The Challenge of Adaptive Reuse Peter Lovell, Director, Lovell Chen Architects & Heritage Consultants, Melbourne 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 Australia 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 Victoria. 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