The article arrived as an E-mail from a colleague.
The report was clear: Architects support council in defending
Robin Dods house in Brisbane from development. Which building was
this? Who were these architects? What were they saving the Dods house
from? Why?
 388 Bowen Terrace, Brisbane |
| The reading of the article elaborated on all of these matters – see below. The house was located in New Farm, at 388 Bowen Terrace in New Farm, Brisbane. It was described as having been designed in 1907 by Robin Dods. The image accompanying the report illustrated a classic ‘Queenslander’ image – a verandah porch with a large, decorated gable located behind, partly concealed by mature shrubs and trees, bordered by a traditional, stylish white picket fence. It was indeed an attractive appearance, revealing all of those quaint, homely heritage qualities seen in historic Queensland buildings. The difference here was the name – it was a ‘Dods’ design. |
The report noted:
The Federation bungalow is located at 388
Bowen Terrace in the inner-Brisbane area of New Farm. Dods
(1868–1920) was a 20th century architect known mainly for his
diverse body of work inspired by the British Arts and Crafts
movement. Dods designed houses, factories, hospitals and religious
buildings across Australia. His early career included several homes
in the New Farm and Clayfield areas of Brisbane. The Bowen Terrace
house was occupied at one time by Edward Granville Theodore, known
as “Red Ted” Theodore, a Depression-era politician who served as
both premier of Queensland and as federal treasurer.
Edward Granville Theodore
Robin Dods
Robin Dods was an
architect who designed many significant buildings in Brisbane and
its regions. His work is iconic. That the Brisbane
City Council (BCC) has
this house scheduled on its heritage list reveals its significance.
Alas, this does not seem to be enough to stop developers hoping to
change things. The article notes that the proposal
is to move and raise the house on the site to allow space to
construct three, three-storey townhouses. The BCC has refused the
development application.
Now
the matter is to be appealed
in the Planning and Environment Court. This is where the architects
come in. Three are going to act as co-respondents in support of the
Brisbane City Council.
Lyndhurst (Dods)
There have been
forty objections lodged
to this development application. While the University of Queensland
is usually, sadly,
silent on architectural matters, this time the professor of
architectural history has lodged an objection.
In his submission, John Macarthur, professor
of architectural history at the University of Queensland, said, “The
buildings of [Robin] Dods are of outstanding architectural merit on
an international comparison. They are also highly characteristic of
Brisbane and a touchstone of civic identity. The proposed
development would more than compromise these significances, it would
make a nonsense of any claim we might have to understand our built
heritage.”
All Saints, Tamrookum (Dods)
But just what
does this statement say? If there are to be arguments for heritage, then they should
be clear and intelligible to all; simply
explicable. The problem with
previous public utterances
from
the university appears to be that they involve broad, esoteric
understandings expressed in 'academic' jargon, ideas
and words that elude ordinary
experience and apprehension.
Sometimes
they manage to achieve
the opposite of their intentions, such is the cynicism they engender: see - http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/why-we-need-universities.html This professorial
objection seems certain enough, but what is the precise meaning of:
outstanding architectural merit on an international
comparison? What
is trying to be said in the words: highly characteristic
of Brisbane and a touchstone of civic identity?
The last sentence is equally
abstractly general
in its summing up: more than compromise these
significances . . . make a nonsense of any claim we might have to
understand our built heritage.
Just what does
all of this refer to? What might
it entail? What precisely is
the objection? There is
something wholesome in this statement, something
worthy of attention, but what is it beyond
schematic
‘motherhood’ notions - universal statements?
