Sensational-Adelaide.com

Re: Stumpjumper

The issue of heritage is one that is shaded in grey; what is heritage and what is character? what is worth saving and what is not? when you do protect to what extent do you allow adaptive reuse and do you allow new developments on adjoining allotments? and if you do allow developments, what limitations and restrictions do you apply?

As I said this issue is not an easy one. The Property Council is working with the Council to look at ways that can allow for adaptive re-use of heritage buildings so that we are not preserving them in aspic. When you get to the point, as we are now, where around 50 per cent of the CBA/MU Zone is heritage constrainted, where do you draw the line. If we were to allow the Adelaide City Council's full list of properties to be listed, we would pretty much close shop in the CBD - something that I don't believe anybody wants.

My main proposition is that we need to have a mature debate on heritage - protect those assets that should be preserved (and allow for adaptive reuse, similar to the Treasury) but then allow for other sites to be redeveloped.

Final 2 points: 1) Paris does not limit across the City as suggested but they do in the historic centre - which we do not have, and 2) the generalist view proposed that all contemporary architecture is bland and boring is simply not sustainable. What about Channel 7, the Commonwealth Law Courts, the Hawke Building, the City Central Precinct (you may not like it but others do), to name but a few?

These are just some of my thoughts and keen to engage in a longer discussion. If your interested give me a shout on 0448445177 and we can tee up a time.

Cheers

Nathan

Nathan, I don't think that you're addressing the question that Stumpjumper is posing.

Adelaide risks being a victim of geography, being exceptionally isolated from the rest of the world. Even Perth, ostensibly more isolated from the rest of Australia, may be in a better location as the world economy shifts focus towards China and India. These disadvantages mean that being mediocre is a recipe for a slow death - who's going to travel the enormous distances that separate us from everyone else just to see the average, dull, or typical? Anything less than exceptional or characterful is simply going to be passed over and ignored.

The buildings that we are erecting are not living up to this standard. Indeed, over the last decade we are seeing a growing number of simple rectangles, as the plot is simply extruded up into space for the maximum number of levels allowed on the site. IIRC I have seen press releases from the Property Council (was it in your recent submission?) that lauded the end of floor-area-ratio controls as "outmoded"; I, for one, do not see any advantage coming to us from this spate of featureless cuboids. And their most significant problem is that these buildings could be anywhere, literally anywhere. Looking on them, you could just as easily be in Akron as Adelaide. With their "plop architecture" they remind me of the Rem Koolhaas essay "Generic City" of the triumph of architecture so bland that cities are only distinguishable by the name over the airport.

So far the development community is not showing much evidence that they will voluntarily address this, they seem to be quite happy to continue building gigantic rectangles. What will it take to see signs that they are prepared to act in good faith, to replace existing structures with ones of comparable quality and character, and leave the city better than they found it?

hows home going Prince George, hope you guys havent got withdrawl symptons about being back in Adelaide. Bit hot compared to Seattle Id imagine

btw, the new House of chow building is not worth saving, however we do need to protect some of our heritage

Once again, the issue of what is good architechture and what is not is a purely subjective one - same as with music, art and so on - it is in the eye of the beholder. Ultimately there will always be, and always has been architecture that is considered to be drab. But perhaps we should try to understand why this is?

1) Is the design simply relating to the drab public spaces that surround the building?
2) Is it easier to get a so-called 'drab' building through the DAP? If you recall there was a 'space aged' building that recently received approval through the ERD Court because NPSP Council refused it because they didn't like the architecture and its relationship with the heritage assets on adjacent properties.
3) Is it that we place so many requirements on developers in terms of height, setback etc that they will focus on maximising the NLA (let's remember that like any business, developers are doing this for a return).

Perhaps if we started to allow greater heights and innovation we would end up with better outcomes. But then again maybe it is the system itself.

The issue of what makes a city beutiful and vibrant and one that attracts people to it, like verything else in and arround the issue of planning and development is not a simple one. The fact that we are having this disucssion and trying to understand what our city should look like us a positive one and I sincerely hope that the recently announced IDC will go some way to delivering what we all want.

Cheers

Nathan

With respect, Nathan, dismissing the issue as "purely subjective" is an evasion, the kind of tactic that's too often used to stifle a debate. Taking that thinking to its conclusion, the Sydney Opera House is no more meritorious than a carpark, Federation Square no better than a hangar. I am prepared to wager that you'll meet very few people (nobody?) that would be prepared to agree to those propositions. Likewise in plenty of other fields with subjective assessments:

• Tastes in food differ, but there aren't many people that will choose Glasgow as a dining destination ahead of Paris or Madrid.
• If they're looking for music, more people will find things they like in Nashville or Austin rather than Winnipeg.
• For art, think New York rather than Atlanta.
• Fashion is as fickle as the wind, but Milan remains pre-eminent ahead of practically everywhere (with the possible exception of Paris)

What these places have in common is that even though their citizenry may not all agree on what costitutes good food, good music, good art, or good fashion, the question actually matters to them and they are able to participate in these spheres by dining, listening, observing, or wearing.

