Disturbing news report from the Sydney Morning Herald about the fitout of Harry Seidler’s heritage listed Edmund Barton building on Kings Avenue. It seems like the consultation with Seidler and Associates promised by the owners of the building, Stocklands, isn’t working out so well. The Federal Government spent over $40 million refitting Anzac Park West for the Australian Federal Police but found it was too small, so it sits empty. The AFP now plans to spend $115 million fitting out the heritage listed Edmund Barton building.

Penelope Seidler and Peter Hirst (Seidler and Associates) have written to the Parliamentary Public Works Committee seeking more information about the protection of the building’s heritage values, voicing their concern about how the proposed security measures and changes to the ground level will affect the external appearance of the building. Seidler and Associates were initially advised by Stocklands that they would cooperate to ensure that the integrity and heritage values of the building were not compromised.

Why is it important? The post-war international Edmund Barton building is one of Seidler’s most important public buildings and arguably his best non-tower office block. The contrast between rectilinear and curved forms was an important and recurring theme throughout Seidler’s career and is fundamental to the idea of this building. The open ground floor accommodates quadrant shaped glass lobbies for the three entries, while the circular cores form the corner of the building and conceal the vertical services.

We have made various suggestions on preliminary designs for this work but have not seen any drawings for some time.

— Seidler and Associates

To viewers in the offices above, the quadrant shaped conference hall expresses its theatre seating and acoustic form and the cafeteria shows its long span shell-shaped roof elements. This theme of visual tension and contrast between the rectilinear and curved elements is reinforced by the courtyard paving pattern and in the two sculptures by Norman Carlberg, one in each courtyard. A fountain had the same effect, but it was filled in some years ago and replaced by landscaping. Underpinning this is the clearly expressed resolution of the two major parts of the structural system: 22.5m I-shaped spandrel beams and 15.8m T-beams of the spanning floor systems.

The building is also a rare example of Seidler’s work in Canberra, being the most significant of the two intact Seidler office buildings here. A quick overview of Seidler’s Canberra work:

• 12 Yapunyah Street O’Connor (1956): demolished
• Garran Group Housing (1968): demolished in the late 1990s
• 11 Northcote Crescent, Deakin (1951-52): extended twice, no heritage protection
• Canberra South Bowling Club (1959): extensively modified
• Campbell Group Housing (1964): intact, but no heritage protection
• Ethos House (1970): intact
• Macgregor townhouses (1980): intact
• Lakeview townhouses in Yarralumla (1982): intact
• The Edmund Barton building (1973): intact—for now

I think that statements being made by the AFP about the nature of the modifications (reported in the Sydney Morning Herald) are of concern.

Mr Keelty told the committee security measures would include a ‘transparent perimeter barrier’ to control pedestrian access to internal courtyards and bollards to stop unauthorised vehicles from approaching the building. Federal police executives said heritage values would be enhanced by reintroducing some of Mr Seidler’s original concepts by making the internal courtyards more welcoming for staff.

— Sydney Morning Herald

The idea that it was Seidler’s intention to close off the courtyards so as to make them more accessible for staff simply doesn’t ring true. These courtyards were designed as spaces for staff and pedestrians, with the fountain (long since filled in), works of public art, a cafeteria and a theatrette. The building bears all the hallmarks of a Seidler building—maximizing public open space at the ground floor. The sculptures and the buildings in the courtyard are positioned to control the open areas and make them more intelligible to the pedestrian as well as office workers who look down into the courtyards from the windows above. Closing this courtyard off to the public contradicts this aim and will not enhance the heritage values of the building.

A related concern, but thus far not mentioned, is future public access to the works of art. Closing the area off for security reasons and restricting access will deprive the city of two important works of public art by Norman Carlberg, the internationally acclaimed American sculptor who worked in the modular constructivist style and studied under Joseph Albers at Yale in the late 1950s. Black Widow is the free standing black painted steel form standing 4.8m high in the west courtyard. Concrete Form is the 7.3m high precast concrete sculpture in the east courtyard. These two important works were installed in 1975.

While unrestricted access to public art can be a grey area when such works are located inside commercial buildings and schools, for example, I would be interested to see some kind of statement about how these sculptures will remain accessible to the public once and if these alterations are made.

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.

— Penelope Seidler

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.

— Owner of the Bowden House

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.

— Penleigh Boyd

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.

‘Lakeview’, at 127 Hopetoun Circuit, Yarralumla, is a group of 11 townhouses facing Lake Burley Griffin designed by Harry Seidler in 1982 and completed in 1984. The townhouses enjoy an uninterrupted northerly view of the Lake and Black Mountain, with the design of the group ensuring that each house is oriented toward the view.

The group houses exhibit a number of the central ideas present throughout Seidler’s illustrious career: the building as a radiating presence; large outdoor spaces in front; restrained, sober character and the relationship between straight and curved lines.

They represent one of a small number of medium density housing projects in Canberra designed by Seidler, the other major ones being Campbell Group Housing (1964-68) and Garran Housing (1968, demolished in 1999). Other buildings in Canberra designed by Seidler include the Canberra South Bowling Club (1959), Ethos House (1970) and the Barton Offices (1973). Seidler’s only detached houses in Canberra are the Bowden House (1951-52) and 12 Yapunyah Street, O’Connor.

