Building a City
The Architectural Legacy of the Petrie family on Brisbane
A dissertation for the award of Bachelor of Architecture at the University of Queensland 2006.
Introduction
Permanent clues to the origins of Brisbane’s settlement have been entwined into the city’s fabric over the course of its growth. These clues take the form of placenames, which are indelibly associated with the people, places and events that have forged the capital city of Queensland. One such name that appears around Brisbane in various locations is the Petrie family name. This name is intrinsically linked to the establishment of Brisbane; known by many to have connections to the early building industry. The Petrie name has left a permanent legacy on the people of Brisbane, yet the full extent to which the Petrie family contributed to the architecture and the construction of the city is not widely known.
The Petrie family were the first free settlers of Brisbane.¹ It is commonly known that the Petries were stonemasons, builders and explorers. It is also accepted knowledge that they quarried stone and built Parliament House, Customs House and the General Post Office. The exploits of the Petrie family are most often associated with these few extant civic buildings and these roles, yet as with other pioneers of the burgeoning colony, a richer and deeper contribution is thought to have occurred. Brisbane is a rapidly changing and developing city. Over the past 180 years the buildings and achievements created by the people of Brisbane have fallen victim to new developments, designs and technologies. Brisbane’s tangible connection to its past is disappearing and the work of some of Brisbane’s prominent families, like the Petries, are being lost.
The Architectural Legacy of the Petrie Family in Brisbane
This study grew out of the author’s personal desire to gain a greater knowledge of his forebears and the architectural legacy they have left. The buildings of the Petrie family span across many disciplines and it is the intention of this study to uncover their involvement in any Australian building, existing or demolished, as a means of judging their contribution. The data relating to the Petrie’s building work is closely related to the development of Brisbane and through the process of this research it was intended to add to Brisbane’s known history by understanding how the early Brisbane architects and builders operated. A greater comprehension of the type and extent of work architects and builders encountered during these years was another desired outcome of the study. An understanding of the relationships between colleagues in the small, isolated settlement and the effort and process that it took these people to build the structures may also be ascertained through this research.
Much early background research and interest for this dissertation was conveyed to the author orally by his father over the course of his upbringing. This anecdotal information gave initial insight and direction for this dissertation’s subject matter; however it required evidence to support it. In researching for this thesis, primary source material has been used as much as possible in an attempt to reveal the most accurate findings on the Petrie’s work. However, due to the long period of history covered and the numerous and wide ranging sources, it has not been possible to undertake a detailed look at all of these sources. The primary sources which have been researched include reports in the newspapers of the period, including the Moreton Bay Courier2 and the Queensland Daily Guardian. These papers are a source of regular reports of information with regard to public works, contractors and dates during the late 1800’s. They also share opinions of the time on buildings and architects, as well as expressing the contractor’s and architect’s views. Furthermore, other written sources that provide contemporary information are the New South Wales’ Government Gazette as well as Government Votes and Proceedings. These records provide insightful evidence of Governmental proceedings, and as a result can shed light on the Petrie family and their roles during the time. Primary sources are considered more reliable and factual than other sources, being written at the time of the incidents in most cases.
The reference material that sparked the initial interest in this subject and is an invaluable resource on this topic is the authoritative book The Petrie Family: Building Colonial Brisbane.3 This piece of literature has skillfully brought together an enormous amount of data and weaved together a concise, yet accurate account of the life of the Petrie family. Moreover, it provides an insight into the conditions and feelings of the time, information on buildings and, in some instances, the actions of the Petrie family. Along with this book, numerous other written sources have been consulted during the research for this dissertation. These books allow much ground to be covered in the research in a short space of time and for this reason, have been used extensively. As a secondary source, their accuracy and bias need to be taken into account when drawing upon their information. Nevertheless, careful analysis and synthesis has been carried out, finding the material they afford highly beneficial.
Additional types of written sources utilised in this work range from informal speeches, journal articles, local history group papers, maps, theses and tour guides. The merits of these vary, but they are useful in drawing upon the extensive research carried out by previous researchers on the history of their city. All these written sources afforded a wide scope of research and in some cases indicated directions for further research.
Photographic evidence is an extremely valuable architectural resource and has been used in this study to determine certain information. Photographs can show how buildings were built, where they were located and what they looked like. The subject of a photograph and the source of the view Jolly states, “tell us a great deal about the way people saw the world and what in that world was important to them”4.
What was originally considered to be a relatively straight forward case of data collection and analysis, which would result in a descriptive historical index of Petrie buildings, became a considerable task identifying which buildings were associated with the Petrie family. Over the course of time valuable information associated with buildings have become hidden or lost forever as records are being destroyed, research not undertaken and/or the physical evidence (the buildings themselves) being demolished. This has now left information scattered across varying fields of study, and endeavouring to locate and identify the relevant data has meant a wider scope of research than the author first anticipated.
The focus of this research is to uncover and collate as many of the works the Petrie family had been involved with prior to the re-structuring of the family company in 1894. Every effort has been made to provide a full and complete index of work; however, due to the vast array of research material and the historical nature of the matter it has been a labour intensive and time consuming process. For this reason, this dissertation does not claim to present a complete or exhaustive account. As with any historical piece, the more one delves into the project, the more avenues for investigation are uncovered. This continuing nature of historical research together with this study’s time frame has restricted many areas for follow up research. This project has left open the possibility of further investigation; particularly closer analysis of contemporary documents, historical accounts, Government records, Petrie family files, materials with access limitations and other sources.
3 Dimity Dornan and Denis Cryle, The Petrie Family: Building Colonial Brisbane (Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 1992).
4 Paul Jolly, “Old Government House and the House of Parliament in Brisbane: A Study in Early Colonial Architecture in Queensland” (MDesStud thesis, University of Queensland, 1986), 18.
“Andrew was exceptionally qualified to perform architectural duties in the colonies of Australia. He had completed academic instruction in architecture at the reputable Edinburgh School of Arts, together with his articles under a prominent Scottish architect.”
—
Chapter One - Personal Growth
The convict system of transportation was set up as a solution to curb the rising crime rates and prison overcrowding being experienced in Britain in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The British Government intended the penal settlement established in New South Wales to be a place of punishment and reform rather than as a colony. The whole system was to act as a deterrent and instill a real fear of expatriation to a remote, isolated and hostile country. However, as the New South Wales settlement grew, the need for industrious, skilled workers increased and the penal settlement began transforming into a colony.
The Growing Colony of New South Wales
On his arrival into Sydney Cove on the 23rd May 1823, The Reverend Dr John Dunmore Lang found himself amidst a settlement plagued by poor administration, disobedience and military arrogance. Lang became the first Presbyterian minister in the colony of New South Wales and found Sydney had outgrown its function as a penal settlement. Sydney had experienced a rapid population increase during Major- General Lachlan Macquarie’s5 liberal governance between 1810 and 1821 and the emancipists 6 now outnumbered the free settlers.
Lang immediately saw opportunities to morally and socially reform the struggling colony and bring some sense of order and education to its inhabitants. The 1826 Scots Church built by Lang gained the Church of Scotland a foothold in the Anglican administered colony, but now Lang planned to introduce the strong Scottish system of schooling through the construction of an ambitious Presbyterian school, the Australian College. Through Lang’s prior dealings in the infant colony, he found the settlement’s workers unreliable and unable to cope with the arduous work required of them. New arrivals frequently did not complete their work contracts, and as a result hampered the free emigration to the Australian colonies.7 To recruit the required workers, Lang found it necessary to return to Scotland. Here he selected fifty-two hardworking craftsmen and their families who were willing to accompany him as free settlers to New South Wales. These were men personally recommended by fellow Presbyterian ministers and employers; people Lang could trust to lead respectable lives in the new colony and fulfil their obligations to Lang and the construction of the Australian College. It was during this 1831 visit to Scotland and via Presbyterian contacts that Andrew Petrie8 was recommended to Lang. Andrew Petrie (See Figure 1) suitably fulfilled Lang’s colonial requirements for a skilled, hard working Presbyterian and was induced to emigrate as one of Lang’s Scottish ‘mechanics’9.
