Insofar as local councils in NSW are concerned, the general objectives in a residential conservation area typically, are to conserve the ambience, form, materiality, scale, setting and subdivision pattern of the historic precinct in order that contributory buildings in such areas are appropriately conserved and new buildings introduced, are appropriately designed. It is simple politeness to deal with such precincts respectfully in a deferential manner rather than attempting to bombastically assert a bold and disruptive typology by way of new infill buildings that do not comply. Primarily, the aims and objectives of a typical residential conservation area are to; 1. Maintain all buildings and other structures which explain the history of the area and contribute to its significance – (HISTORICAL REFERENCE); 2. Ensure a consistency of scale and materials in extensions to existing buildings and in new buildings so that the new work does not detract from the historic buildings and their amenity or from the streetscape (CONSISTENCY).Read More
I can think of ten good reasons why heritage conservation is not only good for society but healthy too. I list them as follows;
EMBEDDED MEMORY – heritage buildings imbue localities with embedded memories. This is important for promoting civil pride and respect and promotes a sense of psychological reassurance in the sense that we trust places better if we know them as opposed to those places to which we have never been before. The fact that there are places with heritage buildings that may be hundreds of years old creates a sense of safety in our minds because we can easily tell that other people and previous generations have safely used and enjoyed those places before us – as we do now. HISTORICAL RECORD – clearly, heritage buildings and places are a marker of time. They readily reveal to us how previous societies built their spaces, constructed their buildings. Selected their motifs and decoration and understand what they were attempting to achieve with their buildings.
Since colonial times in NSW, Australia, there are nine distinct styles of European, English and American inspired heritage architecture. Listed in order of appearance, they are; Colonial (1788 – 1840); Mid-Victorian (1840 – 1870); Late Victorian (1870 – 1895); Federation (1895 – 1925); Californian Bungalow (1925 – 1938); Inter-war buildings (1918 – 1939); Modern Movement buildings (1935 – 1960); Post Modern buildings (1950 – 1975); Brutalist buildings (1968 – 1975).Read More
To all heritage architects/ consultants/ advisors/ builders/ planners/ managers and owners out there – there are five cardinal principles that should be applied when attempting to integrate new design into heritage buildings. I list them as follows; Bulk and scale, Setting, Form, Materials and Juxtaposition. Taking each individually, it is a common rule with heritage buildings to ensure that the new fabric does not overwhelm the heritage fabric i.e. that a there is a delicate balance between the two but always respectfully giving greater prominence to the older heritage building or at least allowing it to be recognised as distinct from the new building. Accordingly, in most cases, the new bulk and scale should be subservient to the heritage building. Roofs should be set down lower and walls set in behind. The concept of heritage design is very much based on the streetscape view i.e. what one sees from the street.Read More
There seven things to know about heritage conservation on our contemporary world today. This is a message for designers, architects, planners and managers of heritage buildings and places.
The decisions we make today will forever affect a heritage building or place. Therefore, we need to be conscious and judicious in the way we treat heritage fabric because what we decide now will affect every future decision to come. This places a heavy onus on the design of heritage buildings and forces the designer/ architect/ planner/ manager to be very circumspect in regard to each and every decision affecting a heritage building or place. Heritage buildings are all about their fabric. If you remove an element – it’s gone for ever. Nothing but a replica can be returned, and replicas are not heritage. Its not about what it looks like – its about what it actually is. I cannot replace my grandmother with a fake replica – it just won’t be the same person. This is how we need to think about heritage buildings.
For local government heritage items (listed buildings) in NSW, Australia, we have only two little incentives. They are Clause 5.10.10 and Clause 5.10.3 of the Local Environment Plan. There is a third incentive only operated by the Council of the City of Sydney and that is a transferrable development right under the HFS (Heritage Floor Space Scheme). I will explain later what this other one is all about. However, first, I would like to say that these incentives are insufficient, paltry, ungenerous and counter-productive in their limited scope. Incentives need to be generously applied so long as it can be determined that the outcome for the heritage building would be positively enhanced, better maintained and actually restored. Put simply, these are the only criteria that should prevail. Instead, councils and the courts and now design review panels are applying a limited approach to the incentive – always with the suspicion that the applicant (developer) is seeking some sort of unjustifiable reward/ opportunity/ free ride.Read More
Most countries, regions and states utilise heritage listing as a means of protecting heritage assets, but many of these lists are faulty, omissive, repetitive or incomplete. Quite often, as a cultural heritage advisor, I have come across buildings in conservation areas that are un-listed, yet they possess vary rare and distinctive fabric. Likewise, I come across many buildings that are neither listed nor in conservation areas that should be listed but are blatantly not. Who keeps tabs on this and who decides to list buildings in the first place?
