The Challenge of Adaptive Reuse

Peter Lovell, Director, Architects & Heritage Consultants,

Abstract

Adaptation of heritage places has long been regarded as a core concept in arguing that the conservation movement is about a dynamic rather than a static past. In it has been pivotal in the formulation and acceptance of related regulatory control and remains important in maintaining community support. Yet while delivering some celebrated outcomes, has our willingness to accommodate intervention and change extended to a point at which the purpose of conserving becomes questionable? By way of case studies this paper explores some recently completed and some proposed development projects in and around Melbourne involving the delivery of ‘landmark’ developments in a heritage context. The conclusion drawn is that while we have been very effective in identifying and regulating our built heritage, the action of ‘conserving’ that heritage has lost direction. Melbourne in the 21st century is increasingly in danger of becoming a city of heritage wallpaper and a shadow of its ‘marvelous’ past.

Background

In 1982 the first comprehensive account of adaptive reuse projects in Australia was published. New Uses for Old Buildings in Australia (Latreille, Latreille and Lovell 1982) provided an overview of what was considered to be a key tool by which conservation of heritage buildings could be achieved. Following the footsteps of many before (Cantacuzino 1975, Thomas Martin et al 1978) the aim of this publication, as commissioned by the Australian Council of National Trusts, was to promote and reinforce the view that the identification and protection of heritage buildings did not prevent their successful adaptation or development. Reflective of the time the author’s preface cautiously noted ‘We do not seek to present recycling as the panacea for all disused buildings, but we propose that when the future of an old building is in question, recycling is an approach that merits serious consideration’ (Latreille, et al. 1982). The publication of the book occurred at a seminal time, when the principles of conservation practice in Australia were being formulated and heritage legislation was in the process of being enacted at state and federal levels.

In 1979 Australia ICOMOS formally adopted the Burra Charter (the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance) (Australia ICOMOS, 1979) and its associated guidelines as the basis for good conservation practice. Recognised throughout Australia and internationally, the Charter remains the guiding document in the identification and management of heritage places. Amongst other matters the Charter establishes the basis upon which the significance of a heritage place is assessed, as discrete from consideration of the implications which might flow from that assessment.

Prior to the formulation of the Burra Charter the introduction of the Government Buildings Act in 1972 and the Historic Buildings Act in 1974 established the first legislative provisions for the identification and protection of heritage places in the state of . This was followed at a national level by the Australian Heritage Commission Act, passed in 1975, which addressed a far broader concept of heritage, incorporating Indigenous and natural as well as historic. At a local government level, community agitation for recognition and protection of heritage places occurred throughout the later 1970s and into the 1980s and in 1984 amendments to the Melbourne and Metropolitan Planning Scheme (Tonkin 2009) provided the basis upon which local municipalities could introduce heritage controls. By the mid 1980s the legislative basis for heritage protection was well in place in Victoria and in the following years all other Australian states and territories followed suit.

LOVELL CHEN 1 In the Victorian context the success of the legislation is evidenced in the number of places which are now afforded protection, either by way of site specific controls or under broader precinct controls. As reported on the Victorian Government website in 2011, 2,235 places and objects are included on the Victorian Heritage Register – 450 of which are state government owned, and 130,000 plus sites protected by local government heritage controls. In addition sixty seven local councils offer the services of a heritage advisor to assist applicants in applying for permits (Minister for Planning 2011). The protection of the state’s heritage is accepted as a core deliverable in the implementation of state and municipal planning provisions.

At an international level the success of the heritage identification and listing process and more particularly the ramifications of this process is however not without its critics and commentators. Cronocaos, the exhibit designed by OMA for the Venice Biennale 2010 (OMA 2010) focussed in particular on the ‘ambiguities and contradictions’ of the preservation process. The observations contained in the exhibit are not new but give cause for reflection on our approaches and attitudes to heritage and the associated processes of preservation or conservation. As has been observed by many others, our perception of what is ‘heritage’ as related to the built environment is constantly changing. The places that we inherit and upon which we place value long ago have moved beyond the ancient and now include recognised places of the most recent times. Moving into the 21st century there is an increasing sense of urgency, in parts of the western world at least, to ensure that the heritage of the more immediate past is also embraced.

