Creativity and Conservation: Managing Significance at the Sydney Opera House

SHERIDAN BURKE AND SUSAN MACDONALD

This paper examines how the The Sydney Opera House, completed in conserved, and how change should be dialogue with the original architect 1973, was inscribed on the World Her- managed in the future. itage list in 2007 as a great architectural This paper examines how the dia- has been integrated into the typical work of the twentieth century that logue with the original architect has Australian conservation-manage- brings together multiple strands of been integrated into heritage-manage- ment approach to guide both the creativity and innovation in both archi- ment strategies that guide both the day- day-to-day care and also proposals tectural form and structural design. The to-day care of the building, as well as building is great urban sculpture set in a proposals for large-scale work. It also for large-scale work. remarkable waterscape, at the tip of a reflects on the challenges of marrying peninsula projecting into Sydney Har- the World Heritage process for assessing bor, at the edge of the city (Fig. 1). It is significance within the more usual pro- the result of the design by the then- cess of significance assessment used by unknown Danish architect Jørn Utzon, national heritage bodies. Finally, the who won the international architectural paper also reflects on the challenges of competition held in 1956. The building balancing different and sometimes com- has had an enduring influence on mod- peting values and illustrates an emerging ern architecture and is recognized as approach to achieving this balance. one of the early examples of a signature building that has brought architectural Drama and Controversy acclaim to a city. While the Sydney Opera House was not the youngest site The Sydney Opera House was con- to be inscribed on the World Heritage structed over the course of 16 years List, it was the first that benefited from between 1958 and 1973, opening six input from its creator on defining the years late and eventually costing values of the place, how it should be AUS$102 million, ten times its original budget. The controversy surrounding the project’s problematic development has been extensively documented. The first challenge arose early in the project when the client demanded that con- struction commence in 1959, before the drawings were finalized. Utzon’s revolu- tionary architectural design required innovative engineering, provided by Anglo-Danish engineer Ove Arup, who worked closely with Utzon to resolve the structural challenges and design the extraordinary concrete structure. Ut- zon’s unprecedented architectural forms demanded new technologies and materi- als. The builders, M. R. Hornibrook, were an integral part of the team and turned Utzon’s vision into Sydney’s reality. Utzon worked up solutions with technical experts and artisans by a Fig. 1. Sydney Opera House (1957-1973), 2010. The Sydney Opera House sits on Bennelong Point, process of trial and error to perfect the jutting into Sydney Harbor at the edge of the city. All photographs by Jack Atley, courtesy of Sydney design. These methods were collabora- Opera House Trust, unless otherwise noted.

31 32 APT BULLETIN: JOURNAL OF PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY / 45:2-3, 2014 tive and evolutionary, and their proto- process rely on developing a good un- List nomination in 2007. This nomina- types of architectural, engineering, and derstanding of why a place is significant, tion aligned the values and needs of the computing solutions were unique. They identifying the attributes that embody various jurisdictions to prevent overlap were also time consuming and costly. In specific heritage values (tangible and and conflict across the various levels of 1966, after much public debate about intangible), and establishing an under- heritage bureaucracy. This was impor- the rising costs of the project, Utzon standing of the relative levels of signifi- tant in Australia, since there was some and his family left Sydney, a full six cance. The impact of any subsequent nervousness on the part of different years before the building was com- changes can thus be measured against levels of government about the impact pleted. Sadly, Utzon never returned to the identified values of the place as cap- of World Heritage listing. Sydney, and his design for the major tured in its statement of cultural signifi- The drafting of the World Heritage and minor halls was never realized. cance. This basic Burra Charter process, List statement of outstanding universal At that time a change of state gov- combined with use of conservation value for the Sydney Opera House ernment also brought major changes to plans, is a distinct practice developed in demonstrated some of the difficulties of the design brief for the building and re- Australia in the 1980s and 1990s. Con- using the criteria that have been devel- quired the team of Australian architects servation planning is based on a docu- oped at the World Heritage level. The who took over the project — Hall, Todd, ment first published by James Semple criteria typically used at national and and Littlemore — to recommend radical Kerr in 1982, The Conservation Plan.3 local levels, at least those most familiar changes to the building’s interiors. Its Conservation plans are used to guide to the authors, are more tightly worded present interiors are largely attributed to and manage works, or changes, to a and arguably more objective and more architect Peter Hall. Despite the comple- heritage place. Heritage-impact state- easily linked to the specific heritage tion of the building by others, Utzon’s ments are used as a tool