The Family Homeland of Scotland
Andrew Petrie was a staunch Presbyterian raised in the village of Kingskettle in Fifeshire, Scotland.10 From his birth in 1798 we assume that Andrew was imbued with a strong work ethic and valuable manual skills through his working class family. Andrew was a tall, well built man suitable to the manual type of work his family undertook. From an early age Andrew showed signs of independence, relocating from his family’s traditional village to the bustling urban city of Edinburgh around 1813. Edinburgh offered Andrew the opportunity to serve four years of articles in the office of a prominent architect and builder, Alexander Laing, before Andrew married in 1821 and commenced business on his own account. 11
Through his endeavours, Andrew gained invaluable experience, knowledge and an array of skills in the construction industry. The progression of Andrew’s employment indicated his aptitude in all manners of manual work; first completing his articles for Laing and then noted as a joiner on his marriage certificate.
Later, on his young son’s death certificate he is listed as a ‘wright’12. To further supplement his practical experience, Andrew advanced his self-education, typical of many Scottish, by attending the Edinburgh School of Arts13. Here Andrew studied ‘mechanics’ and construction industry related fields. It was also during this period that Andrew married a spirited person like himself, Mary Cuthbertson. By the time of the 1831 meeting with Lang, Smout indicates that industrialisation was having a detrimental impact on the social and economic environments of Scottish urban centres.14 A restrictive economic climate took hold of Scotland in the 1830s, causing a decline in the construction industry.15 The opportunity to relocate to Australia seemed to suit the adventurous couple and their now young family of four.
Leaving the plight of the Edinburgh economy, the family sailed aboard the Stirling Castle from Greenock, Scotland. It is now seen from the ship’s inventory that Andrew was a skilled carpenter, and in the ensuing months of the voyage, the ‘mechanics’ forged friendships with their fellow countrymen that would endure throughout their times in the new land. Time was not wasted on the long and arduous journey to Australia, as the men formed a system of education on the ship to impart knowledge and building techniques to one another and further each others skills all fields. The ‘mechanics’ were exposed to teachings from their fellow cabinetmakers, blacksmiths, coopers, plasterers, carpenters and masons. On their arrival in Sydney Harbour on 15 October 1831, these men were skillfully prepared to tackle the hardships and pioneering that faced them in the burgeoning colony. Andrew Petrie, always keen to further his skills, is said to have gained many new talents during the long journey to Australia.
Figure 1 Portrait of Andrew Petrie. (John Oxley Library)
Settling in Sydney
The ‘mechanics’ went to work immediately on the construction of the Australian College, working diligently to repay their voyage over to the Australian continent. It was during the voyage that Lang drew up the plans for the four masonry buildings that comprised the Australian College. This was done in conjunction with master builder George Ferguson, and Dornan and Cryle suggests that Andrew Petrie may have taken part in this design stage from his knowledge of architecture, stonemasonry, surveying and the close relationship he formed with Ferguson on the trip.16 The hardworking efforts of these men saw the Australian College finished, to a high standard, by the beginning of 1832. To supplement the money still owed to Lang for the voyage of the Petrie family, Andrew went into private partnership with Ferguson. Partnerships like these were common as the Stirling Castle immigrants relied on one another’s mutual support and co-operation. Through this private venture, Andrew was able to clear his debt with Lang and use his carpentry and stonemasonry skills and experience to gain numerous private projects in the colony. By late 1833, Petrie and Ferguson mutually parted ways, allowing Andrew to choose his next course of action, which instead of going out alone in business, took the assured income of a governmental position to provide for his family.
Andrew’s role as a clerk in the Commissariat Department17 allowed him to gain a good understanding of the structure and operations of a penal settlement, and allowed Andrew to utilise his organisational skills. The year 1834 saw the Commissariat Department merge with the Department of Ordnance, giving Andrew the task of maintaining the military, police and convict buildings of the colony. This position led Andrew to be awarded the role of Convict Superintendent on Sydney’s Goat Island; a position responsible for managing the particularly disobedient Aboriginal and European convicts. Later, in his role as Superintendent of Works on the island, the management of the construction programme fell under his responsibility. Under Andrew’s direction a new magazine for ammunition storage was built from local sandstone from the island’s quarry.18 Through this operation it can be assured Andrew gained first hand knowledge of working with Australian sandstone, and suitable techniques by which to quarry it.
Andrew’s humanitarian leadership (which saw him issue rations of vegetables to convicts and rarely order floggings as punishment) did not favour well with some critics, and lead to his early departure from Goat Island in 1835.19 Following his dismissal he applied to join the New South Wales Colonial Architect’s Office, before taking up a role in Major George Barney’s Royal Engineers Department in May 1836. Within this role, he contributed to numerous Barney projects. One such project was the quarrying of sandstone, again on Goat Island and its transportation to the mainland, for the construction of Government House and work on Circular Quay. During this government tenure with Major Barney, Andrew Petrie was recommended by Barney to assume the role of Superintendent of Works in the Moreton Bay penal colony.
Penal settlements previously had relied on junior military officers to supervise and conduct building work, through their appointments as engineers or Superintendent of Works.20 These men were trained soldiers and had limited architectural and constructional experience, which resulted in buildings of inferior design to be erected.21 The commandants eventually found the task of building the convict buildings beyond their capabilities and were driven “to petition for the services of a competent official, as there seemed no end to the blunders and mistakes always being made.”22 Assigning Andrew, a civil ‘engineer’ with architectural and constructional experience, to a military post, heralded the winding down of the penal settlement and the imminent transition to a free colony.23
A Move North to Moreton Bay
The Petrie family arrived in the reputedly evil Moreton Bay settlement in August 183724, to find a settlement with a lack of infrastructure and development one would expect from thirteen years of punishing convict work.25 The Quaker missionaries Backhouse and Walker described the settlement as a harsh environment where “the convicts performed field work in irons from sunrise to sunset...”26 Andrew’s priority on arrival was to improve physical conditions of the settlement. The existing nine convict built buildings were in a poor state and required attention as did the Windmill, which no longer worked.27 Andrew Petrie performed general duties consisting of supervision of convict construction work as well as the manufacturer of building materials. Implements and materials in convict settlements were typically of the poorest quality, making the work for the few skilled men even harder. Building projects were conducted largely by trial and error, leaving a legacy of poor quality and shoddily built buildings for Andrew Petrie to maintain and improve.28
After the majority of convicts were removed and transportation halted from Moreton Bay in early 1839, it was officially closed as a penal settlement on the 21st May of the same year.29 Over the proceeding years, Andrew was instrumental in organising the Moreton Bay district in preparation for free settlement on the 10th February 1842.30 In achieving this, he liaised with Governor George Gipps on issues ranging from surveying, mapping and even settlement locations. Steele notes that Andrew instructed and supervised assistants including George Browne to assist him drawing and commenting on the condition of the all convict buildings. 31 Of the fifty-four plans drawn between 1838 and 1842, forty-nine are the work of Andrew Petrie or his assistants.32 Andrew had become attached to the settlement, and it is little surprise Andrew remained in the newly declared capital port of Moreton Bay and established himself as Brisbane’s first building contractor.33 At this time, Brisbane’s population totalled only 200 people and so the demand for construction work was little, if any.
With the advent of free settlement, Brisbane experienced a huge surge in population, so that by the census in 1851 the population comprised 8,375 total persons.34 Around the same time in 1850, Andrew’s eldest son John35 assumed main responsibility for the management of the firm, after a successful term as partner. John was able to keep up with the supply of work, brought about by the fast development of the town and region. His tasks comprised of rudimentary town works - predominantly gaols, churches and basic infrastructure. Andrew’s traditional architectural and construction training and the ‘apprenticeship’ served by his son John, proved competent enough in fulfilling the development needs of the region, responding to the increasing population. Architects like Charles Tiffin, Benjamin Backhouse and James Cowlishaw all arrived in the colony between 1857 and 1861 and triggered a steady flow of trained architects and professionals into Brisbane.36 The influx of these skilled men instigated a change to the way things were done and helped shape the colony.
