Tee Square Journal, Phi, Aspect, and Aedicule: The Publications of the Architectural Students Association of Western Australia

ABSTRACT

This paper explores four publications produced by the Architectural Students Association of Western Australia (ASAWA), and the shifting intellectual contexts in which they were created. Between 1937 and 1961, the ASAWA published three independent journals, each of which reflected a particular moment of student activity and the ambitions of a distinct, yet related, student group. Tee Square Journal (1937), Phi (1950–1953), and Aedicule (1960–1961), along with a guest edited issue of the national broadsheet Aspect (1952), were part of a suite of student journals that were produced across Australasia but which have so far largely evaded scholarly attention. Through an exploration of these publications, and the context which underpinned their creation, this paper contributes to a growing understanding of student activity in Australasia, particularly as it unfolded before the well-known global ferment of the late 1960s.

Keywords:

• architectural history
• western australian history
• architectural publications
• student activism

Introduction

In November 1937 the first issue of the Tee Square Journal was published, opening with a rallying call-to-arms from editor Harry Downes:

The Students of to-day are the architects of to-morrow. For years, many young men studying architecture drifted through studenthood in a blissful haze of architectural illusion, coming to earth with a crash when, at the conclusion of their indentures, they were confronted with the painfully hard facts of life, and that that architecture involved very much more than the mere art of graphical representation of domestic structures.¹

Tee Square Journal was the first publication produced by the Architectural Association of Western Australia, a student organisation which had formed in 1921. These opening lines signalled the intentions of a new generation of students who were grappling with the shifting responsibilities of the architect in society alongside an increasingly urgent desire to embrace modernity and the new world. Downes, like many of his contemporaries, died tragically in the coming War. But his words would set the tone for successive groups of architectural students in Western Australia long into the twentieth-century as they looked to take control of their own professional destinies.

For all the power and ambition of Downes’ statement, the activities and publications of architectural student groups in the first half of the twentieth-century have largely evaded scholarly attention. Their absence is made sharper given the significance placed upon later student activities that unfolded in the radical atmosphere of the late 1960s and 70s. Recently scholarship has emerged to redress this. This work has shown not just how active these student groups were in both publishing and organisational efforts, but also in identifying that the radicalism of the 1960s often had its roots in these early prior formations. The work of Elizabeth Darling, Clive Fenton, and Patrick Zamarian have been chief amongst this effort in a UK context, while Philip Goad has examined this in an Australian context through identifying the extensive publishing efforts of the Victorian Architectural Students Society (VASS).² This paper makes a significant contribution to this growing body of scholarship through documenting for the first time the activities of various incarnations of architectural students associations in Western Australia. In particular, this paper looks at four publications that were produced by student associations between 1937 and 1961, and the shifting contexts from which they emerged.³ These include three self-published journals, Tee Square Journal (1937), Phi (1950–1953), Aedicule (1960–1961), along with a guest edited issue of the national student broadsheet Aspect (1952).

On the one hand, this paper embarks upon a straightforward historical account of four student journals produced by the architectural student associations of Western Australia. More broadly though, this paper seeks to use the production of these journals, and the context which produced them, as an entry point into an examination of the nature of student activity in Australia prior to 1960. In this sense, the journals act as a physical index and marker for concurrent waves of student activity for which otherwise few traces remain. As Goad and Darling have shown, the journal was the leading tool which students before 1960 had at their disposal to broadcast their discontent and cast their identity.⁴ While later students would use publications, protests, and building projects in concert, students before 1960 relied much more on publications and formal congresses. These journals, which were newly affordable to produce and distribute, became a focal point around which student groups could assemble. They emboldened students to funnel their ambitions, discontent, and critique into a physical object which they could distribute far and wide. Their publication directly reflected the environment which produced them, and as objects, these journals provide a tangible entry point through which to examine the complexity of the student experience in Australia before 1960.

Through an investigation into the activities of Western Australian architecture students associations, their publishing ambitions, and the student networks which produced them, this paper identifies a number of issues which underscored the student experience of this period. These include a growing interest in modernity, dissatisfaction with the Institute, early attempts at staging protests, and a desire to distinguish themselves professionally. But primarily, it locates a strong, independent student culture that developed in the educational vacuum created by the slow and drawn-out formation of a formal diploma course in Perth which was not instituted until 1946.

Through an examination of student publishing endeavours, the paper also uncovers for the first time the nascent foundations of a unified national student body in Australia. The Architecture Faculty Bureau (AFB), and an associated series of congresses which took place from the late 1940s, both emerged under the aegis of the National Union of Australian University Students (NUAUS). Around the activities of the AFB and the NUAUS, the discovery of student networks which traversed the country, and the globe, begin to emerge. Student journals from across Australia and internationally were circulated among dispersed student groups, while architectural students were criss-crossing the country and New Zealand, attending conferences, sharing drawings and publications. There was national exchange between student groups for more than a decade before the initiation of the Australasian Architecture Students Association (AASA) in the early 1960s, and the production of these journals would provide a key vehicle for WA students to engage in a national discourse.

This paper leans heavily on textual analysis of these journals for its source material, supported by a series of oral histories conducted with those connected to the journals. Despite being some of the most active and intellectually engaged members of the profession, the activities of this generation of architectural students have proven surprisingly difficult to trace. So many of their actions were ephemeral and haphazardly recorded, with little ambition to document their activities for posterity. For all the minute taking, event hosting, and lecture series that the Perth students ran between 1930 and 1960, almost no trace of them remains. This leaves the publications and oral history accounts as the primary source material available to reconstruct this period. The paper is a chronological account broken up into three parts, which correspond to each of the different iterations of the student journals. Tee Square Journal, produced in 1937, Phi and Aspect, both produced between 1950 and 1953, and finally Aedicule, which was produced in 1960–61.

The Foundation of the Architectural Students’ Association of Western Australia

There are very few cities of any importance in the world that do not provide some form of training outside actual office experience and the lack of this facility has long been reflected in the standard of “present-day” architecture in Western Australia.⁵ —William Thomas Leighton, 1937.

As leading architect and prominent public figure William Leighton bemoaned, by the end of the 1930s the lack of formal education for architects in Western Australia was a source of constant frustration, and had become somewhat of a strawman for much of the state’s perceived architectural failings. It had been a subject of continual debate within the profession, particularly since the passing of The Architects Act in 1922 which enabled provision for the registration of architects, and in effect cemented the professional status of architecture in the state.⁶ Unlike other states, who also enacted similar Acts at the same time, this professionalisation did not lead to a formal education offering and it was not until 1946 that a formal diploma course in architecture was instated at the Perth Technical College (PTC). By then it was the last the state in Australia to do so.⁷ Until 1946 Western Australia relied entirely on the articled system for architectural training, which saw prospective students indentured to senior architects before sitting examinations and registering with the Institute.⁸ The educational offerings within the state at the beginning of the twentieth century were seen as inadequate—there were occasional classes on offer, including a series of lectures on architecture given within the Bachelor of Engineering at UWA which articled students were able to attend, but little else.⁹ Continued attempts to introduce alternatives did not last.¹⁰ This was matched by a lack of publicly available books which students could use to study for the registration exams, with most students having to rely instead on the generosity of private collections to get their information.¹¹ The poor state of education within the state, particularly given the advances made in the national context, would be the catalyst for the formation of a local student association as an attempt to take control of their own education.

