Willow Cottage Balmain - Restoration Australia Season 4, Episode 7

Host Anthony Burke meets Martin Nix who is restoring an 1850s workers cottage in Balmain on Sydney Harbour, all while dealing with a recent family tragedy.

Am I getting jaded that a program purported to be about restoring old houses needs a personal tragedy to sell it?  The usual trope for these shows is about the stress on relationships and budgets. But when the people and houses are clearly in the top percentile for wealth and price, the producers need something else to give the show an edge. One wonders what the casting interviews must be like.

The final installment in Renovation Australia is the most expensive property yet. Sold on 2014 for an "outrageous" $2.68 million, $830,000 above the reserve, described as a dump at the time. I guess everyone wants to live on the harbour and only those with the millions to spend can do it.

A couple of years later, still dilapidated, it went for $2.9 million with "awe-inspiring views across the water to the Harbour Bridge and Barangaroo" and approved architectural plans designed to completely renovate the home, include a pool and provide for a stunning transformation into a sought-after family residence. And then again for $2,95 million. Sydney houses are more like Bitcoin than places to live. 

Martin Nix has another $1.3 million to put into the reno, and has engaged Chris from CKJ Builders, who has the experience, both in careful restoration and high end new builds. We are told Mr Nix understands and appreciates buildings because he heads a construction survey company. Then Burke pipes in with his usual warnings of 'stringent heritage controls', 'onerous heritage restrictions' and an 'extreme' historic overlay, as if the council or NSW Heritage Office are some kind of Spanish Inquisition intent on torturing prospective renovators. Burke also claims that 'heritage restrictions mean knocking down original walls isn't an option', and yet the first we see of the interior is a building with most of the internal structure and lining already removed. 

There is plenty of evidence that the heritage values of the site warrant protecting the fabric, including a well-preserved timber shingle roof and very rare brick nogging in the walls. In a strange detail of doubtful heritage administration there is apparently no heritage overlay on the windows. 

The language Burke uses only perpetuates an attitude that heritage is a bad thing that gets in the way of people's right to enjoy their own property. And yet without the regulations there would be no heritage buildings to restore and no Restoration Australia.

Planning approvals can be sourced on-line these days, and browsing them shows that they might have included a range of conditions including deletion of the proposed basement. The Council report states:

Council’s Heritage Advisor has advised that every care should be taken to retain the remaining fabric of this outbuilding and maintain its structural integrity, with any reconstruction maintaining legibility between the old and new sections of the wall to allow interpretation of old fabric and guide future changes to the outbuilding. Visibility to the timber levelling plates embedded in the brick wall must be retained. Different finishes must be used in the addition, to that used in the outbuilding to enable the interpretation of this early construction technique. The modification will be conditioned accordingly to ensure that the elevation drawings are consistent with the floor plans. 

Further to the above, in the event of any approved excavation, a condition of consent for unexpected findings will be necessary.

 There certainly looks like archaeological potential on the site. another condition of their permit was:

Condition 57A of the DA states. "If unexpected archaeological deposits or Aboriginal objects are found during the works covered by this approval, work must cease in the affected area(s) and the Department of Premier, Cabinet and Heritage must be notified through the Environment Line. Additional assessment and approval pursuant to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 may be required prior to works continuing in the affected area(s) based on the nature of the discovery. Council’s Aboriginal Liaison officer is also to be notified.

There was mention of archaeology in the show, despite some treasure hunting banter about old bottles, newspapers and marbles. An underfloor deposit of rubble suggest some potential and a nice section of humic soil over the bedrock is revealed for the pool.

Historian Mark Dunn has a brief cameo to set the scene and remind us of the industrial origins and working class credibility that once came from doing a Balmain renovation. Shame he didn't mention the most famous Balmain boy.

The Leichart historical journal offers the following:

WILLIAM JAMES: The land adjoining the park was owned by William James who combined property development with the trade of woolsorter. He bought the land in 1853 from Griffiths and Fanning and built two houses (Willow Cottages, 1-3 James Lane) facing the water. After his death in 1882 his widow, Jane, who lived in one of the cottages sold the land on Darling Street to a builder, John Dobbie, in 1884. He built a row of six houses which he called Plym Terrace. Marching down to Thornton Park, each house in the terrace has two storeys above the street with a basement opening on to a sunken area. Built of brick and surfaced with stucco, Plym Terrace inevitably suffered later unsympathetic improvements. In Darling Street on the high side of the lane that took his name, William James built Devonshire Cottage in about 1860. Joshua George, one of Balmain's watermen lived there from 1860 until his death in 1884. His widow, Isabella, lived on there until she died in 1912. The cottage is now the nucleus of 33 Darling Street. Next door was another small cottage (now demolished), also built by James at about the same time. The cottage became part of the estate of Captain Lewis Truscott of Balmain East.

