Author Maria Larkins has launched her new book, Grounds, Romberg & Boyd, offering an in-depth exploration of the collaborative legacy of three of Australia's most influential modernist architects: Roy Grounds, Frederick Romberg, and Robin Boyd.

The book, introduced by a foreword from Koos de Keijzer of DKO—where the launch took place—delves into the personal and professional relationships that shaped their iconic works.

In this interview with Clémence Carayol from Architecture & Design, Larkins discusses the dynamics within the trio, the surprising findings from her research, and the enduring impact of their collective contribution to Australian architecture.

Maria Larkins with her book/supplied

Architecture & Design: What drew you to focus on the relationship between Roy Grounds, Frederick Romberg, and Robin Boyd rather than solely on their architectural works?

Maria Larkins: It was not originally my intention, but I was drawn into their relationship as I delved deeper into the archival material. It was quite evident in their memos and letters that this architectural practice was fashioned by their personalities. I became hooked and wanted to know more about them and why they split.

How did their individual personalities shape the firm’s legacy?

While they all contributed to the architectural design of many projects, each had responsibility for core aspects of the practice, and this was allocated according to their specific strengths. Grounds, being the eldest and most experienced in the business of architecture was not surprisingly concerned with the financial aspects of the business and client liaison. Romberg was focussed on the production side of design work, particularly working drawings and specifications. Boyd who Grounds dubbed “the scribbler” was responsible for publicity and public relations.

The book highlights the inner workings and conflicts within the practice. What was the most surprising or revealing insight you uncovered during your research into the firm's operations?

How well they actually worked together. Although there were many instances of conflict between them on how the practice could be better managed, there seemed to be considerable consensus on design matters. Their proposal for the Sydney Cove development was beautifully resolved and embodies how I perceive the practice. “One thing, one thought, one concept” is an apt description of “Gromboyd”.

Grounds, Romberg, and Boyd each had unique architectural visions. Can you elaborate on how these differences influenced the design and execution of iconic projects like the Sidney Myer Music Bowl or the Shine Dome?

Unfortunately, they were “sacked” from the Sidney Myer Music Bowl and consequently did not have any impact on the final design which came from Barry Patten. Boyd was however, engaged in much research on the acoustics for the Music Bowl and this experience would be quite useful on the next project.

The Shine Dome or Academy of Science, as it is now known. Although predominantly designed by Roy Grounds, it had a great deal of input from Boyd on the acoustics in the auditorium. Boyd was working with the engineers, Bolt Beranek and Newman to identify the best solution for the space when Grounds proposed a rethink with an emphasis on the dual purpose of the chamber as both a conference venue and a lecture theatre.

Despite the firm’s relatively short existence, its impact remains significant. In your view, what is the most enduring contribution of Grounds, Romberg & Boyd to Australian modernist architecture?

They articulated an Australian style of modernist architecture born of their combined intellectual views and architectural styles. Grounds, Romberg and Boyd were obsessed with the “puzzle” of architecture, so every design project was approached in the same way. Finding the best solution to the requirements of the brief and budget with the constraints of the site and regulations.

Also, there was respect for the materials which were mostly unpainted and unadorned. Even in bold architectural projects such as the Academy of Science (Grounds), Lutheran Church (Romberg) or Domain Park (Boyd) flats, the materiality of concrete, brick, timber and copper is celebrated internally and externally. The same approach is evident in their residential commissions.

As someone with direct experience in contemporary architectural practices, how did your background influence the way you approached writing this book?

There were many parallels with the architectural practices I had worked with. For example, I joined LAB when Donald Bates had left to take up a position at The Cooper Union. So, I understood the impact Boyd’s absence would have had. When I had actually started researching the book, I was employed in a practice which had similar dynamics to Gromboyd. There I saw first-hand how challenging it can be when there are three architects at the helm.

Did it help you relate to the challenges the firm faced?

Very much so. Although I was working for contemporary architectural practices, there were so many things that were still relevant. The management of clients, staff and projects is still very much the same. Computer technology has impacted some aspects of architectural practice such as accounting, human resources management and design output with CAD, 3D renders and flythroughs.

However, many architects still produce sketches and physical models as they did then. One thing I found particularly interesting was how residential architecture was perceived. Many modern day practices are focused on niche markets such as commercial, hospitality, public or educational projects. Gromboyd embraced everything, particularly residential architecture and I believe this was key to their success. Charting the progress of Gromboyd was very much like a case study.

Anything you’d like to add?

Prior to their split in 1961 the practice was recognised with two accolades. The Pan Pacific Citation by the Hawaii Chapter of the American Institute of Architects in 1960. The following year, a perhaps more “prestigious” award, Smudges magazine’s “Bouquet for the decade”. Grounds, Romberg and Boyd were granted the award in the 1961edition of the magazine for their: “giant contribution to the creation and acceptance of a legitimate public architectural image. Individually or as partners, their ‘total architecture’ has led to a greater appreciation and understanding of the Art.”

I believe that the practice of Grounds, Romberg and Boyd, has been largely overlooked, even forgotten. Their individual contributions to architecture have overshadowed their legacy as a joint force. I hope this book re-ignites interest in the impressive architectural body of work this triumvirate produced from 1953 to 1962.

Image: Grounds, Romberg & Boyd/supplied

Clémence Carayol

Let’s connect!