to measure the attributes of a place, which are also vision for the Sydney Opera House was effect of change when it is proposed and defined in the significance assessment of so powerful that the building gained to identify mitigation measures. Both of many jurisdictions. Despite many years iconic status almost immediately and these processes are codified in practice of adaptation and debate about opera- has been the focus of continued atten- and enshrined in legislation in Australia tional guidelines, the World Heritage tion ever since. and thus are standard practice. Conser- List criteria and the framework for sig- vation plans are similar to but not quite nificance assessment are less clear and Values-Based Heritage Practice in the same as the historic-structure reports leave room for more subjectivity, thereby Australia that are used in the U.S. before physical leading to subsequent problems of man- work begins and serve as the primary agement on World Heritage Sites. The Australian conservation practice utilizes document for decision-making about World Heritage List criteria and guide- what has become known as the values- conservation work. lines are critiqued less often than na- based approach and has formally uti- The Sydney Opera House, like all tional criteria, and since the World Heri- lized this methodology for identifying places protected by heritage legislation tage List inclusion provides no legisla- and conserving heritage places since the in Australia, has a defined set of heritage tive power, it does not get tested on a Burra Charter’s influence was filtered values, which together express its signifi- regular basis in the regulatory and court into government legislation and policy cance at the local, state, and national systems that exist at national and local in the 1980s.1 The methodology for levels. Despite the fact that the building levels. The World Heritage Committee is identifying why a place is worthy of was not formally listed as being of heri- a powerful and influential body, but it is recognition as a heritage resource has tage value until the 2000s, conservation not directly accountable to property parallels with systems used in many planning began to be integrated into the owners or the public in terms of the day- countries and was developed from the decision-making processes about it in to-day care of heritage places, so it has system operating in the U.S. in the the early 1990s, and the first edition of not been required to simplify and clarify 1970s. The criteria for identifying places the Sydney Opera House Conservation the system in the same way that local of heritage importance (or “cultural Plan was in place by 1993.4 This plan jurisdictions have. The recent process of significance,” the term used in Aus- had a pivotal effect on changing the developing statements of significance for tralia) are thus quite similar to those management regimes of the opera house. all World Heritage List sites has been a used in the U.S. and Canada. They are It provided a detailed analysis of the step in the right direction. identified in the Burra Charter and in- building’s heritage significance and The framework for significance clude historic, aesthetic, scientific, so- documented the critical role of Utzon’s assessment in place at the Sydney Opera cial, and spiritual values embodied in vision in the construction of the build- House more or less reflects standard the fabric, setting, use associations and ing. These sources were used to develop practice typical of many places of na- meanings of a place for past, present, sound policies for ongoing management. tional and international significance. and future generations.2 By the mid-2000s the building was sta- What makes it an interesting case are Significance assessment in most tutorily protected at all levels of govern- the facts that the building was just over places is recognized as the first step in ment. The timing of these listings en- 30 years old when it was included on the conservation process. The typical abled the various heritage regulatory the World Heritage List, that there was norms or principles used to guide the systems across layers of government to an ongoing program of adaptation and subsequent steps in the conservation be coordinated with the World Heritage change envisioned in its nomination and MANAGING SIGNIFICANCE AT THE SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE 33

Fig. 2. Sydney Opera House, 2009. Increasing tourist numbers put pres- Fig. 3. Sydney Opera House, 2011. The completion of the Utzon Room in sure on the fabric of the building and catalyzed demands for more services. 2004 was the first Utzon-designed interior space. Photograph by Sheridan Burke. management framework, and that it was being of world, national, and state heri- assessed using the standard heritage- the first World Heritage Site whose crea- tage significance, and the conservation impact assessment process that applies tor, to whom much of its significance is of these heritage values is therefore a in Australian heritage legislation. A attributed, had input into its current and priority for heritage authorities, as well simple operational change such as re- future care and conservation. as the building operators. This is a placing floor coverings or stair handrails building that is much loved and much to ensure functional capacity or to meet Managing Change at a World Heritage touched, and while its fabric is robust, occupational health and safety standards Site maintenance and visitor management could adversely impact the heritage pose persistent demands (Fig. 2). The values, as well as its physical building To see the Sydney Opera House on a public-expenditure