salon gossip says VSGA/XWASGA is setting up marxican design review panels. wot has been the legacy for WA? wot zombie bbs will b the reviewers? wot will b reviewed?
The NSW AIA President (together with a junior member) mounted a sustained attack on the NSW Government Architect during yesterday's National Conference. Their questions were effectively why should the GA Office exist? And why should WE miss out on the public projects?
It would be easy to dismiss those questions as being bound to commercial interests feeling the financial squeeze - particularly given the NSW AIA President's training in the NSW GA's office. However, the real question stands: what is the legitimacy of the Government Architect (in any state)?
Seems it can only be compromised if there exists a mutually benefiting relationship between a servant of the government and a commerical entity. In other words, if the public purse is at the mercy of the commercial kind on display yesterday - there could be no stronger argument for an independent GA to be in place.
For this same reason, I reject a design review panel made up of representatives of a commerical interest group (ie the Australian Insititute of Architects) influencing the future appointment of projects. It reeks of collusion.
old skool GA like NSW is public servant running a public office - with civil duty 2 taxpayers. clear cut.
new skool GAs. questions. lobbyist 4 Hey Hi Hey?, or lobbyist 4 segment of Hey Hi Hey? old skool "xternal" lobbyist eg, x poli, x union, x bureaukrat paid 4 by interest group? or new skool citizen taxpayer funded Hey Hi Hey trojan horse? Hey Hi Hey is 2 close to VSGA and VSGA is 2 close to Hey Hi Hey? Prominent Hey Hi Hey members advise in selection of GA? over or underhadvised? where does VSGA pointing to Hahwards as crytearia 4 de-sign xcellence go? http://www.butterpaper.com/vanilla/comments.php?DiscussionID=1503&page=2#Item_13
Design Review Panels reeks of a bunch of old BB academics trying to run their lame University Crit Sessions out in the real world. Anyone for an election.
@info^^^^^ design review panels in the WA model reach further. form part of state planning authority through local councils? taste cops if WA is 2 go by? heritage advisors r difficult? - now enjoy a panel stacked full of bbs/bblackies-full of themselves? xWASGA 2 leave marxico with a legacy of more ineffective bureaucracy? or effective - depends which way u look @ the world. word is 9timesoutof10 conformity when it cums 2 govt.?
End of BER delivery will b time to compare NSWGAO and role played in delivery of Fed Educ. Stimulus projects with Marxican and Boganvillian methods. y fix something that ain't broke necessarily. Its not like Marxico has proved anything yet. 5 years of SGA and wots evident is a large # of gyms in every country town that r sited "interestingly", seem radically uninsulated + arrestingly composed and a lot of blue grey colourbond wos sold - though there is a nice fit out to fed square that SGA#1 gave 2 his office?
add new school @ marysville that seems not 2 b entirely bushfire rated construction. but all new dwellings r to b? could b wrong but one standard 4 govt. - anutha 4 the citizens? keen to read a VSGA letter of opinion to Parliament but understand its not as important as windsor redevelopment.
nice story. y don't they run a poll on whether he should be minister 4 respect 2.
hackountant plays chess or chequers? left r mad enuff 2 wear their own dirt 2 kill the BO reeking dudded body if it takes the head out? moves in 2 new territory after friday if the staff don't front?
any boning up being done on contingency plan if u suspend a state govt?
NSW GAO looks like its a pretty straightforward department employing 200+ people engaged in a wide variety of useful activities excluding luxury hotels. The marxican SGA office employs .......8......?, who believe architects and their clients should be above process and outside the democratic system because design is good. Do I have that right?
witness says that an application under the minister follows the same procedure as a council run process? 3 steps. 1. Comment and advisory reviews. 2. Planners Report and advice of decision. 3. Councilors decision. = 1. Advisory panel and notification of affected parties - receipt of comments. 2. Ministry of Planning and Community Development Report and advice to the Minister. 3. Ministers Decision.
At step 3, Minister or Councilors can overturn Planning Advice. does happen. not there necessarily to rubber stamp bureaucracy. but rare. and bound to be examined by medihah.
Far as I can tell Windsor never completed step 2. @ Step 2, Step 1 endorsements were about to be advised against by MoP&CP? Leaked hemail is an "absurd construction" - you can't advertise (step1) again after step 2. - should have proceeded to VCAT? Even minister stuff goes to VCAT 4 appeal.
Hemail is exploding cigar at poker game ? everyone looked around.
dunno. whatever u read on the internet is shite. i made all that up. u better just read it 4 yourself.
g[*****]e does step 1. far as influence should extend? dunno. very unclear VSGA role. just as councilors should not interfere or have undue contact with planners in step 1 and 2, neither should the minister - that is clear. hands off until step 3. 1 + 2 are process.
M. Guy MLC makes point in hearing that govt. has pinged councils 4 this.
Comments
It would be easy to dismiss those questions as being bound to commercial interests feeling the financial squeeze - particularly given the NSW AIA President's training in the NSW GA's office. However, the real question stands: what is the legitimacy of the Government Architect (in any state)?