 There are a few bits of the old house that survive the renovation and can still be seen. The chimney breast sits in the middle of the house, with the walls around it removed.

A patch of the shingles is revealed in the new attic bathroom...

but another slab is cut out for a dormer.

Some brick nogging behind a glass splashback,

a bit of sandstone is left in the basement,

and a feature wall of sandstone is in the bedroom.

A redeeming aspect of the episode is the story told by the Neil about the previous owner Lex Watson, a powerful advocate for gay rights (when Balmain was still a place open to the masses); his parties in the garden and the sad decline of the house and garden when he became sick and died in 2016. Whether intended or not, the 'renovation as therapy' theme seems to permeate the program, as if a person's health and wellbeing was intrinsically tied to the quality of the finishes and fittings in their home.

The garden is gone of course, first the big Jacaranda...

and then everything else except a lonely palm.

I guess there is no room for natural beauty in the balance between heritage and modern lifestyle.

This appears to be the last episode in Season 4. I think I am glad. Working in the heritage field, you learn about and aspire to best practice and try to adhere to the Burra charter. but in the real world, most heritage conservation work is a compromise that is strongly weighted to the fads and fashions of interior decoration and lifestyle aspirations. Few are willing to live in the small, simple accommodation of the nineteenth century despite the essential needs of shelter, warmth and beauty being supplied by the minimum of intervention.

Mittagong - Restoration Australia Series 3 Episode 8

Heritage devotees Val and John Jessop decide to buy and reassemble two old buildings - an old ghost town cottage and an old sawmill. What could be more difficult than that? (Season Final)

So we get to the final episode of series 3. John is from England via Africa and Val a Mittagong local with connections to the shale oil mining town of Joadja. They have already done a big renovation / extension, of an old school and church elsewhere. Now they plan another passion project to recreate a cute cottage with a fancy modern bit out the back.

Their business, Cotswold Furniture Collection, isn't mentioned in the show  but the end result of their involvement with the show looks like the sort of interior decorating magazine shoot that would be perfect advertising.

Their plan is to reassemble a house and sawmill shed from "flat pack" components. The house was moved from Joadja to Mittagong and at some stage was dismantled and the parts stacked in Willie Hall's salvage yard.

Willie is the secret weapon in their quest for a unique house - a particularly attuned builder, preserver of old stuff, and son of Peter Hall, the architect who rescued the Opera House. Hall is calm, quietly spoken and competent in all sorts of skills. He is the perfect foil to the fake drama of reality TV. He is actually real.

The sawmill was that of Alex S Blatch & Sons. It was still operating until 1998 when it had to close, supposedly because of the NSW ban on old growth logging according to one of the sons Graeme (SMH June 17, 1998). The Blatch family had offers for their "home-cut, wooden office, and corrugated iron shed from a local artist and a potter who liked the old, lived-in look," 

The sawmill was a landmark in Mittagong, and one of the last connections to the timber industry, that had for a century been the mainstay of the Southern Highlands.

But in the end it was cleared away for some drab townhouses.

Hall has a thorough grasp of good heritage conservation practice. He bought the house and dismantled it, presumably as a last option to prevent its loss. He took photos of the dismantling process and tagged the parts. He uses traditional construction methods and where parts needed to be replaced because of rot or termites, he used matching materials. He even has an old morticing machine to do the new mortice and tenon joints. This seems like a rare lost trade, but in fact is a simple piece of equipment to acquire and use today - its just that modern nail guns serve the same purpose with minimum effort.

So if a building has been moved from its original historic town and had a second life in another historic town, then dismantled and stored in for years before being moved again to a third site and reconstructed with building where it is married to modern materials, is it still heritage?

I suspect not, but Harrison goes on again about heritage practice needing to identify new building by cladding it in new material. But in this case it doesn't seem such an issue since so little of the build is actually original fabric or in its original configuration, while significant visual elements such as the cladding of both the sawmill shed and the house roof are done in new Zincalume removing any sense of heritage character. If there was no option but use new material, they still could have obtained proper galvanised corrugated iron for much the same price. At least then they could have some reference to Australian building heritage.

They have left some of the original internal wall finishes as a palimpsest of the layers of use and reconstruction, although the appearance is more of a contrived shabby chic, with mismatched boards, gaps and missing trim all over the place. It seems much was left behind when the house was dismantled.

With such a calm and competent builder, clients with patience and evidently adequate financial means and no council regulator or heritage advisor hovering over the building site threatening to close it all down if they don't use the right shade of Porters lime wash, there is little opportunity in the show for the usual fabricated drama. So instead it comes from the bushfires and the epidemic. 