Late 1800's Brisbane city residential development above (Rosalie);
North Melbourne development below (Carlton)
Brisbane suburbs have open backyards available for development
A 'Quenslander'
On heritage matters in
particular, one has to say that there needs to be some communal
enterprise in this interest for it to achieve broad recognition and
respect; and support. Day after day we see old buildings being
demolished or removed for developments. Objections carry no sway in
their quality or number. In spite of BCC's regulations that seek to
protect pre-1946 buildings in order to maintain the ‘special
character’ of Brisbane, (if only), even these everyday old
structures get demolished time and time again. There always appears
to be an excuse to allow them to disappear. BCC planners seem to be
skilled in offering reasons for every decision they make, whatever
these might be. The planners make the rules as conditions for
development, and they approve and police them. They are powerful. If
the conditions of approval that they might impose are ignored, then
it is up to the planners to act – if they so choose. Frequently
non-compliance is ignored. Correspondence noting any divergent
outcomes can just get neglected. Occasionally one is given a lecture
on why everything is satisfactory when it clearly is not. It has been
known for documents to just disappear in Council's hands! One wonders: do
developers have someone on the inside working for them?
Brisbane city development - planners encourage 'character' references
A 'developed Queenslander'
Gleneagles twin towers - Curro, Nutter, Charlton, Architects.
Award-winning landmark towers for a landmark enterprise: inner-city aged housing.
'Third' tower development on Gleneagles original site, Aquila - private, luxury apartments.
So it is that
Council's stand of this ‘Dods’ development application
is strange; certainly
unusual.
What might the developers
think? Just down the road
from
this house, in Moray Street,
is another iconic Brisbane development
– Gleneagles. This
is a 1960's high-rise,
twin-tower development that
was designed to provide
inner-city accommodation for the aged. This development was on
Council's
heritage register too. When this site came up for development some
years ago, Council was
in favour of this proposal in
spite of numerous objections and
the heritage listing. A new
third tower was constructed beside the two existing ones, changing
their presence; and plans
were lodged to refurbish and remodel the existing
structures, to change their
purpose. Where was the
university then? Where were the architects
at this time? The aged folk
living in Gleneagles,
(then owned by The Church of Christ), were left by themselves to
argue with the developer’s barristers for their rights. The
developer had promised them every care and attention prior to the
sale; but things changed. If
there is to be a protest on developing heritage-listed
sites, then there has to be some rigour, some
uniformity, some logicality
in the protest, or else one
approval will
weaken the other argument for
refusal.
The proposed revamped, heritage-listed Gleneagles, complete with new penthouses and 'third' tower.
The scheme shows the twin towers turned into single-floor luxury apartments.
The original project had four modest one-bedroom units for the aged per floor.
The 'third' tower has been constructed.
If Brisbane heritage is
to be maintained and respected, then there has to be a broad and
consistent approach. When buildings on the heritage lists cannot be
protected, then what chance is there for the older homes and
structures of the city, the ‘everyday’ buildings that give
Brisbane its special civic character? Unique words and protests for a
known architect’s house seem too specific; too selective; too
narrow a protest. Dare one say too elitist? If Brisbane’s heritage
is to be relevant, then there must be rigour in its overview and
control, in all aspects of planning, not just with one or two
selected ‘special’ projects. A city is bigger than one place. This
commitment must be applied to all development: but there has to be a plan to be implemented prior to anything happening. Without a precise
and predictable, enforceable set of rules intelligible to all - rules
that have defined outcomes - everything is left willy-nilly, to
the optional choice of the planners and their cunning spin.
Old Brisbane suburb - all 'timber and tin'
Brisbane's 'character' street today
Brisbane's new suburban vista
An 'ordinary' Queenslander
A place develops
an attitude towards
development
through the manner in which plans are formulated and implemented.
That the BCC seems so flexible on planning, (and
heritage), matters leaves one
exasperated, frustrated,
when it suddenly chooses to make a stand. Why does it not make stands
more frequently on many developments, both
great and small? Well, this
was asked. The answer was that the
BCC would apparently
prefer to ‘negotiate’ and maintain ‘control’ of the outcome
rather than allowing the matters to go to court to be decided by an
individual unskilled in planning matters. Is this why our city is
such a shambles? One wonders if there could be any worse outcomes
than
Council-negotiated
approvals? How many of these are there? Past experience shows how
difficult it is to get Council to listen, let alone act on any
particular issue.
One development can be
recalled where the local Councillor organised
and encouraged the
objections, to no avail: the planners and the developer got what they
wanted, complete with a list
of seemingly fanciful conditions.
Being told that documents
that had
been both hand-delivered and E-mailed, (as a back-up), to the BCC did
just not exist in its files,
with
no one caring beyond this response, or
even with it, seems to
suggest there are serious
problems in the BCC: a
certain carelessness.
The proposed 'new' Gleneagles with the 'third' separate tower, named Aquila (completed)
Is it just too
‘flexible’? Why might a developer even think it could be
acceptable to develop a property that is on the heritage list? Does
previous experience show that this is not only acceptable, but also
possible?: consider Gleneagles! Council’s notes in its files
from this period seem to show that the development application for
this project, a document over 75mm thick, was being processed prior
to public advertisement. Had it already been approved in private
discussion?
A 'Queenslander' being 'developed'
A 'Queenslander' built-in underneath
So what should
happen to the Dods house? Well, it should be left alone. Council’s
response makes the best statement: “The proposed
development,” said the decision notice, “would unacceptably
impact on the setting of the heritage place and significantly
diminish its heritage values.” The notice also said that the
project “does not sufficiently protect the garden setting and
overall status of the house as a fine example of a residence designed
by R.S. Dods.” The Council
argues for the context,
but is fuzzy on what
‘heritage place’ and ‘heritage values’ might mean.
Just spruiking the words does
not establish any particular quality or core position. It
is a shame that the BCC
cares so little about other city contexts.
Townhouses in the backyard of a 'generic Queenslander'
One architect
notes further
that “The detail treatment proposed for ‘Fenton’ is
unrelated to its distinguished architectural pedigree and treats the
house like a generic Queenslander of the early 20th
century.” Now
this seems to be problematical. Why, might anyone wonder, should this
old Queenslander be treated any differently to those everywhere else,
the ‘generics’?
Is it acceptable,
satisfactory to mangle other ‘ordinary Queenslanders’? That
there are many examples in Brisbane where houses are moved, raised,
and developed with additional
townhouses all to Council’s
approval,
in spite
of numerous objections every time, only creates expectations that the
same can happen here, with the Dods house on
Bowen Terrace. And why not?
Heritage is much more complex than saving one old building. Is it sufficient to
say that this is a Dods house and the others are not?
Wairuna, Highgate Hill, Brisbane (Dods)
Littledike Residence (Dods)
Here one gets into a
strange argument, one of preference and prestige. If heritage is to
be respected, then it must be done equitably, with a commitment that
does not devalue matters ordinary, because the ordinary is the
heritage, the character-forming fabric of this sub-tropical city. One
house does not make a city or give it its character: a single, saved example just becomes
an historical relic if left alone in a sea of random development. Once a selective strategy becomes
the approach to the management of heritage matters, then one gets
into the debate about values and significance. If all heritage is
respected, cared for, and handled with a judicious subtlety, then the
circumstance might be created where the thought of developing this
Dods house property would never even be contemplated. Now that the
case has to go to court, Council will find itself arguing for
historical and aesthetic matters on a legal basis. This becomes
difficult, as quantity is used to assess quality; logic to debate
feelings and emotions. There are always architects who will have a
differing opinion. Indeed, some so-called ‘heritage’ architects
have become so disenchanted with heritage ‘failures’ in the city
that they now run businesses specialising in the de-listing of
heritage buildings. Even those they might once have fought to get on
the list are not immune from their apparent vindictiveness!
Brisbane
If Brisbane is to
truly care for its old
buildings, its past, its character,
its history, then
Council
needs to implement
a broad and committed approach with rigour and consistency.
It cannot allow ad hoc development to
be approved willy-nilly, as negotiated outcomes
when it sees fit or
otherwise, and
ignore objections, because
this only creates an expectation and a precedent for developers
to adopt and use. Why should
a developer not believe that the matter can be ‘agreed upon’
through analytical
discussion and debate
when it appears that
this strategy is being used
every day?
Proposed new casino in the heart of Brisbane.
The casino is to be located in the central government precinct on river frontage.
