HERITAGE INTERVIEWS

PAUL RAPPOPORT is principal of Paul Rappoport Heritage Architects, a firm of heritage consultants based in the Sydney CBD and employing ten staff including historians, archivists, architects and researchers. This firm is listed as qualified heritage architects with the NSW Heritage Office, and will shortly receive accreditation with ICOMOS, the key international heritage body. Paul is a member of the Historic Buildings Committee of the NSW Chapter of the National Trust and a member of AusHeritage, a privately funded body that provides international heritage aid. His list of projects and clients reads like a “Who’s Who” of the industry.

Construction Contractor (CC) Some developers regard heritage buildings as a money pit that restricts their ability to make a commercial return on their investment - what do you say to these people?

Paul Rappoport (PR) I agree, heritage has become a web of intrigue and not for any good reason. I believe that the process of evaluating what is significant and what isn’t is very subjective. One consultant will say one thing and the other will disagree. Council will allow development on one site and then limit it on another. There are gaping inconsistencies. A developer cannot work through all of these irregularities with any degree of confidence. Our firm is committed to dispelling the myth of heritage. We are committed to the promotion of certainty in the heritage approval process. But regularising the process will take time. The key to the resolution is in objectifying the situation i.e. the establishment of clear principles whereby the changes allowed to a building are clearly laid out. Developers avoid heritage projects because they cannot fathom out which way to move. This is wrong and indeed unfortunate because we rely upon developers to instigate adaptive re-use. Without developers nobody would spend money on heritage buildings. A correct balance can always be achieved if developer’s needs are facilitated without diminishing the significance of the building or place. Inside every project a solution can be found, but unfortunately, the bulk of consultants or Council/State officers presiding over important decisions affecting heritage fail in their resolve as a result of either hidden agendas in which case their hands are tied for pre-determined political reasons or they fail to grasp the essential principles of conservation and therefore tend to err on the side of caution.

CC What are the factors to consider (eg lifts, fire stairs, wiring & communications, air conditioning, etc) in bringing an old building up to the standards expected by today's tenants, and what are some innovative ways that these can be considered without blowing the budget or altering the character of the building?

PR Many heritage buildings have been recycled in the past - some in very sensitive ways and others in glaringly intrusive ways. The key factor is the assimilation of new services into buildings clearly designed without such services ever having been contemplated in the original construction. Air conditioning, electricity, lifts and communication cabling did not exist in any common form in Australia prior to 1900.

In fact toilets and kitchens in domestic architecture were always kept separate from the main dwelling prior to 1860. Yet we take the provision of services in buildings for granted today. Ironically, in the absence of mechanical ventilation, buildings (both domestic dwellings and commercial office or institutional buildings) devised incredibly intricate and clever ways of naturally ventilating buildings by simple passive means. We notice in domestic architecture up to as recently as the First World War that every bedroom had airbricks at high level and the doors to rooms were almost always fitted with operable fanlights above them. This allowed the air to flow throughout the house even if all the doors and windows were closed. Similarly, by means of internal and external shutters as well as curtains, direct light could be regulated depending on the light or heat intensity. Since at that time (pre-1900) most people in the Australian condition worked outdoors, the house was required to be a cool and fairly shaded place during the day. Today, our lifestyles have changed and because most of us urban dwellers spend the better part of our working week in air conditioned offices, on weekends we want direct sunlight and lots of air in our homes – a complete reversal brought about by changing social patterns and lifestyles. Back in the 1900’s the orientation of a house did not take sun aspect into account. Set pattern plans were always oriented to the street. The bulk of modifications required to domestic heritage building today are all about re-orientating rooms and spaces towards the sunlight and maximizing on the free procession of living spaces i.e. the kitchen/dining/living complex towards the garden - hopefully towards a northerly aspect. In the past (1950’s to 1980’s) when heritage was not as legislated as it is today, many errors were committed. Many of these are now completely irreversible. With the benefit of hindsight today we can now tread lightly and people have generally become aware of the need to conserve our cultural heritage and are less proprietary than they were say even 20 years ago.