In early 1921, as The Architects Act was being debated in parliament, seven student members of the Institute formed the Architectural Students’ Association of Western Australia (ASAWA), colloquially known as the “Architectural Association” or simply “the Association.”¹² This echoed the development of similar student organisations across the country, most notably VASS in Victoria and the South Australian Architectural Students’ Association (SAASA). ¹³ The group quickly grew and by July 1921 there were already twelve members.¹⁴ While there were a range of motivations guiding the formation of the group, J. M. Freeland ascribes the impetus for the association as being for “the sole purpose of having classes of instruction instituted at the Perth Technical College.”¹⁵ Like others around the country, the Association was formed under the auspices of the Royal Institute of Australian Architects, WA Chapter (RAIAWA), and were initially closely aligned. The Institute openly acknowledged the lack of available education, and together they worked to improve the educational offerings in the state. The Association conducted their meetings within the Institute’s office and the Institute assisted by arranging informal competitions, design critiques, site visits and lectures for the students.¹⁶ The ASAWA was an initial success and participation from both parties was enthusiastic, but this was short lived. In 1924 the President of the Institute, E. Cohen lamented:

The Architectural Students’ Association has, we fear, made but poor progress during the past year, mainly on the account of dilatory methods and laik [sic] of enthusiasm, but at the moment there are signs of renewed interest being taken by its members, and we hope that during the current year much good work may be accomplished.¹⁷

Throughout the 1920s, the Association limped along. Although the numbers of members steadily increased, the general interest and aspirations of the group remained low. This was a period marked by the rapidly diverging opinions on teaching methods and architectural ideas between the students and the older generation of practicing architects. This would be a constant source of frustration, particularly as an interest in modernism filtered through to the young student body.¹⁸ By the start of the 1930s the project was picked up again by a new group of students, and a campaign for the overhaul of the education system was reignited. The most influential of these was efforts was the formation of The Perth Architectural Atelier, an uncredited course led by K. Murray Forster which was run out of various rooms across PTC and the UWA Engineering School.¹⁹ The Atelier began in 1933 and gradually folded in 1940.

The Atelier was a brief success, but it was not a formal course at PTC. It was instead a series of night classes and supplementary lectures. It was against this backdrop that by about 1935 the Association began to change its approach. From this point onwards they shifted from what was essentially a lobby group agitating for formal education, to a more cohesive and organised club with a wide range of priorities and commitments, chiefly concerned with the ongoing success of the student cohort. They became increasingly vocal within the architectural community and worked hard to promote the work of their members. It is at this point that the Association began to assert an autonomy from the Institute in move which would only escalate until there was a complete breakdown of relationship by the late 1950s. This push for autonomy was largely driven by this continued frustration of the student group over a lack of any progress in the provision of a diploma course.

The Association turned their attention to building a tight-knit community of students and created an active social and professional network that would have soon have considerable influence within the profession. They maintained their distance from the Institute and carved out a clear space in which to learn together and progress the discipline in the way they saw fit. Outside of the Atelier, the Association began to organise regular social events which were significant for their ability to draw together the small group of student architects within the city. Initially these were sporting matches, but soon included a series of major parties and events. Most notable of these was the short-lived Annual Meal,²⁰ and the T Square Ball, which became a hugely popular social event in Perth which took place in May each year, a tradition which began in 1929 and still runs to the present day (Figure 1).²¹ These events had the effect of galvanising the growing student body, and acted as a foil to the more serious operations of the group as they continued to push for improved education standards. But it also cemented the Association as a prominent group within the burgeoning Perth cultural community. The fourth T Square Ball, held in 1933, had over 250 attendees and by 1941 had over 400.²² It soon became a key event on the Perth social calendar that reached far beyond the architectural community. These events became a crucial aspect of the Association’s activities and helped to build a robust and active student group with a prominent voice within the Perth cultural scene. Once the diploma course was eventually brought in these social events became central to the continued success and operation of the Association well into the twentieth century.²³

Figure 1. Poster for the T square ball, 1938. Private collection, Geoffrey London.

The First Student Journal: Tee Square Journal

The newfound independence of the Association from this period is perhaps best illustrated by their decision to produce a journal, Tee Square Journal: The Official Organ of the Architectural Association of Western Australia, as the association was then called, which was published in November 1937 (Figure 2).²⁴ The journal laid out the intentions of the group which now had formal office bearers and a membership list of more than 40 students. The journal was created, in words of editor H. W. Downes ‘“to provide a common outlet and a source of knowledge for the benefit of students—to form a permanent record of business transactions, social functions, sporting engagements, and of all other items of interest to our profession.”²⁵

Figure 2. Cover of the Tee Square Journal, 1937. Warwick Broomfield papers, State Library of Western Australia, ACC 5053A/7.

Downes, who was also the honorary secretary at the time, clearly uses the editorial to decisively lay out a new direction for the student body, using language befitting the decidedly modern ambitions of the association:

For years the organization has plodded along in a lethargic trance but now the ancient order hath fallen before the new, and a fresh generation is rising from the ruins of the old regime … The Students of to-day are the architects of to-morrow. For years, many young men studying architecture drifted through studenthood in a blissful haze of architectural illusion, coming to earth with a crash when, at the conclusion of their indentures, they were confronted with the painfully hard facts of life, and that that architecture involved very much more than the mere art of graphical representation of domestic structures.²⁶

Beyond this charged editorial, the rest of the journal is rather more straightforward. Unlike many of its international contemporaries who used their journals as a tool in the fight for modernism and a clarion call for action, the production of the journal was evidently seen more as a platform for communal engagement.²⁷ There is information about the latest recipient of student awards, a selection of recent modern inflected student designs and sketches, along with a comic theatrical script and a short definition of surrealism. It also demonstrates that despite the growing tension, the Association were still closely linked with the Institute. The journal opens with a preface from the President Reginald Summerhayes, along with a short history of the student association written by A. R. L. Wright, the so called “father of the Institute” having been instrumental in passing The Architects Act of 1922 through parliament.²⁸ The editor Downes still refers to the ASAWA as a “junior branch” of the Institute, and some brief Institute news is included given that this student journal preceded the RAIAWA’s own journal by two years. There is particularly strong social section in the journal, comprising a Sports Page, Class Notes and Ex-Students’ Notes, which indicates where the Association’s interests lay. It is evident that the journal functioned as both a clarion call for change and an internal newsletter, and that the act of producing a journal was as much an end goal as the content. For a student journal, the Tee Square Journal had a surprisingly high production value, which was aided by the selling of advertising space. Almost every second page features either a full-page advert or two half page spaces predominantly featuring local building manufacturers including Bristile bricks, Plasterite ceilings, and Titanic paints, along with a prominent ad for the leading department store Harris, Scarfe and Sandovers.

