Mid-century modern houses and buildings are always vulnerable when they’re located on valuable land—whether heritage listed or not. And so it is with the Allawah, Bega and Currong flats in Braddon (1954), which sit on land close to Civic estimated to be worth $63 million.

The Canberra Times of 11 April, 2010 reports that the “ABC Flats”, as they’re colloquially known, will be almost entirely demolished to make way for a large scale high density redevelopment. A concept master plan has been commissioned by the ACT Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services and prepared by architects and planners Cox, Humphries, Moss.

Currong and Allawah flats will go, while 5 buildings from the Bega Flats will be kept. In their place will be 1200 high density dwellings including townhouses on the northern side and high-rise apartments on the southern side facing the Canberra Centre.

Currong Flats were decommissioned as public housing in 2004-2005 and are now occupied by students from the ANU, University of Canberra and CIT. It’s being hyped as a ‘new dawn’ for public housing in the ACT, although only 10% of the new development will be set aside for public housing. Those public housing residents occupying the 228 units on Bega and Allawah Flats will mostly be relocated.

The flats are valued by the Australian Institute of Architects as good examples of the post-war international style. Although nominated for listing on the ACT Heritage Register, a study carried out last year found that the they were only of ‘slight to moderate heritage significance’ because of their social and historical values. The study also noted that while the buildings were difficult to maintain and made for inhospitable dwellings, the courtyard layout and landscape of the Allawah flats was worth preserving.

There are 63 million reasons why the heritage value of these flats won’t be talked about too much, so before we say goodbye to another chapter in Canberra’s postwar planning and architectural history, it’s worth briefly noting why they are important and of interest.

The flats were designed in 1954 by Richard Ure and Ian Slater in the Canberra office of the Commonwealth Department of Works. They were Canberra’s first medium density public housing. These post-war international style flats are significant examples of that style of architecture and are also of value for the way they demonstrate the planning and design of Canberra’s first medium density public housing, which was built to cope with the housing shortage as the city emerged from the austerity of the period after World War II.

It’s a rare example of architects and planners being influenced by the designs of English new towns, in the decade prior to the National Capital Development Commission becoming responsible for Canberra’s planning and development. Somewhat ironic, then, that they were built to increase the density of housing near Civic and will be demolished partly for the same reason—to allow for increased housing density near the city.

You can read more on the origins and significance of the Bega and Allawah Flats in this house profile.

In July we wrote about the then-imminent sale of the Robin Boyd House II in South Yarra: the auction scheduled for 21 July was postponed when the Victorian Government, the Robin Boyd Foundation and the RAIA Victorian chapter set about finding a way to raise funds to pay the mortgage and deal with the Boyd Foundation’s debt to the National Trust. Those good intentions came to nought and the property was to be auctioned by agents Bennison Mackinnon on Saturday, 22 September at 1:00 PM.

However, at the eleventh hour the auction was postponed again as the State Government and Architects Registration Board of Victoria (ARBV) pledged enough money to keep it in public hands—for now.

The ARBV has contributed $460,000 and the State Government probably somewhere in the region of $2m to the Boyd House, but with a very important condition: within six months the Robin Boyd Foundation has to submit a business plan and find enough financial support to secure the long term financial viability of the house. It won’t be easy. Not only will the Foundation need to figure out how to make the house pay its way, significant remedial work is required. Friends who have visited the house recently tell me that it’s in a relatively poor state of repair—the draped catenary roof in particular will need considerable attention.

This situation – a significant real asset that’s been placed in respectful hands, but needing income streams and business-focused management to stay viable – is a common picture in Australia—Bundanon being another notable example. You can have all the well-meaning ‘friends’ in the world, but when outgoings far outstrip the takings from annual fundraising activities it rapidly becomes unsustainable.

Nevertheless, there’s some cause for optimism. As The Age reports, Victorian Planning Minister Justin Madden said:

This funding will assist the Robin Boyd Foundation in preserving this significant 20th-century building and maintaining the legacy of Robin Boyd, who made such a significant contribution to Australian architectural design.

