The challenges of geography

Melbourne; Map; Mapping; Geography

There are many residential architecture studios in Melbourne whose portfolios are concentrated within specific geographical regions: the south-eastern suburbs, the inner-north, bayside, the Mornington Peninsula, Ballarat. I live in Carlton North and seem to see Robert Simeoni signs on front fences everywhere. Zen Architects does a lot of work in and around Northcote. Jolson Architects has nailed the Toorak market.

I don’t believe there’s any data quantifying the prevalence of this phenomenon, but common sense would suggest it’s widespread.

Architecture is a physical act: it leaves a mark on the built environment that acts as a type of calling card for future clients. Locals walk past a construction site, come across an ad in the local paper, or see the architect’s studio on a Google Maps search, and are pulled into the architect’s orbit. Each project develops its own powerful gravitational field that inevitably leads to more local enquiries than those from further away. The enquiries become projects, they produce new gravitational fields, and so on.

This chain reaction is useful for an architect, it’s a reliable pipeline of familiar projects that help establish a strong local presence and consistent portfolio. But what happens when the snowball never gets started in the first place?

Melbourne; Map; Mapping; Geography; Data

A geographically dispersed practice

For reasons unknown to me, both the enquiries and commissions of Mihaly Slocombe are and have always been widely dispersed across Melbourne and rural Victoria.

Our studio is located in Brunswick East, and while we have a growing number of projects scattered across the inner-north, we are also working on or have completed projects in Albert Park, Ashburton, Bentleigh, Brighton, Broadmeadows, Camberwell, Caulfield, Collingwood, Doncaster, Eaglemont, Frankston, Hawthorn, Heidelberg, Ivanhoe, Keilor, Kensington, Kew, Malvern, Melbourne CBD, Moonee Ponds, Richmond and Rosanna.

Our version of local therefore is a sprawling 300 or so square kilometres, and that’s just our work in and around Melbourne.

Each blue dot on the map above represents one of our current or past projects. They tell an interesting story in and of themselves, most importantly this surprising insight:

  • Excluding two projects in Frankston, all of our urban commissions have been less than 20km from the city.

But what about enquiries that never get off the ground? And how do they relate to the ones that do? What else might a thorough mapping of all 160 of the enquiries we’ve received to date reveal?

Melbourne; Map; Mapping; Geography; GIF; Animation; Data

Mapping our enquiries

We divide project enquiries into four categories: projects are commissions we win, with signed fee proposals; declined are fee proposals that are declined by the client; aborted are enquiries that never get so far as a fee proposal; and rejected are enquiries that are declined by us.

Overlaying the map for each category reveals a number of interesting things:

  • The pattern of our enquiries is reflected in the pattern of our commissions. In other words, there is no bias towards a certain part of Melbourne whose enquiries generate a disproportionately high or low number of commissions.
  • Of the four project categories, aborted has the highest density outside the 10km and 20km rings.
  • Excluding one project in Keilor, all of our urban enquiries (and commissions) have been from the northern, eastern and southern suburbs.
  • Our rural enquiries have been dispersed across much of Victoria, but our rural commissions have been mostly concentrated on the two peninsulas, Mornington and Bellarine.

These observations corroborate what was previously a set of educated intuitions about the pattern of our enquiries. They provide specificity too – We previously had no idea that the 20km ring is so important, nor that the western suburbs are so underrepresented amongst our enquiries. Most actionably, they have given us firm metrics to assess the likelihood of a project proceeding based on geography and other factors, and have helped us flesh out what we now call the three hurdles.

The hurdles are simple really: when a potential client first makes contact, we aim to discover as much as we can about her and her project. In particular, we want to know three things:

  • Where is the project located?
  • What is the broad scope of the project and what is the budget?
  • What are the client’s design ambitions?

The answers to these questions help us be pragmatic about our enquiries. We know statistically that enquiries outside the 20km ring are almost always non-starters. We also happen to know that projects with lower budgets are expensive for us to take on (more on this in a future blog post). And we know that clients who have strong preconceptions about their design outcome aren’t well suited to our openly creative design process.