While specific frustrations with the education system in Western Australia may have precipitated the need for a journal, the production of Tee Square Journal placed the Association in dialogue with a group of international student bodies who sought to assert their independence through publications. This was part of a wider movement in the interwar years in which students realised the potential of the magazine as a site of intense exchange and discursive formation.²⁹ Globally, the mid-1930s was a period of student unrest and upheaval within architecture schools, which as Philip Goad notes, largely grew out of a recognition by students of “the growing gulf between the conservative nature of their educational institutions and the increasing adoption of modernism worldwide.”³⁰ Student journals became important spaces for intellectual engagement outside of the classroom and became key arenas in which modernity could be explored by young architects. As Stephen Parnell and Mark Sawyer discuss in their article on architectural journals, with their low cost and ability to operate outside the establishment, they became an “egalitarian and accessible” space “in which a shared idea of architecture is constructed.”³¹ Early attempts to use student journals as critical space to explore modernity and construct identities emerged in the UK. These included the Northern Architectural Students’ Association’s NASA Journal which was first published in 1937 out of Manchester, and FOCUS, 1938, produced by students from the London Architectural Association.³² This was followed by TASK produced by students at Harvard in 1941. In Australia, the Victorian Architectural Students Society had been publishing a journal since 1908, but in 1932 it dramatically shifted direction with a new name, LINES. This was followed in 1939 by the new VASS newsletter Smudges. These publications were not common, and it appears that only a handful were produced by student associations around the western world in the years just before World War II broke out. This makes the activities of the WA students Association highly unusual and identifies the Tee Square Journal as contemporary with the earliest examples internationally. The use of the print medium by Perth students as a means to facilitate change indicates their contemporary engagement and alignment with the ambitions of like-minded student bodies both nationally and internationally. As Elizabeth Darling described of the impetus driving the students to first produce FOCUS, the editors understood that “writing can be a significant force for change in a discourse as apparently as materialist as architecture.”³³ The editors of Tee Square Journal clearly understood this and it would be an idea that was continually championed by successive groups of students in Western Australia across the twentieth century.

The Interruption of War and ‘Ye Stoodents’ Column’ in The Architect

The Tee Square Journal only lasted for a single issue, and was replaced, at least in the short term, by the arrival in June 1939 of The Architect, the official chapter journal of the RAIAWA. The Architect provided generous space in each issue for the Association to publish a notes column, affectionately called “Ye Stoodents” Column’ in the first issue (Figure 3). Why the Tee Square Journal folded after one issue is unclear, and whether funding issues, personnel changes, or increasing wartime pressure were contributing factors. But evidently with the significant space now allocated to them in the Institutes main journal, and with the looming threat of a new war, there was seemingly no need for a separate student journal. Indeed, the students’ column in The Architect carried on much the same as the Tee Square Journal. It was primarily social updates and various student gossip—sporting results, engagements, travel plans, recaps of parties—supplemented by the occasional opinion piece.

Figure 3. “Ye stoodents’ column” header image. The architect 1, no.1 (1939): 26.

As the war effort continued, the activities of Association members were naturally reduced. Through these difficult years, the Association continued to attract new members and worked on strengthening the social function of the society, particularly while many of its key members were now overseas and engaged in the war effort. Almost the only proactive thing that could be done during the wartime period, these social events would prove to be fruitful and they helped the Association emerge from the war in a healthy position.³⁴ For the duration of the war, they held regular card nights and sporting events—many under the guise of fundraising for the Red Cross—along with the Tee Square Balls and exhibitions, which tied the society together in difficult circumstances.³⁵

If nothing else, the war years seemed to have accelerated the interest of the Association to further its distance from the Institute. There was evidently little else to do apart from socialise and continually question the Institute in their own journal about a diploma course which would seemingly never eventuate. Higgin Zink, a pseudonym of an unidentified member of the Association who penned the students’ column in The Architect, opened the March 1941 student column with one of these provocations: “The time has come to take up the cudgel again. Another year has started and still there is no sign of an architectural course in Western Australia. All the good work done in recent years by the students in the hope of starting a course has again come to nought, in much the same fashion as the proposals of other times.”³⁶ A year later the President of the Students Association for 1941–42 Robert Blatchford penned a scathing letter, published in The Architect, which asked, “Is the Institute committing Harakiri?”

Although few realise it, unless some radical changes are made very shortly in the architectural educational system of this State the already thinning ranks of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects will become invisible, and that body will cease to exist altogether… Examine the record of the Institute over the past few years. There was no quorum at the 1941 annual general meeting; no general meetings are held because no one seems sufficiently interested to attend; no, or at any rate few, students after qualifying at the Board’s examination bother to further their acquaintance with the Institute, and no members seem very vitally affected by the above state of affairs; in short, its numbers and powers are decreasing and no one is taking the trouble (or is it interest?) to alter the present trend of events.

The Architectural Students’ Association is, on the other hand, a live organization, having its own classes, outings and functions—it has good attendances at its meetings, whether annual or general, and its annual T-Square Ball is now one of the most popular functions of the year. Ignoring the war effects—these apply equally to both bodies—why is it then that there is such a marked contrast in the spirit of the two kindred bodies, and what can be done to arouse enthusiasm in the older organization?”³⁷

A reading of the student column over the war years indicates that the relationship between the student body and the Institute had considerably soured. The missive’s launched by the leading members of the Association serves to show the increasing desire for autonomy by the Association and the distance it would work to maintain from the Institute going forward.

A New Student Body Emerges

With the cessation of war, the diploma course was eventually introduced at PTC in 1946. In the end the arrival of the diploma course had nothing to do with the lobbying of the student body. Rather, the Institute’s hand was forced on the matter having finally joined the national body, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA), which required the provision of a nationally recognised diploma course as a matter of admission.³⁸ In February 1946 PTC welcomed the first students into this newly formed five year course, which allowed them to graduate with an Associateship in Architecture and be eligible for automatic registration with the Architects Registration Board of WA (ARBWA).³⁹ The course consisted of two years full-time study and then three part-time study. In the final three years the students would attend class one day a week, along with two night classes, while working four days a week in a local practice as architectural assistants.⁴⁰ The school was headed by William Hayden Robertson (1905–1953), or Robbie as he was affectionately known, who had been appointed as the inaugural Lecturer in Charge. Robertson was supported by full-time assistants Arnold Camerer and Alan Douglas and was shortly joined by Margaret Pitt-Morison.⁴¹

The arrival of the diploma course meant that the student association again changed tack in response, and it appeared, at least in the first instance, to have repaired some of the relationship between the students and the Institute. No longer were the student columns in The Architect filled with despair and disappointment in the Institute, and they instead focused their efforts on refreshing the Association. This effort was aided by an entirely new cohort of post-war students who were now in charge, and they were evidently keen to move beyond the defensive outlook of the war time association, and to focus on the future and the positive building up of the group.

