result without looking at its environmental impact and go, yeah, sure, it's beautiful, but it was made terribly, or or whatever it is. So big idea, what's its environmental impact? That could be something as simple as did they squeeze in more landscaping where they could? Was it a native garden? Did they collect rainwater? Did they try and make something recyclable? Did they use low-embodied carbon? Whatever. Number three, how does it serve people and community? So that's for me, that's huge. It doesn't always get up though. So it's like that might be something like if you're doing an apartment building and the ground floor, you you pulled back a bunch of glazing. You sort of reduce the floor area of maybe a ground floor tenant and you added in landscaping or seating that the public could use without paying money. Like that's that's as small as it needs to be. But the client needs to have agreed to that. So I find it difficult to criticize architects when that doesn't get into the building because it's not always for lack of trying. Because often that is coming at the the cost of potentially a tenant or a space being able to return income. Um, because the space has got to come from somewhere. So we've gone big idea, environment, does it serve the people and community? And then find oh, function and practicality is another one for me. I think people get really shocked that that's like fourth on my list. But for me, you could have the most practical, functional building in the world. But was it beautiful? Did it have an idea? Did it s was it generous to the street? Did it have landscaping? Did it try anything recyclable? Oh, sorry, I should say environmental. So obviously, it is critical to have a building that performs. But if it is only performing and it's coming at the cost of the earth and at the cost of people, is it is it that good? Not really. Um and I think, yeah, so I I don't I don't think you can only rely on a f on performance and practicality as your only metric either, because if that's all you cared about, our world would be so mean. It would be so lean, it would just be um, you know.
SPEAKER_00Cold.
SPEAKER_02It's just because you can't justify a beautiful native garden if you're looking at something through the lens of efficiency and practicality. But you can justify it if you're looking at it through environmental and people's needs and maybe the big idea. So then the final part for me is aesthetics, form, materiality, did all those things, did all of those things either reinforce or break the other things and why do they do that? Blah, blah, blah. And so by giving people that that sort of list, that you have to, you have to like weigh them up. It's not always chronological. But it lets you all of a sudden have a conversation. You could get all the way down that list and get to the bottom and you go, okay, well, I don't like what it looks like, but it's great for the planet, it's really generous to the streetscape, it functions really well. Maybe it's again an apartment building, the heaps of great new homes have been added. And the big idea was about connecting a train station through the link of whatever, blah, blah. You go, I don't know like what it looks like. That's a great piece of design. And so the point of pi giving people tools to discuss it is so that this conversation moves beyond, I think it's ugly, I don't like it, when often it's actually just a familiarity piece. And because most things we think are aesthetic are a reflection of something familiar to us. That's just the way the human brain works. And that that shouldn't be what dictates development or design ideas in our cities. It should be this absolute sort of evaluation of all of these things that matter, not just this the piece at the end.
SPEAKER_00Have you got that templated somewhere?
SPEAKER_02I do. Trademarket. Yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_00Planner should be using that. Last one. What's the home or place you carry with you of or place for you? But what's one that really resonates all with you and memories flood back? And how's it make you feel?
SPEAKER_02Yeah. I mean, this is the best part about design and architecture is having having moments like that that you can really hang on to. I mean, it's incredibly cliche to say, but it's really the family home. Um, and maybe my first share house. Weirdly, now that I think about it. Which I think uh comes back to relationships with people almost more than the the building itself, but the building has to facilitate it. My I sort of mentioned earlier in passing, my mum was an architect, so we had a very creative household growing up. I'm the middle child of three siblings. Uh and yeah, the family home has always really, now that I think about it, has actually always been about how does it facilitate our relationship with nature. I think my mum was a bit of an environmentalist without being able to put a name to it. Um but we've just always had this incr intrinsic relationship with the outdoors. I think that is facilitated by growing up on the in northern New South Wales. We grew I grew up in a very, very small sort of coastal town just just south of the Queensland border and moved to Brisbane to study. So all of our outdoor all of our memories of being kids is is about learning about the outdoors. Um very deep and prof profound respect and relationship with with the planet. So really that's actually it. It has less to do with the home and more to do with how the home interacted with landscape and garden. And having I moved to Melbourne about five years ago, I have missed that because I think that I don't see that reflected in the city here as much. Um, this sort of real attempt at getting nature back in the city. I do see a lot of new developments with very little deep planting. And that's very different to sort of Brisbane City and even where I grew up. Um so, yes, for me, that is what home is. It's oh sorry, what was the question? That's that's probably the thing that means the most to me, which is how buildings have been able to facilitate a relationship with the outdoors instead of closing it off.
SPEAKER_00Lovely. Anything coming up you want to mention? I saw you've got that Subtopia competition. What are you involved with that?
SPEAKER_02I'm helping spread the word.
SPEAKER_00That's good.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, so um it's host it's largely hosted by the Robin Boyd Foundation and the Urban Design Forum, and it's um a competition I'm helping support get the word out about, which is to do with how do we get better when we do those new suburbs on the fringes of our cities, if we're gonna do them, what's the best way we can do it? Um so yes, we're it's a multidisciplinary call out. We know it's not just architects or urban designers, you need everyone in the room, which is something that we've talked about. We can't solve this just looking at it through one lens. So if that's of interest to anyone, definitely go check that out. You can just register for updates if you're interested. You don't have to, you don't have to apply. Um I've got a conference coming up at the end of the year that I'm doing, ArchieCon. It'll be my first conference presentation. Nice. But otherwise, just check me on socials, yeah. And drop me a line if you want to chat about anything, really.
SPEAKER_00Perfect. Thanks, Izzy.
SPEAKER_02Thanks, Clinton. Thanks.
SPEAKER_00Thanks for listening to the House of Meaning podcast by Sustainable Homes Melbourne. If you got something out of this episode, subscribe so you don't miss the next one. And if you know someone planning a renovation or new build, send it their way. You can find us at sustainable homesmelbourne.com.au. Thanks for listening. This is House of Meaning. Until next time.