ARCHITECTS behind two of the world’s newest legislative assemblies say it is time to consider debating the design of spaces for political discourse.
The territory of Nunavut’s consensus government and circular legislature and the National Assembly for Wales’ similar arrangement of members represent two of the most modern attempts at debating chambers.
Lead architects from both projects said the traditional British Westminster approach of two opposing sides of a chamber now had room for change and variation.
Bruce Allan, senior partner with The Arcop Group1 based in Montreal, was lead architect behind the Nunavut Legislative Building in Iqaluit and is involved in the ongoing renovation of the West Block on Parliament Hill in Ottawa2.
He said the unique circular design was essential to the Inuit tradition of decisions by consensus, incorporated into the form of the Nunavut Legislature.
“Their tradition,” he said, “doesn’t require the official opposition, the ‘official disagreers’, to be defined. With the southern system, the moment you’re a member of the opposition, you’re duty bound to disagree with the government whether or not you really disagree with them, you’re there as a check and balance.
“With the smaller number of members in the Inuit [legislature], disagreements can be raised by anyone and there isn’t the party discipline issue that frustrates our MPs in Ottawa.”
Ivan Harbour, partner in Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners3, said the same problems with Westminster’s confrontational design in London, England, that prompted the alternative circular Welsh layout in the capital Cardiff, are still present.
With the UK’s first coalition government in decades, Mr Harbour said it was worth a public debate about the space in which politicians argue and reach consensus, and that there was room within Westminster to create a new space, if politicians and the public decided something new was needed.
Mr Harbour, director in charge of the team behind the Assembly, warned against the “auditorium” style of the European Parliament’s hemicycle4 which more for presentations than debate.
He said: “There is a debate that should be had about the way our parliament works or how the place influences parliamentary behaviours.
“There have been a lot of criticism about it for a very long time and we should always have the debate.
“We should not just accept that Westminster is the right answer. It might be the right answer. Even though it’s historic, it does allow a dynamic parliament.
“But we should have the debate and get politicians to recognise that architecture can help shape environments.
“It’s very difficult to get politicians to say a space works well because it’s well conceived.”
Original Article
Source: tomorrow.is
Author: Tristan Stewart-Robertson
The territory of Nunavut’s consensus government and circular legislature and the National Assembly for Wales’ similar arrangement of members represent two of the most modern attempts at debating chambers.
Lead architects from both projects said the traditional British Westminster approach of two opposing sides of a chamber now had room for change and variation.
Bruce Allan, senior partner with The Arcop Group1 based in Montreal, was lead architect behind the Nunavut Legislative Building in Iqaluit and is involved in the ongoing renovation of the West Block on Parliament Hill in Ottawa2.
He said the unique circular design was essential to the Inuit tradition of decisions by consensus, incorporated into the form of the Nunavut Legislature.
“Their tradition,” he said, “doesn’t require the official opposition, the ‘official disagreers’, to be defined. With the southern system, the moment you’re a member of the opposition, you’re duty bound to disagree with the government whether or not you really disagree with them, you’re there as a check and balance.
“With the smaller number of members in the Inuit [legislature], disagreements can be raised by anyone and there isn’t the party discipline issue that frustrates our MPs in Ottawa.”
Ivan Harbour, partner in Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners3, said the same problems with Westminster’s confrontational design in London, England, that prompted the alternative circular Welsh layout in the capital Cardiff, are still present.
With the UK’s first coalition government in decades, Mr Harbour said it was worth a public debate about the space in which politicians argue and reach consensus, and that there was room within Westminster to create a new space, if politicians and the public decided something new was needed.
Mr Harbour, director in charge of the team behind the Assembly, warned against the “auditorium” style of the European Parliament’s hemicycle4 which more for presentations than debate.
He said: “There is a debate that should be had about the way our parliament works or how the place influences parliamentary behaviours.
“There have been a lot of criticism about it for a very long time and we should always have the debate.
“We should not just accept that Westminster is the right answer. It might be the right answer. Even though it’s historic, it does allow a dynamic parliament.
“But we should have the debate and get politicians to recognise that architecture can help shape environments.
“It’s very difficult to get politicians to say a space works well because it’s well conceived.”
Original Article
Source: tomorrow.is
Author: Tristan Stewart-Robertson
No comments:
Post a Comment