What’s an architect to do?

The suburb of Daglish in Perth, Western Australia has much green space in the form of roadside verges, parks, dog-friendly parks and playing fields.

Many homes are large and relatively new and this relatively new double-story typology has an entrance, a double-car garage and possibly a master bedroom across the width of the block but, here and there are clusters of two-storey deck access flats that are almost invariably in cream colored brick with a metal deck roof. They’re not flash and there’s only minor variations in plan. see below. Lower level is direct access from the car parking area at the rear. The upper has concrete steps up to an open access corridor. The bedroom will face either a balcony or a terrace/balcony accessed from the living room.

One curious feature of many of these developments is that they’re either close to or overlook significant green spaces. Normally, you’d expect unlovely properties like these to have been redeveloped long ago but this hasn’t happened because these flats are now freehold owned (known as strata title, in Australia) and most likely are rental properties tenanted by someone other than the owner. Many have a disjunction between the rear side where there is often car-parking asphalt up to the lower level windows, and the street side that, more often than not, looks over parkland. Below are two examples of what I mean. In the first example, that lower level balcony I can’t imagine ever being used. Every time I pass it, I try to imagine myself sitting there and looking at the pleasant park across the street. The rear of the second example is similarly grim but the front looks onto a wide street very shaded by large Moreton Bay Fig trees, and across the street is a school playing field ringed by yet more mature trees.

One of these blocks of flats caught my eye. It was on a corner lot, with some large native trees on three sides as well as across the street. There’s a small park to the east.

Some real estate websites claim it was built in 2003 but I’ve a feeling 1963 is closer to the truth. Those faucets in the kitchen of one unit for sale, for example, are of a type I remember. They were still thought modern in the 1970, would have been thought old fashioned in 1980 and decidely retro now.

The L-shaped development is on a corner and consists of two two-storey buildings of deck access flats. Brick walls, concrete slabs and metal deck roof. The site is atypical in having many large native trees along the streets. In the 1960s, landscaping would have consisted of whatever trees there were and a bare lawn between the building and the street verge. Over 60 years, the trees have of course grown.

The rear of the property has the open deck access, the car parking area, and a shared laundry and clothes lines. This is another indicator of the age of the building. Even modern “automatic” washing machines would be fairly noisy for neighbors in a building of this type of construction, so the laundry has probably always been there.

Units for sale will have always been painted white throughout, including the wall between the living room and the bedroom that was originally an exposed “feature” wall. Light fittings, flooring, bathroom tiles and kitchen cupboards and equipment are not original. The following photos show you everything you need to know about the layout and the interior. All have been taken in that Cinerama perspective favoured by property agents.

Now I’ve arranged the furniture, it’s time to get on with what this post is all about. I can’t find an image of this building from 1963 and probably none were taken. As I’ve said, the street side of the building probably had a somewhat forlorn looking front lawn and a few trees but somebody, and I suspect some well-intentioned architect, gave the front of the block a makeover that included the following.

• Adding a rock wall to the left side of the entrance approach.
• Adding a entry gateway to make the entrance more of an event.
• Adding grilles and possibly an entryphone system to make the place more secure.

• Removing the front lawn and replacing it with landscaping that uses low-maintenance native plants only.
• Adding a large concrete balcony to increase the private amenity space of the units but especially the upper ones.

It’s these last two changes and particularly the last one that caught my eye because it is the major cost item. It’s not bad. The new landscaping is full-on and the new plantings are fully mature. The concrete work looks well-made, I understand the engineering and construction involved, and the design does all the right things like avoiding the white (“ghost”) gum trees that are probably older than Australia. The middle image below is probably as good as it gets for a zero-maintenance garden. It’s not so different from natural bushland.

First of all, I’m curious that these attempts to increase property value happened at all. Australians are generally not good at communal property. Getting perhaps fourteen homeowners to agree on these improvements (and their degrees of contribution to it) can’t have been easy. In Australia, any strata title development for multiple occupation is administered by an entity with the dreadful name of Body Corporate. This the body responsible for maintenance and maintenance fees and also for setting rules regarding what can be placed on balconies so it is visible from the street. Drying laundry is a definite no-no. As are any alterations or makeshift additions that would alter the appearance of the property from the street. The contrived yet controlled irregularity of the letterboxes hints at an an awareness of unity in diversity that was probably how this balcony idea was sold to the respective owners. Each property has about 20 sq.m of outdoor space which is probably 15 more than it had before.

Yet, the value of each of these properties remains about AUS$700,000 with an estimated weekly rental income of AUS$460 which is about the same as the unimproved properties across the street and the immediate area. It’s easy to understand how owners and occupiers will appreciate the enhanced security and the low-maintenance landscaping. It’s difficult to see what value the balcony addition is adding for they are all unused. I can’t work out why.

Plusses

1. The concrete balconies are attractive in a 20-century architecture kind of way. I don’t mind how they look, even if they are not the work of someone who admires Lacaton & Vassal.
2. The outdoor amenity space of each unit has been increased by 300%
3. The trees are evergreen. The upper level units have a better view of the trees.
4. The landscaping creates visual barrier and perhaps a sense of privacy between the units and the footpath and street.
5. The large space can be used in more ways.

Minuses

1. The concrete balconies are made of concrete, which is grey, and many people simply don’t like the look of concrete.
2. The outdoor amenity space of each unit is not used despite it being four times as large. In summer, the concrete will be a huge heat sink radiating heat both up and down and well into the evening when the space needs to be used the most. The huge trees will block some sun but not as much as you think since eucalyptus trees famously have leaves that hang vertically so as to not absorb too much sun.
3. Evergreen trees shed leaves all year round. The upper level units now have no view of the street.
4. The sense of privacy is not much more than there would have been before.
5. The large space can be used in more ways, but it is not. Body corporate rules may prohibit the placement and use of barbeques, for example. Tellingly, there are no tables and chairs on the lower level spaces. Similar properties nearby have such signs of life and use.

This last one is, I think, important. Even the small outdoor spaces of nearby properties have two chairs and a small table and are being used as an alternative place to sit and look at the street, the trees and whoever’s passing by. It’s a simple pleasure. It’s difficult to tell if this is a matter of lack of privacy, or too much of it. These outdoor areas aren’t thresholds.

At first I thought it might be a matter of sunlight because the larger street runs north-south. The balconies therefore face west but this next image shows the building around 5pm on a mid-winter’s day. In Australia and particularly on the west coast, west sun in summer is generally to be avoided. These balconies just might be a pleasant place to be at certain times in certain months. It’s still a mystery. It’s tough being an architect.

02 August 2026, 14:47
Thanks to Brett Mitchell who let me know who the architect was. In the comments below, you’ll see it was Patrick Miller of Finespun Architecture. The improvements I mentioned above were part of a series of projects you can find out more about here http://www.finespun.com.au/project/jolimont-apartments

• • •