When are the old houses in Brisbane’s inner suburbs more important than the land they sit on? Always? Sometimes? Or never? As Council juggles the demands of a growing population and constraints on transport/infrastructure, more questions are being asked of the large back yards being “held captive on our CBD’s doorstep” (as one architect put it recently).
If it was built prior to 1900 there’s tight constraints and the heritage officers will get their say when you want to do any works to your house. You can forget about removing those ones. And one of the less talked about changes in Brisbane’s draft new City Plan is widening this rule to all houses built prior to 1911. This change will add another 495 houses to this ‘hands-off’ list. In a suburb like South Brisbane it’s an extra 19 houses (of 375 in total). If it’s built prior to 1946 there’s a good chance a house is protected by the Demolition Control rules – Council wants it retained and the streetscape preserved to match those pre-war years. There’s some flexibility but not much.
So where’s that architect’s concern coming from? Many of these houses straddle allotments of 600, 800 or even 1000m2 of land, that’s in many cases an easy walk from our CBD. In protecting the houses this land is off-limits, so a second dwelling usually can’t be added, nor more residents brought into these neighbourhoods. And even the most enthusiastic fan of old timber homes would agree that many of these houses are in poor repair and showing little of the character of their time. But they’re still protected.
And that’s okay if we value their contribution to the look of our city over the benefits of bringing more people into these areas. If you’re lucky enough to live there you’ll agree and want less neighbours – and if you spend 40 minutes commuting you might see it differently. The reasons to keep the old houses get plenty of media airtime, but we also hear lots of comments when we’re one on one with buyers and sellers as local real estate agents:
* many of these houses were built to very basic standards. They’re timber and are not like the old stone and brick houses of Europe and other continents. They weather badly and are expensive to maintain.
* their designs are not appropriate to today – open front verandahs are not secure and most now have downstairs enclosed anyway, changing that streetscape character significantly. Internally they’re difficult to plan for a modern lifestyle.
* does ‘natural selection’ have a part to play in housing? If homes in their current form and architecture are not appealing enough to their owners to warrant renovations, at what point should the community stay out of deciding how they use their land?
* why are 1911 and 1946 the chosen dates? As one agent asked the Lord Mayor recently – If you’ve just changed 1900 to 1911, can we expect this date to be moved again in another decade’s time? Will the key dates keep moving forward?
We’re all proud of the things that make Brisbane’s streets unique, but should there be more debate on this topic? It seems that if you question the rigorous protection of old houses, and the locking up of precious land, you’re held out for public ridicule. No-one wants a mass removal of character homes and as agents we know full well the wide appeal of a well-preserved and renovated Queenslander. Many of them are beautiful homes and a terrific example of early 1900’s housing. But we do wonder: Is older always better when it comes to architecture?
Feel free to howl us down with criticism for raising this topic – but please give us your opinion!
PS: For the record Bees Nees City Realty has its offices in an 1897 boot factory that we restored with care, patience and respect for a bygone era. We love the uniqueness of our heritage ‘home’.
Sorry – typos fixed:
Interesting point of view, thanks for sharing, although I take pretty much the direct opposite view. A few thoughts:
– Old European houses (which can be a few hundred years older than the handful of colonial buildings around Brisbane) are not better built than their Australian counterparts, or more suited to contemporary living. Trust me – I’ve owned and lived in a few myself. It’s far easier to replace a few rotten stumps and bearers in an old Queenslander than to remediate rising damp in crumbling brick or wattle & daub walls. Preserving our character houses is comparatively easy, and sympathetic renovations are ongoing all over Brisbane by people who truly care about their cultural heritage and neighbourhoods. Most of our tin and timber suburbs look better, not worse, for every year that goes by.
– A reality check is warranted on the suggested longevity of a, say, 1910s bungalow compared to your typical modern catalogue house. Tin and solid timber lasts a very long time when adequately maintained and I suspect that many of our contemporary dwellings, built with synthetic materials and laminates, will deteriorate far quicker. Some of the 90’s developments in my neighbourhood are already looking drab and I suspect that they will be replaced many times over before my house (built 1913) is ready for demolition, perhaps 100 years from now.
