Unshackling our heritage nomenclature

Why do we call ourselves heritage consultants when in fact, we are much more? I always tell our clients and staff that heritage has become an old school term, possibly one stuck in the 1970s. We should call ourselves ‘repurposing consultants’ because that is what we do. We are ‘repurposers’ of listed heritage buildings. Repurposing involves a wider remit than heritage alone. There are at least four dimensions to heritage. There is the cultural dimension, the physical dimension, the social dimension and the economic dimension.?

Our work entails not only the protection of the heritage item but also an understanding of the wider implications of a design in a heritage setting. We also need to understand the economic implications especially for private owners/applicants who are the ones paying for the upkeep of the heritage item. Lastly, we need to understand the amenity implications of any proposed development in a heritage setting.

Thus, being repurposing consultants as opposed to heritage consultants, our remit is much wider and more rounded – holistic in essence. We are not stuck in the heritage silo devoid of all other implications of a development upon the environment. Heritage is only one part, but certainly not the whole picture. Repurposors need always be cognisant of the following issues.

The financial burden of conservation

Repurposors must appreciate the plight of the owner/applicant whose mantle it is to pay for the conservation work. Heritage buildings have two separate conscious entities. At once, they are public buildings belonging to the community in perpetuity and at the same time, they are privately owned. How, in any given case do we draw the line between the two? Notwithstanding, our role as repurposors is to advocate for the economic or planning uplift deserved by owners of heritage buildings in order to make their investment worthwhile. The perfect place to do this is through the development application process which, in essence, is a public-private exchange. In the bigger picture, we need to factor this in. We cannot ignore the applicant’s offer to undertake expensive conservation works. It would be disingenuous of councils to walk away from a private offer to repair and conserve a public good. Let’s just take a moment to see what is going on here. When we consider the entire stock of listed heritage buildings and contributory items in conservation areas, we are looking at approximately 40,000 buildings in NSW. 90% of these buildings is privately owned. So, who pays for heritage conservation in our state? You guessed it – private owners of heritage buildings. Therefore, in order to make their investment in our cultural heritage assets worthwhile, we need to give them some form of economic uplift when they lodge DA’s involving changes to heritage buildings. By way of economic uplift, I mean extra floor space, greater height of other controls that would not normally be allowed by the LEP. The extra uplift would encourage people to buy heritage buildings and look after them.

Design excellence

Design excellence is the next thing that repurposors need to be aware of and be able to recognise. I have had the luxury of being an architect over the last 40 years and have therefore been exposed to general principles of architectural design and its shifting central ethos. New buildings (if designed well in a heritage setting) are often as important as the heritage component. How the new and the old sit together in a heritage setting is the nub of the repurposor’s task.

Amenity issues

The next principle is for us repurposors to appreciate is other amenity issues affected by a development in a heritage setting. Not only must we understand the physical effect on heritage fabric its setting, but also other considerations such as light and shadow, views and vistas, colours, setting, curtilage, landscaping, form, materiality and solid to void ratios inter alia. This extra set of considerations extends the ambit of the repurposing consultant’s assessment and recommendation. Rather than narrowing the range, it amplifies the number and level of considerations made for heritage assessments and recommendations. Rather than a single-headed consideration (heritage only), it becomes a four-headed consideration involving the cultural dimension, the physical dimension, the social dimension and the economic dimension.

The main point of this blog is to point out that when heritage is put into a silo devoid of any other consideration, poor decisions will result. Heritage is a living breathing thing. These buildings undergo constant change. We must not stop this change. In fact, we need to facilitate the change with workable models and moving parts as opposed an impenetrable wall of static legislation. Similarly, our heritage protection legislation must not be so overbearing as to stifle good new design. I am not talking about the backroom draftsman who churns out mediocre dross. I am talking about talented architects, interior designers and landscape architects who bring immense value to heritage projects.

Our legislation needs to change in order to facilitate the needs of heritage owners which are different to the needs of non-heritage owners for the reason that the heritage owners face higher maintenance costs and are restricted by the heritage listing. Herein lies a double bind.

In order to alleviate the burden of the heritage owner/applicant, I am strongly in favour of heritage incentives designed to valorise heritage and make it worthwhile for such owners to invest in the public good. After all, this is what we are trying to achieve in the long run. There is no other way of ensuring that the listed items are well cared for and maintained.

We must unshackle ourselves from our heritage nomenclature. It limits our purview, stunts our growth and perverts our thinking. Repurposors know better than heritage consultants how to take a rounded holistic approach.