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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

There are good examples of Seidler’s residential and commercial work in Canberra. His first commission outside Sydney (the Bowden House) exhibits his design philosophy of the early period. Medium density housing at Campbell is representative of his post-war international style apartment block developments, while the Lakeview townhouses are a good later example of his emphasis on the geometric curve and quadrant. The large, pre-cast concrete Barton Offices is an important office building located near the Parliamentary Triangle in Barton.

News reports

• RAIA media release
• ABC News Online
• Sydney Morning Herald
• When Harry Met Sydney | Elizabeth Farrelly
• Sydney Morning Herald image gallery

Seidler houses profiled on this site

• Bowden House, 11 Northcote Crescent, Deakin (1951-52)
• Campbell Group Housing, Blamey Crescent, Campbell (1964)
• ‘Lakeview’, 127 Hopetoun Circuit, Yarralumla (1982)