Cultural Built Heritage – Give an inch and take a whole mile

As Sydney grapples with its most severe housing crisis since the post-World War II era, the urgent need for new housing collides starkly with the imperative to preserve our cultural built heritage. During crises past, many heritage sites were subdivided and altered, losing much of their original fabric and setting. Today, we face a similar challenge, but with the advantage of hindsight, I believe that we can approach this crisis more judiciously.

The idea of heritage conservation often evokes a sense of nostalgia. However, I believe it’s time for a regrouping. We need to rationalise the heritage stock by selecting the best examples of what we have listed to date.

We cannot afford any longer to have the privilege of assuming that our cause is the most salient. Strategically, as a movement, we need to bargain with equal and opposing causes. Such a stance is not only practical but ethical in the face of the current housing crisis.

The concept of "rationalisation" of the heritage stock should be at the forefront of our discussions. By this, I mean a thorough review and prioritisation of heritage listings to determine which buildings are the best examples of their type. This is not about a demolition derby, but about making strategic decisions that address the survival of the heritage movement, which of late has come under significant fire.

This approach requires a collaborative effort amongst heritage architects, urban planners, and government agencies. We must engage in honest, sometimes difficult conversations about what can stay and what can go. It’s about ensuring that our heritage listings do not become a blockade against development on existing infrastructure (roads, utilities, transport, etc.), rather than urban sprawl.

Within the Sydney metropolitan area alone, with over 26,000 listed and contributory items in Heritage Conservation Areas, the task would be substantial. How do we make the decision to cull the existing lists? Is it necessary to do this? Have we ever done this before?

All of these are questions that will need to be addressed if we are to make any sense of cultural built heritage as an ongoing concern.

The integration of new, vertical housing within historically horizontal neighbourhoods, poses another significant challenge. Cities like Paris and Barcelona have shown ways to integrate old and new architectural forms. Sydney, too, must find its path by developing models for how these conflicting forms of housing can coexist harmoniously.

The New South Wales Government, heritage professionals, and the community ought to come together to plan for such integration. We need comprehensive urban planning that includes detailed models, drawn from the finest civic examples around the world, in order to accommodate the vertical intensity with the existing heritage stock. Public input into this enterprise needs to be invited by professional expertise and government bodies in order to affect a credible compromise. Otherwise, heritage will continue to be negatively viewed in the hearts and minds of the public.

As we navigate this pressing housing crisis, I am of the strong mind that the goal of heritage conservation should not be to freeze time but to integrate the past gracefully with the present and future. By doing so, in a pragmatic, transparent and collegiate manner, we can enshrine our heritage while creating a vibrant, sustainable city for coming generations.