Canberra is a young city. Due to World Wars and Depression, its early development came in fits and starts. As a result, there are few public buildings left from this period and even fewer examples of modernist public housing.

Take a look at them now, because before too much longer, these rare and unusual examples of 1930s functionalism—some of the earliest in Australia—will either have been demolished or modified to such an extent that their historical and architectural integrity will be irretrievably compromised.

The houses

An example of this are the Whitley houses in Griffith and Braddon, regarded by the RAIA as being significant examples of inter-war functionalist architecture. They were gazetted to the ACT Interim Heritage Places Register on 26 October 2002. The houses are located at:

• 60 Leichhardt Street, Griffith;
• 95 and 97 Canberra Avenue, Griffith; and
• 107 Limestone Avenue, Braddon.

Heritage listing

In Canberra, the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 deals with planning, heritage and land administration and an Interim Heritage Places Register and the ACT Heritage Places Register are established under the Act. These Registers allow heritage places to be recognised and protected for their importance to the local community.

As a group, the Whitley houses comprise the last remaining inter-war functionalist style houses in Canberra originally built as public housing. Designed by architect Cuthbert Whitley of the Works Branch of the Department of the Interior in 1939 and 1940, the houses were among the first government designed and built functionalist style single-storey detached houses in Australia.

The Heritage Citation for the Whitley houses identifies certain specific requirements as being essential to the conservation of the heritage significance of the place. According to the citation, the intrinsic features of the four Whitley houses, including their original form, fabric and scale, should be managed in a manner appropriate to conserving their significance as inter-war functionalist style public housing. The citation goes on to state that the historical and architectural integrity of the designated Whitley houses is to be retained and conserved. Any action relating to these specific requirements is termed ‘development’ for the purposes of the Act and requires approval prior to undertaking the activity.

The specific requirements in the citation include:

Alterations and additions to the Whitley Houses should closely match the original details, materials, and finishes for key elements including roofing, capping, downpipes, hood details, wall finishes and details, window types, materials and sill details and door treatment. Existing steel-framed windows shall be retained. Double-glazing of existing windows to control sound and heat shall be permitted. Removal of later additions or accretions, in order to reinstate original details is encouraged.

And:

Development adjacent to any of the Whitley houses shall be permitted provided any such development is sympathetic in scale, style and character to the dwellings.

The Stanhope Labor Government claimed to have saved the Whitley houses—by allowing a three-storey development to be attached to the original Leichhardt Street house. Apparently, similar Development Applications have been approved for the other houses in the group. How on earth does this multi-storey addition manage the original form, fabric and scale ‘in a manner appropriate to conserving their significance as inter-war functionalist style public housing’?

60 Leichhardt Street—then and now

Of course, it does no such thing. Externally, features like the cantilevered hoods and metal framed corner windows reference European modernism of the 1930s. But by attaching a three-storey block to the existing residence, the form and scale of the original house is overwhelmed. Perhaps the government would argue that the character of the original dwelling is maintained by calling the new development Whitley?

In her 13 February 2004 Press Release, the Shadow Planning and Environment Minister Vicki Dunne made the point that:

The result is that most of these houses will be dwarfed by what are effectively multi-storey extensions. This is not what I consider preserving our heritage. If they were worth preserving, they should have been kept on their original blocks—if necessary, through the Territory purchasing them.

There’s a good idea: maybe each of the houses could have been fully documented and one kept intact, allowing demolition of the others. The remaining intact example could be bought by the ACT Government, restored and used to house a cultural organisation or to host like activities, perhaps along the lines of the Rose Seidler House.