Grimes Cottage - Restoration Australia Season 3 Episode 6

When a Sydney couple buy a colonial cottage in one of Australia's most protected heritage areas, they get more than they bargained for. How will they transform a home from the 19th century into a family home for the 21st?

Hmm? Looks like season 3 started and ended on the same note - the multi-million dollar Sydney Rocks real estate bubble that defines the aspirations of the Emerald City as a place where rich people chuck out poor people and turn their ghastly working class tenements into fabulous trophy homes. here on iview

Fashion is fickle, including the fashion for what style of house or what neighbourhood is desirable. The Rocks has been through many phases of being in and out of fashion. From a desirable place for the Cadigal people rich in resources, to the realm of convicts, then the lofty parcels of merchants and mariners, slums and social housing, developers (thwarted) opportunities, to some of the most desirable and expensive domestic real estate in Australia.

While the Rocks archaeology projects, including the Big Dig, which was featured in the show, focussed on the working class and slum neighbourhoods, sections of Millers Point contained affluent enclaves, with Argyle and Lower Fort Streets known as 'Quality Row'.

And yet if not for the likes of Jack Mundey and his feared and hated Builders Labourers Federation, the lovely colonial domestic architecture that is so sought after in harbour-side inner Sydney, would have been razed for Seidleresqe concrete minimalism.

Grimes Cottage, was the sixteenth of 293 properties and the main prize of the state government sell-off of public housing at Millers Point, which netted the state government almost $38 million up to 2016. The sell-off was to some extent the result of a Parliamentary Inquiry, but one suspects it was as much a means of moving the housos away from the potentially salubrious Harbour views so more deserving types could move in, and in the end even the much fought Sirius building was sold off.

The sell-off faced significant opposition from the local community, but unlike previous Millers Point auctions there were no protesters. The sale was at the McGrath auction rooms on a Thursday night, so they may have been thwarted by this subterfuge. The proceeds from the auctions in Millers Point and The Rocks were supposed to be used to fund the new supply of public housing, and an argument was even made that private ownership would see better restoration of the historic houses. In the mean time, NSW public housing spend is a pittance compared to what is needed and shows no increase from the supposed earnings from the sell off. Compare the $900 million, most of which is for maintenance and already committed projects, with the Victorian $5.3 Billion recently announced. 

Grimes Cottage and its neighbours were first tenanted by the Department of Housing in 1982, and like many government owned residences, received only rudimentary maintenance and repair, and sometimes unsympathetic alteration. It came into Government ownership only because the Sydney Cove Authority had acquired most of the "charming heritage properties" or as it saw them, redundant old buildings ripe for redevelopment, and engaged various bright planners and architects to come up with ideas. Harry Seidler was one of these, and his proposal was a pile of white stripey multi-storey Brutalist tower blocks that covered everything down to the waters edge.

Seidler's Rocks

Then of course, Mundy and the BLF instigated the Green Bans and the rocks was saved. (Well there is more to it than this) And if it were not for an incipient heritage movement we may not have even learnt that these old-fashioned run down places were something worth keeping. This very house was where the first murmurs of the Rocks conservation movement began.  In 1958 it was repainted in heritage colours by Taubmans who had been encouraged by architect John Fisher and actor/artist Cedric Flower (described as a "flamboyant dresser in corduroy trousers, suede shoes and tie-dyed hessian shirts"), in the first attempt to draw attention to the historic and aesthetic value of the Rocks.

Fisher was head of the Institute of Architects, on the Cumberland County Council Historic Buildings Committee and the Council of the National Trust of Australia (NSW)., and National Trust of NSW honorary architect for two decades. The Grimes Cottage exercise meant Fisher was able to negotiate leases for a number of historic buildings in the rocks so that  they would be refurbished and occupied. Various medical societies took them on as now desirable status symbols including Bligh House (later Clyde Bank) and houses in Windmill Street. He was also prominent in the push to establish good design in small houses through the Historic Buildings Committee, he "...enlivened the trust's interest in a small-houses scheme, modelled on the one in Scotland, where the trust bought small, derelict townhouses at risk of demolition and gave them a new lease of life. He also came to the aid of architects who were proposing developments involving heritage items. As the founding chair of the Architectural Advisory Committee, he provided architects with a forum, allowing them to consult with a group of knowledgable architects about their proposals before they had gone too far." 