purse is tight, yet fabric, and thus diminish its authenticity sunny morning, its iridescent white sails public expectations are high. There were incrementally. The building’s operators glinting in a blue sky, with yachts racing loudly expressed views that World Heri- are acutely aware that making such past, is to be left in awe of this designer tage List inclusion would complicate cumulative small decisions under imme- and the courage with which he and his management processes even further and diate operational pressures may erode collaborators pursued his vision. Three conflict with the need for the building to the overall heritage significance of the groups of interlocking vaulted shells generate income beyond its perfor- place, so a simple methodology for as- cover the two main performance halls mances and to help fund its ongoing sessing and avoiding adverse heritage and a restaurant set atop a terraced maintenance. impacts while responding quickly to the podium that is surrounded by harbor- Unusually, and very importantly, the urgent needs of public performance side pedestrian concourses. The site 2007 World Heritage List nomination venues is essential. To manage this, the covers 5 acres and has more than 1,000 dossier noted that the use and function “sensitivity to change” (StC) concept rooms, 7 major performance venues, of the opera house was an integral part has been used in the proposed fourth and extensive retail and dining venues. of its significance and that change and edition of the Sydney Opera House Nearly 500 staff welcome more than adaptation of the property would be Conservation Plan and is discussed later 8.2 million visitors every year, 1.2 ongoing. The dossier noted the work in this paper. million of whom attend the more than then underway on the western loggia Everyday site management sits within 2,500 events and performances held and the completion of the Utzon Room a complex web of local statutory plan- annually. There are, however, serious in 2004 and stated that the essential role ning and building controls and codes, functional problems: the orchestra pits of the conservation framework in ensur- state heritage regulations, and the fed- are inadequate, delivery facilities are ing that authenticity and integrity would eral government responsibilities in rela- dysfunctional, some acoustics are unsat- be maintained (Figs. 3 and 4). What is tion to the World Heritage Convention.5 isfactory, and access for disabled pa- different at the opera house is that part An official bilateral agreement was trons is poor. Projects aimed at solving of the significance of the place is its negotiated at the time of inclusion on some of these weaknesses are underway, performance role; its functional use is an the World Heritage List wherein the but they are long term and costly. attribute of its heritage significance, just state government manages the approvals The day-to-day activities of this as much as its form, fabric, and setting. and consent processes, with notification performing-arts center require building Therefore, the impact of any proposed to the federal government of any pro- asset-management systems that respond changes on the whole range of attributes posals with significant impacts. The swiftly to operational needs. However, must be assessed and balanced. Perfor- management plan is the parent statutory the building fabric and forms in which mance needs do not override heritage document, which includes the policy- these functions operate are now listed as requirements. All proposed projects are oriented Conservation Management 34 APT BULLETIN: JOURNAL OF PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY / 45:2-3, 2014

the text being approved by Jørn. The The conservation-plan framework is the purpose of the UDP was to provide a same as for any other heritage building, permanent reference for the building except for the UDP that it incorporates. and its setting for all involved in its care The purpose of regular revisions of and development.8 A venue-improve- CMPs is not so much that major changes ment plan and a substantial budget for in the heritage values are anticipated but works accompanied the publication of more to acknowledge that it is not the UDP. Several projects by the Utzon/ possible to anticipate all the potential Johnson Pilton Walker team followed, risks and future needs that may arise. It including the first Utzon-designed inte- also recognizes that over time new heri- rior space, the Utzon Room, which was tage values may be attributed to a place. completed in 2004 (Fig. 3). In 2006 the In the case of the Sydney Opera House, Fig. 4. Sydney Opera House, 2009. The new construction of a new loggia on the it is unlikely that its core values will loggia to the western side of the building, western (city) side of the podium linked significantly change. Further research designed by Jan and Jørn Utzon and Australian architect Richard Johnson, tested the Design theater foyers with the harbor via a may reveal new information about it; Principles and CMP framework. Photograph by colonnade, creating a dialogue with the some aspects of its significance may Sheridan Burke. character and design palette of Utzon’s become rarer; or it may acquire addi- original work and demonstrating how tional values to different people. The Plan and the visionary Utzon Design change could be successfully accommo- pre-colonization, Indigenous values of Principles. A strategic building plan dated within the framework of the both the site, for example, are not presently implements master plans for various the UDP and CMP (Fig. 4). An unexe- well recognized. projects and elements, right down to, cuted design proposal for the majestic