This meant that the student Association of the late 1940s had become a well-oiled machine and were increasingly professional in their efforts. They met regularly in the Institute offices, kept detailed minutes for each meeting and had a rotating roster of appointed officers.⁴² They had regular debating and lecture sessions, film evenings, and organised a series of bigger social events supported by the annual membership fees. They began their own library, stocked with books purchased through membership fees and other donations.⁴³ In line with their increased presence and professionalisation, the association soon turned their efforts to the production of a magazine which could represent this newly charged student body. The arrival of the journal was much anticipated, and its progress charted through the students columns in the lead up to its release.⁴⁴ Peter Arney, then the Association’s secretary, noted:

It has been suggested that we revive the pre-war magazine, “T Square Journal,” and thus have a medium which would aid us in our education and developments as future Architects, and at the same time, bring our activities and difficulties, to a greater extent, before practicing Architects.⁴⁵

The Arrival of Phi

In February 1950 the much anticipated first issue of the revived Tee Square Journal arrived, now named Phi. A product of the newly enthused student group, and the enormous hard work and dedication of the inaugural editor, Eustace Gresley (Gres) Cohen, Phi reflected the generational and cultural shift which had occurred in the 13 years since the Tee Square Journal (Figure 4). There was a new name for the student group, The Architectural Students Association of Western Australia (ASAWA) complete with a distinct logo. While drawing cues from its predecessor, Phi was a distinctly modern and professionally produced journal. It retained the same octavo size as the Tee Square Journal, but the design and layout of the journal was thoroughly contemporary. The cover was a baby blue colour with a stylised lowercase “phi” symbol splashed across the front, with the name of the association and the date in a carefully spaced serif font running up the side of the cover. It was a striking cover, and one that signalled the new identity of the Association.

Figure 4. Phi: Journal of the Architectural Students Association of W.A issues 1, 2, 3. Private Collection, Geoffrey London.

This was reflected within the journal itself. The arrival of Phi, and the language that it uses to rally the new student body, signalled a new era for the student association. It was to be progressive, active, and would agitate loudly for change within the profession and the education sector. By invoking the spirit of the Tee Square Journal, it is evident that this new group of post-war students retained the idea that publications would be a key pillar of their activities, and central to the ongoing success of the student body. Cohen emphasised this idea in his stirring first editorial:

Whilst following similar lines to its predecessor, the “Tee Square Journal,” published prior to the War, the editorial staff has done its utmost to raise the standard of “PHI” in keeping with the progressive outlook which the Association inspires, and it is to be hoped that by this publication an even greater interest will be created among the students … Students are not just slaves to study but are enthusiastic and critical members of the profession. Their outlook is not purely critical nor merely abject. Their aim is to build up a publication which will perhaps not in this edition, nor the next, but in the future be able to aid and abet Architects in creating a consciousness among the public as to what good architecture means to the community.⁴⁶

The journal was produced entirely by the student body, led by the editor Cohen, whose enthusiasm for the project would be central to its success. Like its predecessor, Phi had surprisingly high production values for a student journal, and was financed by a substantive raft of advertising from local manufacturers. Cohen was supported by Alan Shepherd as sub-editor, and six others responsible for reporting, photography and administration.⁴⁷ Phi’s initial issue was again prefaced with a letter of support from the Institute, written by President John Fitzhardinge, indicating at least some level of mutual respect for each other had been restored. This would be the only non-student contribution to the journal, apart from an article written by the head of PTC, Robertson who was so beloved by the students he was almost seen as one of their own.⁴⁸ Otherwise it was an entirely student-led production, from arranging the content, sourcing the advertising, setting the print schedule and arranging distribution.

The first issue was a grab-bag of articles penned by the students. Robertson contributed an article on the name “Phi” and exploration of its allusions to geometry and proportion, and other articles covered everything from using “brainstorming” as a technique for furthering local discourse, the relationship between art and architecture, and piece by John White on the purity of naval architecture. There was a review of a recent house designed by former Association member Stanley Cann, features on new buildings around town, and musings on the student experience, office culture, and a technical article of heat transfer in glazing by Gwenyth Ewens. There was also a strange and offensive article about women in the workplace which reveals the rampant sexism that was present in the culture of the time. “Fairies in Architecture” written by “Pete” bemoans women in the architectural office as both distractions and slow, and he writes, “The ‘femme fatale’ in the Office treats her job with none of the seriousness of the male employee. During work hours 75%. [sic] of their mental cogitations are concerned in daydreaming over the new boy friend, the kind of perm they will have for next Saturday or the adorable little hat they saw at lunch-time.”⁴⁹

While a seemingly random collection of articles, the intention of the initiative was clear. It was to bring the student body together, to give them a voice within the industry, and to provide an arena for them to rehearse their professional duties outside of the drafting office and the classroom. Where the Tee Square Journal had been basically a newsletter for the Association to document student work and the going-ons of the Association, Phi was filled with critical pieces penned by the students. It was less about the activities of the Association, which were now relegated to the Students Column in The Architect, and was instead an independent vehicle aimed at promoting architectural change and stirring something within the student group.

Phi had more of a radical spirit, but its agenda was firmly tailored to the architectural issues facing Perth. Whereas the students of the leading UK student journal PLAN wanted “nothing less than a revolution”⁵⁰ the students behind Phi were more concerned with the practical realities of advancing the profession through the education of the broader public and the continual internal critiques of architectural practice. For some, the journal was a welcome addition to the otherwise stagnant professional discourse in the state but did not go far enough in its ambitions. Eric Leach, editor of The Architect and a strident supporter of the student body wrote, “future editions, it is hoped, will have a rather broader scope than the confines of Western Australian Architecture. A more critical review of local architectural work is expected from such a virile Student body.”⁵¹ Clearly Leach, and his contemporaries knew that a critically engaged student body would be crucial to the ongoing success and development of the local industry, and they were keen to advance their cause.

In January 1951 the second issue of Phi was published, and the editorial staff were largely carried over from the first issue. Cohen remained editor, supported by sub-editor, Alan Shepherd, while Lidbury, McDonald, Arney and Grigg were also involved although their roles were slightly shuffled around. Added to the editorial staff were newcomers John White and Lex Hill. The issue contained a variety of content, including articles on the importance of architectural exhibitions, the art of freehand sketching, an examination of laminated wood, and another essay from Robertson on architectural photography. The centre piece of the issue was a 15-page spread of the final group thesis project produced by the first seven graduates from PTC for a housing settlement in Wanneroo.

The third and final issue of Phi was published in January 1953. This issue saw John White assume the role as editor, with John Duncan now his sub-editor. Following the same format and design as the previous two issues, this time with a bold green cover, the issue teems with the intentions of an increasingly confident and ambitious student body. Under White’s direction, the issue is defiantly more radical and outspoken in its tone than the previous two issues produced by Cohen, which had toed a careful line between professionalism and encouragement of the student body. In White’s editorial his tone is decisive:

It is at last possible to suggest that we of the Architectural Profession are approaching the end of the hysterical period which followed World War II, and are now doing some of the things that we have for so long been talking about. For the last six or seven years, we have had the architectural soap-boxers telling us and the layman, that things are not good enough, and we must strive for a truer and more logical Architecture and that a new order is upon us fully deserving of these wonderful aims. We were stirred; but having failed to rouse the minds of their neo-Victorian compatriots some of these urgers have dismounted their soapboxes and have begun to take their own advice.⁵²

With all its bombast, for White and the editorial staff, theirs was a practical radicalism, deeply rooted in the desire to transform and improve standards of architectural practice in Western Australia. There was little interest in the “art” of architecture or abstract ambitions for the future. Indeed, the issue produced by White was dominated by a passionate examination of building by laws which was seen as the pressing concern at the time. In an interview I conducted with White, he recalled the decidedly practical, but still revolutionary hopes of the editorial team at the time:

I killed off Phi by spending all its resources on the last issue in which we were going to change the world … The final edition of Phi that we wrote was an attempt to produce performance specifications through regulation—instead of just saying a ceiling must be 8 feet high you would have to give reasons for it being so. If you put a window in a wall you would have to have a reason to put it in a particular place to do with ventilation and movement of the sun and things like that. Which were not inherent in the local authority by laws which were all different according to who wrote them. We hoped to change the world as a result of that but it didn’t change.⁵³

The topic of by laws was explored in one long article which took up most of the issue, supplemented with a report on American bye laws written by Geoffrey Summerhayes upon his return from studying in America. The only other article was penned by Lex Hill on modern furniture, and the issue was rounded off with a parody advertisement and a reprint of a column by Howard Hodgens which had originally been published in the Victorian based Architecture and Arts. Despite the rousing editorial, as White described, with this issue of Phi the journal was indeed “killed off” and a fourth issue never materialised.