Architecture and design are different in that there are fewer opportunities for the average person to participate. The development community are in the almost unique situation of being able to actually build something, and all the evidence suggests that they are working to reduce the ability of outsiders to influence what they do, arguing that they need to be left to their own devices. That would bother me far less if I didn't see example after example that said we can expect the parade of lego-brick shapes to continue.

And, btw, that building in NPSP was no more 'space age' than The Jetsons are 'high tech' - I daresay Norman Foster or Santago Calatrava would regard this assessment for such a building as being rather provincial. Even that term - 'space age' - is so dated, a throw-back to the 60s, it made me cringe to see it. In an era of architects looking to fractals, biology, information-tech, or even "blob-chitecture", we have a building with a curved wall getting defended as contemporary.

Prince George, I am sure that I can come up with many other cliches that will make you cringe even more, but I will leave that for another time.

Let me turn the discussion around then. What constitutes good design? There are plent of buildings that I personally do not like but I appreciate what they do in terms of contributing to the dialogue of a city. Let us also remember that design is often related to function. The 'living wall' on the Musee de Quay Branley is fantastic, but it is on the wall of a Museum. Would you want to work in a building that had so little light?

Far from the notion that the debate is stiffled or that the community cannot contribute, we actually seem to - as illustrated on S-A - have a fairly well rounded debate on the matter. It is this dialogue that is important, but the moment that we start to prescribe then where do we stop. Perhaps if we have a colour blind leader, all buildings could be required to be painted pink? I am aware that this is a flippant comment, but the moment that we open up design to prescription, that is when you will truely have a cookie-cutter approach to design that you so vehmently oppose (as do we all BTW).

Perhaps we should be doing more to encourage innovation ie increased NLA for use of high quality materials? Thoughts?

Cheers

Nathan

Starting with your last point, I am skeptical of the merit of offering incentives for design or, especially, materials (build a cube out of solid gold, it's still a cube). Firstly because it's all to close to the way that we deal with kids and I had hoped that we were actually talking about adults whose motivations went beyond those of simple self-interest. Secondly, the implication of such a scheme is that either we are admitting that they could do better than they are now (which, to my mind, indicates a lack of motivation on their part to care about the buildings they are erecting), or we are rewarding them for the standard that they are already producing (in which case, what have we gained?)

To look at it from another perspective, what incentives were offered to previous generations to cause them to include the functionally unneccessary ornamentation on their buildings? Why did the Adelaide and Regent arcades get facades in riotous Italianate style and lavish Victorian interiors, but the Myers centre or the recently upgraded Citi Cross are so stark? What incentivized putting the hive on Beehive Corner? When the old Bank of South Australia built (what we now call) Edmund Wright House, did they put all those Renaissance revival details (the urns on the roof-line, the 'combination' columns) to gain height or floor-space? And when the State Bank was built, why was it just a truncated triangle? Even on very simple commercial buildings, there are extra details inserted that surely added to the cost of the building, put there for no other reason than the people wanted them to be there.

This is, to my mind, the essential quality of good architecture, to have people look at it and say "the outcome mattered to them", (if you'll pardon the expression) to build it like you give a shit. The specifics are a matter of taste and circumstances - it's not a matter of reproducing the Villa Rotonda any more than of copying Guggenheim Bilbao - but we should be able to look at it and see the care and consideration that went into it. Is anyone thinking "I bet they sweatted bullets over this" about 374-400 King William Street? It's easy for the heritage bully-boys to kick up a stink when buildings that were the result of care and attention are replaced by something that looks like it was whipped up in SketchUp.

Local identity grows from this consideration and attention. France's food is different to that of Spain or Italy, and it gives the French a sense of their identity; an Italian suit has a different cut than an English or German one, it helps us spot an Italian man. Our buildings, our cities, our spaces are telling us something about our identity, who we are, what our past and futures may hold. When this story is subjugated to the question of net leasable area, what message are we taking from that, what are we sending to the rest of the world.

As I think further on this question, it occurs to me that for all that we talk about prescriptive codes and regulations being a cause of boring buildings -- and don't get me wrong, there's plenty that I don't like in the requirements that we're handing down -- there are many examples that we can find of fabulous projects happening in places with legislation that is easily as constraining.