The proposed fourth edition of the for example, the carpet strategy for the renewal of the opera theater was docu- conservation plan includes two over- opera house. mented by the Utzon/JPW team in 2005 arching policies that guide values man- and awaits financial support. A major agement and the primacy of Utzon’s vehicle- and pedestrian-access project is vision. The first is that significance and Reengagement of Jørn Utzon presently underway. sensitivity to change will lead decision- Over the last decade or so, Australia The Utzon Room and western loggia making: has been fortunate to enjoy a most projects predated the inclusion in the All elements of the Sydney Opera House are to unusual reengagement with Jørn Utzon World Heritage List and the statutory be maintained, used and managed in accordance and his architect son, Jan, to contribute management-planning framework put in with their relative level of significance and the identified sensitivity to change of their compo- to the ongoing evolution of the build- place as part of this process. Neverthe- nent parts. The higher the significance or sensi- ing. This process provided extraordi- less, the UDP were utilized during this tivity to change, the greater the level of care and nary access to first-hand knowledge process, providing an opportunity to test consideration is required in determining any about how and why the opera house in advance how they would operate in decision of action that may affect it, the objec- tive being to ensure that the work or proposal was built the way it was and about the conjunction with local heritage controls. will reinforce and not reduce the identified creator’s insight into the ways the build- The design principles do not exist significance.10 ing might evolve. This unusual relation- alone; rather, they form a distinct com- The second policy deals with respecting ship began in 1999, when the Hon. Bob ponent of the policy-oriented conserva- the inputs of Hall, Utzon, and others in Carr, then the New South Wales state tion management plan, which is used to the completion of the building: premier, invited Jørn Utzon “to docu- guide the conservation, management, In order to retain and respect the authenticity ment his original design intentions for and interpretation of the site. Three con- and integrity of Utzon’s work and the contribu- posterity and to advise on future servation plans for the opera house have tions made by Hall and others in its completion, work.”6 Utzon’s reengagement, in col- been successively prepared by James all future designers should accept and utilize the laboration with the distinguished Aus- Semple Kerr, his last in 2003 with input Design Principles established as the basis for all new work. No new design work should contrast tralian architect Richard Johnson and from Richard Johnson, responding to the or compete with the Utzon or Hall work. New his firm Johnson Pilton Walker, opened UDP. Each plan has been a benchmark work should be read as subtle and sympathetic a new era of projects at the opera document. Utzon and Johnson saw the addition to the existing work.11 house. The Sydney Opera House Trust objectives of the UDP as being comple- It is proposed that each policy in the had 30 years of practical experience mentary and subservient to the CP.9 fourth edition of the CP will be pre- with the building and its performance. It is Australian practice to review ceded by an excerpt from the UDP, Utzon’s own ideas had evolved and conservation plans every five years or giving Utzon’s own introduction first, matured. At the time, Utzon was 84 when major change is proposed. Follow- followed by the detailed policy. This years old, and his son Jan was the key ing the World Heritage listing in 2007, a uses a micro-management tool called collaborator in his practice. revision process of the 2003 CP was “sensitivity to change” (StC). The Utzon Design Principles (UDP) initiated, and a proposed fourth edition, were prepared in 2002.7 Richard John- prepared by Alan Croker, was submitted Sensitivity to Change son compiled them after many long to the relevant government departments meetings, conversations, and correspon- in 2011, with the previous 2003 edition “Sensitivity to change” is a judgment dence between Denmark and Australia, being statutorily used in the meantime. about how vulnerable to change the MANAGING SIGNIFICANCE AT THE SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE 35 attributes of form, fabric, function, and The council and the panel provide a location of each heritage component are range of expertise and experience to and consequently how tolerant they are strategic decision-making by the Opera to change without adverse impacts on House Trust. Specialist consultants are their heritage significance. It is a rela- engaged by the trust to provide advice tively new concept that has been used in and reports on specific management and many large institutional CMPs in Aus- development issues. Thus, any proposals tralia.12 Each of the main elements (and for change are scrutinized internally by spaces) of the Sydney Opera House has these bodies prior to commencing nego- been assessed for its individual signifi- tiations with the regulatory authorities cance (relative to the exceptional signifi- and are then involved through the devel- cance of the whole place), including opment-assessment process when acoustics, carpets, seats, green rooms, change is proposed. and stage machinery for the main opera In the case of the 2007 access-im- theater and concert hall. Each of the provement work, the Conservation building elements has its own StC table, Council examined the proposed work which adds detailed guidance for the against the