The three issues of Phi produced by the ASAWA reflect the concerns of architectural students in the years immediately following the end of the Second World War. A time still stultified with material rationing, labour shortages and the emotional toll of the war effort, yet underscored by a feeling of optimism and hope in peace time. The issues are full of the ambitions of a student body looking to the future, with a hope that the profession they were entering into could meet and reflect the desire for a post-war social and cultural revolution. They were pushing for an architectural profession that had a maturity to engage with, and embrace all that modern society had to offer. For the students of the post-war years, an interest in the practicalities of building were at the fore. They wanted to get on with the job—building a new vision for Perth where modernity and technological innovation were embraced, and providing a better, more equitable built environment for all. An interest in new technologies, town planning, and education run through the three issues, supported by an underlying belief in the importance of community and critical thinking. Everything was open for critique, from new houses to the rhetoric of modernism, and even each other. Phi provided an outlet where these ideas could be tested and broadcast to a hopefully interested and engaged public.

Engaging with a National Student Body

At the time that the first issue of Phi was published, there was movement around the country concerning the creation of a unified, national architectural student body. This became an ongoing concern for the ASAWA and they developed a particularly strong interest in bringing this body together. The early history of a national architectural student association has yet to be examined, but it appears that it developed out of the National Union of Australian University Students, the NUAUS, a group which formed in 1937 and covered both Australia and New Zealand.⁵⁴ Within this group, the NUAUS was broken down into faculty “bureaux” which would more directly liaise with their specific student groups. The Architecture Faculty Bureau (AFB) emerged from this agreement sometime in the late 1940s, and acted as a kind of proto-version of the Australasian Architecture Students Association (AASA), the national student body which was initiated sometime in the early 1960s.⁵⁵ The NUAUS held annual congresses, rotating between cities each year, and the AFB were active participants in these events. Alongside these congresses, the AFB staged exhibitions, and soon began to publish their own newsletter, Aspect. Through these events, the AFB established a nascent student network across the country which could facilitate student exchange and share other information including drawings and publications between the states.⁵⁶ While not a formal association, they provided the conduit for a series of connections and exchanges between students which would prove crucial for later developments. Although Perth did not have a university accredited architecture course, in 1950 the ASAWA were invited to join the AFB, and the students were quick to seize upon the opportunity.⁵⁷

With a voice in the national conversation, the ASAWA sprang into action and became keen contributors to the workings of the AFB. With the delay of the diploma course, and the generally slow start to education in the state still fresh in their minds, the members of the ASAWA relished the opportunity to further their education opportunities and engage with student bodies across Australasia and they evidently saw participating in a national student discourse as a top priority. The Association were avid readers of the VASS journal Smudges at the time,⁵⁸ and actively sought out other student journals that were being produced around the world, adding a subscription to PLAN from the UK to the Association library which they described as “lively.”⁵⁹ Given this interest, Phi can be read partly as an initiative for the West Australian students to add their voice to what they saw as an emerging, and vital national and international student network, a physical output they could use to broadcast their presence. Cohen was a particularly vocal supporter of the arrangement and he dedicated much of Phi’s second editorial to outlining the NUAUS and the AFB, and his interest in developing this relationship further.

The opportunity to engage with the student network was taken at every opportunity. In 1951 the NUAUS staged their annual conference in Largs Bay, South Australia and the Association deemed it “absolutely necessary” that they attend, allocating funds from the treasury to support a group of delegates travelling across.⁶⁰ The following year the congress was hosted in Araluen, just outside of Perth, and a large contingent of architectural students attended.⁶¹ The opportunity to host a series of architectural students from across Australia and New Zealand was not to be wasted, and the students of the Association made sure to make the most of their hosting duties which they noted in the round up of the event published in The Architect:

Such goings on at Araleun! [sic] We were especially pleased to meet our opposite numbers from the East and the Pig Islanders, and feel that a solid basis for future co-operation was laid.⁶²

A number of architects made the journey across to Perth, including John James from Sydney and three architects from Auckland University College.⁶³ The meeting was a success, and Cohen arranged to guest-edit an issue of the AFB newsletter Aspect.⁶⁴ The issue was enthusiastically received by the ASAWA, but not anywhere else, and was dispiritingly reported in the next students’ column:

Due to the lack of support from the Eastern States’ Student bodies, it [Aspect] will not be going to press again. Winn Lake was a lone supporter from Adelaide. It is hoped that this news sheet will not die altogether and that in the future we may find greater support for it.⁶⁵

While the enthusiasm for Aspect was a disappointment, there were positive signs to emerge from the meeting concerning a move towards a unified student voice. The Araluen congress saw the first proposal for a national student body put forward, nominally called the Architectural Students’ Association of Australasia (ASAA), which was to be ratified by the individual student groups.⁶⁶ Whether this happened or not is unclear,⁶⁷ but in the third issue of Phi, John White used his editorial column to convey his strong support for the idea:

This lack of power, together with the relying on the doubtful goodwill of others and uncertainty of finance has resulted in many promising ventures fizzling out—an occurrence which can only lead to increased apathy … If the spirit of co-operation and exchange of thoughts and actions which was present among those at Araluen is any indication of the future of ASAA, then there lies a great future for this Association. To this future may PHI offer its best wishes, and on behalf of the ASAWA, we offer our own full services.⁶⁸

As White conveys, there was an ongoing interest within the WA student body concerning the formation of a national, unified association, shown by their enthusiastic involvement in the NUAUS congresses and early involvement in producing the national student publication. Whether this interest was forged in a desire to transcend the obvious geographical distance and isolation felt by the student group, or an interest in the consolidated power and leverage that a unified student network would provide them is unclear. But it would appear to be a defining concern of the Association during these early post-war years, and one that would continue long into the next decade as they continued to push for national engagement.

After Phi

Shortly after the release of the third issue of Phi, the majority of the editorial team and fellow contributors left Perth and sailed to the UK where they would spend several years living and working together in London.⁶⁹ Meanwhile the influential first editor Gres Cohen had firmly established himself within the practice his father helped found, Forbes and Fitzhardinge. This core group of students had provided much of the momentum for Phi over the previous few years, and so their departure abroad and into practice signalled the end of a particularly fruitful period of student publishing. It would be another seven years before a new push for a publication came from a whole new cohort of students.