Professional Training
Traditionally, to enter the profession as an architect in the 19th century it was necessary to have completed some form of training. This training could be achieved by two different approaches, both of which were undertaken by practicing architects in Queensland at this time. One method was to complete several years of articles with an established architect, engineer or building surveyor, and then supplement this learning with some form of class teaching. Andrew Petrie had the skills and knowledge to be an architect, and it is evident through his training in Edinburgh that he also possessed the traditional training required to be an architect. Andrew was fortunate to commence his training in Edinburgh; a city that held night classes at the Edinburgh School of Arts. Therefore, when Andrew discovered the town of Sydney had no avenue for further technical training, he endeavoured to setup the Institute of Arts in Sydney with fellow Scottish immigrants.
John (See Figure 2), on the other hand, was formally schooled in Sydney at Dr John Dunmore Lang’s Australian College.37 Here he was given a strong Presbyterian education, and after his family’s relocation to Brisbane, was ‘interned’ in the family contracting business. This training involved all facets of construction, including architecture, construction, surveying and drawing. Watson and McKay note “John was said to have inherited his father’s aptitude for drawing and business”.38 Therefore, meeting Watson and McKay’s second criteria for qualifying as an architect, John Petrie under the watchful eye of his father completed his architectural ‘apprenticeship’.39
Figure 2 Portrait of John Petrie. (Brisbane City Council Library)
The two men who ran the Petrie firm for the majority of the 19th century were not only successful builders but accomplished designers. The period in which they undertook design roles, closely follows the time in Brisbane when there was a lack of other trained professionals. McClurg states that in 1871:
“the small population of Brisbane in those days, competent and experienced architects were scarce and it was doubtful whether any of the other contractors had the number of skilled workers available or the important matter of having large quantities of well seasoned timber, as John Petrie had.”40
Complementing the lack of skilled men was the lack of capital and financial resources in the infant colony. The colony simply could not afford the opulence and grandeur some of its southern counterparts were producing. After the economy flourished in 1860’s and again in the 1880’s, the Petrie firm could no longer compete with the abundant pool of architectural services in Brisbane. After the building boom of the 1880’s41, the leadership of the firm was handed to John’s son, Andrew Lang Petrie42 in 1888. Andrew Lang had gained a loose architectural training under his father, yet had a strong background in management from three years Government service before employment in the family company.43 Another of John’s sons, John Junior44, contributed to the company as manager of the brick and tile factory after time as a cadet in the Colonial Architect’s Office.
The period of Andrew Lang’s leadership coincided with the first time the firm was in decline. The firm by this stage comprised largely of a furniture and joinery factory, brick and tile works and monumental masonry operations.45 Stone as a building material was becoming too expensive and the following economic collapse of 1893 sounded the demise of the Petrie firm as architects and building contractors, and heralded a new beginning as monumental masons.46
Summary
The growing colony of New South Wales saw the need for qualified professionals and tradesmen. Andrew Petrie and his young family migrated to Australia in 1831 in response to this need. Andrew was exceptionally qualified to perform architectural duties in the colonies of Australia. He had completed academic instruction in architecture at the reputable Edinburgh School of Arts, together with his articles under a prominent Scottish architect.
Andrew gained extensive experience in constructional overseeing roles in Scotland and in New South Wales, and showed good organisational skills. He used his skill and talent to overcome the harsh circumstances in early Brisbane that faced builders and architects, and passed these onto his eldest son John. The apprenticeship under Andrew shaped John into a competent architect and builder.
The lack of trained professionals in early Brisbane saw heavy contributions made to the building industry by the Petries. The range of positions the Petrie men carried out saw a wider contribution to the city’s built fabric. Moreover, involvement in Brisbane’s building scene was not only from the design and erection of structures, but from beneficial foraging expeditions around the region in an effort to locate and supply better building materials.
5 Refer Appendix G
6 Convicts whose sentences had finished or who had been pardoned.
7 Dornan and Cryle, The Petrie Family, 2.
8 Refer Appendix A
9 ‘Mechanics’ in this period referred to tradesmen. O’Keeffe, Convicts at Moreton Bay, 6.
10 Dimity Dornan, "The Petrie Family, a Genealogical and Biographical Perspective," Royal Historical Society of Queensland Journal XIV, no.13 (November 1992): 548.
11 Dictionary of Scottish Architects, DSA Architect Biography Report ‘Andrew Petrie’ (Dictionary of Scottish Architects), http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/architect_full.php?id=M005731 (accessed June 6, 2006).
12 The Collins Dictionary defines a Wright as someone that constructs or repairs something, a workman, maker, or builder.
13 Dornan and Cryle, The Petrie Family, 4.
14 T.C. Smout, A History of the Scottish People 1560-1830 (London: Fontana Collins, 1972), 516.
15 Dornan, "The Petrie Family, a Genealogical and Biographical Perspective," 550.
16 See note 13 above.
17 The Commissariat Department existed as a branch of the British Commissariat Department, providing and organising the supply of stores and provisions for the penal Colony. In 1831, the responsibility for council and military buildings was given to the Deputy Commissary General, assisted by a Board of Works. State Records New South Wales, Commissariat (Sydney: State Records New South Wales, 2006)
http://www.records.nsw.gov.au/cguide/ c1/commisst.htm#E9E12 (accessed July 13, 2006).
18 Dornan and Cryle, The Petrie Family, 16.
19 Ibid.
20 William Ross Johnston, Brisbane: The First Thirty Years (Brisbane: Boolarong Publications, 1988), 32.
21 John McClurg, Historical Sketches of Brisbane (Brisbane: Library Board of Queensland and the Royal Historical Society of Queensland, 1975), 7.
22 Constance Campbell Petrie, Tom Petrie’s Reminiscences of Early Queensland (Brisbane: Watson, Ferguson and Co., 1904), 2.
23 Dornan and Cryle, The Petrie Family, 29.
24 Refer Appendix F
25 O’Keeffe, Convicts at Moreton Bay, 5.
26 James Backhouse and George W. Walker, Report of Visits to the Penal Settlement at Moreton Bay (Sydney: Mitchell Library), quoted in Kay Saunders, "The Bases of Unfree Labor in Colonial Queensland," in Settlement of the Colony of Queensland, (Brisbane, Library Board of Queensland, 1978), 3.
27 Dornan and Cryle, The Petrie Family, 30; Johnston, Brisbane: The First Thirty Years, 32.
28 Johnston, Brisbane: The First Thirty Years, 32; Baglin and Austin, Sandstone Sydney, 30.
29 Johnston, Brisbane: The First Thirty Years, 63.
30 Dornan and Cryle, The Petrie Family, 54; New South Wales, Government Gazette, 11 February 1842, 249.
31 John G. Steele, Brisbane Town in Convict Days, 1824 - 1842 (Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 1975), 260.
32 Ibid.
33 Jacqueline Whiteley, “Two Families of Early Brisbane: A Study of the Families of Andrew Petrie and James Campbell throughout Three Generations, 1830-1910.” (BA Hons thesis, University of Queensland, 1963), 9.
34 New South Wales, Legislative Council Votes and Proceedings, 2 (1851), 125-175. 35 Refer Appendix A
36 Donald Watson and Judith McKay, Queensland Architects of the 19th Century: A Biographical Dictionary (Brisbane: Queensland Museum, 1994), 10, 44, 192.
37 John Laverty, “Petrie, John (1822-192)” in Australian Dictionary of Biography 1851-1890 K-Q, 5:439 (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press).