If the client stumbles on two of the three hurdles, we can be confident that the project is likely to end up a yellow dot. Asking the hard questions early, and knowing the geographic shape of our portfolio, help us spend less time on projects that don’t lead anywhere, and more time on projects that do.

Victoria; Map; Mapping; Geography; GIF; Animation; Data

Challenges and opportunities

Our dispersed portfolio has meant a few challenges for our growing practice, some of which are only just becoming apparent as we hit our seventh year in business:

  • We are less visible. Our fragmented street presence across Melbourne means we are much less likely to make serendipitous connections with passersby.
  • Our portfolio is less coherent. If all of our projects were renovations to terrace houses in the inner-north, clients with that sort of project would be able to easily understand what we do. For us, a new house on a vineyard, a small sleeping pavilion and a renovation to a 1977 Kevin Borland house are too unrelated to paint a comprehensive picture of who we are and what we do.
  • Our growth curve is slower. The key quality of a localised portfolio is that it generates momentum. For us, we are only just beginning to return to suburbs where we’ve worked previously. In the meantime, all of those missed enquiries in far flung places were commissions that a localised practice might have won.

It’s not all bad news though, far from it. A dispersed portfolio has a number of benefits that I think will begin to matter more and more the longer we’re in business:

  • We have broad expertise. Having worked across many parts of Melbourne, we have developed an appreciation of unique topographies, prevailing weather patterns, demographics, histories, building stock, culture, and local council requirements. This makes us better placed to keep working across Melbourne, including into new suburbs.
  • We are hard to pigeonhole. Our well-rounded experience resists the pigeonholing that goes hand-in-hand with a localised portfolio. Our portfolio is full of unusual projects, and is only becoming more so. I expect this will open future doors for us that would be shut to a more homogenous practice, including assisting us to diversify into new project typologies.
  • We don’t get bored. Perhaps most importantly, the diversity in the locations and clients of our projects make our work more intellectually stimulating, and ultimately more enjoyable.
Mihaly Slocombe; Architecture; House; Evening
Hill House, 2006
Mihaly Slocombe; Architecture; House; Renovation; Kevin Borland; Evening
Chamfer House, 2015


Understanding why our practice has evolved this way is difficult. Architecture is largely opportunistic. Clients approach us, not the other way around, so we work on whatever the world brings us. This leads to all sorts of unpredictable connections with potential clients.

Let me illustrate:

Our Hill House project led to the commission for Chamfer House despite the former finishing five years before the latter starting, the two sites being located 30km apart, and the two clients never having met. How can they possibly be linked? Well, in 2006 Hill House was completed, then in 2008 longlisted for the WAN House of the Year award. The longlisted entries were exhibited online. A television scout for Canadian television programme, World’s Greenest Homes, discovered the project and got in contact. In 2009, the house was filmed and the show aired in Australia on the ABC. Then in 2011, the show aired again on repeat, and our soon-to-be Chamfer House clients saw Hill House, liked it, and tracked us down.

The important thing to acknowledge here is that we had zero control over all of these steps. What’s more, I’m sure many of our projects would reveal similar stories if probed.

Twenty one years ago, Nicholas Negroponte predicted that “the post-information age will remove the limitations of geography. Digital living will include less and less dependence on being in a specific place at a specific time.”[1]

Negroponte’s argument centred around the death of cities, which of course has proven not to be true. But there is nevertheless a profound realisation in his prediction. Our cities may be thriving more now than ever before, but they’re not what they used to be. As Carlo Ratti has observed, “the digital revolution did not end up killing our cities, but neither did it leave them unaffected. A layer of networked digital elements has blanketed our environment, blending bits and atoms together in a seamless way.”[2]

The layering of the digital world over the physical has, for us, allowed us to make connections in new and geographically diverse ways. I can’t explain the spread of our early projects, but more recently our strong digital presence on Houzz has untethered us somewhat from the limitations of geography. Reviewing our last five projects won from online enquiries proves this point:

