Deidre Brown to talk on Maori Architecture

Come along to hear Deidre talk about her research on Maori Architecture.

Thursday 18th June from 5.45 (mihi, 6pm lecture, 7ish food & drinks) is the time and day.  There’ll be books on hand if you’d like a copy and an author to sign them if that suits  … and of course plenty of people to catch up with over a drink or two!!  RSVP to – by Tues 16th would be grand so we know how many mouths there are to feed.


13 responses to “Deidre Brown to talk on Maori Architecture”

  1. richard Avatar

    Great talk – I really liked the discussion afterwards – esp about the intepretation that D-72 didn’t have any references to Pacific weaving but was more like a rubbish bin!!

  2. I really enjoyed the talk too – well done the centre for presenting this event!

  3. yes that was funny – but I thought she raised some really important issues – and I like the point she refered to re: Pacific migration to NZ and the new idea of privacy and the comparision with post-Pakeha NZ.

  4. I meant the rubbish bin incident was funny … not m-d’s comment

  5. I liked the idea of a new bicultural architecture. In fact I really appreciated the way Deidre managed to both refer to Maori architectural in the past and the future. The Anthony Hoete drawing of the Hinemihi addition was really interesting too. What_Architecture have a great website:

  6. richard Avatar

    It was good to hear her talking about Wai 262 too ( – and the ideas about benefit sharing. We’ve definitely got to have a wider architectural/design hui on that.

  7. fascinating talk – great evening. My thanks and congratulations to the organiser and to the speakers.

  8. I was also intrigued by the notion of benefit sharing, but wouldn’t the obvious come-back against this be that the community benefits from a better built outcome from the consultation that they have given. And furthermore, in practice, any form of benefit sharing would in fact be ‘charged’ either taken from the architects’ own fees, or passed on to the client. I don’t know how sustainable the former is (especially in the current environment), and in the latter case, I think it will be quite a while before we see any form of this type of beneficent corporatism.

    Don’t get me wrong though, I am sold on the idea, I just doubt whether it will a goer in more than a few rare instances in the future…

    The Wai 262 stuff is also interesting, and something I have given some thought to over the past few years (certainly before I knew anything about Wai 262 itself…), in relation to ‘teaching’ New Zealand architecture, and the responsibilities that this involves…

  9. m-d – I think the benefit sharing has to do with architects using Maori/iwi intellectual property rather than an architect working for an iwi/hapu on a building project. The consultation might not be about a building/project that iwi/hapu have asked for.

  10. If the iwi/hapu are not stakeholders in one form or other, then you’d have to question the appropriateness of the consultation. Are you suggesting that you consult with a Maori group in order to get your quota of token ‘Maoriness’, and then expect this to be applicable to a group that extends well beyond that sampled? I don’t think any amount of benefit sharing would make that a tasteful option.

    Actually, come to think of it, if you are using consultants for a project in which they are not stakeholders, shouldn’t there be an obligation for consultancy fees – which would probably amount to significantly more than any benefit sharing arrangement – thus the latter should probably be seen as something of a rip-off!

  11. thomas Avatar

    “then expect this to be applicable to a group that extends well beyond that sampled? ”

    …you mean, kind of like a reverse situation of the whole ‘fanganui’ fiasco?

  12. thomas Avatar

    PS – I didn’t get to the book launch, but it sure sounds as though the talk offered more beyond the content of the book itself??

  13. Thomas, the talk was, I think, offering a lot more than perhaps the book can. Not entirely sure on that as I haven’t read the book yet, but (and correct me if I’m wrong), the book is more of a straightforward chronological record and exploration of maori architecture, whereas to me it seemed that the talk went further. Which is a nice place to take it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *