News & Discussion: Heritage Buildings

[SRW]

The Advertiser has made a mistake...

That wouldn't be extraordinary.

[Mants]

would look amazing if the dome was added.

[Mants]

[Ho Really]

If the dome were added to parliament house we may not have had the current height restrictions in the CBD.

Cheers

[Wayno]

http://www.citymessenger.com.au/article ... _news.html

MORE than 240 city buildings, some dating back to the 1870s, have been identified for the first time as being worthy of heritage protection.

MORE than 240 city buildings, some dating back to the 1870s, have been identified for the first time as being worthy of heritage protection.

Cr Sandy Wilkinson, a professional heritage adviser, took it upon himself to walk the city streets earlier this year and identified 243 buildings of potential heritage significance.

He will not reveal the buildings' addresses for fear their owners, or developers, will seek immediate demolition approvals.

None of the buildings have rated a mention in any of the council's previous heritage studies.

Cr Wilkinson will forward on his notes and photos of the buildings to independent consultants undertaking a CBD heritage survey for the council.

He told the City Messenger many of the buildings might have been overlooked in previous heritage studies because they had superficial changes which could be easily removed, such as rendering, aluminium cladding and balconies.

"The Central Market and Beehive Corner, parts of that were covered in aluminium cladding,'' he said, highlighting two now-protected buildings, which had unsightly additions. Cr Wilkinson said some of the buildings he identified were Art Deco, or early 20th century commercial buildings.

"There's a move to recognise buildings that aren't the obvious bluestone heritage,'' he said.

"Other buildings are on small streets of Adelaide that perhaps previous consultants never walked through.''
Some of the buildings he had identified were on Gilbert Place, between Currie and Hindley streets.

Cr Wilkinson does not believe passing on his notes and photographs will affect the impartiality of the heritage consultants, Donovan & Associates.

This was a matter of concern for some staff and councillors at a May 12 council meeting when Cr Wilkinson was permitted to pass on his heritage notes, subject to an amendment that the information contain ``no value judgement''.

"It's mainly a way to make sure properties don't get missed and have to be revisited later down the track,'' Cr Wilkinson told the meeting.

City CEO Stuart Moseley said the amendment reduced the impression the council had prejudged properties and the "potential for challenge, if indeed there is any''.

However, Cr Richard Hayward warned property owners would use the extra information to challenge listings.
"Personally, I think these independent consultants should be from interstate to alleviate any Adelaide gossip with respect to such contentious issues,'' he said.

Property Council CEO Nathan Paine said it was "completely inappropriate'' for a councillor to provide input to a study when the general public could not.

"(Cr Wilkinson) has been given a right beyond every other citizen just because he sits on council. That's completely inappropriate,'' Mr Paine said.

"It will create at the very least a perception of bias.''

The study is likely to be kept confidential until the buildings receive interim heritage protection via a State Government gazette notice. This would prevent property owners lodging new demolition applications in the wake of the council's heritage recommendations but before protective measures were put in place.

The heritage survey is not expected to be complete until the end of September this year, at the earliest.

Donovan & Associates declined to comment.

[SRW]

http://www.citymessenger.com.au/article ... _news.html

Some of the buildings he had identified were on Gilbert Place, between Currie and Hindley streets.

Hmmmm...

[Wayno]

here's a complementary article from the same newspaper. i've just kept the relevant statements related to heritage and "moving with the times" so we don't go off on a tangent about the parklands in this CBD Development thread.

Full article is here ==> http://www.citymessenger.com.au/article ... _news.html

Adelaide urged to move with the times
Chris Day - 21May08
<snip>
National chief executive of commercial real estate agent Knight Frank David Woolford said Adelaide had changed since Colonel Light laid out his vision, and people "need to move''.

"Let's get the Grand Prix back and Adelaide Oval should have AFL matches on it,'' Mr Woolford said in his keynote speech at a SA Property Council lunch on Tuesday (May 20).

"More needs to be done. You want people to stay in the city, not move on through it.''

Mr Woolford told the 250 guests, including City of Adelaide Minister Jane Lomax-Smith and Lord Mayor Michael
Harbison, the city needed to strike a better balance between development and heritage.