The SMH called John Fisher the "champion of the state's structures"

And at the other end of the housing scale, as one part of the architect firm Fisher Lucas, he was commissioned by the State Planning Authority to restore Elizabeth Bay House, which led to the formation of the Historic Houses Trust of NSW in 1980. There could not be a more relevant connection to be made in a show called Restoration Australia, but clearly Fremantle Media do their research on the cheap. There is no mention of this connection, and barely a toot about the battles to save the rocks from avaricious developers. 

Originally known as “Grimes Cottage”, this single-storey dwelling was built for George Grimes, a seafaring captain between 1832-33. “Commander of the Barque “Woodlark” George Grimes was incidentally the son of Charles Grimes (1772-1858) who served as Surveyor General, and was the first white person to row up the Yarra River proclaiming a suitable spot for settlement 30 years before Batman.

https://millerspointcommunity.com.au/argyle-place/

When the 184-year-old house was sold for $4.23 Million (was this a record per square metre?), lawyer John Schembri and his wife Karen were "expected to undertake a sympathetic restoration and renovation of the rundown property." 

As one of the oldest surviving residential buildings in Sydney, Grimes Cottage came "with some of the strictest heritage guidelines of all the former public housing properties". Of course, this is where the dramatic narrative must be pinned when Stuart Harrison and whoever writes his script start to tell the story. In fact we are told many times about how onerous, difficult and problematic the heritage restrictions are, how it comes with the Conservation Management Plan from Hell, and how the creative freedom of the owners can be thwarted by the mere whim of a complaining neighbour, or they will be forced to live in miserable steaming Sydney summers because the council will refuse them an air conditioner.

How come this show has had to present heritage protection measures and conservation policy as such an evil? The show would not exist and the lawyers and developers would not have homes to restore, if it weren't for the past efforts to save these houses from both demolition, and unsympathetic alterations. The council is always presented as the invisible bureaucracy that blocks the honest restorers, but in this case Grimes Cottage is on the State Heritage Register, so one presumes it is a faceless state government bureaucrat causing problems.

This aspect of the show is infuriating. Why do they keep winging about having to preserve a historic house? If they wanted a free for all, they could have bought or built elsewhere free of these restrictions. As a result of this style of production and presentation, Restoration Australia has done little for the cause of historic preservation in Australia.

But what were the restoration issues?

A heritage architect Colin (Israel I think, but again no surnames allowed), and two colour consultants including Australian paint royalty Julie, and then Mary, cannot help Karen decide on a colour scheme for the front joinery and door. She likes a yellow door after rejecting some heritage greens and a puce. But this is where the neighbour complains (an ally of the former housos perhaps). In the end, it just all goes black - door, window frames, shutters, verandah. Colin makes some dig about the fashion for greys so I guess he is proved right.

We even get the archaeologists come to wield their incredible power. Builder Dean seems to have dug up the basement floor, destroying 180 years of archaeological deposit, and is now in fear of getting in trouble He reckoned he burst out laughing and thought someone was pulling his leg. Archaeologists Nadia and Frankie come along and scrapes away any worry, finding not very much it seems. So we head off to the Big dig to see some real archaeology - buttons and pins apparently.

The floors are striped out, the slate roof is stripped off, the render, plaster and paint are stripped away, the timbers are replaced or strengthened, and then all the status finishes come in - the marble tiles, the gaudy wallpapers, the black concrete bath, the modernist light fittings and the Italian bespoke kitchen. 

And what's left? The shell is still there, it looks much the same from the outside, it is mostly still standing. But the scraping, replacing, refitting and all that restoration, takes away the layers and patina that let it feel old. At the end of this show we are left feeling it is just a prettier version of the houses on The Block, or any other renovation show. Where historic building fabric manages to come through, it is grudgingly, rather than embrace and celebrate the opportunity to preserve, conserve and restore what is already there.

spot the difference

Baptist Church Ballarat Restoration Australia Series 3 Episode 5

When a former Baptist Church cum nightclub hits the market in Ballarat, local anaesthetist Michael Whitehead buys it and plans to turn it into a home, but he soon finds the task could drag on for eternity!

Link to iview

The Dawson Street Baptist Church had been one of the places that defined the character of Ballarat - or the character of refined establishment that its citizens preferred to project. It featured prominently in the early 1970s guide by K.J. Turnbull "Townscape : an impression of urban Ballarat for those who hate guide books", and of course it was on Rose postcards. But this was in the 1970s, when heritage was only coming to be appreciated and god was loosing command. So the Baptists sold it in 1972.

The Baptists abandoned their Dawson Street church in 1972 and it became the White House restaurant and then the Power House night club, described as notorious by the local media but fondly remembered by former patrons.

But after having been left derelict for more than a decade and a home to vermin, the "CBD icon" was purchased by Ballarat anaesthetist Michael Whitehead who apparently "relished the chance to show some love" to the faded structure ... and its column façade." Whitehead is a Board Member of the Ballarat Arts Foundation, President of Ballarat Lyric Theatre, and a recipient of the Ballarat South Rotary-BAF Denis Bateman Award for contribution to the Ballarat Arts community. As close to a Medici as Ballarat is likely to get. We clearly need more of his sort of philanthropist if heritage buildings will survive in the future. 

The building was listed for sale at $800,000 + GST (tax) and had been on the market from about 2011, but a long campaign by various real estate agents seemed unfruitful, despite The Ballarat Courier making a clever music pun with its video of the band Damaged.

Damaged though it clearly was, there was not much in the episode to show its condition before the restoration works had already started. I presume there was an archival record made prior to the works commencing. Fortunately we have the prolific local heritage photographer Lisa Gervasoni to thank for some documentation.

The VHR says:

Designed by Ballarat architect J.A. Doane, begun in 1866-67 and completed externally in 1875-79.  renovated in 1891, 1910 and again in 1933. In 1958 further internal changes were made. A new pulpit and panelling in front of the choir stalls were dedicated in September 1959. The stuccoed main facade features a double storied, pedimented prostyle portico on fluted Corinthian columns. The main wall is faced with giant Corinthian pilasters supporting the parapet and continuous entablature and is infilled with ashlar masonry and blind pedimented openings. 

In its heyday, it was a grand and imposing edifice, probably modelled on the Collins Street Baptist Church in Melbourne where the resident historian Ros (Otzen - no surname provided) provided the back storey.

The Ballarat Baptists played a small role in scientific debates in the nineteenth century, pronouncing on matters such as Darwins new evolution theory:

“Cast away all doubt suggested by reason [and pursue] a thorough belief in the assurance contained in the text and a faith in the spirit by which all prayers will be heard and answered.”  Rev. C Clarke of London, Dawson Street Baptist Church, Ballarat, June 1869  

Dr Whitehead doesn't seem like the do it yourself sort of restorer, and the building he has taken on, like several other of the projects in this season, is on a scale that any individual is unlikely going to be able to tackle. So he gets the local company, Nat Twaits Building, to manage and complete the project. Like Episode 1 of this season, we wonder if this firm has the skills and experience to understand and properly carryout an authentic restoration of this sort. Nat's own website actually provides more substantial information on the progress of the works and the process of filming it, noting that Restoration Australia visited about five times: when the hydronically heated floor was installed; when it was all framed up;  when it was all plastered; when structural steel was going in; when the double-glazed windows were installed; and then the final. (I don't think Harrison mentions that the windows were double glazed). Whitehead does have a go at tidying up the render with a little grinding wheel on a drill, and knocking out a few bits of glass.