  • Ivanhoe East – AIA find an architect service
  • Princes Hill – Google
  • Northcote – Houzz
  • Kew – Houzz
  • Murrindindi – Houzz

In past generations, it was perhaps more difficult for an architect to develop a portfolio without relying on local personal networks and word of mouth. The Internet has by no means replaced these pathways to new projects, but they have certainly increased the chance of chance encounters. Now there are two worlds to navigate, the physical and digital, and in each there are opportunities for an architecture practice willing to master them.


  1. Nicholas Negroponte; Being Digital; Hodder and Stoughton; 1996
  2. Carlo Ratti; Digital Cities: ‘Sense-able’ urban designWired; 2nd October 2009

Images sources:

  1. Map of Melbourne, author’s own image
  2. Melbourne data: project category, author’s own image
  3. Melbourne data: all categories, author’s own image
  4. Victoria project data: all categories, author’s own image
  5. Hill House, design by Mihaly Slocombe, photo by Emma Cross
  6. Chamfer House, design by Mihaly Slocombe, photo by Andrew Latreille

The secret: do good work then put it where people can see it

This post is part 6 of an adaptation of How to Steal Like an Artist (and 9 Other Things Nobody Told Me)this engaging and instructive essay by Austin Kleon, a Texan artist and writer. Kleon states that “when people give you advice, they’re really just talking to themselves in the past.” What follows here is me talking to a previous version of myself, one 10 years younger, hopelessly naive and about to embark on a life in architecture.

6. The secret: do good work then put it where people can see it

Like it or not, buildings cost money, lots of money. Of all the arts, architecture is in many ways alone in this respect – concrete, timber, glass and steel all cost far more than the architect can afford himself. It doesn’t matter how good you are or how brilliant your ideas if you can’t find someone to pay for them to be built.

Knowing people with money and the need for architectural services is an important ingredient to starting an architectural practice, but so is having your work seen by your prospective clients, that is, the rest of the world.

In architecture, where word-of-mouth is king, your best advertising weapon is your work itself. So the not-so-secret secret is to do good work and put it where people can see it. The first step is hard yakka and there are no shortcuts – do work, seek feedback from your peers, improve, do more work. The second step used to be hard but is easier today than it has ever been, all thanks to the internet. Putting up your shingle (simply being available) and a handful of local architectural journals are no longer the only outlets for your work: there are online building databases, international awards programs and ideas competitions happening all the time, in every corner of the globe. Submit every project, both paper and realised, as often as you can and to as many places as you can – you never know where one good win will lead.

True story:

We submitted one of our finished projects, Hill House, for the House of the Year competition held by World Architecture News, an English architectural resource, where it was long-listed. A scout for a Canadian television show, World’s Greenest Homes, saw the project and contacted us via American social network, Facebook. After it aired, we received enquiries from potential clients across Australia – here in Melbourne, in Canberra and in Perth.

Do good work then put it where people can see it.

A kilometre is better than nothing

What is it?

The conflicting media reports about the Kingdom Tower in Jeddah, Saudia Arabia, have finally been resolved. An announcement on Tuesday by Prince Alwaleed, nephew of the country’s King Abdullah, confirmed that a tower by Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture (AS+GG) is to be built, though not to a height of 1 mile as originally rumoured, but a “mere” 1 kilometre.

The tower will still cost US$1.2 billion to build, and will comprise a hotel, serviced apartments, luxury condominiums, office space and the world’s highest observatory across 530,000sqm of floor area. It is part of the extensive Kingdom City project whose staggering 5.3 million square metre will total US$20 billion. AS+GG are in the process of assembling design development documents with contracts for sub-floor concreting works already let.

First seen on World Architecture News, here.

What do we think?