In NSW, we have a complex system of cultural heritage listing. Most of the items are locally listed. Some are state-listed; a few are listed on the Commonwealth Heritage Register and even less on the National Heritage Register. In Australia, we have 18 World Heritage listings (UNESCO); three of which are buildings and places – the rest being of natural heritage significance.
What is the relationship between cultural heritage tourism, the community and heritage places in any given locality? Which comes first, and which is more important than the other? In this article, I argue that above all, communities must be protected from an inundation of tourism so as not to alienate that community from its own heritage assets and secondly, I argue that the buildings themselves must be protected from loss of fabric and loss of meaning especially when tourist products are turned into corporate brands and locals are treated completely incidentally to the tourist experience.
Speno (2010) argues completely in favour of the tourists’ experience as the highest priority in the mix. She says that tourism, the world’s largest industry, is essential to a community’s economic vitality, sustainability, and profitability. The historic and cultural resources associated with people, events, or aspects of a community’s past give that community its sense of identity and help tell its story.
The World Bank (2010) writes that a good investment climate for tourism, underpinned by a sound tax regime, can play a central role in a government’s growth and development strategy. Yet in many countries, tax systems for the tourism sector are characterized by exemption schemes and instruments that generate little revenue and burden business. The three main issues facing policymakers dealing with tourism taxation are: fiscal incentives, sector-specific levies, and value-added tax (VAT). Such policy options are designed to encourage tourism investments while ensuring sustainable revenue collection. A good business environment for tourism is essential to support the industry’s central role in many countries’ development strategies. Investments in the sector, which has significant growth potential and can have important positive spillovers for the economy. Tourism is a complex industry of numerous subsectors. It is challenging to define exactly what constitutes a tourism product and how to tax it; tourism is not a single commodity, but rather a collection of many different goods and services provided by a wide range of suppliers.Read More
There is a multiplicity of questions related to heritage management in society today especially for heritage property consultants and cultural heritage advisors. Based on the concept of the ‘social construction of reality’, there has been a shift from a consideration of heritage as a fixed list to a socially open process. The recognition of heritage as ―that which expresses some indefinable but recognizable element which current societies value and wish to pass on to posterity, gives rise to the interaction of different actors (social sectors) based on different values which are conducted through different disciplinary fields (Shalaginova 2012). In the sociological disciplines, culture is seen as a set of values, beliefs and symbols of expression and in anthropology, it is seen as the way of life of a society. In this regard, the conception of heritage as a social process is based on the revaluation by each generation and a conservation methodology to suit the production of future heritage.Read More
How do we define cultural built heritage? What is culture and what is heritage? Where does the idea of conservation come from and how is it practically applied to current heritage management systems? Heritage studies is yet to have a debate about its theorisation at the global level. Many of the core ideas that shape the field are rooted in the contexts of Europe and the USA and geographically rolled out in normative ways. We need to embark on pluralising how heritage is studied and theoretically framed, in ways that better address the heterogeneous nature of heritage for both the West and the non-West. The themes of modernity, cities and international cultural policy provide evidence of why we need to better position the academic study of heritage in relation to the rapid geo-political and geo-cultural shifts now taking place (Winter, 2014). Tracing the historical roots, or origins of what we understand today as heritage and the associated field of conservation is fraught with problems.Read More
As communities throughout the world have come to recognise the importance of their cultural heritage, a number of unexpected results has arisen which demand our close analysis. These include the emergence of new heritage categories, a growing convergence of intangible and tangible heritage and an increasing demand for traditional conservation specialists to share our decision-making authority with those individuals and groups that have strong links to a particular heritage site.Read More
The Office of the Victorian Government Architect in Australia provides strategic advice to the government about architecture and urban design. It supports government with advocacy and advisory initiatives, including design review, collaborative workshops, design quality teams, desktop reviews and input on briefs. One of its aims is to encourage awareness of the role of good design in protecting, enhancing and layering contemporary legacy in heritage places.Read More
Lester and Reckhow (2012) – see reference below; write that the new economic reality of heightened international competition, constant technological change, and cross border migration flows—referred to in shorthand as “globalisation”—has upset traditional forms of governing capitalist economies.Read More
Today (I received them on 9 March 2018), the National Trust has issued a set of Ethical Principles for heritage and conservation professionals. Allow me to state that Heritage 21 fully and robustly embraces every one of the eight principles listed below.Read More