"If you let (heritage) rule the game, you'll stifle development...don't stuff it up.''
<snip>

[Ho Really]

Even if they find 240 extra buildings that are worth heritage listing, I still think there is plenty of room to build new developments. Of course, it would be an issue for those poor property owners who were banking on developing their newly (future) heritage-listed properties. One step in the right direction would be to extend the CBD and allow for taller buildings.

Cheers

[frank1]

Even if they find 240 extra buildings that are worth heritage listing, I still think there is plenty of room to build new developments. Of course, it would be an issue for those poor property owners who were banking on developing their newly (future) heritage-listed properties. One step in the right direction would be to extend the CBD and allow for taller buildings.

Cheers

I fear that alot of these 240 extra buildings will be prime spots for development. I don't see why age of a building automatically means people want it herritage listed. Alot of buildings pre-1900 are ugly an have no significant facades.

This just sounds like a last desperate attempt by nimby's (cough north adelaide cough) to have a stangle hold on the city before the boom kicks in and changes it.

[Will]

I wonder whether this list takes into account buildings from North Adelaide?

[Ho Really]

I fear that alot of these 240 extra buildings will be prime spots for development. I don't see why age of a building automatically means people want it herritage listed. Alot of buildings pre-1900 are ugly an have no significant facades.

It's possible they are in prime spots. I would assume the majority to be smaller properties. Some buildings may be unremarkable on the outside but have (some) historical significance or some other value (maybe even inside). It's the package, I guess.

This just sounds like a last desperate attempt by nimby's (cough north adelaide cough) to have a stangle hold on the city before the boom kicks in and changes it.

Maybe.

Cheers

[Cruise]

heritage list the lot! then them darned Yimbys will leave Adelaide so wes cans keeps it the ways i likes it!

[omada]

yes that opens up another can of worms.. why base heritage value on age alone? yes chances are the bulk of the buildings are crappy 100 year old buildings, but hey that's what people seem to have a connection with for some reason (particularly the conservative types that populate our council, to them Adelaide is like another city of Europe - we need to move on from this fetid romanticism over Victorian era buildings) ..meanwhile other examples of good architecture from the 60's would not even rate a mention..

[urban]

For those interested age is not a criteria of heritage listing. The actual criteria are as follows:

"A place may be designated as being of local heritage value if:
(a) it displays historical, economic or social themes that are of importance to the local area; or
(b) it represents customs or ways of life that are characteristic of the local area; or
(c) it has played an important part in the lives of local residents; or
(d) it displays aesthetic merit, design characteristics or construction techniques of significance to the local area; or
(e) it is associated with a notable local personality or event; or
(f) it is a notable landmark in the area."

"Any place, whether it be land, building or structure, may be entered in the State Heritage Register provided that it meets one or more of the criteria for entry under Section 16 of the Heritage Act 1993. These criteria help to determine whether a place “is part of the environmental, social or cultural heritage of the State”.
The Heritage Act 1993 provides the statutory basis for criteria under which places (land, buildings or structures) are assessed for entry in the State Heritage Register. There must be a process of selection, assessment and critical judgement involved the evaluation of places for entry in the Register. Under the Act, a place is deemed to be of heritage value and may be eligible for entry in the Register if it satisfies one or more of the following criteria:
(a) it demonstrates important aspects of the evolution or pattern of the State’s history; or
(b) it has rare, uncommon or endangered qualities that are of cultural significance; or
(c) it may yield information that will contribute to the understanding of the State’s history, including its natural history; or
(d) it is an outstanding representative of a particular class of places of cultural significance; or
(e) it demonstrates a high degree of creative, aesthetic or technical accomplishment or is an outstanding representative of particular construction techniques or design characteristics; or
(f) it has strong cultural or spiritual associations for the community or a group within it; or
(g) it has special associations with the life or work of a person or organisation or an event of historical importance."

[Ho Really]

For those interested age is not a criteria of heritage listing. The actual criteria are as follows:

[...]

Thanks for that urban.

Cheers