While building shell has undergone a cosmetic restoration (there doesn't seem to have been any d=need of major structural repairs) , the big change has involved building a complete new house along with a separate flat inside the church. The once impressive classical space can no longer be appreciated in its awe inspiring whiteness. In any case after 150 years as a public venue for the sacred and profane, private ownership now excludes public access. Except for an Open House event that allowed some public inspection, so perhaps this might continue in the future.

The design philosophy was "...to bring the property into the modern era, while retaining the architectural style and unique elements ... Our focus was to honour the architecture of the building while also creating a liveable, modern residence...We not only retained and restored the building’s striking roman columns, but have also incorporated the original Baptism pit as a feature of the main living area.”

Of course there are the technical issues to overcome, and heritage regulation means there has to be a compromise. As usual, the heritage architect is all powerful and to be feared. In this case it is  Wendy (Jacobs - why can't they give people their full names?) who has the final say, and that Heritage Victoria is leaving it up to her. Either Wendy has considerable sway with the bureaucrats, or government cutbacks mean they can't spare the time to make decisions. Since new permits seem to be required for all the changes of mind, it is more likely that the whole business is worked out through the usual complexities of consultations, meetings, emails, updated plans, new permit applications, and amendments. 

Wendy is finally convinced that the window frames can't be saved so reproductions can be made. Ballarat local carpenter Andrew does a great job on these using his grandfather's book to design the nail-less key to tie in the parts (again Andrew isn't given a surname - do they have to pay them under equity rules if they get a proper credit?)

A concrete floor is desired, but another heritage permit is required and causing further delays, and then the bureaucrats won't give in, so a timber floor is reinstated, and Harrison concedes that this is probably good heritage practice, but their is no sign of it in the final restoration - just lots of tiles. One wonders what might have been under the floor. Usually these projects turn up various bits of archaeological evidence, a few coins, some religious ephemera perhaps.

Some more light is needed at the back and Heritage Victoria approve cutting some big holes through the back wall. They can't be that bad then.

Some of the changes include cutting holes in the roof for skylights since the "glass box inside a bluestone box" makes getting natural light into the rooms a problem - but it did become possible to expose some of the original trusses. 

Strict heritage regulation prohibited touching the walls, so the actual residence is a mostly freestanding structure set inside the church. But should it matter since next to no one will see the inside.

The don't touch the walls rule seems to have been broken in a couple of places, such as the cut into the balcony.

The baptismal bath is sacrosanct (from a heritage point of view) and options are to use it as a spa, or cover it up, but in the end it gets a glass floor over it in the middle of the new lounge room. glazed over. For a lounge room covering it with carpet might have been more comfortable. 

There is the usual issue about the cost blowing out. In fact where would the drama be in these projects if there wasn't the risk of either ruined relationships or bank balances. The test set down in the beginning is a a cost of $1.6 and time scale of 18 months, but then there are the $200,000- to $500,000 quotes to fix the facade.

But by some miracle the cost becomes only $80,000, even though this is just "for the public to see a beautiful building" and of no benefit to him. It is however, a good looking result.

In the end time and costs blow out to $3 million with the purchase. Still that seems reasonable for a passion project and the ultimate trophy home.

Reuse of former spiritual places is a peculiar phenomenon. It tells of the diminishing numbers of the faithful, but also society's inability or indifference to maintaining places of communal value.  The last few decades of commercial use and now the private capital input to restore it shows how heritage conservation outcomes are now dependent on market forces rather than public funding.

Will we eventually loose all the grand internal public heritage spaces.

Some Sources:

A History of Ballarat Baptist Church, leaflet housed in the Victorian Baptist Union 

archives. Dawson Street Baptist Church (Ballarat, Vic.).  1960,  The Building of a church : historical outline of the first 100 years of the Dawson Street Baptist Church : 1860 - 1960  The Church, 

 Ballarat Star, 13 September 1871, p2c4. 

http://www.ballarathistoricalsociety.com/collection/Records/Record387.81.htm

Brunswick Brickworks latest demolition application

Developers of the Brunswick Brickworks have lodged a new application with Heritage Victoria to demolish the brick press building.

This is just the latest in attempts to get rid of any heritage on the site that might get in the way of development and profits.

There have been a number of developers involved on the site in the last couple of decades. Glenvill Homes has previously described the development in glowing heritage terms:

In 1863 the Hoffman's Brickworks was the largest brickworks in Brunswick. Now this unique, colourful and cosmopolitan project incorporates all of the heritage atmosphere with mews-style residences, warehouse-style apartments with lofty ceilings and exposed beams, underground parking and three storey townhouses. 

The Heritage precinct, incorporating heritage-listed kilns and buildings, will be converted to offices and an arts precinct as well as urban conservation areas.

And it received the Best Urban Development – Planning Excellence 1999 and HIA National Award for Best Medium Density Project 2003.

But recently, the Herald Sun reported that "Brunswick’s Hoffman Brickworks developer has been ordered to clean up two buildings by the environmental watchdog after extensive contamination was found at the Dawson St site. But experts have said its removal is impossible without demolition." but then reported that "Victoria’s heritage watchdog has poured cold water on a developers push to demolished a derelict building at the historic 157-year-old Brunswick brickworks where the roof collapsed earlier this month."

But then the same paper was excited about presenting a "first look at Hoffman Brickworks redevelopment. The developer of the historic Hoffman Brickworks site in Brunswick has unveiled their first plans for the site." 

The heritage impact statement from a couple of years ago concluded that complete demolition of the historic buildings and replacement with a new building was "in accord with the principles of the Burra Charter and is entirely supportable from a heritage perspective."

This is a very similar scheme to one presented a couple of years ago that Heritage Victoria flatly rejected - see previous version here.

The original development approvals were based on a compromise that some of the buildings could be demolished, some would be converted to apartments, extensive new apartment buildings would be erected and the most significant building would be restored and used for heritage interpretation. Profits from the new build would go to the restoration and interpretation costs. Sounds good on paper, and when you consider that there have been about 250 units built, selling for over half a million dollars each in current values, and that this represents about $40 million profit in current values, you would think that there would have been plenty of money to at least maintain and repair the historic structures. 

You would be wrong though

So, I have made the following submission to Heritage Victoria.

The Brunswick Brickworks is the most important remaining historic element of Melbourne's industrial heritage and the most prominent historical place related to the boom period and Marvellous Melbourne. I said when the developers got hold of this site and promised all sorts of conservation and preservation that I did not believe them, that they were trying to get as much developable area and profit out of it as they could and would just walk away when they had taken the profits and returned none of the benefits. Unfortunately with each new demolition application, and the continued neglect of basic maintenance of the historic structures, I am being proven correct.

This is just a more legal version of the Carlton Inn. Demolition by neglect. The structural issues described in the application are attributable in whole or part to the continuing neglect by the applicant, including the failure to undertake works to stabilise and protect the building following the permitted demolition of the northern section and Building 7 to the west (and contrary to the structural engineering advice provided to the applicant by their own structural engineers).

Heritage Victoria has made numerous concessions to the developers of this site on the promise that the heritage values will be conserved, and that income generated by development of some parts for apartments would fund the restoration and interpretation of the most significant parts. Well we are at the point where the most significant parts – the clay processing and brick pressing buildings, are the only ones left that have not been either demolished or severely compromised by unsympathetic alterations involving substantial demolition of original fabric.

The concessions in the past were that they could demolish other buildings, rebuild the kilns for selling off, turn almost all the site into residential and commercial development, and in return, a small part would be repaired, conserved and interpreted to the public. Now even this will be sacrificed under this plan.

The main arguments the owners make for demolition is that contamination and the structural condition makes the buildings beyond repair. This is false. Firstly, nothing is beyond repair, and the Heritage Council and Heritage Victoria will be well aware of many examples where developers have argued this case, even brought out heritage consultants to support them, and then having lost, the buildings have been successfully conserved, restored and reused. I would draw your attention to Harricks Homestead in Keilor, and 864 Swanston St Carlton as two such examples both of which had experts argue that they were so dilapidated that they could not possibly be restored or reused. I know they are of a different scale, but if heritage experts are unable to recognise that such buildings cannot be successfully repaired, then their judgement on larger buildings cannot be accepted. I suggest you also look at the Richmond Power Station, which was also claimed back in the 1980s to be structurally unsound and grossly contaminated to the point that it could not be retained for any modern use. And yet it was eventual adapted and restored to a fabulous state preserving much of its heritage character. As a former coal fired power station, this site had potentially far worse contamination issues that the brickworks could possibly have, but still these issues were successfully addressed and a profitable development was achieved.

I would like to make the further point that despite the Heritage Impact Statement claiming the building is too dilapidated and contaminated to retain, there is in fact, no actual evidence to back this up. Nowhere in any of the contamination and engineering reports do they state that the building cannot be repaired and made safe, only that this work needs to be carried out.  Contamination issues have been known for over twenty years without any action being taken and with the surrounding area being developed, presumably under the necessary EPA approvals. The Compass Environmental report only indicates what is not known  regarding the extent of contamination. It does not consider options for mitigating contamination, or treatment that would allow retention of the existing buildings. This has not even been considered, and so the argument that contamination requires demolition of the buildings should be dismissed entirely.

The application fails to demonstrate that structural remediation is not possible. In fact, the application includes a report by a well-respected structural engineering firm that confirms the possibility of structural repair.  Yes the building needs repair and remediation, and some additional investigation following stabilisation with support scaffolding. The owners should have obtained advice and costings about how these works should be done, rather than try and use incomplete assessments to argue for demolition. Also, if they go on to claim that the cost of repair and remediation is too great, they should be required to provide evidence in the form of independent quotes for the work that is required in order to retain the buildings and the financials for the entire development (i.e. how much has been earned in sales, cost of development, profit, etc.) for all the previous development that has occurred. Their initial argument for being allowed to develop the site beyond what the planning scheme and State and municipal planning policies allowed, was that the profit from the development (including development on the sites of other historic buildings in the complex, including the demolished kiln, gate house and others) would fund not just retention of the remaining structures, but their restoration, interpretation, a museum and community access. None of this has happened apart from repair to structures used for conversion to private residences, and a few bits of machinery placed around the site with no contextualisation.

The applicant has failed to secure the site from illegal access, with an inadequate temporary fence that was readily breached. They have also failed to secure and protect an extensive collection of portable objects that are contributory to the significance of the site.

If they had taken their responsibilities under the Heritage Act seriously, they would have addressed structural and safety issues long ago, rather than leave the site open to vandals and the elements to ensure further deterioration would occur. If the owners had spent any money on maintenance and repair on the site in the last 20 years, they could have prevented deterioration and progressively dealt with structural problems.

In fact, their own previous documents (the 1998 structural engineering report by The O’Neill Group) that have been withheld from this application, demonstrates a decline in the condition of the buildings during the applicant’s period of ownership and management . The application fails to disclose this report. This suggests there is evidence to support a case for prosecuting the owners for failing to properly maintain the buildings and allowing them to deteriorate.

This is a clear case of demolition by neglect. If Heritage Victoria and the Heritage Council approve the demolition, then they are sending a signal that such heritage sites do not require preservation,  that negligent land owners can get away with allowing their buildings to fall down, and that instead of being prosecuted and forced to rectify the damage they have allowed to happen, they will be rewarded with a windfall of  approval of more intensive development and fewer heritage conditions.

It is clear from the heritage assessments and analyses of the Brunswick Brickworks that demolition of Buildings 5 and 6 would result in the total and permanent loss of the cultural heritage significance not only of these buildings, but also of the greater site. The demolition of Buildings 5 and 6 would have a severe, irreversible impact on the cultural significance of the  Hoffman Brickworks site as a whole, and therefore a significant impact on the cultural heritage of the State of Victoria. The compromised and much altered kilns cannot on their own represent the significant contribution of this site to Victoria's history and development. There is no evidence presented that Building 5 and 6 are of any lesser significance than when entered into the Victorian Heritage Register.

