B,Arch.-RMIT/Melb Uni
When walking through the winding streets of Melbourne’s inner city suburbs you will find yourself immersed in the architecture of Rosenthal, Munckton and Shields. Over a 30 year period, this architecture firm have been contributing to the framework of Melbourne’s inner ring and shaping its character. They have grown a wonderful reputation for timeless and elegant designs. Their architecture is considerate, clever and lets face it; immense. For Michael Munckton, architecture has been a passion from the age of five. It has allowed him to travel the world and since 1981 act as principle of one of Melbourne’s most iconic and well respected firms.
Which university did you attend?
I did the first few years at RMIT then I decided I wanted to experience a diverse education. At the time the Gordon institute and other such schools didn’t exist. At the time RMIT was considered the most practically oriented course, but architecture being as long as it is, you tend to get stale. So I transferred to Melbourne University.
Was architecture a passion for you from as young age?
I always wanted to be an architect even before I knew what the word meant. I was drawing houses at the age of five, and I grew up on a farm. So explain that (laughs).
Speaking of the country, I’ve noticed that you have designed many houses in rural areas. Is that something you enjoy?
I guess I have an affinity with the country. I could never pretend to be a farmer but my family is still on the land. Having grown up on the land, it’s given me a capacity to understand simple concepts like water reticulation and fire proofing. I am more aware of them because I learnt what they actually meant growing up
And these are things that are becoming more and more relevant in the city?
Yes, exactly. Council regulations govern a lot more tightly than they used to on the country developments. So materials and exposure to potential fire risk are all issues governed on.
How long have you been practicing as an architect?
(laughs) I did try to work this out the other day. (long pause) 30 years.
Where did it begin?
I graduated from Melbourne University and then went to England for two and a bit years. I worked for a firm in Chelsea. I then came back to Melbourne and worked with what was then called Leyton, Urwin. They were big hospital architects. They did places like St Andrews and Portland hospitals. They were known for their hospitals. They amalgamated with Garnett, Allsop and partners to create the Urwin, Allsop group. After that I approached my friend from university Peter Mackie because his partner John Rosenthal had just died, I asked if he wanted a business partner to take Johns place. So I joined what was called Rosenthal and Mackie.
And he was a highly regarded architect?
Yes a very well respected domestic architect. Who had his training with the Freedman brothers. Who were the big domestic architects in Melbourne.
How long have you been principle of Rosenthal, Munckton and shields?
Since 1983.
Who are you architectural heroes?
(Laughs) that’s a tricky one. You admire architects for different reasons. The work we do is of a more traditional style. So I suppose my roots lie in more conservative traditional architecture, European architecture and American Georgian architecture. Who are my heroes? The dead ones; An English fellow by the name of Edwin Lutyens, who designed amongst other things New Deli. He was a very versatile person. He had great skill in a variety of styles. You could have houses designed as castles or 18th century manners. He was very flexible and versatile, principally designing for wealthier clientele. That was very much in the Edwardian period. (There’s) Also an American by the name of Shmitt, who designed some very interesting residential works. Including
apartments in New York and houses particularly in places like the Hampdens and the more prosperous areas. Stern is my favourite contemporary architect. I think he is fantastic. He is still practicing. (he uses) Great detail, great finesse and great flair. He does domestic as well as commercial work.
Do you think flexibility is a positive attribute or do architects need to develop their own style?
I admire people who have greater flexibility. I think that displays a greater capacity to carry out an architectural practice. I think people grow, develop, improve and change. They certainly change, I’m not so sure that they improve. An architect must not be rigid in his requirements, he needs to see the needs of the client as an individual. I think that’s what you’re ultimately doing, realizing the individuality of your client. At the same time it’s very difficult to say to an architect “design one particular type of building and
then completely change it to another one”. It’s clear that our work has a base in it which is similar throughout each project. You can chose any look, but you base it on similar materials and a similar approach to design.
Some architects have the ability to design ‘timeless’ houses – houses that don’t adhere to a specific era or genre but sit beautifully in a streetscape in splendid proportion, utilising all the virtues of understatement. You are one of the few architects who creates timeless designs. The late Wayne Gillespie on that list. Is understatement something that you learn? Or is it an innate ability?
That’s a very interesting question. I think it is innate. It is within your framework as to how you approach. You can certainly massage and manipulate it to a certain degree. It’s like all skills, you have an innate ability to design building or you don’t. There are academic architects who couldn’t solve a problem to save their lives. This doesn’t mean they are not valuable to the industry, it just means people have different skills in different areas.
To what degree is that a creative process?
It is ultimately a creative thing, yes. Your creative juices are what create the end result. Some people’s creative urges are more flamboyant than others. If you try too hard, you will overdo it. Leaving it to develop on its own with you as the guiding light will be the best solution. Anything that you push and prod to light artificially will almost always look artificial. I think you can really apply that philosophy to anything. Anything overworked will always appear to be overworked.