– Demolition of our character housing stock will make little difference to population density in the city and fringe. For example – if you knocked down all of the 400 recently protected pre-1911 buildings and built two houses on each lot, with an average of 4 occupants, you’d create additional housing for about 1,600 people across Brisbane. The projected population growth of region over the next 12 or so years is in the order of 850,000 people. So that’s 0.1% of the problem solved – at what cost?
By the way – the new city plan introduces provisions for houses in Demolition Control Precincts to be moved within their plots to encourage subdivision and increased dwelling density, check the draft.
Not to put too fine a point on it, I think it is incredibly important for the citizens of character suburbs to speak up on the matter of conservation and planning. If we demolish our vintage housing stock to make room for higher-density zones it will primarily benefit two interest groups; our political leaders, by temporarily band-aiding their laissez faire approach to demographic planning, and real estate agents by increasing the number of customers and housing stock (=turnover, =profit) in their existing catchments. Neither reason is good enough to squander a unique heritage that should be handed down to our grandkids, and their grandkids.
Brisbane has relatively little character housing compared to other cities – the pre war suburbs only extend about 10km from the city centre. Many of these areas are under pressure from new infrastructure projects such as roads and busways already. The little we have left is worthy of careful management and control. Otherwise we will just look like any other international city.
There are many locations throughout the City which are ripe for redevelopment and which do not require demolition of pre war housing. Look at the ex industrial and commercial land in West End and Woolloongabba. Should we not look to options such as these before immediately proposing the demolition of character homes, particularly those in low density neighbourhoods?
What we have should not be given up easily. Its a legacy that we should treat sympathetically and with care, rather than resorting to clichés about how we cannot have growth in our city without ridding ourselves of our character housing.
You’re kidding me about the question of why those dates right? Second world war ended September 1945. Why sacrifice an extra 5 families living in west end, which locals don’t want in the first place, for the heritage. In 100 years whose going to care that you “solved” SEQ’s population growth problem single handedly by destroying a pre war development? If you want to provide a solution to the population growth in the already misguided Brisbane city, why don’t you provide better transport networks first and create corridors. Developing on these sites are pure money driven projects, nothing to do with the culture of the area. There’s a reason there is planning legislation.
Councils in cities all over Australia, and probably the world, will always succumb to the developer; money drives them. Original Queensland houses will be torn down, with the explanation that they are nbo longer appropriate to the modern world, or that the opoen verandahs are unsafve blah blah. The hot air and rhetoric just doesn’t wash; Brisbane must retain the unique architecture.
One irrelevancy: The Domesday Book, according to Wikiwisdom, is a survey of England and much of Wales, completed in about 1086. If you live in England, and happen to inhabit a property ‘mentioned in the Domesday Book,’ then yes, the property may be worth preserving. At least, having lasted a thousand plus years, said property is probably sufficiently well constructed to make the exercise worth while. Another irrelevancy: When Disneyland Paris opened in 1992, apparently attendences were well below expectations. Reasons were sought. Anecdotally, one suggestion put forward was that Americans were charmed and enchanted by old Europe, with its mysterious ancient castles, moats and ‘oubliettes’. But European residents were surrounded every day by the real thing. Why should they bother paying money to go and see a fake castle? Yet another irrelevancy: European settlement of Australia occurred less than three hundred years ago – a milli-second in the general scheme of things, and a thousand years less than many European structures. Conclusion: It is, in my humble and no doubt uninformed opinion, the height of idiocy to have any sort of heritage legislation hampering this young country. Architectural styles are continuously developing. The suggestion that something built two hundred years ago must automatically be worth preserving is facile. Abolish all heritage legislation. Get the bureaucrats out of the way. Give our architects and planners a chance to develop a uniquely Australian style, one that suits our climate and lifestyle, rather than weighing everyone down with the dead hand of the past. The development of the uniquely Queensland house on stilts is a start, but only a start, in this ongoing process.
Magnus talks about “unique heritage that should be handed down to our grandkids, and their grandkid”. The majority of the heritage listed houses that I see around are dilapidated, vacant and a hazard just waiting to fall down.