The application fails to consider alternatives to complete demolition that would enable the applicant to fulfil the requirements of existing approvals and their own commitments and plans, including the development of an Interpretation Centre as documented in the Interpretation Concepts and Overlay (Look Ear Pty Ltd 2006, 2010 respectively).

The proposal to reinstall some of the brick presses, in an area otherwise intended as a commercial lease, divorced from their contexts, with no evidence of the integrated clay processing, conveyors, drive shafts and control facilities, or the distinctive structural form or original materials of the buildings, and none of the patina that conveys the working and social history of the site will leave it sterile and meaningless. Any interpretation will necessarily be subservient to the commercial requirements of the space and ultimately will be discarded in the next café refit or renovation. 

The argument that a small interpretive display is sufficient to mitigate the loss of buildings of primary significance, which are crucial to the understanding of the brickmaking process, the machinery, the people who worked there and the historical connection to the rest of Melbourne’s building boom history, is entirely false and disingenuous, particularly in that it comes from a former representative of ICOMOS, which states in its Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites and Interpretation Practice Note (November 2013) that: ‘It is not acceptable to use interpretation as an alternative to the physical conservation of a place’. Instead ‘Interpretation is part of a holistic package of best practice conservation management measures’.

If this development application is approved it will be the final evidence of the complete failure of heritage regulations on the site.  The developers have been given concessions all the way, with an outcome that is sub-optimal in terms of planning, community and residential amenity outcomes. For example there have been numerous residents’ complaints about lack of parking, inadequate security, access for rubbish trucks and emergency services, trespassers, vandalism, dangers from possible collapsing buildings (recently proven by the collapse of the engine house roof), graffiti, rubbish and rats.

The developers have failed to complete repairs ordered by Moreland Council and Heritage Victoria, and as a result the buildings have been at the mercy of vandals and weather. They now argue that they are beyond repair.

Finally, if the developer’s need for profit is put ahead of the community’s need to preserve its heritage on this site, it will be a depressing precedent for all other remaining industrial (and other difficult) heritage in the state, including the only other remaining Victorian brickworks at Box Hill. It will also be rewarding a developer for failing to meet their original planning approvals,  consistently breaking past promises, and failing to undertake even the most basic maintenance and repair unless under extreme duress from Heritage Victoria.

The permit should not be granted. It will only put more profit into the private company’s hand, give nothing back to the community and do nothing to preserve our heritage.

Brunswick Brickworks is one of the most significant industrial heritage sites in Victoria, and if this cannot be saved, nothing can.

The National Trust has also made a submission

Clydesdale - Restoration Australia Series 3 Episode 4

 When carpenter Kate and her mother Ann buy two old prospecting huts for $100,000 in Clydesdale in regional Victoria, they take on 180 years worth of dilapidation

Finally some real restoration on this episode of the show - catch up on iview. Two fragile miners cottages composed of various materials - stone, wattle and daub, corrugated iron, in the Australian Vernacular. It brings back memories of the Gervasoni House, that is just down the road a bit, and presented similar issues of a dilapidated rustic dwelling in need of careful conservation. In that case, some questionable changes and additions were made, but this time, the owners have an uncanny understanding of the intrinsic values of ancient fabric. 

Harrison's narration is on a theme around the hand built vernacular, lacking high-end architecture, but responding to the immediate make-do nature of the gold rush, adapting natural materials found on the site. He seems a bit disparaging of the rustic nature of the buildings or perhaps just that as an architect he doesn't see intrinsic value in their form or design. He does however show some resect for the hand craft involved in bringing these basic materials together to create a liveable dwelling, both in relation to the original builders, and the new owners who are fixing it up with such care for the original materials.,

We get a potted history of the gold rushes, but no detail of the immediate area. No reference to the Pickpocket Diggings and the nearby Rise and Shine mine, that sprung up here in the 1860s, and were part of a shifting population that worked their way up and down the gullies and creek flats. One account remarked:

A considerable Improvement is said to have taken place at Pickpocket, Yandoit. The diggings here are rapidly extending, and it is said that if the rush continues to spread in the manner it has recently done, it will soon reach Newstead, which is two miles distant. The reefs at Yandoit are still yielding some remarkably rich stone.

