: [BRISBANE : cnr. Roma St. & George St. : Supreme Court]

The recently unveiled design for the Brisbane Supreme Court is another major work in Brisbane undertaken by the office of /Architectus/, replacing the ‘outdated’ Supreme Court close-by. As a method of capturing what may appeal to the public about architecture and how it is used in terms of a political device, there is some validity in looking at the comments of politicians when regarding public buildings. Premier Peter Beattie /said/ about that “the current courts were built almost 40 years ago and don’t meet the needs of the modern justice system which puts a heavier emphasis on victims of crime.” The new Supreme Court intends to establish itself as a response to this, embodying the ideas of justice.

At this point it is timely to compare the Brisbane Supreme Court with the subject of last weeks lecture; the South African Constitutional Court. In that blog I discussed how specific the architectural response was to the culture of South Africa, in terms of ‘functional symbols’. While the two buildings are comparable on the grounds of being a court, there are distinctions between the two in how they function as a public building. A difference in response to culture can also be observed in the functionality of the buildings. Dr Hocking talked about efforts to maintain a fair judicial system through the planning off discreet paths in the building and, while it seems that the Constitutional Court of Johannesburg is not concerned with this. These differences are seen through different interpretations of how the public will use the building, and indeed the culture that the building finds itself.

Whilst in the lecture Dr. John Hockings of Architectus spoke of a desire to turn away from the cliché, or concept, which would permeate through the entire design. I consider the Supreme Court, by and large, to be highly metaphorical, which seems to correspond to the idea of an all-pervasive design ‘concept’. I believe this can be successful in a public building, and is successful here, though not without reservations. The idea of openness and transparency that is talked about in press releases from politicians and /Chief Justice Paul de Jersey/ give evidence of how such a concept is utilized within the interaction between a public space and the community it serves (the transparency of modern democracy). The metaphor of ‘transparency’ is imbued quite literally in the Courthouse, and in doing so successfully acts as a civic building that is trying to portray a message to the community, in this case a political one. Interestingly, both buildings at night perform as lanterns in the landscape attempting to act as a beacon of democracy, symbolizing the building as central to the operation of their cities.

Where the Supreme Court is attempting to embody the typical worldwide values of democracy, the Constitutional Court of South Africa does too, though on a much more localized scale (the Brisbane building is localized in its response to climate.) Essentially, the distinction between the two buildings is the culture in which it is situated and is responding to, but is made tangible in their materials. I consider the Constitutional Court of South Africa as a building that is imbued with culture, whereas the Supreme Court on Brisbane’s George Street is reflecting the values held within its surrounding culture. Both make significant connections with society despite these different approaches (or in the case of the as yet un-built Supreme Court, hope to).

Supreme Court images taken from http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/news/capworks.htm#