Saudi Arabia currently receives around three quarters of its budget revenue from its oil reserves. Thus it comes as no surprise that efforts are being made to diversify the economy via vast city-sized construction projects that will attempt to lure private industry from around the world. Indeed, AS+GG’s press statement on the Kingdom project states that “This tower symbolises the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] as an important global business and cultural leader… It represents new growth and high-performance technology fused into one powerful iconic form.”

On the subject of new growth, we are somewhat bemused to learn that AS+GG’s design inspiration for the tower is drawn from the folded fronds of young desert plant growth. Adrian Smith says, “With its slender, subtly asymmetrical massing, the tower evokes a bundle of leaves shooting up from the ground – a burst of new life that heralds more growth all around it.” Far more appropriate is the image of a sword, thrusting as far into the sky (and away from natural growth) as it can get.

This project is anything but soft. Formally, politically and economically it is a calculated attempt to buffet Saudi Arabia from the inevitable effects of peak oil. A kilometre may not be a mile, but it is better than nothing – whether or not it will be successful in diversifying the Kingdom’s economy and attracting new forms of private investment remains to be seen.

The Leaning Tower of Pisa

What is it?

The bell tower of the small Italian city, Pisa. The footings for the tower were originally only 3m deep and the soil upon which they were founded was very weak, dropping under one side of the tower and causing its globally famous lean. Construction of the tower took place across 177 years and 3 stages, beginning in 1173.

Subsidence in the soil was noticed as early as the first stage of construction, when only the ground floor of the tower was finished. Fortunately, Pisa became distracted by a series of conflicts with surrounding towns, halting construction for a century or so and inadvertently allowing the soil to settle and stabilise. The lean was there to stay however. Giovanni di Simone, the architect for the second stage of construction, went so far as to design the upper floors of the tower with one side taller than the other in an effort to compensate for the lean. As a result, the tower is slightly curved along its height.

First seen in an article on World Architecture News, here, the tower has been in the news recently after the removal of scaffolding that has surrounded various parts of the tower for the past 20 years. After almost AU$40m of stabilisation and painstaking restoration works, the tower is once again fully open to the public.

What do we think?

The various efforts at stabilisation that have taken place over the years are a story in and of themselves: in 1964, 800 tonnes of lead weights were added to the raised side of the tower’s base to counterbalance the soft soil; in 1987, the heavy bells were removed from the tower, post-tensioned cables were tied around the 3rd storey and anchored to the ground, and 38 cubic metres of soil were removed from the tower’s base.

All up, considerable expense and effort have been directed at preserving the improbable lean that has made the tower famous, earned it UNESCO protection and entices a million tourists to visit it each year. We find this amusing and quintessentially Italian: the Leaning Tower of Pisa is a beautiful but otherwise unremarkable bell tower, internationally famous because it was built with flawed and seriously under-engineered footings.

Mile high tower in Jeddah

(The Burj Khalifa, Dubai, currently the world’s tallest building)

What is it?

Seen in an article on The Age online yesterday, here, the proposed 1.6km tall Kingdom Tower in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, is set to surpass the Burj Khalifa by almost 800m. Designed by Chicago architecture firm Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture (AS+GG), the tower recently received planning approval and was unveiled by members of the Saudi royal family last week. It will contain hotels, offices, apartments and a shopping centre – all up, 3.53 million square metres of space with a construction budget of a cool AU$28.5 billion.

Strangely, World Architecture News posted an article a week ago, here, quoting the director of public relations at AS+GG, Kevin Nance. Nance denied that the practice is working on the project and asserted that the consortium behind it have not yet named an architect.

What do we think?

We are not sure what to make of the conflicting reports surrounding this project, but regardless of whether or not it is real, we remain unimpressed by the long-running race to build  the tallest tower in the world. The Burj Khalifa, also designed by AS+GG, was completed in early 2010 – assuming a documentation and construction period for the Kingdom Tower of 4 years, it will have held the title for a mere 5 years. Surely $28.5 billion is a lot to invest in what is surely doomed to be yet another short-lived claim to tallest tower in the world?