Deja vu for architects behind Barangaroo

The recently published review of Barangaroo lucidly highlights the difficulty of managing public information and debate for a momentous project. Widely polarised opinions are vehemently expressed, often on ideological grounds, with sometimes scant regard for complex facts and issues. When private enterprise has a major role, assertions of private gain at the expense of the public good seem inevitable.

It is my experience that when these projects are completed, they are usually accepted by the public and make a vital contribution to the social and economic life of our city. However, there is often some loss of nerve by consent authorities that can dissipate the strength of an architectural concept in order to achieve some degree of political calm.

In the 1980s, as assistant NSW Government Architect, I was the lead architect on state-funded schemes such as the bicentennial improvements to Circular Quay and expansion of the State Library and Art Gallery of NSW. Although all were in sensitive locations, there was almost no negativity about the proposals.

Over the past 20 years, my involvement in schemes such as the Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf, the Walsh Bay development and East Circular Quay has been quite the opposite experience. All three projects incorporate extensive areas of publicly accessible, state-owned wharfage or foreshore land and were almost totally funded by their developers. The public opposition ranged from vilification in the press and on talkback radio, to personal "hate mail" and even a protester padlocking himself to the council table at the Town Hall. Today, these developments all have a sense of place, enhancing the enjoyment and urbanism of Sydney and are accepted by the public.