Seems it can only be compromised if there exists a mutually benefiting relationship between a servant of the government and a commerical entity. In other words, if the public purse is at the mercy of the commercial kind on display yesterday - there could be no stronger argument for an independent GA to be in place.
For this same reason, I reject a design review panel made up of representatives of a commerical interest group (ie the Australian Insititute of Architects) influencing the future appointment of projects. It reeks of collusion.
clear cut.
new skool GAs. questions.
lobbyist 4 Hey Hi Hey?,
or lobbyist 4 segment of Hey Hi Hey?
old skool "xternal" lobbyist eg, x poli, x union, x bureaukrat paid 4 by interest group?
or new skool citizen taxpayer funded Hey Hi Hey trojan horse?
Hey Hi Hey is 2 close to VSGA and VSGA is 2 close to Hey Hi Hey?
Prominent Hey Hi Hey members advise in selection of GA? over or underhadvised?
where does VSGA pointing to Hahwards as crytearia 4 de-sign xcellence go?
http://www.butterpaper.com/vanilla/comments.php?DiscussionID=1503&page=2#Item_13
Your saying the A i A are cheap HD?,,,,,,,,,compared to real businesses with $ in the kitty.
design review panels in the WA model reach further.
form part of state planning authority through local councils?
taste cops if WA is 2 go by? heritage advisors r difficult? - now enjoy a panel stacked full of bbs/bblackies-full of themselves?
xWASGA 2 leave marxico with a legacy of more ineffective bureaucracy? or effective - depends which way u look @ the world. word is 9timesoutof10 conformity when it cums 2 govt.?
http://www.govarch.commerce.nsw.gov.au/history.asp?PT=15&PD=19
End of BER delivery will b time to compare NSWGAO and role played in delivery of Fed Educ. Stimulus projects with Marxican and Boganvillian methods. y fix something that ain't broke necessarily.
Its not like Marxico has proved anything yet. 5 years of SGA and wots evident is a large # of gyms in every country town that r sited "interestingly", seem radically uninsulated + arrestingly composed and a lot of blue grey colourbond wos sold - though there is a nice fit out to fed square that SGA#1 gave 2 his office?
but all new dwellings r to b? could b wrong but one standard 4 govt. - anutha 4 the citizens? keen to read a VSGA letter of opinion to Parliament but understand its not as important as windsor redevelopment.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/labor-backed-windsor-sham-20100427-tq34.html
http://www.theage.com.au/polls/victoria/should-madden-go/20100427-tpo5.html
hackountant plays chess or chequers?
left r mad enuff 2 wear their own dirt 2 kill the BO reeking dudded body if it takes the head out?
moves in 2 new territory after friday if the staff don't front?
any boning up being done on contingency plan if u suspend a state govt?
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/first-strategy-on-windsor-revamp-also-a-failure-20100428-tshp.html
The marxican SGA office employs .......8......?, who believe architects and their clients should be above process and outside the democratic system because design is good. Do I have that right?
- This guys memoirs will be gold.
do u have that right?
mag rack rag says windsah had gone out for comment.
heaps of glowing endorsements.
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/BDDA91E3AB1FA216CA2576EA0001F1B0/$File/Hotel+Windsor+Advisory+Committee+Report.pdf
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/madden-dodges-windsor-questions-20100429-twls.html
standing committee on finance and admin - mar 12
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/scfpa/PC/DMCAP 120310 CORRECTED.pdf
witness says that an application under the minister follows the same procedure
as a council run process? 3 steps.
1. Comment and advisory reviews.
2. Planners Report and advice of decision.
3. Councilors decision.
=
1. Advisory panel and notification of affected parties - receipt of comments.
2. Ministry of Planning and Community Development Report and advice to the Minister.
3. Ministers Decision.
At step 3, Minister or Councilors can overturn Planning Advice. does happen. not there necessarily to rubber stamp bureaucracy. but rare. and bound to be examined by medihah.
Far as I can tell Windsor never completed step 2.
@ Step 2, Step 1 endorsements were about to be advised against by MoP&CP?
Leaked hemail is an "absurd construction" - you can't advertise (step1) again after step 2.
- should have proceeded to VCAT?
Even minister stuff goes to VCAT 4 appeal.
Hemail is exploding cigar at poker game ? everyone looked around.
u better just read it 4 yourself.
g[*****]e does step 1. far as influence should extend? dunno. very unclear VSGA role.
just as councilors should not interfere or have undue contact with planners in step 1 and 2,
neither should the minister - that is clear. hands off until step 3. 1 + 2 are process.
M. Guy MLC makes point in hearing that govt. has pinged councils 4 this.
i also made that up.
a fine pair of taylored jeans and flanno...?
arr millhah mite have asked the m of p & c d when did they make one.
may b m o p & c d wanted to do it properly.
= rewrite the planning scheme.
someone else had a creative idea 2 take the hi way not the bi way.