38 Watson and McKay, Queensland Architects of the 19th Century, 142.
39 Ibid., 2; Laverty, Australian Dictionary of Biography, 5: 440.
40 McClurg, Historical Sketches of Brisbane, 55.
41 Don Watson, “Foundations: The Queensland Institute of Architects” in Brisbane in 1888: The Historical Perspective (Brisbane: Brisbane History Group, 1988), 110.
42 Refer Appendix A
43 Undated Newspaper Clipping in author’s possession; Dornan and Cryle, The Petrie Family, 152. 44 Refer Appendix A
45 Laverty, Australian Dictionary of Biography, 5: 440.
46 Ibid.
“The introduction of the steam-powered saw mill, allowed the Petries to create better habitation than the slab huts for fellow residents and clients. The firm built with sawn timber and galvanised iron roofing, and later with the development of the mill the Petries were able to use the refined timber products to create luxurious interiors.”
—
Chapter Two - Material Influence
The siting of the Moreton Bay Penal Settlement was the subject of fierce debate amongst officials for the majority of its early life. Following the unsuccessful Red Cliff Point47 location the settlement was instructed to relocate to the Brisbane River. Lieutenant John Oxley had recommended a site at Breakfast Creek, however Commandant Henry Miller48 in charge of the move, found a spot 27km upstream to best suit the new camp. Unlike the Breakfast Creek site, the placement of buildings was on land to be well above the highest flood level visible. Surrounding this site was low-lying fertile land suitable for the production of crops, a plentiful supply of fine timber as well as a major fresh water source, Wheat Creek. The camp was also protected on three sides from attack by the Brisbane River. The river over the course of time had carved out a significant cliff face of volcanic Tuff49 opposite the northern bank. Commandant Miller’s reasoning for choosing this site is not documented, but it can be assumed the proximity to building materials and fresh water source were at the forefront of his selection criteria. Building materials were not only needed for use in the development of the settlement, they were an extremely important export material that the British Government could capitalise on with their convict labour.
Establishing the Settlement
However, the following years saw indecision, doubt and disapproval with the settlement’s location until Commandant Cotton50 arrived in 1837. Cotton used his military leadership and experience to bring about a sense of site acceptance with the governing officials and saw the need for greater permanence if the convict settlement was to be soon opening for general colonisation. After the settlement’s move from Red Cliff Point in 1825, building work was quickly commenced to settle in the military personnel and convicts. A prefabricated timber cottage from Sydney was erected immediately, followed by another cottage with brick chimneys from Sydney soon after. Timber abounded in and around the settlement, and it was not long before the convicts had erected temporary slab barracks (one for the military personnel and one for the convicts), a slab storehouse and a timber wharf. Commandant Bishop51 in 1826 expressed the need for permanent structures, yet it was not until Commandant Logan52 arrived that any were started53. Logan recommenced54 the production of local bricks, using the clay fields situated at the back of the convict settlement near Wheat Creek. Two new kilns were established and production was well under way by the beginning of 1826, when they were quickly utilised in the additions to the commandant’s cottage and convict hospital.55
The emergence of brick construction necessitated the production of lime mortar. At first, lime was produced from burning seashells collected in Moreton Bay, until the discovery of limestone near present day Ipswich56 by Logan in 182657. Following this discovery, a party of convicts and overseers were dispatched to establish a kiln there and quarry the limestone for use in the Moreton Bay settlement. This operation was soon producing over 300 bushels58 of ‘excellent lime’ per week” 59 and advanced the erection of masonry structures in the town. At the end of Logan’s reign, no fewer than seven convict buildings were built of brick or stone60.
The use of stone as a building material had many advantages for the penal administration. Stone provided secure premises for the containment of prisoners, as well as protection of valuable property. The hard nature of the stone meant that to quarry the stone required long and arduous work; perfect for the punishment of Moreton Bay’s repeat offenders. Johnston states that punishment underlay the work structure, so men of the worst description should do those jobs that exhaust the strength.61 For their troubles, they were rewarded with a building material that proved to have very good insulation properties and one that fitted in total harmony with its environment62. The convicts were quarrying very durable and long-lasting types of stone to be used in the settlement’s buildings, Brisbane Tuff and Sandstone.
Gaining Permanence through Brisbane Tuff
Brisbane Tuff is found in numerous outcrops in the Greater Brisbane area. The stone was formerly chosen for construction purposes when the structure required any degree of permanence63. Brammer and Pestorius elaborate that:
“The many and varied purposes to which it was put gives the impression that, in the early days of Brisbane, the Brisbane Tuff was a practically universal building material, used almost as extensively as concrete is today – due largely, no doubt, to its abundance, its ready availability, and its excellent wearing properties.”64
The closest source of Brisbane Tuff, known also as ‘hardstone’, to the town was across the river at Kangaroo Point. It was here that a quarry was quickly established to supply the stone for the town in 1825. Logan immediately saw the potential of this local stone as a useful building material and laid the foundations for the convict hospital in mid 1826 with it. The quarry was worked by the convicts right up until the closure of the settlement, upon which time it was in turn leased to the Petrie firm until partial closure in 1860.65 Rival quarries soon sprouted up at other Brisbane Tuff outcrops keen to utilise this important building material. Brisbane Tuff was the predominant stone employed in convict buildings, and later used by the Petrie firm to wholly and partially construct many important buildings in Brisbane including Newstead House, Adelaide House (See Figure 3), St Stephen’s Cathedral Church and St John’s Pro-Cathedral.66 The stone’s versatility suited the requirements for building foundations and retaining walls of the town, and so was incorporated by the Petrie firm for these purposes. After the ‘cheap’ convict labour finished in Brisbane, Brisbane Tuff became an extremely costly material to work due to its inherent hard nature. The Petrie firm could no longer use the stone for extensive construction work as a result of this expense and therefore restricted the usage of the stone to small or specific work. The Petrie firm soon found a far easier stone to work with, becoming the material of choice in their important Brisbane buildings, Sandstone.
Figure 3 Brisbane Tuff use in Adelaide House. (Brammer and Pestorius)
Shift to Sandstone in the Colony
Sandstone is a sedimentary rock comprised of accumulated sand grains welded together by natural cement.67 The grains are created from older rocks by the process of weathering and thus give sandstone a granular appearance. The stone is a very hard material, built up of particles in parallel layers, yet sandstone will reduce to sand grains if struck heavily or rubbed.68 These characteristics made the stone easier for the Petrie firm to quarry and work than Brisbane Tuff and thus cheaper. The stone was soft enough to be cut easily without shattering or splitting, therefore used in circumstances requiring freestone69. The discovery of sandstone deposits by Andrew on his explorations around the Moreton Bay region saw the firm capitalise on his efforts. Andrew, already familiar with the stone through his time in Sydney, heavily incorporated the use of the stone into the bulk of the firm’s projects in a short space of time.
Sandstone has a pleasing aesthetic, being found in various shades and combinations of white, grey, yellow to ochre, tan to brick-red, rust and charcoal. The stone also has a characteristic glitter from the grains of mica found in the stone,70 suitably impressive for important buildings. These different types of sandstones were located around the region, prompting rival builders to establish quarry operations at these locations. Joshua Jeays owned and operated a stone quarry at Woogaroo, near Goodna, which was worked chiefly from 1860-1870 before the Petrie’s new quarry at Breakfast Creek was opened. The Breakfast Creek stone was quarried by Petrie on Reservoir Hill, near the former site of St Columban’s School, Albion. The quarry was used extensively for public works contracts, especially through the period 1860-1880 (See Figure 4).71 Sandstone was further sourced from quarries at Helidon72 and Murphy’s Creek. The Petrie firm acquired supply of both of these quality stones and mainly used them from the 1870s to the 1890s.73 It can be reasoned, from the operating dates of these large quarries, and the construction dates of buildings featuring these types of sandstone, that large scale use of sandstone in Brisbane and by the firm did not take off until the start of the 1860s
The choice of stone as the primary building material confined the selection of a building contractor to a limited few, as there were few who had the skill, and labour to erect stone buildings. The contractors required trained masons able to work from personal experience, as there were few available building manuals.74 The larger settlement of Sydney in 1831 only had nineteen resident stonemasons, suggesting Moreton Bay had significantly less if any at their disposal during its early years.75 After the removal of the skilled convict labour by the New South Wales government, the colony suffered from a shortage in labour and competent workmen. Through the 1840s, Brisbane had limited funding from the New South Wales administration. Consequently the majority of the building work done by the Petrie firm was private works.
The prosperous squatters started to build large masonry town houses for their frequent visits to the port city of Brisbane. As well as these structures, settlers were banding together to form religious congregations, and through their efforts raised capital to finance the construction of several stone churches. By 1846 these efforts saw Brisbane76 comprise of thirty-eight stone buildings, whilst South Brisbane had one77. During the next decade stone construction waned, and was generally limited to the construction of basic municipal buildings like a gaol, court house and immigration barracks. However, after Brisbane’s convict settlement closed in 1839, the use of timber as a building material increased significantly. Timber was a lighter and easier to work material, thriving due to the loss of cheap labour, the shortage of competent masons and the arrival of free settlers.
Exploration and the Growing Demand for Timber
Brisbane’s population was boosted with immigration during the 1840s and 50s, aided heavily by Dr John Dunmore Lang’s schemes that saw the arrival of the ships Chasely, Lima and Fortitude78 in Brisbane. Consequently Brisbane’s appearance was to change significantly as the population increased. By 1846 timber had become the dominant building material with seventy-five timber houses in Brisbane and eighty-three in South Brisbane.79 Hogan explains that:
“the early settlers with no previous experience of bush life had to erect their own living quarters when they settled on the land. Readily available materials were generally used for construction, and in a timbered locality the quickest and simplest house to erect was the bark hut.” 80
The settler’s first houses generally were constructed “in a simple easy-to-put-together style.”81 Typically settlers first built bark huts, comprised of sheets of tree bark which they could erect in a day.82 Later, slab and shingle huts were built for increased comfort. These huts were built from local hardwood laboriously split by hand to make timber slabs. The generous nature of the Petries saw them work tirelessly to help erect many slab huts in 1849 in areas settled by immigrants, including York’s Hollow83 and Spring Hill.
The sharp increase in demand for timber in Moreton Bay and Sydney saw the timber industry thrive. The economic potential of timber in the Moreton Bay district was noted by Lieutenant John Oxley and Allan Cunningham on their exploratory survey of 1824,84 yet it took another twenty years before this was exploited. During the early 1840’s Andrew Petrie applied for a timber licence85 “certain of the profits which would be made from timber getting and saw milling after his trip along the north coast.”86 During his Government appointment’s duties requiring considerable travel and exploration, Andrew had obtained a passion for travel and exploration. Andrew’s knowledge of the district’s resources was second to none.
“He made frequent visits to Limestone to inspect the lime kilns, stock yards and stockades built by the prisoners, he superintended the building of the pilot station at Amity Point and inspected the sawmills on the Brisbane, Logan and Albert Rivers where the prisoners were employed.”87
Andrew had led a trip to Bribie Island in 1837, followed shortly after by private trips in 1838 to Redbank and the Maroochy region. Together with his son John he discovered coal seams and new plant and timber species, as well as procured the first Bunya Pine. More trips followed in 1840 to the Caboolture, Pine and again the Maroochy River. These journeys again proved fruitful finding useful resources including timber.
Andrew’s most ambitious expedition was done in 1842 to the Noosa-Wide Bay district. Accompanying him were squatters Henry Stuart Russell, William Wrottesley and Captain Joliffe, who commented on the area’s quality timber stock. Andrew’s efforts opened these districts up for the timber market and shortly afterwards business ventures were being established on the northern rivers in response to Andrew’s promotion of the area (See Figure 5). The ensuing years saw high demand for the district’s timber including pine88 and cedar from the Brisbane, Pine, Logan and Tweed Rivers. The timber was initially exported to Sydney, Norfolk Island and Port Macquarie and later expanded to Great Britain.
During this period Andrew Petrie developed a close relationship with fellow Scottish immigrant, William Pettigrew (See Figure 6). Andrew, John and Thomas Petrie were instrumental in Pettigrew’s exploratory work and later establishment of timber outstations and milling operations for Pettigrew89. The close relationship between the Petrie men and Pettigrew enabled the formation of an arrangement with Pettigrew as the major timber supplier for the Petrie firm. Expanding his operation in Brisbane, Pettigrew built a saw mill on William Street with assistance from Andrew Petrie and his construction firm.90 This mill was the first in Brisbane to incorporate a steam-powered saw, revolutionising the construction industry in Brisbane in 1853.91
The Pettigrew sawmill meant cedar and pine could be easily milled, enabling a supply of milled timber to the Petrie firm for use in their projects. Further milled timber including joists, flooring boards, cedar planks and logs, and shingles were exported or supplied to other businesses. Sumner explains that prior to this machinery “it was cheaper to build a house of local brick than to import milled timber from the south.”92 The introduction of the steam-powered saw mill, allowed the Petries to create better habitation than the slab huts for fellow residents and clients. The firm built with sawn timber and galvanised iron roofing, and later with the development of the mill the Petries were able to use the refined timber products to create luxurious interiors.
Queensland separated from New South Wales on 13 May 1859 and relied on London brokered loans to fund the young colony. The Queensland Government applied some of the funds to improve labour conditions by awarding land to attract working-class immigrants.93 On the back of these state improvements, the colony experienced an influx of about thirty-eight thousand immigrants between 1860 and 1865, and activated the establishment of a Queensland bank and numerous building societies.94 Garran remarks that “altogether, the colony appeared borne rapidly onward on a tide of prosperity.”95 The timber trade strengthened its performance of the 1850s and flourished in the 1860s on the back of an improving economy.96
The thriving economy resulted in a building boom, increasing land values and rental prices in Brisbane. These conditions gave rise to widespread speculative building with the great majority of homes being “insignificant wooden hovels and miserable looking boxes.”97 The extensive use of timber by 1864 combined with the ‘loose’ building regulations amplified the devastation of the ‘Great Fire of Brisbane’ that destroyed a city block (See Figure 7). The aftermath of this event saw stricter building regulations actioned, requiring city building’s walls to be of brick stone or other non-combustible materials.98 The revival of masonry due to the new regulations benefited the Petrie’s commissions in the city. The Perry Brothers stone shop was erected in 1865, contributing to the impressive buildings accumulating in the town’s centre. The notable Petrie buildings were a sign of the colony’s growing status and a way of shedding its image as a penal settlement. The successful economy of the 1860s allowed for extravagant expenditure on public works and ornate, stately masonry buildings were soon erected.99 The firm’s specialty in stone was confirmed through the grandiose civic and private buildings they crafted. The elitist use of stone meant an increased demand and popularity for brick construction around town.
Re-emergence of Bricks
Along with bark and slab, bricks were one of the first building materials to be used in Brisbane. Handmade convict bricks were being made as early as 1826 and continued to be incorporated into building construction over the following century. The early attempts at brick construction yielded poor long term results, as reported by Andrew Petrie on the brick building constituting the north wall of the lumber yard100 in 1845. He found “the roofs and walls were in decay, there were no windows, the wall was tumbling down, and about half of the 105,000 bricks were decayed.”101
Bricks were used in conjunction with stone in the construction of buildings since the establishment of the settlement. The Windmill was built of sandstone and brick, as well as many of the convict buildings, including the Hospital and the Military Barracks. The brick industry grew alongside the stone industry until blossoming in its own right in the late 1800s. John Petrie established a brickworks in the 1860s at the corner of New Sandgate Road and Oriel Roads in Albion. This factory, run by John Jnr was to supply the famous Petrie bricks for use in all of the firm’s projects (See Figure 8). Competitors soon established brickworks around the region to satisfy the huge demand. Architects now heavily featured brickwork in their designs, as seen in George Addison’s Exhibition Building and John Hall and Son’s Colonial Sugar Refinery’s works at New Farm. However, the Petrie firm struggled with the transition to specialise in other materials than stone, and soon the Petrie quarry and brickworks was sold to James Campbell as the Petries suffered in the 1890’s depression.
Design Influence
The materials the Petries used influenced the type of designs they prepared. Andrew Petrie’s design background stemmed from his classical training in Scotland in the early 1820s, though designs evolved to adapt to the colony’s environment (See Figure 9). Andrew and John’s long Brisbane inhabitancy gave them insight into suitable designs for the climate and materials. The men exploited timber heavily during early occupation, though masonry was incorporated and utilised increasingly. The intricate and complex geometrics associated with stonemasonry, gave the men opportunity to have design inputs to larger commissions, in line with the project architects original overall scheme. The selection of stone, connections, engineering and finish was left to the stonemason’s discretion many times.
Summary
A major reason for the present location of Brisbane was the abundance of natural resources. The tracts of timber, large deposits of stone and clay helped Brisbane survive challenges to its claim as the colony’s main port city. Timber was first utilised and remained one of the dominant building materials for the nineteenth century. The Petrie firm utilised timber in their early work before they moved into building larger prominent stone buildings. Firstly Brisbane Tuff was incorporated in their stone work, followed by the softer and cheaper sandstone. Bricks later were manufactured by the firm to assist with their construction work. Not only did the Petrie family contribute to the building scene through material development and use, they assisted in the development of materials by exploration, discovery and promotion.
Chapter Three - Enterprise and Fate
Foundations for Success 1837-1850
The Moreton Bay settlement provided Andrew Petrie with an environment where he could utilise his formal training as well as test his skills and resourcefulness. The poor state of the settlement in 1837, challenged Andrew to overcome the adverse conditions and to put the settlement on a good course for the future. Andrew showed a willingness to lay the foundations on which a prosperous colony could evolve. He carried out many explorations during his official appointment as Superintendent of Works around the Moreton Bay region, as well as on his on accord during building slumps. Not only did he fulfil his government obligations on these explorations, he showed a willingness to push further and open up new boundaries for the colony. New tracts and species of valuable timber were discovered together with new deposits of stone and coal. These were useful to the continuing development of his construction business as well as the promotion of the commercial potential of the Moreton Bay region.82 His material and land discoveries, together with his basic mapping encouraged and no doubt hastened the development of the region and ultimately the town of Brisbane. Whiteley explains that:
“the success of his business and the provision for the future security of his family was a short term goal attainable within his own lifetime but the encouragement for the continued progress and expansion of the colony was a long term goal the returns of which would be gathered by subsequent generations.”83
In 1842, the settlement was opened to free settlers leading to government officials including Andrew to be recalled to Sydney. Instead of returning to Sydney as requested, Andrew chose to remain in Brisbane. This was a significant decision as the population of the town by 1841 had dwindled to only eight men and seven women as non-convict adults.84 During these closing years of penal rule, Brisbane had seen a decline in building work as a result of the convict labour removal, as well as the effects of a trade slump in Sydney during 1838-43.85 This was by no means a prosperous market to enter into business; nevertheless Andrew went into private practice as a builder in Brisbane in 1842. Knowing there was no quick and easy fortune to be made in Brisbane, it is evident Andrew had strong faith in the future potential of Brisbane by his decision to stay.
Andrew was keen to commence operations however he was further stunted by the six month delay of land sales in Sydney in July 1842. Land finally did get sold, but by the time this eventuated the colony was plunged into economic depression. The abolishment of convict transportation to New South Wales in 1840 had disastrous follow-on effects for the colony, so that by 1843 the severe economic crisis had halted the progress of the northern settlement. The squatters fell into dire financial straits from severe labour shortages and surplus stocks of unwanted sheep. Drastic actions were needed to minimise their losses, so a boiling down works86 was established in Brisbane. This factory, together with an adjoining store was Andrew’s first major private work in Brisbane.
Coming out of the depression in the mid-1840s, Brisbane was still in its infancy. The town had formed the rudiments of a civil administration in 1841, but in 1846 two years after the end of the depression, North Brisbane’s population had only risen to 408 people and little infrastructure was in place.87 With such a small population and the economy at such a low ebb the New South Wales government, who still administered Brisbane at this time, limited expenditure up north. Cryle and Dornan explain that “the absence of lucrative government contracts and substantial private construction at this time temporarily hindered the firm’s advance to pre-eminence in the Brisbane building trade.”88 Newstead House was the only building found during this study to have been built by Andrew during this period, but there probably were many other smaller private projects. The main building materials were the readily available supplies of cheap timber as well as the local hand-made bricks. Many of the early structures built at this time were probably only temporary structures; consequently not documented extensively and therefore have not been found during this investigation. Whiteley notes that “Brisbane at this time was little more than a frontier settlement and private housing was generally small, cheap, of inexpensive material and architecturally uninspiring.”89 Andrew was forced to follow the trend of timber construction, until “the timely arrival of the Lang immigrants helped to arrest a decline in Brisbane’s population following news of gold discoveries.”90 The influx of immigrants from Dr Lang’s as well as Government schemes after 1848 brought about changes.
The arrival of these people overcame the chronic labour shortage problem the region was experiencing, and necessitated the demand for housing.91 The population growth compelled the government into awarding greater grants and instigated essential public works. These jobs were a source of steady consistent work, yielding a considerable profit.92 Andrew’s extensive experience in Moreton Bay and his ability to overcome the difficult environment which faced the early Brisbane builders made him the prime choice when competing for these lucrative government contracts. Andrew used his impressive record of government service, both in Sydney and Moreton Bay, to his advantage and was able to win the majority of government tenders.
The study found that much needed wharves were constructed followed by a new Harbour Master’s residence on Moreton Island and a breakwater at Cleveland. This indicates emphasis was placed on the vital water transport infrastructure to be established first before spending money on the settlement. The Petrie firm, pioneers of Brisbane River navigation and transport, were keen to improve the river to allow the town to grow. They undertook river improvements including dredging and the placement of countless stone structures using simple engineering.93 The government soon enlisted the firm to erect the first Customs House, which finished in the same year as the conversion of the military barracks to the Court House. These structures were the product of the Sydney administration, keen to maintain control over the colony and as a result were designed in Sydney or by a representative of the government.
It was during 1848 (at the age of fifty) Andrew Petrie contracted ‘sandy blight’94 and became blind. This was a cruel fate to Andrew, as he had patiently laid the foundations for the town’s growth, yet was not able to personally capitalise on the imminent development of Brisbane. His hard work was not lost, as Andrew’s eldest son, John, had been mentored and trained by Andrew in preparation as his successor. The firm was renamed ‘John Petrie’ in 1850 when John assumed administrative control of the company.95 John was an excellent leader and soon found respect and appreciation from the burgeoning community through his generous assistance, aptitude and attitude.
The residents facing Brisbane’s harsh environment at this time found solace in religious activity. The inhabitants of Brisbane banded together into congregations by the late 1840s with a widespread expectation of progress. These main religious groups moved on from their makeshift arrangements and planned their own permanent places of worship.96 John Petrie, a staunch Presbyterian, was instrumental in the town’s moral revival through his organisation and construction of places of worship for the various denominations.97
Transition 1850-1860
The study shows that from 1849 to 1854 the Petrie firm was engaged with seven religious projects across the major denominations. This comprised virtually the entire ecclesiastical work done in this period, confirming them to be the foremost builders in Brisbane by the 1850s. The small congregations did not have a lot of money or resources and this was reflected in the design and construction of these buildings. The rudimentary buildings however, did play a vital role in diminishing the harsh lines of the penal settlement.98 The firm proved its proficiency in all manners of construction by the successful completion of these buildings. Not only was the construction skillfully executed, at least three of these buildings were designed by John Petrie. Andrew at this stage was blind, but still an invaluable source of information and advice to John. John competently designed the timber Anglican Parsonage, the stone Ipswich Presbyterian Church and possibly the brick School of Arts building99. The design work performed encompassed stone, timber and brick construction and soon branched out from these ecclesiastical works to tackle the emerging market for residential and commercial projects. 100
Brisbane’s population during the early 1850s remained static between three and four thousand.101 The wealthier of these residents soon employed John to undertake several relatively grand homes. The study shows that over six prominent residential projects were undertaken in this period, of these three were designed by John. By 1854 Brisbane experienced a sense of confidence in the future, resulting in further building work and ‘improvements’ throughout the town.102 Increased spending on improvements saw the firm fix the roads and approaches to the important Kangaroo Point ferry, as well as deepen the water reservoir and mark out the town.103 The firm’s expertise aptly carried out these civil tasks, utilising Andrew’s vast experience on similar projects in Sydney under Major Barney.
The findings show the firm did a vigorous spate of building work in the early 1850s before a steady rate of work for the rest of the decade. The value of their contribution in Brisbane at the time was immense. There were very few men who could rival the Petries experience and skill, as seen by the other work undertaken at the same time and the other tenders bid. Moreover, the work on projects like the First Brisbane School of Arts and the First Presbyterian Church reveal that the Petries had input in work performed by other contractors at this time as well. Services performed by the firm included architectural design, building and contracting, consulting, sub-contracting and superintending. Although, Andrew and John were qualified architects, work during this period suffered aesthetically from a lack of investment in the region. Dornan and Cryle elaborate saying:
“Although the public works undertaken by the Petries in the later 1850s were of limited aesthetic value, they were an important source of employment for Brisbane’s working men. As in other centres, the Brisbane building trades were highly stratified, with stonemasons, and other skilled craftsmen enjoying the most favourable wages and conditions.”104
The Sydney administration increased spending in Brisbane in years leading up to Queensland’s Separation. The Government contracts escalated from cheap temporary repairs to challenging and lucrative projects, like the Brisbane Gaol which had a budget of £20,000 in 1857.105 The Petries benefited from the increased government spending and again were successful in winning tenders on many of the new projects.106 These new projects aspired to convey a sense of permanence and stateliness to the region. As a result, stone gained prominence as the favoured building material. The firm’s strong background in stone construction surely assisted clinching these contracts. This study revealed during this time the Petrie firm erected the Ipswich Gaol, Brisbane Immigration Barracks and the Brisbane Gaol (See Figure 10).
Prosperity 1860-1880
The rise in size of the projects was somewhat proportional to the population growth occurring concurrently. After the 1859 Separation, Brisbane’s population trebled in five years and sparked a building boom in the colony.107 The Petrie firm expanded its labour force and network supplies to fulfil the colony’s growing commitments.108 The research shows that the Petries engaged in less design work for public projects at this time. It appears design work for larger projects was given precedence to the new arrivals of trained architects in Brisbane. Architect Charles Tiffin arrived in the colony in 1857, followed shortly by James Cowlishaw and Benjamin Backhouse in the early 1860s. These were the first successful private architects in Brisbane, and for the first time the Petries were rivalled with competent architectural designers.109 These architects used their recent architectural training and experience abroad to get a stranglehold on the design contracts. The profession of architecture in London had risen in status, raising the regard for them in the colonies. Summerson explains:
“The Royal Institute of British Architects in the 1860s was a strong and distinguished institution, entry to which was by election after seven years in practice, and election to which was esteemed something of an honour, exceeded only by election to the Royal Academy, to which body only three architects were elected between 1847 and 1870.”110
The fall in civic design work done by the Petries suggests they were overlooked in favour of the new architects. Instead effort was focussed on the building and contracting aspects on public works, building a rapport with the leading architects. However, the Petrie men did not totally relinquish architectural roles, as a move towards designing commercial and residential was found to occur. The firm had broadened its scope of work to build lavish suburban villas, becoming popular with the wealthier residents.111 Work was constant as the population surged in Brisbane, creating a huge demand for housing.112 Increased competition from the growing number of new builders saw the Petrie firm contain their residential construction work to the elite masonry houses, including Oakwal, Toorak House, and Kedron Lodge. Mountview House, Murrumba and an unnamed house fourteen miles from Brisbane were part of the firm’s expanding design and construction portfolio.113 Alongside this work, the firm designed and erected new commercial premises in the flourishing Queen Street precinct. Work for the Australian Joint Stock Bank was completed in 1861 followed shortly by the John Campbell and Son’s Wharf. A flow-on of commercial work occurred, including the Perry Brothers Ironmongery Shop and the Bank of Australasia.114 The stock of architects had reached nine by 1864 as speculative building swelled. Building numbers rose to fifteen to meet this demand, but the thriving economy and building industry did not last and soon collapsed.115
The Petrie firm’s status as the principal builders and contractors in the colony was affirmed by their survival through the depression of 1866-72.116 The firm succeeded where all others failed, completing unfinished contracts for the Brisbane General Hospital and the Houses of Parliament. Increasingly public tenders were won, reflecting the status the government held of John Petrie and his company. John Petrie had become a leading figure in Brisbane political realm, following his two-time term as Mayor, long service to the Boards of Health and Outdoor Relief, Waterworks Board, as well as his involvement in the Caledonian Society and the Masonic Lodge.117 Large brick and sandstone buildings were erected in the ensuing years as the Government regained financial strength; the Brisbane General Post Office, Registrar-General’s Office (See Figure 11), Supreme Court Chambers and Harbours and Marine Building.118 A stratification of building roles had emerged, so that the overall project design for these works was done by the Colonial Architect’s Office.119 The complex construction work and finer detailing many times was designed by the Petrie firm and their masons.
The dominance of the construction industry by John Petrie allowed the expansion of the firm to include their own brickworks, timeworks, quarries, sawmills, limekiln, furniture and Venetian blind factory.120 These operations created larger profits from the firm’s self sufficiency. Competitors soon contracted the firm to supply and sub-contractually work for them to complete stone trade packages. The research indicates that this growth was prevalent during this period as work was completed on the Second All Saints’ Anglican Church, St Mary’s Church, St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Church and the St Stephen’s Roman Catholic Cathedral.121
Through the 1870s design commissions were only given on smaller buildings like the quarantine buildings on Peel Island and the additions to the Wharf Street Congregational Church. The extended Petrie family still used their wealth of knowledge and experience during this time to design and construct family owned buildings and operations. Apart from a few notable elite residences, Eldernell122 and Whytecliffe, Government work comprised the majority of the firm’s work until 1880.
Downfall 1880-1894
Once again, Brisbane’s economy and building industry were booming in the 1880s, and the houses that were built are presentative of the period’s opulence.123 John Petrie, who in 1880 was fifty-eight years of age, reconstructed the firm taking his eldest son Andrew Lang Petrie (See Figure 12) on as partner. The firm of John Petrie and Son finished the construction of the Harbours and Marine Building and Houses of Parliament extensions before undertaking the erection of some grand suburban residences. The houses of Roslyn, Sans Souci and Mooloomburram124 perched on the hills of Albion expressed the firms continuing success during the early to mid-1880s. The smaller operations of the company, including the monumental masonry, furniture and joinery sections, had expanded so that by 1882 the firm was said to have been at the height of its prosperity.125 However, Andrew Lang’s lack of classical architectural training coupled with fierce competition from the town’s plentiful architects saw the demise of design commissions for the Petries. From 1880 there were was no design work done; only small roles as a consultant and sub- contractor that supplemented the main building operations of the company.
There was still a strong building portfolio undertaken including extensions to the earlier Petrie built Government Printing Office as well as the commission for the Second Customs House. These projects were successfully completed, showing the high skill and talent the firm had in stonemasonry.