One hopes that
the Bowen Terrace development will not go ahead. Brisbane needs its
heritage. That the heart of the government precinct, a set of three
AIA award-winning
buildings, is to be demolished for a casino development, does nothing
for heritage matters in this
city. Such
proposals, especially when grasped with such government
glee,
degrade heritage concerns
and the importance and
significance of our past: see - http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/new-brisbane-casino-reviewed.html
and http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/brisbanes-new-casino-proposal-approved.html These
schemes make heritage
matters merely quirky
architectural games objected to by
specialists, academics and ‘cranks’ who
might take objection only to
things close to their unique, personal
interest and understanding rather
than for the good of the city and its people. Why
do some proposals get ignored?
Central Brisbane casino proposal
Site of the new government 'power tower' with the three surrounding buildings to be demolished for the casino
Executive Building - to be demolished for casino development
80 George Street - to be demolished for casino development
Neville Bonner Building - to be demolished for casino development
Ad hoc actions and
selective decisions to object, as this stance appears to be, make a mockery
of any position that seeks to protect our civic heritage. It is not
only the BCC that needs to act with rigour in this regard, but also
the State and Federal Governments. If these bodies remain so
careless, so flexible with heritage issues, then why should the
proverbial ‘man-in-the-street’ care? There needs to be change,
now! One hopes that the court of appeal can see the value in the Dods
house. The danger is that there are so many examples of the ‘generic’
developer’s approach being implemented on a daily basis in a
variety of old suburbs, heritage-listed or not, pre-1946 or not, that
the proposal might easily be seen as the norm.
'Generic Queenslander'
That the
arguments for keeping the place intact need to counter this everyday
expectation makes it an up-hill battle: that
arguments might get as broadly
general, generic,
as loose
and universal as those made by the university professor, only adds to
this difficulty, when the matter should be a
black-and-white – NO!
with clear and specific, carefully
articulated, rational, irrefutable
reasons. Council must blame
itself if it fails, because it has given in and approved
so much that shatters ordinary
heritage and place now, with
a stance that leaves Brisbane
without any
clear, enforceable plan that
can achieve a predictable outcome.
It is a
matter that becomes obvious
when the city is experienced today. The
city is close to becoming a
shambles, a place that has lost direction and coherence. Quality
needs cause,
commitment
and cogency to be maintained. Just too frequently our planning relies
on words that are vulnerable to spin, multiple
interpretations: ‘alternative
facts.’ When planners do
not even have the tools to check simple areas that are listed on
schematic drawings, figures
that are a critical part
of development applications, defined
to the last, compliant
square millimetre, what hope
is there? Taking the details presented to them as gospel is a poor
start when developers are so shrewd
and wily.
Typical 'Queenslander' character
Fingers crossed –
let’s hope the Dods house overcomes Council’s past sloppiness and
survives for future generations to experience in its original
context: it has to.
The difficulty is that even context is now
an undermined argument.
Margaret Olley’s house/studio interiors have been relocated from
her beloved Sydney garden
context to be plonked into the art gallery at Murwillumbah as
a core exhibit: as if this
transformation might
have
no impact on
anything! - see http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/bacons-sacrambled-studio-francis.html Its
‘replacement’ does make a
critical difference! Even Council knows this – well the Brisbane
City Council seems to in the
Dods development case.
Margaret Olley studio, Sydney
Olley studio with view to garden, Sydney
Margaret Olley's relocated 'faux' studio Tweed Regional Gallery is treated as a relic.
Glengariff, Henrda, Brisbane (Dods)
What has also to
be remembered is that
approvals that
come with conditions, no
matter how many there might
be or what they are,
are useless. Conditions have
become the way to devalue, to control, to
overcome all objections, and justify Council’s actions to approve
whatever. The idea appears the be that a collation of any conditions
can be fabricated to manage anything: but Council
never seems interested in fully implementing these. The approach is
only a way of trying to avoid
criticism, of
letting Council give the developer a ‘negotiated’ outcome that
will silence all critics and let the development proceed into a
perpetual silence in which Council too
fades away to live another
day, for yet another
negotiation.
Adelaide Street, Brisbane, 1954
Planning has to be better than this random
resolution of one project after another: it needs principles, and
needs to stick to them. We must always remember that our heritage is much more than a uniquely specialist, academic matter.