Nic Dowse – Boyd home owner, National Trust member and architecture student – has waged a tireless campaign to keep the Boyd house in public hands and should be congratulated.

As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald (23 October, 2006), a house in Lurline Bay, Sydney, designed by Harry Seidler in 1963, is under threat of demolition. The listing agent says that the new owner will probably demolish the house, since it’s a modest place sited on a magnificent block of land. The Heritage Committee of the New South Wales Chapter of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects is up in arms.

Penelope Seidler has also commented on the issue, saying that it’s not one of Harry’s best and she’s more concerned about the last of his houses in Canberra—the Bowden House, at 11 Northcote Crescent, Deakin.

The Bowden House

It’s reported that this house, again a modest one on a large parcel of land, is likely to be demolished if and when it’s sold. The only other freestanding house in Canberra designed by Seidler, at 12 Yapunyah Street, O’Connor, was recently demolished. Penelope Seidler:

That really upsets me because it is a really good house, and original. But the land is very valuable.

On 23 October the Canberra Times reported further on the issue, noting the owner’s dismay at the prospect of his house value declining with a possible heritage listing.

When we sell or die, whoever looks to take over the block of land would expect, quite reasonably, to have a larger building, better able to cope with a family than this, if he is going to have to pay high rates.

Nominated, but not listed

The article’s author, John Thistleton, contacted a colleague and I beforehand. We made the point that the ACT RAIA Chapter Register of Significant Twentieth Century Architecture Committee considers this house to be one of the two most important post-war international style houses in Canberra and nominated it for heritage listing at least nine years ago. The ACT Heritage Council has still not considered the nomination—why not?

In response to the article, a Letter to the Editor of the Canberra Times from Penleigh Boyd appeared on 30 October 2006. He wrote:

It is indeed a bizarre situation when members of the public can effectively say ‘I love your house so much I don’t want you or anyone else to change it—and have that wish enshrined in law. I cannot think of any other socially acceptable behaviour like it.

Our letter to the Canberra Times

Our response to that letter was published on 2 November 2006, but a few key points were omitted. Here’s the letter in full:

Penleigh Boyd finds it bizarre that a member of the public can call for a significant ACT house to be heritage-listed (‘Heritage laws can penalise owners’, 30 October, p 10).

Protecting cultural heritage involves striking a balance between the individual’s right to do as they please with their own property and the community’s right to preserve and enjoy that heritage.

Heritage listing is an important measure of a building’s significance. Some nine years after nomination of Harry Seidler’s Bowden House by an expert body—the ACT Chapter of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects—the ACT Heritage Council still has not considered it.

However, a building’s heritage listing is no guarantee that it will be preserved. The late twentieth century structuralist Guardian House in Woden, a highly awarded building designed by Ian McKay for the NCDC in 1968, was listed on the ACT Interim Heritage Places Register but demolished in 2003. The functionalist style Whitley Houses in Griffith and Braddon, designed by Government architect Cuthbert Whitley in 1939, have recently been subjected to heavy development—yet they’re also listed on the register.

Boyd is therefore incorrect to suggest that heritage listing automatically protects a building from demolition, or denies the owner the right to alter it. He cites no proof for the claim that listing devalues a house. And he ignores the fact that many owners seek heritage protection for their houses and are active in preserving them.

Nevertheless, a balance plainly is not being achieved under the present system if owners are unhappy with potential restrictions, but buildings are still being pulled down.

Boyd is right to call for creative thinking, but misguided in suggesting that the ACT Heritage Council purchase all listed houses for renting out. Rather, it can look to the approach of the Historic Houses Trust of NSW with grants and incentives for heritage conservation and partnerships between government and the private sector.

With Calthorpes’ House and Manning Clark House as models, it could restore some key houses as cultural/research centres that increase the community’s appreciation of architecture, design and broader culture.

Then, mere members of the public may be encouraged to play a role in conserving their cultural heritage.

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.