Unfortunately, the very quality that had elevated the firm to prominence, also led to their downfall. Dornan and Cryle explain that:
“The speculative trend away from stone to timber quickened in the 1880s to the detriment of the Petrie business. While the number of wooden dwellings doubled in Brisbane in the 1880s, new brick structures were virtually non-existent. Increasingly, the Petries, steeped in the traditions of masonry and stonework, found themselves restricted to operations in the elite northern suburbs where they had chosen to live.”126
The final chapter of the Petrie business was the death of John Petrie in 1892. The research shows that after this time, there was no more work undertaken by the firm. The loss of such an important and respected leader further destabilised the company run by Andrew Lang Petrie since 1888. The following economic crisis of 1893 sealed the firm’s fate when it faltered and forced Andrew Lang Petrie into insolvency.127 The firm was resurrected undertaking a range of smaller projects and as monumental masons and in 1910 was known as Andrew L. Petrie Monumental Masons being run by Andrew Lang and his eldest son John George Petrie.128
Summary
The Petrie firm was involved with the building of Brisbane from the start of free settlement. The majority of early structures were designed and erected by the firm until rival competitors arrived in the late 1850s. The firm grew with the town so that by Separation they were the principal builders in the town. This period saw them contribute to the colony’s early church beginnings and civil administration. The influx of fellow trained professionals, particularly qualified architects, altered the firm’s roles in the 1860s; concentrating on building rather than designing major commercial, civic and residential projects. The firm had dominance of the building industry in the 1870s, winning tenders to build many major public works in and around Brisbane. During this time some twenty buildings were erected by the Petrie business. The success and prosperity of the firm saw expansion and diversification in the industry. However, as building trends changed the firm was slow to move with it, opting to specialise in masonry. The trend towards timber construction and away from the Petrie’s niche stone market, aided the demise of the architectural influence the Petrie family had on Brisbane.
82 Whiteley, “Two families of Early Brisbane,” 24.
83 Ibid., 13.
84 Mamie O’Keeffe, “The Convict Element in Pre-Separation Queensland” in Settlement of the Colony of Queensland (Brisbane: Library Board of Queensland, 1978), 6.
85 Dornan and Cryle, The Petrie Family, 39; O’Keeffe, Convicts at Moreton Bay, 7.
86 A factory where the practice of boiling surplus stock down for tallow (an exportable product during the depression) was performed.
87 O’Keeffe, Convicts at Moreton Bay, 27.
88 Dornan and Cryle, The Petrie Family, 76.
89 Whiteley, “Two families of Early Brisbane”, 16. 90 Dornan and Cryle, The Petrie Family, 113.
91 Johnston, Brisbane: The First Thirty Years, 122. 92 See note 89 above.
93 Dornan and Cryle, The Petrie Family, 117.
94 Now known as trachoma
95 Whiteley, “Two families of Early Brisbane”, 15. 96 Johnston, Brisbane: The First Thirty Years, 171. 97 See note 90 above; Refer Appendix B
98 See note 90 above.
99 The First Brisbane School of Arts building
100 Refer Appendix D
101 See note 90 above.
102 Johnston, Brisbane: The First Thirty Years, 235. 103 Refer Appendix D
104 Dornan and Cryle, The Petrie Family, 121. 105 Ibid., 119.
106 Refer Appendix C
107 Dornan and Cryle, The Petrie Family, 140.
108 Ibid., 119.
109 Watson and McKay, Queensland Architects of the 19th Century, 4.
110 John Summerson, The London Building World of the Eighteen-Sixties (London: Thames and Hudson, 1973), 19.
111 Whiteley, “Two families of Early Brisbane”, 18.
112 Janet Hogan, Historic Homes of Brisbane (Brisbane: The National Trust of Queensland, 1979), 6.
113 Refer Appendix D
114 Refer Appendix D
115 Dornan and Cryle, The Petrie Family, 142.
116 Pugh's Queensland Almanac, Law Calendar, Directory, and Coast Guide (Brisbane) 1875, 275.
117 Dornan and Cryle, The Petrie Family, 143, 147.
118 Refer Appendix D
119 Appendix C shows less design work done by the Petries
120 Whiteley, “Two families of Early Brisbane”, 19. 121 Refer Appendix D and Appendix B
122 Now known as New Bishopsbourne
123 Sumner, More Historic Homes of Brisbane, 52. 124 Refer Appendix D and Appendix B
125 Watson and McKay, Queensland Architects of the 19th Century, 142.
126 Dornan and Cryle, The Petrie Family, 158.
127 Watson and McKay, Queensland Architects of the 19th Century, 68.
128 Dornan and Cryle, The Petrie Family, 171.
Chapter Four - Conclusion
The Petrie family’s successful establishment in Brisbane demonstrated the proclaimed worth of lower middle class Scottish immigrants by Dr John Dunmore Lang. Andrew Petrie’s 1831 arrival in the colony of New South Wales allowed him to capitalise on the skill shortage experienced in the colony. The progression into important Government appointments confirms the quality of his experience and education he had received, and indicates his strong organisational and leadership skills. Andrew halted the poor construction that was practiced in Moreton Bay and gave direction to the insecure settlement. The close association with the town and its inhabitants led the family to remain after the penal rule finished and build upon their earlier exploits.
Andrew Petrie came to the colony of New South Wales as a qualified architectural professional. He had practical experience in Edinburgh, Sydney and Moreton Bay during the penal administration which enabled him to overcome the adverse conditions for building in early Brisbane and establish a successful construction company. Andrew readily passed on his knowledge and advice to his family and fellow residents, in an effort to further the colony. The Petrie men provided architectural services in Brisbane until fellow architects arrived. Andrew and John, qualified architects, designed many of the early buildings, though few remain today. The buildings were usually quite simple and practical, yet successfully performed their desired functions.
The Petrie family through Andrew, John and Thomas affirmed their dominance on the Brisbane building industry by an early stranglehold on building materials. They located valuable new timber supplies and quality stone deposits, and were one of the first to utilise these in construction. In addition to protecting the family’s business concerns, they encouraged investment in the district from settlers and entrepreneurs by their favourable reports, material discoveries and pioneering surveys. The willingness to make private trips expressed their enthusiasm they had for the settlement’s future. The enterprise, adaptability and determination the family contributed to building was later applied to their public appointments. This allowed them to make further contributions to Brisbane’s development indirectly through their public service. Whiteley states that “the influence of the family did not die with the death of the business.”129
The architectural input made by the Petries was substantial during the early years of the settlement. Andrew was the only qualified design professional in the town for twenty years and as a result had a significant impact to the architectural development of the town. The research has revealed that the Petrie firm did design many buildings, though most of them were during the early years of the town’s history. Much of the family’s work has now been lost to history. The development and progress of the modern city has seen much of Brisbane’s early building heritage demolished to make way for larger, commercially viable projects. The loss of buildings that relay the technology, social patterns, economics and character of the city during the early periods, has broken the link to the Petrie’s architectural past.
The information gathered showed clusters of similar types of construction around the same time periods, suggesting that the firm’s workload mirrored the economic cycles of the town. The study generated a better understanding of the conditions and types of work early architects faced during the colonial years in Brisbane, and found close relationships between external economic factors and the building cycle of the town.
The study has compiled a comprehensive index of work the Petrie family were involved with. This index was done through exhaustive research, but recognises the work done in this dissertation can be furthered through greater investigation into the Petrie family and architecture in early Brisbane. The extent of the Petrie family’s work can be fathomed from the gathered data; showing they were prolific designers and builders of all disciplines until the firm’s failure. Analysis of the Petrie family’s volume of work reveals they did contribute significantly more to the architecture of Brisbane than what is widely known. The firm was discovered to be greatly responsible for Brisbane’s early architecture, performing many other roles than merely builders. The large Petrie operations in the small town saw frequent involvement in most construction works, regardless if they were the actual contractors, as they performed roles as sub- contractors, suppliers and consultants. Though these roles have gone largely unrecorded, it does add another dimension to their contribution. The tangible records of their architectural design work have decreased substantially, but the legacy of the family has remained strong through the excellent construction work they accomplished, a testament to the monumental contribution they made to the building of Brisbane.
