Navigating the impact of the Kew collapse
Williams Ross Architects has had a difficult few years, managing the impact of the Kew Recreation Centre collapse. Director Tammy Beck describes the ongoing challenges and lessons learned, from the value of strong relationships and professionalism in practice, to the benefits of remaining calm, open and positive.
On 20 October 2022, a significant section of a steel trussed roof structure collapsed during the construction of the Kew Recreation Centre for the City of Boroondara council in Melbourne. Fortunately, the collapse occurred outside normal working hours and no-one was hurt.
WorkSafe Victoria and the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) ran investigations of the causes of the incident over the following two years. On 17 October 2024, WorkSafe Victoria announced charges against the builder, ADCO, and its facade subcontractor, Colab Building Tech.
In February 2025, the VBA filed indictable charges against ADCO Group and its nominee director, alleging that the company knowingly carried out building work outside the scope of their building permit.
Construction of the Kew Recreation Centre resumed in late 2024, with plans for completion by late 2026.
The project has had a significant impact on Williams Ross Architects, who are the Lead Design Consultant and designers of the recreation centre. We sat down with Director Tammy Beck to discuss the challenges of the last few years, the impacts on their business, and the lessons learned.
Can you tell us a little about your practice and the type of work you do?
We’re an office of 20 who work in the public and community sectors. We specialise in aquatic centres, sport and recreation facilities. A lot of the work we do is very specialised and technical. Around 70% of our work is for state and local government, and the balance in the education sector.
Bill Williams and Virginia Ross established the business in 1988. Chris Hose, Steve Maxwell and I are the current directors. When Bill passed away in 2006, Chris became a director. When Virginia retired, Steve and I became directors. So, there’s always been a really strong succession planning philosophy and strong mentoring culture in the office, which has been great, and we’re continuing that.
So, what actually happened?
The collapse happened on the evening of 22 October 2022. There was not much media about it in the early days. Of course, everybody starts pointing fingers, and relationships quickly become quite difficult to manage. We were, and continue to be, under the requirements of our engagement contract and couldn’t talk about anything that wasn’t in the public domain. There have been several simultaneous on-going investigations, but there is not much that we can talk about publicly.
In September 2023, an article in The Australian Financial Review reported that the builder had apportioned blame for the roofing collapse on a “design-related issue”. Earlier that year, we became aware that the builder was circulating a letter to their local government clients (who were also our clients). This letter laid blame on the design team. The AFR accessed this letter through a Freedom of Information request and published details from it. We were unable to challenge this version of events due to the confidentiality of our engagement contract, and as detailed investigations were continuing.
What was the impact on your work pipeline?
The year after the collapse, we had a very big downturn in work. The timing coincided with the builder’s letter being circulated and the level of speculation about the cause of the collapse.
At the start of 2023, we were short-listed on about six tenders. We came very close on one, but in the end, we didn’t win any.
This had a major impact on our business. From our office of 20, we had to let five people go. The industry always has its ups and downs, but we’ve never had a downturn of that seriousness before in the office. It was extremely difficult.
What did you do in response to the impact on the business?
As any architect does when there’s a downturn in a sector, you re-examine the business and what you’re doing, and how you are going to correct that. We had fairly confronting questions to ask ourselves. Do we pull through this or not? What’s our contingency plan? Our office has always had a good solid foundation, with 30-plus years of operation and experience. We had to consider how to turn things around to ensure the survival of the practice – there are the families your practice supports and the impact this could have on them. We had to make five people redundant, which was very, very hard. We’ve never been a firm who hires and fires depending on the workload. We have always aimed for and enjoyed a very consistent team. Historically, there hasn’t been much movement in our office. So, we felt the loss.
In terms of turning things around, we went back to basics with lots of networking, finding support in our long-term relationships and thinking deeply about the strengths and passions in our practice. But it can take you over a year to turn an architectural business around. It’s not a very quick ship to turn.
What has been the reaction from clients?
Many clients have been very supportive of us personally. We have a very strong reputation and have worked in local government for over 30 years. Over that time, we have enjoyed repeat work with many clients. We appreciated the level of respect for our office, but it was still a very challenging time.
What were some of the practical challenges you experienced as a business during this time?
There was a long process of interrogation about the cause of the collapse. We had to work through countless questions over an 18-month period, each that required a clear, measured, factual response that left no room for misunderstanding.
