Common Misunderstandings and Misconceptions of Heritage – Part 1
Heritage is rife with many misconceptions in several areas. Such misunderstandings can result in increasing uncertainties around altering listed properties and contributory items in heritage conservation areas (HCAs). To a certain extent, it is my belief that real estate owners capitalise on this level of uncertainty. Often, they tell potential purchasers that it is only the fa?ade that is listed, and the rest can be demolished. What utter rot. It is never the case that only the fa?ade would be listed. Everything needs to be assessed by the heritage consultant in terms of establishing what is and is not significant from a heritage perspective.
More education is needed to debunk these wonky ideas in order to provide greater clarity about cultural built heritage and the heritage process.
Increasing knowledge would also demonstrate the creative and design potential that heritage buildings offer to architects, planners, builders, developers, owners and other individuals. There is nothing more inspiring than seeing a job well done, when it comes to the dynamism that is sparked by working with the new and the old simultaneously. The key is design excellence, which councils are beginning to catch on to. Not all, but some.
Misconception No.1 - owners presume that because they own the heritage property they can do with it as they wish.
Owners of heritage listed properties are mere renters. Like the Japanese saying, ‘Tatsu tori ato wo nigosazu’ (A departing bird leaves no trace of its passage), owners of heritage listed properties are required to return things to their normal state when selling or transferring their properties to other owners.
In this fashion, one needs to think about the listed properties as comprising a continuous line of occupiers - each with their own specific accommodation requirements, but nonetheless required to retain the essential heritage bones without demolition or destruction of the identified significant parts.
Misconception No.2 - it is only the fa?ade of a building that needs to be retained.?
There is often confusion about whether it is only the fa?ade of a listed building that is significant, as opposed to the whole building. This might be wishful thinking by prospective buyers and real estate agents or owners of these heritage buildings. As mentioned in the introduction to this blog, it is much more detailed than that.
In fact, the way it works is that every part of the land, up to the boundaries on all sides, are presumed to have heritage significance, unless reported otherwise (by your heritage consultant). It is the job of the heritage consultant to determine which elements of the building and its surrounds is or is not significant.?
A five-part sliding scale is used to determine the relative significance of the elements, starting with the concept of exceptionality, and moving down to 'high', 'moderate', 'little', and 'intrusive'. ‘Intrusive’ items need to be removed. Elements falling into the category of 'little' may or may not be removed. 'Moderate' items may or may not need to be kept. While elements falling within the 'high' and 'exceptional' categories, will need to be kept.?
Misconception No.3 - it is incorrect to say there is only one type of heritage, when in fact there are at least eight.?
Most people in NSW believe there is one type of heritage. In fact, there are several, as follows:?
Therefore, in accordance with the above list, there are various types of heritage in NSW. Each is treated separately when it comes to processing an application for development.
?Except for intangible heritage and engineering heritage, most of these are subject to legislation.?
Further, there are six classifications of heritage.
At the peak, we have World heritage listings (such as Sydney Opera House), National heritage listings (such as Bondi Beach), Commonwealth heritage listings (such as overseas Australian embassies), State heritage listings (such as Sydney Harbour Bridge), Local heritage listings (such as late Victorian and Federation homes in Metropolitan Sydney), and National Trust heritage listings, which, although not officially listed, are often referred to as a good, professional document.
Misconception No.4 - If you are altering a heritage listed home, you must replicate the original style and features in the new building, in order to match the old building.
Another common misconception is that when altering a heritage listed home, or extending it to the rear, you are bound to adopt the original style. This is incorrect. In fact, you are encouraged to adopt a wholly contemporary approach for the new parts. In this manner, there is an immediate visual contrast between the new and the old.
This approach is certainly adopted in NSW, very much in Victoria, and almost universally around the world. The reason for this is to resist faux heritage. If this is done, there is an immediate visual key to which part came first, and which followed.
Under Article 22.2 of the Burra Charter, the approach of contemporaneity is very much encouraged.?
Misconception No.5 -?The concept of reversibility is not commonly understood by owners, developers, applicants and parallel consultants. Reversibility means that when you are placing a new installation in a heritage building, it should be designed in such a way that, at any time in the future, if it is required to be removed, then it must be taken out without damaging the original fabric. This certainly applies to all fabric identified as ‘exceptional’, ‘high’ and occasionally ‘moderate’.?
This concept is often misunderstood by many architects in my experience. It extends to not demolishing elements identified as being of ‘high’ or ‘exceptional’ significance. Demolishing a wall, for instance, in a house or building that describes the original layout, would not be a reversible action.
However, installing electrical cables, air conditioning ducts, or even a lift, can be done in a reversible manner if it done to not interfere with any wall or defining element.
When lifts were first introduced to heritage buildings in the 1980s, they were generally placed outside the building with a linking bridge at each level, into the main building.
As heritage consultants, we have some common approaches to reversibility. Services such as air conditioning are placed on floors, down in the basements or at the backs of buildings where such services cannot be seen.?
Intact ceilings should generally be left alone. Registers for reverse-cycle air conditioning should be placed on floors as rather than ceilings and walls. Electrical cables, including plug points, should be placed above skirting boards. Ducted air conditioning systems should not be used in heritage buildings. Electrical cabling and plumbing pipes should not be chased into walls, but surface mounted.
There are many other examples of reversibility that I could provide. But for the sake of brevity, I will end here. Ultimately, whatever can be added to the building should be able to be taken away without any damage to the building – especially fabric identified as ‘exceptional’ and ‘high’.
These are just a few of the misconceptions and misunderstandings about heritage that I have encountered over time. Following will be another blog on another five misconceptions about cultural built heritage.
?
Paul Rappoport
Conservation Architect and Heritage Planner
13 November 2024
?
?
?
Image references:
CED Services. “Installing Skirting Ducts – Melbourne - CED Services.” https://www.cedservices.com.au/project/installing-skirting-ducts-electrician-services-office-building-melbourne/
Europa Nostra. “The International Built Heritage Conservation Training Centre in Bontida, ROMANIA,” Flickr, March 22, 2012. The International Built Heritage Conservation Training Cen… | Flickr
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?