Of the various Cronocaos observations, one in particular, that there is an emphasis in preservation on the exceptional, at the expense of mediocre or generic (OMA 2010, p.2), is certainly at odds with the Australian and Victorian experience. The local process of surveying and identifying built heritage, as reflected in the figures, has resulted in large numbers of places which might well be described as mediocre or generic, being provided with a level of protection. In the ongoing process of review increasingly buildings which had in earlier studies been passed over are now included. Concurrently, there has also been a move away from multiple level grading systems – grade A to grade D or E - to a simple two tier system which denotes individual buildings as being of either individual significance or of contributory significance. This shift to a two level grading system reflects a move away from the more specialist and inevitably architecturally focussed assessment of heritage significance to one which, from a community perspective, is more about character and visual amenity. It is in many respects an increasingly shallow view of heritage.

The comprehensive and seemingly all-inclusive listing process, which includes many buildings of more recent origins, also generates a new challenge in addressing development expectations and in particular, in resolving the level of intervention which can be accommodated. The challenge is no more keenly felt than in Melbourne, a constantly growing state capital where the competing imperatives of delivering sustainability and increased densities presents an ongoing heritage challenge.

The Melbourne Experience

The following account reflects upon past, recent and proposed projects in Melbourne which are the subject of heritage controls. In some case the projects are ones in which the author has been involved as heritage expert in obtaining approvals. It is a personal reflection upon the interface between conservation and development and changing nature of community expectations regarding our past.

Increasingly in a Central Activity District (CAD) context the response to an ever-expanding list of heritage buildings has been a bolder response to their refurbishment and adaptation than was ever contemplated by the authors of the Burra Charter. The guiding principle of

LOVELL CHEN 2 ‘changing as much as necessary but as little as possible’ (Peter Marquis-Kyle, Meredith Walker 2004, p. 20) is being challenged. This is reflective of changes in our thinking about CAD heritage and related planning policy, and also the cyclical shifts in the development economics. In many respects the outcome is that increasingly the response to heritage is one driven by delivery of an acceptable urban planning outcome, as opposed to one which might deliver an optimum heritage response.

Over the past forty years planning controls in Melbourne have shifted from a prescriptive approach to one that is performance based. One of the consequences of this is that on many sites there are few if any absolute constraints on development potential. Along with this approach there are no provisions for the transfer of development rights and no tax or other significant incentives are provided to assist the owners of heritage listed buildings with their upkeep or refurbishment. Modest low interest loans and grants are available from state and federal government agencies, but priority in these is generally given to the not-for-profit sector. One clear result has been the increased pressure on the authorities responsible for planning and heritage approvals to accept a greater level of intervention in listed heritage places. That intervention can be in many forms, but where there is a desire and need to realise development potential it is often in the form of rooftop additions and/or tower development behind retained facades. Rather than the subtle adaptations considered in the 1982 publication on new uses for old buildings the projects in effect are transformations.

The current shift in approach to adaptive reuse of heritage places in the CAD commenced in the late 1980s and early 1990s in the immediate aftermath of an economic downturn. Left with properties which had halved in value overnight property owners and developers increasingly looked at ways in which they could recover value for their projects. The ‘90s in particular saw a spate of roof top additions to buildings of varying levels of significance. Some involved the placement of lightweight structures on existing fabric, while others involved wholesale internal demolition and rebuilding. The outcome from both a heritage perspective and cityscape perspective has been variable. While some examples have been hailed as successful in the intermarriage of old and new, many are considerable less so and in many respects have compromised the architecture of the building upon which they sit.

