St Mary Quite Contrary

I do enjoy a good stoush – especially over thorny issues like heritage and design – and nothing gets the blood pumping like integrating new structures into a distinct heritage setting.

When it comes to fitting a new building next to a revered site like St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney, opinions fly thick and fast. How do you blend the old with the new without stepping on too many toes?

Let’s look at the proposed new Chancery building for instance. In the artist’s impression of the new building, the architect has responded to the sandstone edifice of the Cathedral by rendering the proposed new building with sandstone as well.

It’s a good, solid idea – keeping the new structure humble and in harmony with the grandeur of its neighbour. Yet it’s just one way of going about it - what if we went bold instead?

Why not go for the contradistinctive approach, using materials and finishes that aren’t derived from the heritage setting but made to look deliberately new? Why not give significance to both the old and new on an equal footing? This technique is widely used in Europe, where architects and designers are not so precious about heritage buildings and not afraid to adopt a more utilitarian approach.

Alternatively, the (unknown) architect could do exactly what’s shown in the image, i.e. similar materials (sandstone) and similar-sized openings (windows and doors) but in a contemporary fashion, smaller in size and lower than the Cathedral itself. From that point of view, one could say that the building (as depicted in the image) does reach an accommodation with its heritage setting.

Yet no matter what the architect does or suggests, there will be flak and pushback under the guise of good and bad taste. We know these predicaments well from our years of battling NIMBYism, which has recently been called out by the NSW Minister of Planning, the Hon Mr. Scully himself. In a lecture that I attended shortly after his investiture as Minister, he stated that NIMBYism is the biggest scourge against the free flow of development.

With its inherently myopic nature, NIMBYism can be a very destructive and unnecessary process. It’s often dismissed simply as resistance to change, but at its core, it’s about locals fearing the new overshadowing the old, or modern developments detracting from the daily experiences of their environment.

In the ‘Design Guide For Heritage’ publication, the Government Architect states:

"Heritage sites may be the subject of contested versions of the past and the future. The values (that) the community bestow on heritage buildings, sites and precincts, can vary widely and change over time. Some are much loved and highly regarded; others are seen as eyesores, or impediments to progress. Sometimes they’re both – perceived in dramatically different ways by different sections of the community. Owners may see them as full of potential, or as a problem best resolved through demolition."

The above quote perfectly highlights the eternal differences of opinion that people hold about almost every aspect of the built environment. It’s no wonder that DA approval is so difficult to obtain, even when the design for the new building is of high quality and well thought out.

It is my opinion that a truly collaborative approach from the outset, coupled with thoughtful design and a respect for both history and modernity, has the potential to lead to the creation of spaces that blend the best of both worlds.

Yet for some members of community, even good design is dismissed as repugnant, as any changes to beloved landmarks can be hard to accept.

Will there ever be 100% agreement on the new design?

Sadly, I think not.

?

Paul Rappoport

Conservation Architect and Heritage Planner

3 May 2024