For example, back in the early 20th century New Yorkers were concerned about the growing number of skyscrapers that grew vertically from the curb, simply repeating the plot up into space (such as the Woolworths and Equitable buildings). In 1916 they introduced new building ordinances including the "maximum building envelope", a series of setbacks and line-of-sight requirements forming a ghostly cathedral- or pyramid-like surface that limited the shape that any building in Manhattan could take. And in return they got the Chrysler Building, the Empire State Building, and (perhaps best of all) the Rockefeller Center. Even the Seagram building and its plaza is likely a consequence of those regulations.

Or a contemporary example, there could hardly be a more regulated planning environment than in northern Europe (with the possible exception of Santa Fe, NM). With administrations ranging from local through to the European level, and with a culture that's more than ready to formulate laws on any and all subjects, development there must be a formidably complicated exercise. In response, architecture firms like OMA and MRVDR make something of a speciality of interpreting this morass of regulation in unexpected ways, producing extraordinary designs that exactly satisfy these requirements. They pursue it as a kind of intellectual game, although if you follow Rem Koolhaas's rhetoric he is saying that it isn't just caprice, but that the buildings could come out no other way, they are a direct consequence of the complex requirements placed upon them. Roughly, "the client needed X, the law required Y, therefore we had no option but implausibly large cantilevers, or a giant square doughnut" (although that one's in Spain)

But these examples wouldn't have happened without the people that were prepared to pay for them. If John D Rockefeller thought to himself "Oh well, let's just copy the Bush Tower over and over", there would be no RCA building. Likewise, all the writing that Koolhaas or Herzog & de Meuron publish wouldn't amount to anything if it wasn't for the people that bankroll their designs. Creative people are capable of finding solutions to difficult problems, provided they are given the chance. I am confident that we haven't explored the full range of buildings possible under our own conditions, in fact I bet we only scratched the surface.

PS - regarding the Musee de Quai Branly, how much light enters either the new or old David Jones building? Or the Myers building, or the Telstra building? Even the bulk of people in offices get little by way of natural light - only the desks by the windows get much by way of light, and they become status symbols. Honestly, I think that many people would be happy to work in a building like that museum, and would see very little difference in the light that they can access.

Prince George wrote:Creative people are capable of finding solutions to difficult problems, provided they are given the chance. I am confident that we haven't explored the full range of buildings possible under our own conditions, in fact I bet we only scratched the surface.

Replying to myself, possibly a sign of madness but in a recent post on (the always fascinating) BLDGBLOG:

Tight quarters, a tight budget and further restrictions—including a height limit and required setbacks—navigated the architects toward their design solution: a 54-square-meter trapezoid perched above the existing structure on steel stilts, topped by a roof deck with views in all directions.

Hmm, tight budget, tight plot, height limit, and further restrictions - that all sounds familiar. But the response to that - a largely transparent trapezoid built over the original building (and not in place of) - does not.

That probably wouldn't be allowed here. It is too modern; does not blend in with the 'heritage' streetscape and is not made from red brick.

The first 84 properties in the secret heritage list have been made public.

Here is a pdf file, from the ACC website outlining the properties proposed for heritage listing:

http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/adcc ... erties.pdf

Despite the hysteria unleashed by the Advertiser, one can see that all the properties proposed for heritgae listing are appropriate, and indeed, my initial reaction is shock that they are not already heritage listed.

Will

The reason that there is little shock is that most of these properties are 'anomalies' from the 1993 list. However, sitting out in the ether (or at the least on the desks of DPAC) are a request from Council for a further 320-odd properties across the Residential and CBA/Mixed Use Zone to be listed. The Government has been sensible in how it has addressed this sensitive issue (we put out this media release http://www.propertyoz.com.au/Article/Re ... media=1594). The Property Council will continue to work with the Council and the State Government to ensure the best outcome for the city and the community.

Nathan

PropertyozSA wrote:Will

The reason that there is little shock is that most of these properties are 'anomalies' from the 1993 list. However, sitting out in the ether (or at the least on the desks of DPAC) are a request from Council for a further 320-odd properties across the Residential and CBA/Mixed Use Zone to be listed. The Government has been sensible in how it has addressed this sensitive issue (we put out this media release http://www.propertyoz.com.au/Article/Re ... media=1594). The Property Council will continue to work with the Council and the State Government to ensure the best outcome for the city and the community.

Nathan

Nathan, I share the concerns raised by the property council, in particular regarding the heritage listing in the CBD core.