Roof top additions

The state heritage listed nine storey former Port of Melbourne Authority Building was erected in 1929-30 (Figure & Figure 2). Sold in 1982 it was for a time occupied by the State Electricity Commission and subsequently sold and redeveloped for apartments in the late 1990s. The works included the construction of two additional floors on the top of the building. Heritage authority acceptance of the addition was founded on economic arguments that the additional floors were required to enable to the project to be viable. While modest in scale the result is an uncomfortable marriage of existing and new, in which the selection of metal cladding makes the new rooftop structure even more noticeable. The adaptation as a whole however is regarded as successful in providing for a viable new use which included the retention and restoration of major internal spaces.

In contrast to the former Port Authority Building the additions to the building located at 114- 120 Russell Street, Melbourne were more substantial. The existing telephone exchange, completed between 1948 and 1954, was adapted for residential use and six additional floors were added to a design by architect Nonda Katsilidis in 2002. The outcome is a transformed Modernist building, but one in which its existing landmark presence has been reinforced. Generally regarded as a successful architectural outcome the degree to which this building continues to be regarded as a heritage place is perhaps open to question.

LOVELL CHEN 3

Figure 1 The former Port Authority Figure 2 The entrance lobby to the Building, 29-31 Market Street, former Port Authority Melbourne Building

Figure 3 Hero Apartments, 114-120 Russell Street, Melbourne

LOVELL CHEN 4 On the southern edge of the CAD a more substantial transformation has occurred at 44-74 Flinders Street. The former Herald and Weekly Times building, constructed in stages between 1921 and 1928, ceased to operate as a newspaper publication house in the mid 1990s. The site was sold for redevelopment and after a protracted and contested approval, process, development approval was granted for a 191 metre cylindrical tower to be constructed behind the retained street facades. The tower was to be set back some 16 metres and 22 metres from the two street frontages and original structural bays were to be retained behind the facades. After the initial approval the original cylindrical tower design was found to be uneconomic and an alternative square tower was proposed and approved.

The outcome is a striking contrast between the retained heritage fabric and the new tower (Figure 4). Most dramatically observed at a distance, the contrast is less obvious in closer views where the heritage building remains the dominant streetscape presence. In balancing the heritage objectives and the development imperative, the project delivers an outcome which retains sufficient of the heritage place to be meaningful as a three dimensional structure.

Figure 4 The former Herald & Weekly Times building, 44-74 Flinders Street.

LOVELL CHEN 5

Façade Retention

In the planning appeal process associated with the 2001 approval of the Herald & Weekly Times development the matter of whether or not the project was an example of facadism and therefore unacceptable, was extensively canvassed. The conclusion of the tribunal considering the matter was that this was not the case and further that if the development application had been one involving facadism it would be likely that it would have been rejected (VCAT 2001). Ten years on this conclusion might have been different; it is quite conceivable that a project that did nothing more than conserve the street walls themselves would be approved.

The rebuilding of structures behind retained heritage facades is in no sense a new response and one which Melbourne has examples of dating back to the beginning of the twentieth century, if not earlier. In the 1970s ‘facadism’ was hotly debated and some state National Trusts, amongst others, developed policy documents urging against such an approach. Facadism, continues to be a much debated topic and one which in a Melbourne context has in recent times re-emerged as a more frequent response to the development of heritage sites.

The reasons for the re-emergence are mixed. The identification and listing of increasing numbers of heritage buildings has resulted in greater limitations being placed over sites which have the potential to be developed. Concurrently, the buildings being listed include some which are of lower levels of significance and often utilitarian in form and original function. Further, in responding to planning policies which are directed at delivering higher densities, a number of these sites are identified as suitable for greater development heights. Coupled with this approach the retention of older facades, as familiar and pedestrian responsive, is often viewed by the urban design profession as preferred ahead of new designs.

Notwithstanding the passing of time and changing attitudes the basic question from a heritage perspective remains the same; is such a transformed past worth keeping?