On the commercial front, developments in the urban context such as our main cities in Australia - the bulk of heritage buildings were lost to the unstoppable advances in the 50’s through to the 90’s. We lost a good deal of our heritage stock during that period. Thankfully some good examples remain today and we need to tread very lightly as far as these are concerned. However, even in the case of the surviving few, we must still look at ways of making such buildings usable without diminishing their significance. We must still find ways of introducing lifts and services as people expect to find in other modern buildings. Otherwise such buildings will be abandoned and fall into disrepair. It is a well-known maxim in heritage that at all costs heritage buildings must be occupied. Only this will save such buildings. Accordingly, I am of the strong view that buildings (all heritage listed buildings) must be continually adapted to facilitate occupation. But the art of achieving this without placing undue stringencies on the occupiers has become a rare science. It is not an easy matter and requires skill. Only professionals with experience in such conservation procedures should get involved and this prerequisite is widely recognised by our key heritage institutions such as the Australian Heritage Commission at the Federal level and the NSW Heritage Office at the state level. The key to this process is the definition of conservation fabric and the establishment of levels of significance. For instance, with city heritage buildings, one finds that the original street facades are usually more significant than the rear or side facades. Accordingly, one ought to have more freedom with the secondary facades as one would have with the main facades in terms of contemplated modifications. One needs to establish the levels of significance so that owners and developers understand which areas are sacrosanct and which areas of the building can be modified. I find that most developers are happy to work with a clear significance zoning plan so long as the boundaries are clearly spelled out. Experience has informed me that many heritage projects fall over because the key heritage consultant or officer fail to lay out a clear significance zoning plan for the building.

CC Is an old building necessarily a high maintenance building or are there ways to address this during renovation?

PR In fact the opposite applies. We find that the older building are built of hardier and sturdier materials because building technology 100 years ago was predominantly load bearing i.e. the walls of the external facades carried the bulk of the load. Accordingly, walls of stone or brick had to be thick and sturdy to take the structural forces. Today, with reinforced concrete, facades have been freed up and with the use of columns. Our facades can be made of lightweight non-load bearing materials such as glass, timber veneers and a range of external cladding systems. I find that these systems require greater maintenance than the traditional thick masonry walls that have smaller windows. In addition back then buildings were clearly built to last an entirety. Today, we live in a throwaway society and think nothing of discarding old for new. Back then, when everything was in short supply, resources were recycled. Today rapid developments in technology have come to regard ‘old’ as ‘useless’. Yet ironically, it is often the brand new that becomes useless far sooner than the old.

CC Has heritage listing gone too far, in locking up too many sites in prime locations that are out of keeping with the population density (either residential or working) of the area, or are there ways of preserving heritage value while increasing site utilisation eg constructing large basements underneath heritage buildings, constructing piers through heritage buildings to support structures above them?

PR The short answer is yes, but not for the reason that one would expect. There is a lot of duplication in listing based on the artificiality of boundaries. For instance, in Sydney, each local council will list its buildings in an attempt to convey the essential historical, cultural and aesthetic developments dating back to the earliest structure in the municipality right up to the most recent. Yet the neighbouring LGA will compile a similar list. We find retrospectively that the list of buildings in each is fairly similar and also we find that development and subdivision patterns follow roughly the same lines. So we end up with duplication. We then have to go through a Windshuttle type exercise to re-write the histories to fit the list - a backwards and unnecessary approach in my view. I believe that the whole area (LGA boundaries aside). All of this needs to be reviewed. There is far too much duplication.

This is no good for a cogent interpretation of our heritage significance generally, because people become confused by the process and are often disgruntled when they perceive that they have been singled out i.e. their house becomes listed, but their neighbour’s not. Besides, politically it would be good in my view to have the jurisdiction of heritage taken out of LGA management and placed in community hands in accordance with a set of well-crafted pre-set State planning policies and procedures. This will, in my view, streamline the process and promote a greater degree of certainty in the process.

CC Are there sufficient skilled tradespeople available to restore heritage buildings to the required standard? Are skills being lost that are essential to the ongoing maintenance of heritage buildings?

PR By a process of natural attrition we have virtually lost the skill base required for maintaining our heritage buildings and structures. For instance there are only a handful of people who know how to work stone or lead or copper. Only a few people have skills in ornate moulded plasterwork. Even less understand the skills required for constructing shingle or slate roofs. There are many look-alike materials on the market and people tend to go for the cheaper look-alikes to save costs. However international conservation principles discourage the introduction of new fabric. The use of the genuine matching material is always encouraged. But more often than not people cannot afford them. The fact is that there is an axiomatic relationship between the erosion of the skill base and the high cost of conservation. Hence people avoid conservation because of the expense. Apart from that rare class who are driven to renovate out of passion, nine times out of ten, conservation projects are beset by the cheaper alternatives and the results are often tragic.