However, having visited Brisbane earleir this year, I have come to appreaciate the character of our CBD. As such, I support the heritage listing of most of the buildings in the ACC's list. However, this is where my similarities with the council's agenda diverges. For example, I feel that the Property Council should lobby for the creation of a new type of heritgae listing, whereby only the building's facade is listed. Also, another thing the Property Council should lobby is for the abolition of the 'heritage forcefield' in-place currently. By this, I mean how presently if there is a heritage building, there are restrictions on what can be built next and near to the building. Such restrictions should be eased. Also, there should be a trade-off, in that if more properties will be cordoned-off from development, then non-heritage listed sites should have higher height restrictions.

Will

Absolutely agree with the need to allow for contemporary development in locations where heritage listed buildings exist. We have been lobbying on this and on other aligned matters such as land tax exemptions, community contributions and a Heritage Building Code to name but three.

The good majority of properties proposed for listing in this first (of three) rounds will only have their facades (and other objects such as chimneys - what is visible from the street) protected. However the broader question that needs to be answered is 'what is heritage and what is simply character'. While the Property Council agrees that we need to appropriately protect heritage, with over 800 properties on the current list and a proposal to add a further 400, one has to question where we are drawing the line.

For example, my single fronted bluestone workers cottage in Carrington Street arguably adds character and it is listed for ever and a day on the local heritage list (something I did voluntarily in the last round). The reality however is that the more we list, the less special it becomes and the less area we have to develop as our community grows.

Indeed, if we continue on the current trend of listing more and more properties every five or ten years, one can see a day in 20-30 years time where every building in the CBD is listed (I have no doubt that at some point someone will suggest that the Hilton Hotel and the Education Building on Flinders Street are examples of Brutalist Architecture and therefore must be protected).

This is an issue with a lot of gray in it and unfortunately, while the Property Council has a strong and robust relationship and dialogue with the Administration, most elected officials believe they know best and refuse to engage in a mature and sensible dialogue on this important issue.

It seems to me that the contributors to this site have a greater understanding and willingness to debate the issues in a clear and level-headed manner than many of our elected officials.

Nathan

From the Advertiser 27/10/10

Property council says city's heritage listings are strangling economy

SHERADYN HOLDERHEAD

ADELAIDE'S hundreds of heritage-listed buildings are preventing it from adapting to the state's changing economy, a peak industry body says.

Property Council of Australia SA division executive director Nathan Paine said there were already more than 1800 heritage-listed buildings in North Adelaide and the city, and the council had a draft proposal lodged with the State Government to list several hundred more.

He said the Property Council had developed a proposal for a new approach to heritage policy that would modernise the way heritage was preserved.

"We have had a history of trying to preserve our city in aspic, to ensure that it never changes," he said.

"That is simply not practical.

"We need to move away from the quantity-over-quality situation we find ourselves in and facilitate guidelines that allow for good, sensitive, adaptive reuse of our real built heritage."

The proposal, developed by the property industry's young professionals, will be released today.

Key points include:

REDEFINING the way we think about heritage by placing stricter controls on what can become heritage listed. In Adelaide heritage constraints affect about 50 per cent of properties.

EDUCATING the public about why a building was listed. Mr Paine said in European cities there were large signs at heritage sites explaining why a building was considered significant and special.

PROVIDING private owners of heritage properties with money or other means to allow them to restore and update it.

GIVING owners more scope to update and develop their building. Mr Paine said in Melbourne there were examples of heritage buildings where four and five residential storeys had been built atop the original building.

I deliberately called this thread 'Heritage AND development' not 'Heritage VERSUS development'

The timing of Nathan Paine's comments suggest that he is trying to frame the current ACC elections as heritage versus development.

The two need not be mutually exclusive. There is good modern development, there is appropriate heritage conservation, and there is adaptive re-use of old buildings.

NP is doing a good job for the industry body he represents, but in my opinion he is overstating the developers' case.

On one hand, the average developer finds maximum profit working with a clean site. It would be the same in Amsterdam, Paris, Darlinghurst, Balmain, Carlton and any other place with a large number of older properties. On the other hand, there are successful strategies for extracting profit from adaptive re-use).

Adelaide has a large number of older buildings in its CBD and inner suburbs. Unusually, many of the buildings are low level and have well below the floor area potential for the site. Many buildings in Adelaide's CBD are probably only the second buildings to have been built on the site. In some cases they are the first. How many cottages of the SE Corner style can you find within walking distance of Macquarie St in Sydney or Bourke St in Melbourne? The survival of such buildings in Adelaide is to do with low historic demand for city land, partly due to the trend until recently of wealthier people moving away from the city and partly due to our friend Colonel Light.