I have no problem keeping heritage properties if they’re genuinely unique and are apart of our heritage. My problem is with the houses that are used more as housing for rats and possums then it does people.
Grumpy Greg – have you lived in Europe? I have, for most of my life, and I can assure you that heritage housing is cherished, treasured, preserved and highly coveted. Every single push for wholesale demolition has been derided and regretted in hindsight.
Historic houses make up a very small, and ever diminishing, portion of our overall housing stock. Suggesting that it “weighs everyone down with the dead hand of the past” is silly, to put it mildly.
Australia has only a few years of culture in its buildings to retain. If we remove one old house we remove a disproportionate percentage of that culture compared with Europe for instance. When Australia catches up to Europe and has 1000 plus years of buildings to consider, then let’s knock down a few built between 1970 and 2013 , that will be no great loss to anyone.
btw you’ve just sold me the idea of moving to Brisbane and buying an old house on a good size block near the city, to live in!
Still, it doesn’t actually matter being near the CBD in long term, all our CBD jobs will be offshore in fifteen years and our cities will be only relevant to tourists
Magnus – Thank you for your observations. Yes, I have lived in Europe, albeit many years ago as a post graduate student, but we are talking about Australia. Here, most European structures erected since settlement have a maximum age of 225 years – surely no time at all, in the general scheme of things? Visitors from Europe, when shown ‘historic’ structures in this country, have sometimes been overheard muttering, ‘Well, they look quite modern to me.’ This seems a fair reaction. In this country there is no Hadrians Wall, nor are there any Roman Acqueducts. Everything seems ‘quite modern,’ by comparison. A major objection to Heritage Legislation is that the onus to preserve, as I understand it, is entirely cast on the hapless owner. Apparently this discriminated against individual must obtain bureaucratic consent even to hang a picture, much less to repaint, refurbish, build an extension or do any of the other things most owners take for granted. And the obligation to maintain is solely the owner’s, again on my understanding. Perhaps it becomes very easy for Society at large to preach the virtues of preserving heritage structures when, in many cases, someone else is picking up the tab. Even the fear of Heritage legislation can cause people to do strange things. Some years ago, a structural engineer of my acquaintance was working on a multi-million dollar building project in this country. As they were excavating the foundations, one of the workers found a heap of rusty iron artefacts. He showed them to the works supervisor. ‘Oh No,’ gasped the supervisor,’these look like convict leg irons. The Heritage mob are going to issue a stop work order on the whole project, while they do an archeological survey. They might even stop construction going ahead at all. Give ‘em to me.’ The supervisor snatched the leg irons, drove a kilometre up the road, and threw them on to someone else’s property. I’m assured this is a true story. Surely it’s becoming ridiculous, when things like this happen?
Greg – I’m finding it a bit hard to follow your arguments, basically you seem to be saying that 1) Australia’s heritage is not ancient enough to be worth preserving (surely you sense a fallacy in that argument), and/or 2) heritage has no intrinsic value anyway, when weighed against private economic interests. On that basis it’s hard to debate – it’s a matter of fundamental outlook on our society and culture.
I just think it’s a shame that vested interests are hell bent on ruining what remains of our character neighbourhoods, when Queensland already abounds in places that have been stripped of all cultural, historic values. Like the Gold Coast, and most of the mega-burb between Brisbane River and Eight Mile Plains. Future generations will damn us, you can count on it.
Timber and tin houses are mostly aesthetically very pleasing to look at, but when you’ve had to paint and reglaze a whole stack of timber windows, you have a new perspective on them. I do appreciate their good points, but I am realistic about maintenance which is both expensive and time consuming. I am happy to be selling my previous timber house and to be living in a house now with aluminium windows. I will say though, should I ever consider knocking down the house I’m in now (not covered by heritage provisions) it would take a lot to convince me to sell off one of the blocks in order to cash in on the double block that we have. It’s truly lovely not to be hemmed in by your neighbours and yet be only 3km from the City. Some would say that is selfish that I should let other people live close to the City, I would say it’s just pure luck that I’m in this position so why would I want to ruin a good thing?