This is where government can step in. I am a strong believer in the heritage incentive schemes that have been shown to work in the past. I refer not to tax incentives for heritage such as the system used to boost our film industry in the 1970’s. I refer to schemes such as the HFS scheme adopted by the Council of the City of Sydney. Without going into too much detail, owners of heritage buildings should receive funding for conservation through the sanctioned ability to transfer development potential to non-heritage sites. This will get the system going and in Sydney it has already been shown to work. We need to expand the scheme out into the suburbs and beyond. This is the only way to stem the tide of false conservation.

CC Do you have a view of what the purpose of heritage listing should be, and how this should be interpreted to cater for the interests of both the property owner and the general community? Is some form of community education required to help the community to appreciate the significance of heritage buildings? Who should foot the bill?

PR Community appreciation of cultural significance ought not in my view to be inculcated through didactic methods. In other words, we cannot teach people how to appreciate music or art or certain film genres under a single premise. We must first recognize that our listing procedures are inevitably biased and secondly we must acknowledge that Australia is a multicultural society in which people from diverse cultures and belief systems emanate. These are the two ponderables concerning the listing of buildings and places. It doesn’t take very long to appreciate that our listing criteria are very much based upon the assumed predominance of white English settlement in the late 18th C followed by various waves of immigration and economic patterning in society. We cannot hope to incorporate all significances. Listing is therefore made more interesting by its exclusions that by the inclusions. Nonetheless, we see a direct connection between tourist dollars and conservation. For instance The Rocks in Sydney is the number one tourist destination in Australia and it is The Rocks that does possibly provide the most cogent interpretation of our earliest settlement in this country. Parramatta might just as well have provided the same opportunity, but sadly, bad planning decisions over decades have virtually decimated the place from an historical perspective. I believe that people are entitled to form their own opinions about cultural significance in both a modern and a heritage context, but we still need to have the lists. The key lies in the amplification of listing categories. Our purview ought to become more curious and creative and definitely wider sweeping and far reaching in its catchment of cultural community nuances and curiosities.

CC Given that a number of heritage buildings with timber structures are riddled with whiteants, so that they do not have structural integrity, should they be preserved? If so, how can this be done economically?

PR Heritage buildings are affected by other factors such as rising damp, salt attack (efflorescence), sandstone decay, leaking, falling damp, dry rot, wind erosion etc. We need to understand that physical condition and heritage significance are for the better part separate entities. Significance is akin to the spirit or essence of the place whereas physical integrity merely describes the condition of the item as it exists now. A deceased relative who has no physical presence in this world can still have and indeed does have significance if they are special to us in some way. We miss our loved ones when they are not in the same place as we are. This is the point of duality in heritage significance that underscores the whole conservation process. If white ant affected timbers cause the structural integrity of the listed building to become undermined, we simply need to replace those timbers with as close a match as we are able. We need to make a reasonable attempt to preserve the physical integrity of the building so that the recognised significance can prevail. This is our responsibility and in conservation terms; this is our cultural duty to our children and future generations.

CC Can new buildings be designed (without prohibitive additional costs) so that they are sympathetic to adjoining heritage buildings? (can you give some examples?)

PR We should avoid slavish copying at all costs. Making new buildings look like the old ones undermines both in my view. An example of this is in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Upon recently travelling there I noticed that the local supermarket looked exactly the same as a 17th C pueblo in the next street and when I looked closely at the houses in the original section of the town, I could not distinguish the brand new buildings from their 400 year neighbours. This is because the local municipality stipulated that all new buildings must be made to look like the Spanish pueblos. I find this approach abhorrent because it confuses the cogency of the interpretation and reduces conservation to facile facadism. There is an equivalent place for modern design as there is for heritage. In order to appreciate both, both must be allowed to prevail under the auspice of tolerance. New design needs to flourish as it must and will, but when it affects heritage, it must at the very least be cognizant and pull in a little. I note a fine example in Alexander Tzannes’ now famous Paddington terrace that takes its essential cue from the nineteenth century terrace strip on each side of it, but is at one and the same time a modern piece of architecture. The key here is empathetic response to the recognised heritage item without slavishly copying the style or building technology of the predecessor.