Light designed a city (south Adelaide within the terraces) that as a CBD has always been too big for the population metropolitan area around it. In fact, if Adelaide had not been designed and placed where inland on its gulf as an artificial city, 'Adelaide' would probably comprise a tight CBD at Port Adelaide, surrounding a regional agricultural port, itself surrounded by suburbs of increasing modernity.

This setup causes considerable problems, opportunities, and responsibilities for development of the city. Unfortunately, for the principal reasons of maximum profit on clear sites and low existing floor areas noted above, the development industry usually sees only the problems.

The success and desirability of any development should be considered holistically, not just from the point of view of clear profit for the developer.

Best practice around the world shows that there are benefits (or 'rents' in economic terms) to be had in a balance of careful new development in a location characterised by a large number of older buildings. This means that instead of rebuilding Adelaide in an unexceptional, global style largely defined by the construction economics of the day, the whole city can benefit by adaptive re-use, where appropriate, of existing structures, and the blending of new buildings with the old.

Other than its quiet location and clear skies, Adelaide does not offer the busy geographic locations of many other cities. We're relatively isolated in world terms, which means that there is the resistance to change of isolated communities. But it also means that we have clear skies and a relatively secure and peaceful life. Seen from outside eyes, our stocks of small scale, older buildings are a perfect complement to these attributes, and there is probably a growing economic advantage in preserving aspects of this as the world gets more congested and in many ways difficult to live in. Looked at long term, the conservation and adaptive re-use of older buildings in a location like ours is an opportunity rather than a problem.

By 'responsibilities' I refer to the conservation of historic inputs of capital and labour when an old building is adaptively re-used, although adapting an older building usually presents known and unknown difficulties for builders. Some refuse to do it, while others specialise in it.

The best deal from a developers point of view is one where the developer secures for himself every potential advantage and dollar of profit offered by a site. 'Don't leave a dollar in it' might be the mantra. But from the point of view of the city and its future, the narrow approach of the developer may deny 'profits' of various sorts accruing to a wide range of stakeholders far into the future.

So the best solution might be for all parties, factions and viewpoints to compromise, instead of producing self-serving pieces like Nathan Paine's above.

Perhaps a medium height limit across the city would yield the same in redevelopment floor area as the development of high profit to cost ratio high rise development on sites dotted here and there, wuite apart from the inequity of spot rezoning. Spot rezoning might be the developer's dream, but it usually means that the previous vendor has missed out on a profit which is extracted by the developer in succeeding in the rezoning.

Supporting heritage does not mean denying development, but best practice heritage conservation and adaptive re-use can mean combining profit for the developers while retaining the character of a place. This goes hand in hand with capitalising on that character, as happens elsewhere in the world. Most developers aren't in that business, so they don't include it in their calculations.

On an individual level, apart from the economic benefit (usually ignored in the developer's single bottom line accounting) of conserving historical inputs, an adaptively re-used build often provides higher rents because enough people and businesses prefer a modernised older building than a generic modern one of tilt slab and glass to put pressure on rents. A recent survey published in Britain indicates typical yields in London of about 11% compared to 9% in favour of adaptively re-used buildings, after allowing for higher maintenance. It is quite possible to create A grade commercial accommodation within an old building.

There is still the problem of old, low level buildings on sites zoned for multi-storey. Many must, and should go, but there are strategies for retaining some too, from offsets like transferrable floor area schemes to subsidies.

As to Nathan Paine's key points:

REDEFINING the way we think about heritage by placing stricter controls on what can become heritage listed. In Adelaide heritage constraints affect about 50 per cent of properties.

'Affects about 50% of properties' needs further definition. The proportion of listed properties is nowhere near 50%. On the other hand, a high rise development has an affect on the amenity and potential of many buildings around it.

EDUCATING the public about why a building was listed. Mr Paine said in European cities there were large signs at heritage sites explaining why a building was considered significant and special.

Education about the opportunities s and on-site interpretation is a lot of the problem.

PROVIDING private owners of heritage properties with money or other means to allow them to restore and update it.

ACC is already a world leader in this.

GIVING owners more scope to update and develop their building. Mr Paine said in Melbourne there were examples of heritage buildings where four and five residential storeys had been built atop the original building.[/quote]

This is happening all over Adelaide.

When Light designed Adelaide, I'd be curious to know just exactly how big he envisaged Adelaide to become (in population size) - because urely that would have been relative to the reason why he designed the CBD (South Adelaide) as big as it were, hence the situation we find ourselves in today regarding heritage conservation at odds with development due to the close proximity of such buildings within the city centre.

One thinks he had a big ego and was overtly optimistic.