The introduction talks about the buildings using local material, but most of the illustrations are of tents, when there are numerous real miners cottages in the district to provide the context and comparison. 

We also get some insight from a local historian Joan, who visited her great aunt Med at the cottages. Med was an original owner married John Yawn and raised 14 children here. She also provides the original name of the cottages, Hill View. A slightly contrived scene has mum Ann popping a photo of Aunt Med on the mantlepiece, which was both uncomfortable to watch for me, as it appeared to be for the niece as well. It is nice to preserve memories of a place, but better not to appropriate other peoples'. 

The cottages sit on a silurian rise - surrounded by alluvial flats. As Harrison stresses, the timber, brick, stone and clay came from the immediate area and can still be recognised. As a result, such buildings appear to grow out of the landscape, reflecting in their textures and colours the land around them.

                                   

The fundamentals of historic building conservation are on full view at Hill View. We are told early on that it is on the heritage overlay (Shire of Hepburn HO748), but this is almost dismissed by both Harrison -"the lightest form of heritage protection", and Kate - "just the exterior stuff". But in any case the protection of original fabric is dealt with sensitively both inside and out. Kate is the first to intone the conservation mantra "Our philosophy is to do as much as necessary but as little as possible", she could be the visiting heritage advisor or the man from ICOMOS, explaining the Burra Charter. By the way, where is the heritage advisor, making life hard for the owners? I guess there was no conflict to build the drama when the owners are doing a better job than any regulator would mandate.

The first cottage to be fixed up has an unusual combination of walls of both stone and what they describe as wattle and daub, but might be more properly termed pug and pole. Wattle and daub involves weaving thin branches into panels that are between the studs and then covered in a mix of clay and straw. Pole and pug involves larger branches nailed on the outside of the studs and the space in between filled with the clay mix. Miles Lewis has written extensively on this and presented numerous lectures. I wonder if Harrison undertook history of architecture and building units in his course.

There is a lot going on in these little buildings that tell the details of their history: a bush pole frame but with some squared timbers inside - possibly adze shaped, three walls of stone and one of the pole and pug, some later concrete reinforcing.

Lining the ceiling with calico was a nice touch and demonstrates a refined understanding of the history of vernacular building in Australia. Calico was used extensively on the gold fields for tents, clothing, wind sails for ventilating mines, as well as lining buildings. Sometimes remnants can be found under later plaster or lining boards. It would have been good to hear how Kate came to know about it. 

Calico also has a strong association with British colonialism, having been manufactured first in India (the name comes from Calicut, now known as Kozhikode). The cloth was imported cheaply into Britain until prohibitive tariffs under the Calico Acts, were introduced in the 18th century to protect the local textile industry. The result was the destruction of the Indian textile industry and the rise and dominance of British woollen industry and Lancashire cotton mills. As a result, canvas and calico became cheap materials practically dumped on colonial markets, while Australian wool became a prized import to England.

The migrant and mining settlements grew as canvas (and calico) towns. sometimes simple pole and canvas tents gradually evolved into substantial dwellings as they were built over with more permanent materials. Miles has again documented this process in several transitional examples. 

Ann goes wild with her linseed oil preparation for finishing all the timber work. Again thus is a level of authenticity that suggests a deeper understanding of historical Australian vernacular building practice than the show gives credit for.

Incidentally on a petty note, the staged scenes of arrival and discovery are a bit jarring - for example the shot of him driving to Clydesdale at the start shows him passing the sign to the town, but in the opposite direction, so he was leaving. 

You can stay there now and there seems to have been some concessions to modern comforts like water and power, despite the mention that the original cottages would not be connected so that they don't have to be brought up to modern building standards.