It was such a complex issue that we knew straight away we needed legal advice in order to respond clearly, appropriately and effectively. Getting that constructive specialist construction legal advice early was really important.
Insurance didn’t cover our initial legal advice, as they don’t cover your legal advice until there’s a claim, or a sense of a claim. So, there’s easily $100,000 of legal fees that we’ve had to fund to be able to just manage and that doesn’t include the time it has taken from our schedules. We have three directors here and another project director who was running the project. Every step of the way, the three or four of us have been in a room to work out next steps. And every meeting that we’ve had with our lawyers, we’ve been together as well. If you think about the time that takes out of the office, and the stress that puts on the office, it is huge.
But we couldn’t have done it another way. Sharing the burden was essential. We were all in it together. We’ve all got different strengths as well. We worked through that process together. I feel very fortunate that I had this group to share the burden with, and I know the others would say the same.
How did you manage everyone’s wellbeing within the office?
We would have hours of meetings talking about the finer technical detail. Every now and then, we would come out to the rest of the office and explain a bit about what was going on. This was so our staff felt a level of comfort because there was a lot of anxiety about what was going on, and they could see the level of stress on us as well.
We wanted to ensure that no-one had to experience the stress alone. So that was why, every time we had to work through an issue or make a decision, we would do it together. Though it was an incredibly stressful time, it was important that staff felt they could still come to us to discuss other projects. You have to carry on. Fortunately, we’ve got a very strong culture. The three directors would have these insanely serious meetings with our lawyer in the meeting room, and afterwards it was a relief to go back out to the studio and enjoy time with the broader team. We believed, and had to convey to our practice, that we would get through it.
So, where are things now with the work pipeline?
We’re fine now. At the end of 2023 / start of 2024, we landed two new aquatic projects, a large community sports project along with some education projects.
Winning the aquatic centre projects was a vindication for us. There has been a big shift in the aquatic industry around sustainability, with the industry working towards fully electric centres rather than relying on gas. There has been a knowledge gap in Australia around the design of heat pump technology and we’ve been ahead of the curve on that. Focusing on our expertise, spending time building our knowledge, and positioning ourselves as a trusted advisor in aquatic centres helped us win these projects.
Are there any other lessons learned worth noting?
One of the biggest lessons learned through it all has been the value of relationships – with our clients, within our office and in the wider industry. The other lesson, or sense of pride, has been the level of professionalism of our office and broader design team. The lesson is how important it is to be part of a strong and rigorous design team, particularly given the current challenges in the construction industry.
How do you feel about the project now?
The Kew Recreation Centre is going to be a fabulous project architecturally and as a much-needed, eagerly anticipated community hub for sport and aquatic recreation. But it has been a very taxing project.
There will be many lessons learned for the whole industry, most of which will come out through the court cases, so I’m sure there will be more to discuss once the cases have played out. I think there needs to be deep consideration of how building contracts and contract administrators enforce quality on site. For us it has been a sobering insight into the construction industry.
What advice would you give to architects navigating challenges in their practice?
My advice is to share the load as much as you can. I am lucky. I have two experienced and supportive co-directors. But if you’re a sole director, I would recommend bringing others in to share the challenges. This can be an isolating and stressful job, and I don’t think any director or senior architect should be going it alone. You should always seek out the advice of your peers and work with people who you trust. I follow the philosophy of: “we’re all in this together”. There has got to be an acknowledgement that this is a difficult industry to navigate, and you need the support of your peers to flourish.
You want to be able to do your job and then go home. You want to put your head on the pillow and not think about work. It shouldn’t monopolise every moment. It shouldn’t be that stressful. And the only way I have found is to build a network of people who can listen, advise, understand and empathise. The architectural profession has historically been a competitive one, although that is slowly changing. I would love to see this industry become more collaborative and supportive of each other.
I think the ACA does a really good job of bringing people together that way. What the ACA does differently is that it talks at a business level. It tackles the hard, challenging aspects of running a practice, and that support is really important.
What advice would you give to leaders facing tough times in practice?
As the executive director at Williams Ross, I’ve always understood the level of responsibility that comes with the role, and the need to balance a collaborative, open culture while exercising the necessary strength of decision-making when required. For me, I’ve always tried to remain very calm and deliberate in the office. You have to leave all your baggage at the door and be the example of calmness, openness and positivity. It is so important that people are willing to come to you with any concern – no problem is too great if you don’t let difficult situations overwhelm and are able to have open conversations.