The Lodge in Canberra, the official residence of the Prime Minister will be closed for repairs for the next 18 months. Several figures, including Jeff Kennett, former NCDC head Tony Powell and Andrew Carr of the Lowy Institute deem this an exercise in turd polishing. A new, architecturally inspired and inspiring building should be built. They argue that we should view this not just as a house for a politician, but a building that plays an important role in Australia’s Governance and diplomacy.
Indeed, by the accounts of others (unaccountably I am yet to be invited to dinner) very little can be said in favour of the existing building. A building that sets itself on fire during functions, or leaks in the meals of visiting dignitaries or merely gives them asbestosis would probably have a negative. The semiotics of the Neo-Georgian styling aren’t the best. A bastard child of a foreign style awkwardly transplanted to an Australia that ill suits it.
But what kind of architecture would be useful in showing off Australia to the world in a way that works in our interests? Surely not something grand or flashy. Any tin pot dictatorship can, and does do that. It doesn’t seem to impress anyone. A more sensible option would be mixing indigenous styles with clever environmental design. A showpiece of knowhow instead of power.
But I’d be really tempted by a display of ostentatious humility. The major reason the ostensibly temporary Lodge has never been replaced is a fear that the public would never accept the expenditure on a politician’s house. The cost would be negligible compared to government expenditure over the lifetime of the new building (likely many generations), but this reluctance is also a strong symbol of the power Australians have over their government representatives. Elsewhere in the Westminster tradition the dingy and dirty dwelling on Downing Street is a similar symbol.
Maybe this humility can be used in diplomacy, and as an advertisement for democracy. . I tend to think that over the long run democratic government is better at providing stability and prosperity, and that peace and prosperity abroad is good for Australia. The best way to promote democracy is demonstration. Any building would only have a minor effect on the dignitaries themselves given they will already know enough about Australia, but it might have an effect on the public abroad .I’ll note two stories from China. It might be only one of many relationships we need to manage, but it’s important. The first is the goodwill received by the new US ambassador to the PRC merely by purchasing his own coffee – something implausible for senior CCP figures. The second is this description of Australia by race car driver and world’s most popular blogger Han Han in which he describes government buildings here as indistinguishable from public toilets. Like every other “criticism” of Australia in the article, it is actually a criticism of the fuss, power and expenditure of Chinese governments. Australian humility in government buildings makes it look good compared to a government that struggles not to appear plutocratic and remote. Any goodwill garnered might pay off in diplomacy.
Having a building that leaks, spews asbestos and may catch fire may be too extreme a way of showcasing this modesty, even if it’s effective. But modest aesthetics should be put into the design brief for any replacement. We could end up with a mansion that showcases the best in energy and water efficiency technology, but one that looks like a cottage.