Managing Significance at the Sydney Opera House 33

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-management 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 construction 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.

Load more