relevant policies in the CMP implementation of the main policies. and UDP. Once satisfied, the consulta- Components with high sensitivity have tion process with the statutory authori- low tolerance for change, enabling ties began, and the same criteria were Fig. 5. Sydney Opera House, 2009. Recent property managers to manage or reduce again used to determine whether to alterations since the time of inclusion on the World Heritage List includes the escalators to impacts without adversely affecting the grant approval. In this case, policies that the Opera Theater. endurance of the heritage significance of addressed circulation, materials, and the a place. spatial qualities of the affected spaces of the UDP and integrates the more The heritage-impact assessment helped determine the design outcome. detailed policies of the new CMP in the process used in Australia to determine For example, the introduction of an decision-making process. Utzon’s design the potential of a proposal for change to elevator from the lower concourse level intentions are considered alongside alter the heritage values of the place is to the upper theater areas was impossi- conservation policies. In the words of standardized at all levels of government. ble. It was, however, possible to develop the World Heritage Committee, In the case of the opera house, the Utzon an alternative approach, locating a new Design Principles are an added criteria lift discretely from the concourse to the the Sydney Opera House continues to perform its function as a world-class performing arts for assessing change. For example in level where ticket sales take place. From centre. The Conservation Plan specifies the need 2007, during the development-assess- here the majority of patrons use the to balance the roles of the building as an archi- ment process for the escalators and lifts, grand stairs or the new escalators to tectural monument and as a state-of-the-art performing center, thus retaining its authenticity which were inserted to address perfor- access the performance halls (Fig. 5). of use and function. Attention given to retaining mance-hall access issues, the CMP and Those requiring lift access are taken the building’s authenticity [has] culminated with the UDP were used to guide the archi- through a less public area to existing the Conservation Plan and the Utzon Design tects’ work (Fig. 5). They were also used elevators. This solution is not ideal from Principles.13 by all those tasked with determining the an equitable-access point of view, but it appropriateness of the work. is a considerable improvement to the Conclusions To advise the Sydney Opera House previous situation, which had patrons Trust, a Conservation Council was being taken back through the secure, but A management aspect unique to the appointed in 1996. Meeting three times busy, working areas of the building to places of twentieth-century heritage per year, the Conservation Council access the existing elevators. The design significance is the potential for ongoing provides expert advice and recommen- and placement of the new escalators involvement or reengagement of the dations regarding the medium- and from the ticketing area to the perfor- original designer in the evolving life of long-term preservation, conservation, mance halls were guided by the CMP/ the building. The 2009 Australia ICO- and development of the Sydney Opera UDP policies that addressed the spatial MOS conference, “(Un)Loved Mod- House and its site, such as the imple- qualities of the affected areas. The CMP/ ern,” held in part at Sydney Opera mentation of CMP conservation policies UDP policies and guidelines also led the House, explored through a series of and the UDP. choice of materials. national and international papers some An Eminent Architects Panel was In the newest version of the CMP, of the ambiguities about whether the established in 2010 as an advisory body which includes the StC criteria, this creator has privileges over the conserva- to the Sydney Opera House Trust to principles- and policy-led process will be tor. The papers are available on the 14 provide high-level independent expert even clearer. The proposed change will Australia ICOMOS web site. advice (via the Trust Building Commit- be assessed against the StC table and With Jørn Utzon, the creator, the self- tee) on issues of architecture or design in reviewed in terms of the various policies effacing nature of the man dictated his order to continue to protect the building relevant to each change (Fig. 6). This approach. His personal collaboration as it adapts to changing circumstances. methodology draws on the broad scope with Richard Johnson and Jan Utzon’s 36 APT BULLETIN: JOURNAL OF PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY / 45:2-3, 2014

Fig. 6. Extract from the Sydney Opera House draft conservation management plan, 2014. The Opera Theater Sensitivity to Change table illustrates this approach. passion for his father’s building has Heritage places, where use is an im- the tensions that exist between the formed a partnership for successful portant attribute of significance, must building’s role as a performing-arts reengagement with the place. The temp- balance the inevitable changes needed to center, a city gathering place, and a tation to reconstruct what Utzon had sustain that use with the impact those much-loved monument will continue. planned in the 1960s but left unfinished changes may have on the other attributed The fourth edition of the its conserva- after his departure from Sydney had values. Ensuring that there is a sound tion-management plan, which intro- been a matter of ongoing debate prior to understanding of the various aspects of duces the