THE REPORT
ARCHITECTUREAU
Architects support council in defending Robin Dods
house in Brisbane from development
News Words Patrick Hunn
|
388 Bowen Terrace in New Farm, Brisbane, designed in 1907 by Robin Dods
Image: Brisbane City Council
|
Three architects are voluntarily acting as
co-respondents in a pending Planning and Environment Court appeal
that will see Brisbane City Council defend its decision not to
permit a developer to partially demolish and relocate a Robin
Dods-designed home built in 1907 for the purpose of constructing
three three-storey townhouses.
The architects who are acting
as objectors to the proposal and co-respondents in support of
Brisbane City Council are architect and writer Louise
Noble, architect and architectural
historian Don Watson and Dr Rob Riddel, Conrad Gargett principal and
author of Robin Dods: Selected Works,
an exhaustive examination of Dod’s
career that was produced after four decades of research. Watson has
previously advocated for the preservation of heritage buildings in
Brisbane, including Brisbane’s brutalist
state government buildings.
|
Robert "Robin" Dods
Image: John Oxley Library, State Library of Queensland
|
The Federation bungalow is located at 388 Bowen
Terrace in the inner-Brisbane area of New Farm. Dods (1868–1920)
was a 20th century architect known mainly for his diverse body of
work inspired by the British Arts and Crafts movement. Dods designed
houses, factories, hospitals and religious buildings across
Australia. His early career included several homes in the New Farm
and Clayfield areas of Brisbane. The Bowen Terrace house was
occupied at one time by Edward Granville Theodore, known as “Red
Ted” Theodore, a Depression-era politician who served as both
premier of Queensland and as federal treasurer.
In 2016 Alloa Properties submitted a planning
application that would see the house, currently separated from the
street by a generous garden, moved forward to reduce the setback
from 25 metres to 6 metres, freeing up space at the rear of the
1,292-square-metre property for three 11.3 metre-high, three-storey
townhouses. The proposal also involved raising the house and
developing the space underneath it.
More than 40 submissions against the development
were made to the council. In his submission, John Macarthur,
professor of architectural history at the University of Queensland,
said, “The buildings of [Robin] Dods are of outstanding
architectural merit on an international comparison. They are also
highly characteristic of Brisbane and a touchstone of civic
identity. The proposed development would more than compromise these
significances, it would make a nonsense of any claim we might have
to understand our built heritage.”
After the initial proposal was
lodged in 2016, Watson said to New Farm
Village News,
“The detail treatment proposed for
‘Fenton’ is unrelated to its distinguished architectural
pedigree and treats the house like a generic Queenslander of the
early 20thcentury.”
In July 2016 Brisbane City Council wrote to the
developer informing them its their decision to refuse the
application. “The proposed development,” said the decision
notice, “would unacceptably impact on the setting of the heritage
place and significantly diminish its heritage values.” The notice
also said that the project “does not sufficiently protect the
garden setting and overall status of the house as a fine example of
a residence designed by R.S. Dods.”
The property is listed on the Brisbane Heritage
Register, which summarizes the heritage value of the “fine timber
Federation-era residence” as reflecting “features that
distinguished Dods’ domestic work. These include the
steeply-pitched roof which overhangs large verandahs and the
well-crafted timberwork.” It also highlights the property’s
“attractive garden setting,” which would be removed under the
developer’s plan.
Later that month the owners of the property
lodged a notice of appeal against the decision with the Planning and
Environmental Court, protesting the decision and asking that
development of the property be allowed to proceed. A review of the
case is scheduled for 19 April, according to court documentation.
NOTE
For more on Dods, see:
MORE IMAGES OF THE WORK OF DODS
All Saints, Tamrookum
Dods detail drawings
All Saints, Tamrookum
Dods working drawings
Hart Residence, Abbott Street, New Farm
Dods own house next door to this residence has been replaced with a block of units.
St. Brigid;s Church, Red Hill, Brisbane
St. Brigid;s Church, Red Hill, Brisbane in context
Webber House, Ann Street, Brisbane
Espie Dods surgery and residence, Wickham Terrace, Brisbane
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.