The Heritage Road is Paved with Good Intentions

In the age-old battle between developers, councils and residents, I was intrigued to read about a Melbourne council’s plan to restore several heritage-listed concrete roads and the subsequent push back from some quarters of the community.

Zoning and heritage protections have, for years, seen ‘NIMBY’ (Not In My Back Yard) groups railing against any modern development in their neighbourhood. Yet it is the advent of ‘YIMBY’ (Yes In My Back Yard) groups, being keen and organised collectives, that understand the need for honesty and balance. YIMBY promise to break the free reign that heritage organisations seem to have enjoyed for the past 40 years.

As evidenced by Michael Koziol’s piece in Monday’s Sydney Morning Herald (8 April 2024), Sydney is not immune to such hubris. The recent decision by Woollahra Council to designate a new heritage-protected precinct near Edgecliff Station has ignited a debate that is emblematic of a broader challenge facing Sydney: the integration of heritage conservation with a drastic need for new housing within existing urban infrastructure rather than urban sprawl. The workings of certain councils to use heritage as a weapon to stop or defeat the intensity of new housing, has already been exposed. Such action is perceived by some as a deliberate counter to the NSW Government's initiatives to increase housing density, particularly around transport hubs, underscores a persistent tension between preserving our architectural heritage and accommodating the city's housing needs.

The essence of this debate is not just about the physical form of our cities but the shared values we attribute to our shared history which is reflected in our listed heritage buildings and conservation areas. Heritage buildings provide a narrative of our past. They embody the architectural, cultural, and historical threads that contribute to weave our collective identity. Conversely, the undeniable need for new housing is seen by heritage enthusiasts to interfere with that agenda.

The contention that has arisen between the two camps has become a potential bête noir for heritage. Never before has the threat to heritage been so palpable. Yet, I am of the view that there is a clear middle road ahead.

It’s called ‘compromise’.

If councils see fit to protect areas for their heritage value, they must also work out how best to integrate new housing into their LGAs under a single designated strategy. With the right urban planners and community consultants on board, these things can easily be worked out.

How difficult would it be to accommodate the construction of new buildings, such as the 26-storey developments envisaged in Woollahra Council's own plans for Edgecliff? It is not the first time in history that such an urban task has had to be undertaken. One only has to look at New York, Paris, London, Toronto, Hong Kong – to name a few.

The promise of a resolution is rooted in a belief that heritage conservation and urban development are not inherently opposed; but are in fact, complementary forces. Successful cities worldwide have demonstrated that it is possible to preserve historical integrity while fostering growth and innovation. The challenge is to adopt a holistic approach that values heritage buildings while at the same time planning for continuing growth in the form of ongoing housing needs.

Thus, it is my opinion that the current fiasco of heritage and new housing being at loggerheads, is a fiction. Councils simply need to get the right people for the job. Their mandate should be – rationalise heritage by identifying the best examples in the LGA and make space for new housing.

Job done – everyone happy.