concept of Sensitivity to 2002. Jørn Utzon himself rejected this significance and a robust framework for Change, will increase the robustness of idea, stating in the UDP that “it would assessing the impact of change is essential the conservation framework and is not be correct to go back to the thoughts to achieving this balance. The Sydney already being tested on a daily basis. No and ideas that were new in the 1960s, Opera House is an interesting example of doubt it will evolve and develop further. which were based on a different pro- such a framework, which has also incor- Such innovative conservation-planning gram for the building.” In accepting the porated the challenges of managing a approaches are essential to courageously reengagement role to develop the design modern building and some of the specific meet the pragmatic needs of complex principles, Utzon wrote: issues this work entails. site management, where heritage conser- As time passes and needs change, it is natural to In the case of the opera house, the vation is an imperative, set within a modify the building to suit the needs and tech- processes of World Heritage List nomi- demanding context, which must also nique of the day… nation coincided with the national and deliver world-class performance venues The changes, however, should be such that designation processes, adding a level of and extensive visitor services while the original character of the building is main- complexity but also enabling some of respecting its iconic architectural status. tained. That is to say I certainly condone the the jurisdictional needs to be aligned changes to the Sydney Opera House. Both SHERIDAN BURKE, BA, DipEd, DipUr- changes due to general maintenance and changes and coordinated. A few years after the banStud, MArchSci (Conservation), DipTouris- done due to functional changes.15 inclusion in the World Heritage List, mMgt, is a director of GML Heritage Sydney, visitation continues to grow apace, and Australia. Burke has been president of the MANAGING SIGNIFICANCE AT THE SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE 37

Twentieth Century Heritage International 4. James Semple Kerr, Sydney Opera House: A 12. The concept “sensitivity to change” or Scientific Committee of the International Plan for the Conservation of the Sydney Opera “tolerance for change” was developed by Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) House (Sydney: Sydney Opera House Trust, Sheridan Burke for heritage consultants God- since 2005 and an expert member of the 1993). den Mackay Logan. It is based on Burra Char- Sydney Opera House Conservation Council 5. The Sydney Opera House was included in ter principles and has been used in a range of since 2009. the National Heritage List in 2005 under the major institutional conservation plans since the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Con- mid-2000s; it is now part of the heritage- SUSAN MACDONALD, Bsc (Arch), BArch, servation Act 1999 (Commonwealth) and on management standards used, for example, by MA (Conservation Studies), RIBA, PIA, is the State Heritage Register of New South Wales the Australian Department of Defence to currently the Head of Field Projects, Getty in 2003 under the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW). manage its heritage assets. Conservation Institute. She has worked in Listing in the National Heritage List implies 13. The World Heritage Committee Decision: conservation in the UK and Australia. Macdon- that any proposed action to be taken inside or 31 COM 8B.31, http://whc.unesco.org/en/ ald project-directed the nomination of the outside the boundaries of a National Heritage decisions/1329. World Heritage Site and was a member of the place or a World Heritage property that may 14. Papers from the “(Un)Loved Modern” Sydney Opera House Conservation Council have a significant impact on the place’s heritage between 2006 and 2008. conference, organized by Australia ICOMOS in values is prohibited without the approval of the 2009, are available at http://www.aicomos Minister for the Environment and Heritage. A .com/2009-conference/. Note that not all buffer zone has been established. Notes papers are included. 6. James Semple Kerr, Sydney Opera House: 15. Letter from Utzon to the chair of the 1. Australia ICOMOS, The Burra Charter: The A Revised Plan for the Conservation of the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Sydney Opera House Trust, Aug. 19, 2000, Sydney Opera House (Sydney: Sydney Opera quoted in the Utzon Design Principles, p. 48. Cultural Significance with Associated Guide- House Trust, 2003), iv. lines and Code on the Ethics of Co-existence (Melbourne: Australia ICOMOS, 2009). The 7. Sydney Opera House Utzon Design Princi- first version of the Burra Charter was adopted ples (Sydney: Sydney Opera House Trust, in 1979. The current version is available at 2002). The APT Bulletin is published by the http://australia.icomos.org/publications/charters/. Association of Preservation Technol- 8. Sydney Opera House draft conservation ogy International, an interdisciplinary 2. Ibid., 12. plan, fourth ed., 2011, p. 82. organization dedicated to the prac- 3. James Semple Kerr, The Conservation Plan: A 9. Ibid., section 3.1: objectives, 56. tical application of the principles and techniques necessary for the care and wise use of Guide to the Preparation of Conservation Plans 10. Sydney Opera House draft conservation the built environment. A subscription to the for Places of European Cultural Significance, plan, fourth ed. Bulletin and free online access to past articles are http://australia.icomos.org/publications/charters/. 11. Ibid. member benefits. For more information, visit www.apti.org.