Description

The 11 houses are each 230 square metres and constructed of solid masonry materials throughout. Walls are of grey face brick, cavity construction, with concrete floors and tiled steel framed roofs.

Each house is individually air conditioned. The plan of the group is fan shaped, emanating from a central landscaped garden which provides access to the individual, private courtyard entrances. Underneath this garden are the underground garages—ingeniously lit with daylight by large, sculpturally formed openings which emerge in the gardens. The central swimming pool is screened by similarly curved walls, as are most courtyards and the stairwells and driveway entrance to the underground garages.

North elevation, with living on the first level and main bedroom on the top level.

The houses follow the natural slope of the site and are planned on a split level system which, including the garages, spans 5 levels. The first living level contains the living room which faces north and opens onto a screened garden. Each living room has an individually designed open fire place. The dining room, kitchen and family room are located on the middle level, along with the entrance. From here, stairs lead up to the main bedroom, which faces north, then up further stairs to the other bedrooms overlooking the central garden.

The play between straight and curved lines continues inside the houses. The plans are identical (with the exception of an eastern entry for houses 1, 2 and 11 resulting in larger family rooms) and interior spaces are arranged so that the split levels merge in a high, clerestory lit space above the dining area. The dining area is overlooked by the mezzanine study; its curved parapet and that of the dining room restating the forms used in the entrance courtyard and garden.

Sources and further reading

• Kenneth Frampton and Philip Drew, Harry Seidler: Four Decades of Architecture, London, 1992
• Harry Seidler: Selected and Current Works, The Master Architect Series III, Melbourne, 1997
• Short biography of Harry Seidler

The Campbell Group Housing comprises a group of 42 apartments and 32 attached houses in nine buildings and was designed by Harry Seidler & Associates in 1964 for the Australian National University (ANU). Construction was completed in 1968. The ANU sold the houses and apartments to individual owners and they are now under the control of a body corporate. The Group is located on the corner of Blamey Crescent and Edmondson Street, Campbell.

The group is a late example of the post-war international style with its cubiform overall shape, curtain wall and large sheets of glass. They represent one of a small number of medium density housing projects in Canberra designed by Seidler, the other major ones being Garran Housing (1968, demolished in 1999) and Lakeview (1982). The group of 42 apartments is the only such example in Canberra designed by Seidler. Comparable apartment blocks by Seidler in Sydney include the Arlington Apartments at Edgecliff (1966).

Other buildings in Canberra designed by Seidler include the Canberra South Bowling Club (1959), Ethos House (1970) and the Barton Offices (1973). Seidler designed two detached houses in Canberra: the Bowden House (1951-52) and a house at 12 Yapunyah Sttreet, O’Connor (1956).

Significance

The Campbell Group Housing is listed on the ACT Chapter of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA) Register of Significant Twentieth Century Architecture. It is regarded by the RAIA as being an important example of the post-war international style of Harry Seidler, one of Australia’s most important architects of the late twentieth century.

The buildings exhibit a number of the elements specific to the post-war international style, including expressed structural frames, plain, smooth wall surfaces and large sheets of glass. They also display other architectural elements of this style in the fenestration, overhangs and other sun control devices. The facades of the apartment blocks have roots in the European art movements of the 1920s and 1930s and are carefully composed to produce abstract, balanced patterns across the development.

It is the most effectively planned and intact of the major medium density residential projects Seidler completed in Canberra. The demolition of his Garran Housing Group has increased the rarity and heritage value of the Campbell Group Housing.

One of the two apartment buildings in the housing group, which contain apartment types E (two bedrooms), F (one bedroom) and G (bachelor).

Description

The group has four types of houses and three types of apartment, arranged in blocks of different length, staggered to create spatial relationships between them. As a result, the repetition often found in terrace housing of this type has been avoided. Split level planning over the sloping site allows level access to private rear courtyard gardens on the uphill side of the houses and car access to the front of houses and some of the apartments.

Houses are arranged in pairs: each pair in Blocks 1, 3, 5 and 7 has a type A house (three bedroom) and a type B house (two bedroom). Blocks 2 and 6 each have two mirror-reversed pairs of type C houses (two bedrooms at the front without balconies) and block 4 has three mirror-reversed pairs of type D houses (two bedrooms). The result of this variation in housing types is that the skillion roofs of the different blocks slope to the west and east alternately, creating an interesting pattern across the site.

Each apartment building is six units wide, apartment types being E (two bedrooms), F (one bedroom) and G (bachelor). The plan arrangement is similar to that of the houses, with covered car spaces at road level and split level planning maintained to create a minimum of internal public access space and the location of all main living areas on the view side.

A single corridor in each block, entered from a glass walled central stair hall, serves all aboveground apartments. Half flights of stairs lead either up or down into the two bedroom apartments. Within each, an internal half flight of stairs connects living and sleeping areas. One bedroom apartments open directly from the corridors.

Materials are consistent across the nine blocks: yellow textured face brick walls, concrete floors, steel deck skillion roofs, lightweight steel infill walling painted white and fixed slatted aluminium awnings, also white. Additional sunshading is provided by blinds of black and white fabric. These materials combine to provide visual contrasts and patterns across the site.

Sources and further reading

• Royal Australian Institute of Architects RSTCA Citation No. R128
• Short biography of Harry Seidler
• The post-war international style