Chapter 16: 1964-1966, Perfection Lost, Part 1
Stage 2 took three years to complete, an entire year longer than the initial estimate. It was during this period, as Bennelong Point was again transformed and the vaulted shells gradually assumed their iconic place beside the harbour, that Utzon's struggle for the perfect building was ultimately lost.
Utzon's story has now passed into the realm of popular mythology: one in which the enigmatic architect's pursuit of perfection was thwarted by those around him, and the opera house which he envisaged now differered considerably from the one that stands today at Bennelong Point.
The reality is, of course, far more complex. Many people contributed to the building of the opera house; their agendas and motives were varied. But none sought the same degree of perfection the architect himself desired. Utzon's faith in his ideal was unfaltering, and for a long time both his considerable talents and his cultural heritage informed his every effort to realise it.
This is what gives the history of Sydney Opera House its enduring resonance � the quest for an ideal and the failure to attain it is one of humankind's oldest stories.
Utzon's successes and failures, and the roles played by those who helped or hindered him, are as much a part of the story of Bennelong Point as the finished building itself. Today Sydney Opera House stands as an unmistakable symbol of a city and a nation, and is a testament to their endeavours. Cahill's shrine to culture became something remarkable and world-renowned in the process.
In September 1962, before Utzon had even arrived in Sydney to oversee Stage 2, Norm Ryan, Minister for the Department of Public Works and New South Wales Premier Jack Heffron took control of the Sydney Opera House project from SOHEC. The move reflected the Government's concern about escalating costs, which had by this time risen to 12.5 million pounds.
The availability of funds, however, was not the issue. The lottery, founded to pay for the opera house was yielding more than enough money and had proven to be a popular way to raise funds for public works.
However, political and media debate surrounding the rising costs was increasingly controversial.
Disputes about the opera house were increasingly framed around priorities in public spending. It was difficult to counter a perception that the opera house was a less worthy investment than public housing or hospitals, both of which required extra funding. Such practical priorities were, naturally, more popular politically, and could easily influence an incumbent party's chances of re-election.
Up until this time, Utzon had enjoyed a good relationship with his client. The executive committee and its technical and artistic advisory panels were deeply impressed by Utzon's schemes and his requests for additional funding were always met.
However this arrangement quickly changed under Minister Ryan. By June 1963, he had visited Arup and Zunz in Fitzroy Street and left them in no doubt that he would be assuming control.
Along with the tightening reins and increased scrutiny, a series of changes to the project's programme was now also underway.
In September 1963, Charles Moses quite suddenly raised concerns on behalf of the Australian Broadcasting Commission that the seating arrangement of the major hall would have to change, so that the audience could be seated in front of the stage area.
Moses was relaying the concerns of Charles Buttrose, Director of Publicity and Concerts, who pointed out that the seats at the back of the stage would be very difficult to sell. There was also the aesthetic concern that the sound of recitals and soloists would not reach the rear of the stage.
Berlin's Philharmonie, finished earlier that year, was incontestable proof that a world-class auditorium could support seating surrounding the stage – a model later emulated by other concert halls in New Zealand, Germany, Canada and Japan.
The enduring irony is that the finished auditorium, as completed by Hall, Todd and Littlemore, has a similar layout to Utzon's original design.
Utzon now needed to find a way to fit 1000 seats in front of the stage area, and contend with acoustics which would be utterly changed by the new arrangement. He was forced to cantilever the new seats over the side entrances and, narrowing their width, also dramatically reduce their comfort level for most audience goers.
So late a request to change the seating arrangement, by Moses and the executive committee, showed remarkable ineptitude. Utzon had first illustrated his approach to seating in 1958's The Red Book, and again in 1961, as he began to submit finished designs for the major hall in concert mode. The 1958 and 1961 drawings both clearly showed the audience behind the stage as well as in front.
Despite the huge problems this late change would cause, Utzon submitted new designs based on the cantilever approach and reducing seat size, euphemistically referred to as "closing up the space".
SOHEC's Technical Committee approved the changes. However, had proper attention been paid, it is extremely doubtful they would have consented to the new seat spacing and size. It was another lapse of scrutiny by the Committee that only justified Ryan and Heffron's fears.
For Utzon, the possibility of perfection was quickly slipping away. He was working within the very real constraints of the structures that had already been built: the podium, and the narrower internal volume yielded by the spherical geometry of the roof, meant that it was impossible to adequately cater to the new requirements.
