Chapter 14: Faltering Relationships
Arriving in Sydney after three months holiday, life must have been something of a whirlwind for the Utzons. Enrolling children in school, settling into the site office at Bennelong Point and the complete change in culture and climate, meant Utzon had little time for fanfare or social engagements and he avoided the limelight for a discreet, family life.
But an event was about to take place that would have far reaching consequences, seeding the tragedy to follow.
Ove Arup now moved to terminate his company's overarching management obligations on the project , including handling consultants, so that they could concentrate exclusively on their role as consulting engineers.
Arups' role as a primary agent had been established from the start and had been emphasised by both the government and the competition judges back in 1957, in recognition of Utzon's inexperience with a project of this scale.
Traditionally the architect on a major project would be responsible for design, documentation and supervision of the work as a whole, as well as managing the various consultancies.
Arups firm had, to a significant extent, been operating on Utzon's behalf in this role in good faith, but at a cost which had become less and less tenable. Ove Arup had quite literally gambled the company he founded on supporting Sydney Opera House, and his partners were now insistent, in large part to ensure financial stability, that they revert to the more traditional role as supervising engineers. Arup's health had also suffered significantly as a direct result of the project.
"Ove Arup and Partners work on Sydney Opera House Project up to December 1962: 175,000 hours worked; 55 engineers and assistants engaged. Requiring approximately 300,000 additional hours to complete Stage 2."
Alongside the enormous effort the company had put into the solution of the roof and producing working drawings for both stages 1 and 2, they had most recently been required to oversee the arbitration process with Civil and Civic, who were pursuing the government for almost double the figure originally quoted for Stage 1, in 1959.
While Utzon was holidaying in America, Zunz and Arup were left handling a legal battle that was a direct result of the project having been started too early - something Arup had warned against from the beginning. The irony was not lost on the men.
"The time has come to cast away pretence and make-belief and face the facts about the organisation of the job, of who is responsible for what, and accept the consequences in the allocation of executive power and fees." (26 March 1963)
The letter of demand to the State government on the 26th March was responded to swiftly and the revised obligations were soon approved.
This would, however, prove to be a fatal blow both to Utzon and the project. Utzon was never able to fulfil the role of overall project manager neither by his own efforts nor those of another person. In 1960, he had responded angrily to Osmond Jarvis' suggestion that he should take on a job architect in Sydney. Early in 1964, nearly a year after Arups' move to distance the company from their extended responsibilities, Utzon overconfidently stated in a letter to Ove: "Management is in a way the easiest part of the job, something which most people can learn."
But management did not come easily to an artist like Utzon, with so many other concerns and no experience managing a project of this size.
Utzon had an extraordinary ability to rise to the occasion, and he surrounded himself exclusively with small groups of extremely talented, but relatively inexperienced architects. Yet not even his extraordinary ability to rise to the occasion could save Utzon from drowning in the complexity and ineptitude that would arise around him in the ensuing three years.
At the same time as Ove Arup had written to the State Government to relinquish his firm's responsibility for project management, Utzon was being brought up to date with architectural changes and progress made by the engineers in his absence, between January and March.
Despite the friction this caused and a growing feeling that his direction was increasingly being subordinated, Utzon expressed high regard for the historical collaboration between his practice and Ove Arup and Partners.
But by mid-May, Utzon's fear that Arups was trying to supplant him was inflamed by a memo from Ove himself, unwisely copied to Utzon by Michael Lewis, head of the Arups office in Australia and chief amongst the engineers on site.
Lewis did not share Arup and Zunz's admiration for Utzon nor the relationship they had developed with him over time. Later in the year, Lewis would write to Zunz, "Unlike you and Ove I have not learnt to love Jørn yet and I doubt very much I ever will."
Ove Arup's memo suggested four options as to how Arups should proceed in light of the recently revised, more limited project role. The consensus was that the third and fourth options were best either they could hand over full control and responsibility for Stage 2 to Utzon, or continue to administer the entire job. Lewis supported the third option, but did not have the experience working with Utzon his colleagues had.
Arup and Zunz in London were concerned that Utzon would be too stretched to successfully act as project director and so were inclined toward Ove Arup and Partners continuing to administer the job.
Either way, Utzon regarded these deliberations as a form of sabotage and believed that any such outcomes would only contribute to a growing perception in Sydney that he was incapable of administering the contract.
By the end of May, Utzon retaliated by setting out his intentions to supervise the rest of Stage 2 and 3, and clearly delineating the tasks with which Arups, as structural engineers, should be concerned. It was a frosty letter, addressed, "Dear Sirs."
Evidence that Zunz and Arup were concerned both for the architect and the job was made plain by Zunz in admonishing Lewis he suggested that everyone in Sydney, including Lewis, appeared prepared to ensure the job would never be completed.
On site, the open doorway between the offices of the architects and engineers was bricked up and meant the engineers were required by Utzon to make appointments to see himself and his staff.
By August, although Zunz and Utzon exchanged conciliatory letters across the world, they had no hope of overcoming the dissonance that now existed, just months into Utzon's arrival in Sydney, and would come to characterise the years ahead.
The reality of Sydney, the public spectacle of the site and the poor relationships between engineers and architects were a stark contrast to the peace and high mindedness that characterised the design period of Hellebæk and Fitzroy Street in the previous years. This new reality was being enforced by the Michael Lewis's irreverent attitude towards Utzon, a pragmatist who felt that everyone had been seduced by Utzon.
"That romantic view is, however, a very real view, and that's what I walked in on. I said please, in what way are they gods? Why is everyone seduced around here? And I suppose that also affected my approach." (Michael Lewis)