How has the industry changed in Melbourne?
It’s a lot more cut throat and a lot more competitive. The new generation is coming through and people love to compare and be compared. People talk about your ‘competition’. I’ve never looked at anybody as my competition because I’m not competing with them. The reality is that we do what we do because that’s what we love doing. That whole attitude towards competitiveness has changed dramatically. Regulations have changed the way the architect, the client and the builder have to view the project. The old adage ‘time is money’ is more pertinent today than it has ever been and it will become even more so.
Your firm has completed some of Melbourne’s finest homes. Which standout for you?
Some of them are in the country or interstate so you don’t see them. Slattery & Acquroff did work on many of them. The photo on the wall of my office sold for forty million. It certainly didn’t cost that to build but it’s in a great position
in Brisbane. We recently completed one in Chastleton Avenue, which is very elegant. The stairs are made from stone; it’s a beautifully well proportioned house. They are the big ones, but there are a number of country houses
which unfortunately you never see. They are timeless. Good comfortable family houses. Although, I wouldn’t want to live in all of these houses. The houses certainly meet our level of quality, but they may not be my choice of design. This means implementing the client’s requirements over and above your own personal indulgence.
Do you think that gets in the way with a lot of architects?
Yes, very much so. There are a number of people who are more absorbed with their own edification and outcome than the actual solution for the client
By any standards many of the homes that your firm has designed would be classified as mansions. What measures do you put in place to reduce the carbon emissions and what is the industry in thus regard?
This is not a very diplomatic answer but I don’t consciously have a checklist of things which I score myself on. I actually believe that by the very nature of how we design and construct that we are and always have been conscious of
those things way before they were fashionable. One could argue that that’s a little bit misleading because the boiler that goes in a 120 sq house is clearly going to be a lot bigger and more consuming than a boiler put in a 20 sq house. Size is a reflection of the client’s budget and requirement. That doesn’t change because of carbon emissions and all those other things. What you can do is take that building and construct it of good solid energy efficient materials. I still see that the traditional materials of masonry, stone and concrete are good insulators. Double glazing windows have good value, but so does insulated walls, ceilings and slabs. You don’t create expansive lofty spaces which are economically impossible to heat. I think that most things are designed with sensitivity towards that. In the country for example the power supply can be an issue. So you design the house so that it utilises the maximum amount of breeze with verandas. But out of site is out of mind. If people can’t see the amount of energy being used at the aluminium plant then people don’t mind using aluminium on their houses.
Is there is more pressure to design sustainable houses compared to five or ten years ago?
Absolutely, there is no doubt about it. It’s not just the industry, it’s the people. It’s the clientele. You see it everyday in the press you can’t be unaware of it.
Are the power of the wind and then sun are the future of design?
Good design will always be good design. One only has to look at countries in the tropics or city’s in cold areas like Finland to see that they have been used for centuries. You don’t design a house in Barbados that you would build in Helsinki. Because you utilise the light, the wind and the sea breeze.
Your thoughts on the design in developments like Caroline springs?
The development precincts are a concern. In the outer suburbs like Craigieburn and Melton a lot of the houses face due south, they have howling gales without verandas to protect them from the wind. They are horrific.
Is this for the economic benefit of the builders?
I believe it is almost one 100% for economic benefit. It’s a great shame. The reality is that the government are zoning these areas and they have great responsibility as to what the end result is.
Do you think the urban sprawl will continue?
There is movement towards it now but there have been movements before. I think Australians still have this perception that there is still a great deal of available land and we have an entitlement to have our own quarter acre block. I think as a free nation one would have difficulty in arguing against that. There is a need for the younger generation to live in a more economic environment. Weather its environmental issues or that they can’t be bothered pushing a lawnmower round I don’t know (laughs). Apartment living is something which is learnt. Like in Europe. We would have to have a different approach to the way we live in order to move into higher density living. I don’t think there is any crime in us being different; we are allowed to be individual.
How far will we spread before people will stop wanting to commute?
It is becoming decentralised anyway. When I was a kid coming down from the country near Seymour, the whole Craigieburn and Broadmeadows area was farmland. At that time the factories were in Yarraville and Collingwood. That’s where anyone from alcohol distillers to car manufacturers were locating their factories. Nowadays, the factories have moved to Craigieburn so that people can commute from Broadford or Tallarook. So it has started already, people don’t need to go to the city. That decentralisation has already begun.
What do you think of Melbourne’s 2030 concept?
To have the government announce their concept of Melbourne is fine, but you have to follow through with all the things to support that. It’s a design philosophy and a code of ethics that the government needs to create. It’s also teaching people how to live in a city which you want to redefine. You can’t just change things add hoc, you cant just build a road here and wack up a village over there and expect people to subscribe to what you believe. At the moment people treat 2030 as a joke because there are no defined guidelines. If you did a consensus of the people, there would be many who wouldn’t have a clue what it is.