During this seven year period, the ASAWA continued to flourish. Outside of the regular meetings, the association began to host a discussion group held at the Shiralee coffee shop, opened by Barbara and Lex Hill, who had contributed to Phi 3, upon their return from London. Music evenings, regular poetry readings, and a lecture series were run, and the membership base continued to grow in line with the increased student intake at PTC. Talk of a national student body all but disappeared, but students from PTC continued to attend the annual NUAUS congress at least until 1955. ASAWA member Brian Jackson served a term as president and secretary of the national AFB, while Gus Ferguson spent time as the national drawing exchange officer.⁷⁰ However, with the proactive core of White, Duncan, Cohen and others having left, the Association was left without a strong rudder for most of the years between 1953–1959, and it suffered both financially and administratively.⁷¹

During this time, the ASAWA once again distanced itself from the Institute, to the point of continually refusing an invitation to have a student representative attend the Institute Chapter Council meetings.⁷² It is not entirely clear why they sought out to distance themselves from their former parent body, but they clearly focused instead on fostering a close relationship with PTC, particularly through the new head of school Francis Senior Bolland who took over from Robertson in 1954. Bolland, who in a strange twist of fate was the original editor of seminal UK student journal PLAN from 1943–1945 while a student at Manchester and chief orchestrator in the formation of a national UK student association, became a force of change within the student body. His arrival saw a dramatic shift in the intellectual engagement and architectural rigour of the student body. Bolland was only at PTC from 1954–1958, but in that short time he instituted a change of curriculum with increased emphasis on design, and introduced real world projects for the students to work on. He also urged the students to remain active within the NUAUS and AFB networks during his tenure, noted in the student column:

[Bolland] had asked us for as many students as possible to attend the N.U.A.S [sic] conference in Adelaide next year. This conference offers something of the fellowship of Student Union activities; the chance for free and open discussion on student affairs by students. What about it chaps? Let’s get organized.⁷³

Bolland’s departure in 1958 for South Africa after only four years left a significant hole at PTC, and a replacement for him was not found for two years. This led to significant student unrest and within these two years the relationship with PTC soured considerably which would never be fully repaired, leaving the Association without close links to either the Institute or PTC. With these ties severed, they entered into their most autonomous phase which would continue for the next decade (Figure 5). The students staged several protests including an infamous event which saw students covertly remove all the books from the PTC library, which was due to be absorbed into the central library space, leaving only a sole volume on Le Corbusier behind.⁷⁴ The breakdown of these relationships can also be seen in the student notes column, which had been a fixture in The Architect since the journal’s inception in 1939. These were gradually phased out until in 1959 they ceased completely. It was within these turbulent two years, amid the crisis of appointing a new head of school together with an emerging gulf between the student interests and the teachers ability, that the Association’s new journal Aedicule, was produced.

Figure 5. Students marching down St Georges Terrace to advertise the T Square Ball, 1960. Private Collection, Donald Newman.

A New Student Journal: Aedicule

In 1960, the new incarnation of the ASAWA journal, Aedicule, was published. It was edited by fourth year student John C. Cullen, with a small editorial committee of Mike Fitzhardinge and Max Zuvela. It was again wholly produced by the student body (Figures 6 and 7). Cullen announced plans to publish issues bi-annually, but despite having a healthy amount of advertising revenue the magazine folded after only two issues in two years. Aedicule assumes a similar format to its predecessors, although in a slightly larger and longer format, and with minimal graphic cover and a prosaic internal lay out. While similar in appearance, given the turmoil of the previous years, and the significant cultural shifts which had occurred since the early 1950s, Aedicule presented itself a radically different journal. Unlike Phi, Aedicule was not concerned with the realities of architectural practice, instead explicitly stating “it is the ART of architecture which is our particular concern.”⁷⁵ The professionalism and conservative critique of Phi was replaced by a nascent radicalism, which would continue apace into the 1960s, culminating in the 1966 conference staged in Perth amidst an era of student protest, rebellion and dissent.⁷⁶

Figure 6. Aedicule issue 1, 1960. State Library of Western Australia.

Figure 7. Aedicule issue 2, 1961. State Library of Western Australia.

Aedicule was still a conservative journal by international standards, with well-written and carefully researched student essays and critiques. The issue opens with an opinion piece and critical examination by recently graduated current president of the ASAWA Brian Klopper, titled “Architecture S.W.A [Sunny Western Australia]” in which he takes the local profession to task. The article begins with a list of highly regarded local modern buildings, to which Klopper writes in poetic form:

See a pattern, an underlying philosophy, an aesthetic NO. Horrors, ugly gashes on the lovely W.A. landscape … Assume that for good buildings, Architecture, required good architects. No good architects no good buildings.⁷⁷

Klopper’s article bristles with the critical optimism of a recent graduate, and his frustration with the profession and the education system is obvious. However, this critical tone quickly dissipates, and the rest of the first issue is far more subdued. The issue has no theme and is rather a collection of essays from students with a shared interest in the artistic, ideological, and critical side of architecture practice. It includes some new local building reviews, and a series of in-depth essays which explore a range of current architectural interests including a lengthy article by Cullen on the Modulor, Robert Allan on the New Brutalism, and J.T. on Classicism.⁷⁸ Although there is no real focus or guiding theme, Cullen clearly had ambitions for its focus to narrow over the coming tranche of issues, and he advertised that the second issue of the journal was to feature “A study of the influence of political bodies on West Australian architecture and excerpts from theses written this year.”⁷⁹ This issue did not come to fruition, and instead the second and last issue of Aedicule centred on a discussion around two key problems: “the problem of improving the general standard of local building” and “the problem of ornament.”⁸⁰ The latter was explored in a lengthy article by Cullen on the idea of “true” ornament, which was paired with a reprint of Adolf Loos’ essay “Ornament and Crime” and “Ornament in Architecture” by Louis Sullivan. Cullen uses his article to reckon with the state of contemporary ornament, and the need to engage with new manufacturing processes. He notes “[The architect] must refrain from picking dainty novelties off the plate of architectural ‘hors d’oeuvres’ at present made available by industry. He must not be deluded into thinking that this is anything essentially different from the late nineteenth century practice of dipping in the ‘Style Catalogue.’ If we cannot have true ornament then let us abstain till we can.”⁸¹ “The problem of improving the general standard of local building” filled the rest of the pages, explored in essays by Bob Gare and practitioner Julius Elischer, along with a piece from former Phi editor John White on the problem of vernacular modern architecture. Here, White echoes the recent writings of J.M. Richards in The Architectural Review, and in his 1946 book The Castles on the Ground in which he explores links between modernism and the vernacular. Jessica Kelly has described Richards’ project at the time: “It was his ambition that modernism should evolve beyond the conscious choices of modern architects and become the unconscious expression of ordinary people.”⁸² White follows Richards’ lead, and he uses his article to diagnose the inability of modern architecture to produce a contemporary vernacular as a key failure of the movement. He writes “A clear cut and consistent vernacular school of building is the best evidence that an architectural style has been understood and received by the mass of people.”⁸³ This was in part due to modern architecture being “no longer clear-cut in its forms and meanings.”⁸⁴

The second issue of Aedicule was reviewed in The Architect by the critic Caliban, who was damning in his review. The fate of Aedicule seemed all but assured: “Sorry chaps, but Caliban thinks your magazine is dull, and would like to see some life and polemics instead of all this word jazz appearing time and time again in student publications.”⁸⁵ Despite the ambition and hope of the editorial staff and student body, like its two predecessors the project soon ran out of steam and the second issue was to be the last.