At 171-203 City Road, Southbank, on the perimeter to the Melbourne’s CAD the façade of the former General Motors Holden Headquarters building was incorporated into the redevelopment of the site for residential towers in early 2000. The building had been graded C in earlier heritage studies largely on the basis of its historical significance. C buildings were in part defined as demonstrating ‘the historical and social development of the local area and/or make an important aesthetic or scientific contribution’ (Allom Lovell & Associates 1999). The façade was noted as containing some distinctive Interwar elements. Behind the façade was an extensive area of sawtooth and hip roofed factory (Figure 5). The approved development provided for residential towers to be constructed some 6 metres behind the retained façade and included modification of the façade to accommodate inset balconies.

The outcome, from a heritage perspective delivers little more than the visual comfort of a familiar street wall. Neither the old or new architecture is enhanced by the outcome, nor is the streetscape. It is an outcome which is very much the product of competing planning objectives which while supporting the retention of heritage places equally encourage high rise development.

On the other side of the city in West Melbourne a similar project is currently under construction. 33 Batman Street is a simple sawtooth roofed factory with a handsome Streamlined Moderne façade. Graded B in the local heritage study, the building is in an area where the Melbourne Planning Scheme provides for high rise development. Again the

LOVELL CHEN 6 heritage question is whether the solution of façade retention and tower behind is one which delivers a lasting and meaningful heritage outcome.

The development approach taken on these projects is one which responds to the competing pressures associated with inner city development. They are projects which are far removed from the conventional understanding of adaptation but rather accommodate heritage as reduced to an absolute minimum. The retained heritage fabric is legible and can be understood as evidencing the past, but it is a past without any depth.

Figure 5 An oblique aerial view of 171-203 City Road in c1935. Source: National Handbook of Australian Industries

LOVELL CHEN 7

Figure 6 171-205 City Road, Southbank prior to adaptive reuse.

LOVELL CHEN 8

Figure 7 171-205 City Road, Southbank.

Figure 8 33-43 Batman Street, West Melbourne

LOVELL CHEN 9

Figure 9 33-43 Batman Street, West Melbourne, original concept drawing

Conclusion

The notion of adaptation and reuse of historic buildings as promoted in the 1970s and 1980s was one which contemplated managed change in which the integration of old and new focussed on coexistence of past and present. An observer of such adapted places could readily comprehend both a dimensional and historical depth, ensuring a continued understanding of and meaning for the conservation action. In the 2000s and 2010s the boundaries have been pushed well beyond this gentle approach. Adaptation has increasingly become transformation, in which heritage is accommodated but not embraced. The change in approach is a consequence of many influences and one which is changing the face of the city. With the desire to recognise and conserve more of Melbourne’s heritage there is a danger that the practical outcome is an increasingly shallow one in which the heritage is little more than streetscape wallpaper. Keeping less, but with greater emphasis on integrity must be an alternative approach to consider.

LOVELL CHEN 10

Bibliography

Allom Lovell & Associates 1999, City of Melbourne Heritage Review.

Cantacuzino S 1975, New Uses for Old Buildings, The Architectural Press Ltd, Hampshire.

Latreille A, Latreille P, Lovell P 1982, New Uses for Old Buildings in Australia, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Martin T, Gamzon M, et al. 1879, Adaptive Use, ULI-the Urban Land Institute, Washington.

Minister for Planning 03/05/2011, Victorian State Budget Media Release, http://www.budget.vic.gov.au/CA25783300199E40/pages/coalition-government-provides- certainty-for-victorias-heritage

OMA 2010, Cronocaos, http://www.oma.eu/index.php?option=com_project&view=proejct&id=1260&Itemid

Tonkin R 2009, Thirty Years in the harness, Heritage Council Address, http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/heritage/news-and-events-archive/heritage-council-addresses

VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) 2000/68339 and 2000/82270, p.52

LOVELL CHEN 11