Conclusion

These three magazines, along with the guest issue of the national newsletter, each represent a high point of student activity in Perth and mark moments of intense engagement with the profession by the student body. Each represents a distinct phase of student discourse and directly reflect the current preoccupations of the group. In the first instance, the Tee Square Journal was intended as a vehicle to bring together a disparate student group and to present a unified face to the Institute at a time of great unrest with the prospect of a formal course seemingly out of reach. Phi, and the guest edited issue of Aspect, came at a time of enormous renewal and ambition amongst the student body and coincided with an optimistic peak of student activities. Phi was the outcome of a refreshed and ambitious group, with aspirations for a unified national student body and a clear indication of the contribution they could make to the profession as motivated, energetic young architects buoyed by a sense of social revolution and change. Phi was less a radical reactionary journal, and more one that speaks of a desire for professionalism and unity within the profession. Its successor, Aedicule, lies firmly in the reactionary camp though. With the breakdown of relationships at both PTC and the Institute, and the diploma course in shambles, Aedicule is very much a journal produced as a reaction to the institutional failings they observed around them. Here, the journal is an instrument of critique and a rallying cry for the student body to come together in a time of crisis. Taken together, the ongoing commitment to publishing was clearly seen by the ASAWA as emblematic of their unity and presence as an association, and the journals they produced were utilised as instruments for building community and advancing their cause.

While other state-based student associations like VASS had all but folded by 1961,⁸⁶ the student association in Western Australia continued to gain momentum particular throughout the 1960s. Working alongside the newly formed national student body, the AASA, the students carved out an identifiable and distinct architectural culture with a presence which at times rivalled and exceeded that of the Institute. The connections and activities forged within the local student association would cast long shadows on the architectural profession in Perth, and a strong, autonomous student culture can be seen to be one of the defining characteristics of the discipline in WA, certainly between 1930 and 1970. This period of student activity would reach its high point in the 1966 AASA Student Congress hosted in Perth. Sometime after this congress, the Association broke up, most likely due to the arrival of the UWA course. It was then replaced by institutionally-based student networks and associations aligned with faculties at both UWA and the Western Australian Institute of Technology (WAIT), which PTC had been absorbed into.⁸⁷ This is certainly evident in new wave of publications which emerged out of the newly formed UWA students society, firstly the bulletin A PAPER in 1973 produced by the architectural faculty of UWA with mostly student input, followed by Developments in 1983, produced by the Architecture Student Society of the University of Western Australia.

This paper has presented a brief overview of the student activities in Western Australia which unfolded between 1921 and 1961, concentrated on their publishing efforts, but there is much work to be done in highlighting how significant this independent student network was in shaping the discipline throughout the twentieth century. There is also much work to be done in examining the activities of the Association within a global context, given the parallel trajectory their publications follow, particularly with UK student journals like NASA Journal, FOCUS, and PLAN. Through taking a long view of student activity and independence it sets the scene for the more well-known moments of Australian architectural student activity, particularly in this case, for the 1966 conference which can be seen to have emerged from the student ferment and unrest that produced Aedicule. This paper ultimately demonstrates that the flurry of student activity in the late 1960s and early 1970s was firmly rooted in a student body which sought independence and autonomy for more than four decades, building on both a national and international student network that had been developing since the immediate post-war years.

Acknowledgments

This paper was produced with funding provided by the David Saunders Founder’s Grant. I would like to thank my supervisors Hannah Lewi and Philip Goad for their support in producing this paper, along with those that shared their stories and opened their private archives to me for this project. I would also like to thank the considered feedback from the two anonymous reviewers.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Research Training Program.

Notes

1. H. W. Downes, “Introduction,” Tee Square Journal 1(1937): 8–9.

2. Elizabeth Darling, “Focus: A Little Magazine and Architectural Modernism in 1930s Britain,” The Journal of Modern Periodical Studies, 3, no. 1(2012): 39–63; Clive Fenton, “PLAN: A Student Journal of Ambition and Anxiety,” in Man-Made Future: Planning, Education and Design in Mid-Twentieth Century Britain, Iain Boyd Whyte, ed. (London and New York: Routledge, 2007), 174–190; Patrick Zamarian, “The Origins of the Oxford Conference within the Networks of 1930s Student Activism,” The Journal of Architecture, 24, no. 4 (2019): 571–592; Philip Goad, “Designing a Critical Voice: Discourse and the Victorian Architectural Students Society (VASS), 1907–1961,” in Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand: 38, Ultra: Positions and Polarities Beyond Crisis, eds. David Kroll, James Curry and Madeline Nolan (Adelaide: SAHANZ, 2022): 111–133.

3. The student association went through a number of minor name changes over the years which will be clarified within the text. There doesn’t seem to be any real consistency of names until the 1960s, and it frequently changes within different situations.

4. Goad, “Designing a Critical Voice,;” Darling, “Focus”

5. W. T. Leighton, “School of Architectural Design,” Tee Square Journal (1937): 28.

6. Elizabeth Burns-Dans, Alexandra Wallis, and Deborah Gare, A Century of Service: A History of the Architects Board of Western Australia 1922–2002 (Fremantle: The University of Notre Dame Australia, 2021), 15.

7. J. M. Freeland, The Making of a Profession: A History of the Growth and work of the Architectural Institutes in Australia (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1971), 227.

8. Ian Molyneux, “Building in Western Australia 1940–1979,” in Western Towns and Buildings, eds. John White and Margaret Pitt-Morison (Nedlands: UWA Press, 1979), 137; Richards, High Hopes, 51.

9. See: “Class Notes,” Tee Square Journal 1(1937): 24.

10. “News and Notes,” The West Australian, July 29, 1921, 6.

11. “W.A. Institute of Architects,” The Daily News, April 1, 1921, 1.

12. R. G. Summerhayes, “Preface,” Tee Square Journal 1(1937): 2

13. Richards, High Hopes, 68; Also see: Philip Goad, “Designing a Critical Voice: Discourse and the Victorian Architectural Students Society (VASS), 1907–1961,” (Unpublished conference paper, SAHANZ 2022).

14. “Institute of Architects,” The Daily News, July 14, 1921, 2.

15. Freeland, The Making of a Profession, 227.

16. “Science of Building: Teaching Architectural Students,” The Daily News, July 10, 1924, 3.

17. “Science of Building: Teaching Architectural Students,” The Daily News, July 10, 1924, 3.

18. Freeland, The Making of a Profession, 227.

19. Freeland, The Making of a Profession, 227.

20. Annual Meal and T Square Ball posters. Private Collection, Geoffrey London.

21. The association has changed its name several times, but the T Square Ball remains a fixture on the social calendar. There was a T Square Ball held by Architecture, Landscape, and Visual Arts (ALVA), which is the current UWA student association, in 2021.

22. R. V. Blatchford, “Annual General Meeting—Retiring President’s Report,” The Architect 1, no. 12 (1942): 18.

23. Once the diploma course was established, there were still a large number of students who went through the article/examination system, along with those that studied associated disciplines like furniture design and art who would join the association, attracted in part by this strong social network that was established in the late 1930s.

24. Tee Square Journal 1(1937).

25. Downes, “Introduction,” 9.

26. Downes, “Introduction,” 8–9

27. See: Darling, “Focus,” for an expansion on the idea of student magazines as calls for action.

28. John J. Taylor, “Alfred Robert Linus Wright (1861–1939)” Accessed 22 July, 2022. https://www.taylorarchitects.com.au/Biographies/ARL%20Wright%20%20for%20AIA%20(WA).pdf

29. See: Darling, “Focus,” and Zamarian, “The Origins of the Oxford Conference,” for further context on how magazines were positioned as a key part of a wider push for change by student bodies.

30. Goad, “Designing a Critical Voice,” 115.

31. Stephen Parnell and Mark Sawyer, “In search of Architectural Magazines,” Architectural Research Quarterly 25, no. 1 (2021): 48.

32. NASA Journal ran from 1937–1939; FOCUS ran from 1938–1939.

33. Darling, “Focus,” 60.

34. “Student Notes,” The Architect (March 1946): 18.

35. “Architectural Students’ Association,” The Architect (December 1941): 14.

36. Higgin Zink, “Students” News and Views,” The Architect (March 1940): 37.

37. R. V. Blatchford, “Is the Institute Committing Harakiri?” The Architect (September 1941): 16–17.

38. Freeland, The Making a Profession, 227.

39. Barbara van Bronswijk, “Recapping the past: Fifty years of the teaching of Architecture at Perth Technical College, The Western Australian Institute of Technology and Curtin University of Technology, 1946–1996,” in Visions and Voices: Curtin University Celebrates 50 years of Architectural Education 1946–1996,” ed. Barbara van Bronswijk (Bentley: Curtin University, 1996), 16.

40. John White, “John White 1927–2020, My Life in Architecture, Student Days,” in 1960 Before and Beyond: Architectural Students at Perth Technical College, ed. K.A. Adam (Mount Claremont: D.G. Newman, 2020), 390.

41. van Bronswijk, “Recapping the Past,” 15.

42. The Institute offices were then located in the Gledden building, a 7 storey art deco office block in the city centre designed by Harold Boas and opened in 1938.

43. “Architectural Students’ Association” The Architect (September 1946): 23.

44. “See: “Architectural Students’ Association,” The Architect (September 1949): 25; “Architectural Students’ Association,” The Architect (December 1949): 25.

45. Peter Arney, “’Phi’ and Why,” The Architect (December 1949): 23.

46. E. G. Cohen, “Editorial,” PHI 1 (1950): n.p.

47. These were: Donald Collins, Kenneth Rosenthal, Peter Arney, Peter Grigg, Ean McDonald and John Lidbury.

48. In the obituary for Robertson written by the Association, they described him “our leader and lecturer in charge” and that their work will “be a memorial and tribute to the one who gave his all to provide for his students.” “Student Notes,” The Architect (June 1953): 19.

49. Pete, “Fairies in Architecture,” Phi 1 (1950): n.p.

50. PLAN was a student journal that ran from 1938–1951 and produced by students across the UK. See: Clive B. Fenton, “PLAN: A Student journal of Ambition and Anxiety,” in Man-Made Future: Planning, Education and Design in Mid-Twentieth-Century Britain, ed. Iain Boyd Whyte (London: Routledge, 2007): 174–190.

51. Eric Leach, “Review of ‘Phi,’” The Architect (March 1950): 20.

52. John White, “Editorial,” Phi 3 (1952): 2.

53. John White, interview with author, 2 October, 2019, Bunbury, W.A.

54. “University Students’ Union” The Mercury 16 February 1937, p 11.

55. The link between the AFB and the AASA, and when the AASA began, is unclear, but certainly by 1964 the AASA was in full operation. See: Byron Kinnaird and Barnaby Bennett, Congress: Architecture Student Congresses in Australia, New Zealand and PNG 1963–2011 (published online, 2011) Accessed June 22, 2022. http://www.barnabybennett.com/downloads/Freerange/Congress_Booklet_June2011.pdf

56. Phi editorial, 2(1951): 4.

57. Phi editorial, 2(1951): 4.

58. Peter Arney, “’Phi’ and Why,” The Architect (December 1949): 23.

59. “Student Notes,” The Architect (March 1951): 22.

60. “Architectural Students’ Association: Students’ notes,” The Architect (December 1950): 22, 26.

61. “Architectural Students’ Association: Students’ notes,” The Architect (December 1950): 26; Phone conversation with Barbara Hill; “Congress of Students at Araluen” The West Australian 17 December 1951, 6.

62. “Students” Notes,” The Architect (March 1952): 18.

63. “W.A. Best Hitch-Hiking State” The West Australian, 9 February 1952, 5.

64. Smudges 10, no. 68 (June 1951). No issues of Aspect seem to have survived. There is no catalogue recording of them, and none have turned up in the multiple archival searches or information requests made for this article. Indeed, the AFB in general seems to have no archival presence.

65. “Student Notes” The Architect (September 1952): 17.

66. John White, “Editorial” Phi 3, 3.

67. Whether the ASAA and the later AASA of the 1960s are related is unclear.

68. John White, “Editorial,” Phi 3 (1952): 3.

69. John White, John Duncan, John Lidbury, Alan Shepherd, and Lex Hill all left around the same time. Peter Arney also left but headed to America.

70. “Students” Notes,” The Architect (March 1955): 29.

71. “Students” Association Notes” The Architect December 1957, 43.

72. Students’ Notes” The Architect September 1957, 41.

73. “Students” Notes,” The Architect (September 1955): 25.

74. Bob Gare, interview with author, March 10, 2021; Rob Kornweibel, interview with author, June 7, 2021.

75. John C. Cullen, “Editorial,” Aedicule 1 (1960): 1.

76. The WAASA staged their infamous conference at the same time as the Institute conference, and attracting a star-studded line up of Buckminster Fuller, Aldo Van Eyck, John Voelcker and Jacob Bakema.

77. Brian Klopper, “Architecture S.W.A.” Aedicule 1(1960): 3.

78. J.T. was likely either June Thong or John Tsigulis.

79. J. C. Cullen, “Editorial” Aedicule 2 (1961): 1.

80. J. C. Cullen, “Editorial” Aedicule 2 (1961): 1

81. J. C. Cullen, “Architecture and Ornament,” Aedicule 2 (1961): 20.

82. Jessica Kelly, No More Giants: J.M. Richards, Modernism and The Architectural Review (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2022), 37.

83. John White, “Less Than Architecture,” Aedicule 2 (1961): 9.

84. White, “Less Than Architecture,” 9.

85. Caliban, “Caliban,” The Architect (September 1961): 57.

86. Goad, “Designing a Critical Voice,” 122.

87. Goad, “Designing a Critical Voice,” 122. Goad first identified the breakdown of state-wide student bodies into their respective faculty-based organisations.