As with the previous episode the virus keeps Harrison away but it is no loss as Willie makes a more authentic and personable narrator. What you aren't told however, is how this project is really just a bit of ordinary property development. The house/shed combo is squashed into a subdivided block next door to the Jessop's real house - a large and more prosaic late 20th century ranch style home on half a hectare. The original house on the block on the other side is now tight up against the fence, and the garden trees are all gone, making Mittagong a little less leafy.

The result is far more a pastiche of what passes for heritage on television, than actual restoration, but after the abominations on most of the renovation shows we don't really expect much more than this.

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

Restoration Australia Season 3 Episode 1 - Milton Terrace

Milton Terrace at Millers Point in Sydney was sold off for $4.25M in 2015 as part of the NSW Government's disposal of 300 public housing buildings. For property developer Michael Stokes, it's a Mayfair terrace in the making.

Restoration Australia has come up with a Season 3 - and the first instalment could have been all about actual heritage conservation; but it isn't. On Sunday at 7.41pm or thereabouts, or on ABC iview

It shows what money can buy. $4.25 million to get what had been saved from demolition through one of the greatest achievements of social activism by the community and union movement in the 1960s and 70s. Then another $5 million to turn it into a trophy house.

The last 60 years of its history are skimmed through as a bit of colour in about 30 seconds without naming them, this half minute about one and an half minutes in bypasses the creation of public housing for wharfies families in a less than desirable area, the Sydney Cove Development Authority's plans to raze the Rocks and build high rise offices (Harry Seidler's being one scheme), the campaign to stop demolition by resident action groups and the green bans of Jack Mundy's BLF, creating more public housing by a different more sympathetic and community focussed government, and the ultimate forced evictions by Pru Goward of the NSW Liberal government and selloff of both the preserved historic terraces and the modern brutalist Sirius building.  For more see the doco "On the Rocks"

The new owner is a millionaire property developer, so I guess it comes full circle. Milton Terrace was built by property developer Donald Lanarch in the 1870s. He was son-in-law of wealthy merchant and banker William Walker who built the original house on the site. The head of the Sydney Cove Development Authority, Owen McGee, was the uber-developer, who conceived  the idea for the total destruction of the historic precinct, and incidentally he was uncle of neo-conservative media person Miranda Devine,who described the area prior to the government evictions as a rundown hovel full of entitled housos living off Centrelink. 

But another form of restoration is happening. Like Charles II returning from exile, the rightful heirs to Millers Point, and new occupants of the Jewell of the central Sydney heritage buildings, remake their palace in the style of the Sun King, or perhaps a minor Ceaușescu relative. Originally the homes of wealthy merchants, Milton Terrace lost its prestige when the dominance of the area by industry, shipping and the bridge, saw the wealthy and middle class flee the plague ridden inner city to the more salubrious north shore, made accessible by the bridge that destroyed many poorer people's homes.

Heritage architect Tasman Storey doesn't take the bait when Harrison pushes the line about restrictive heritage controls and the massive conservation plan, explaining that the owners can create bathrooms and kitchens to their own taste (but not necessarily his) as they please, and that the place was rebuilt "quite well as a superficial copy" after destruction by fire, so they have a certain freedom to fiddle with the fabric. It is a shame that heritage regulation is constantly presented in these shows as a negative to be overcome, or as a barrier to creativity and obstructing the personal desires of the owners. 

The heritage impact statement, available for the terrace at the other end of the row has a very short and succinct few pages of guidelines that are hardly onerous. but apparently because they're "not allowed to touch the original floor at all" to get a level surface they pour down a rubber self levelling compound and on top put a plywood subfloor and lay the new timber floor on that. But a slightly uneven patched original timber floor has its own aesthetic value, just not one appreciated by these lovers of shiny surfaces.

Special, $200 a bucket, citrus-based paint stripper has to be used to remove all the layers of paint. Or they could have just painted over again and accepted the uneven surfaces that age creates. They never expect it to be so bad, and uncovering one bit, like pulling off the render for the new glass lift, reveals more unexpected problems. Since they admit it is the same for all these heritage buildings, is this just a ploy by contractors who quote low, and then demand variations?

Archaeologist Dr Wayne Johnson reveals the terrace encapsulates William Walker's earlier grand gentleman's mansion of the 1820s. But the interior designer only sees the unique surviving ancient sandstone kitchen fire place as a constraint on her preferred plans, and is disappointed she can't put the living room ceiling rose somewhere else, but has to replace it where it came from. Storey prevails with at least some of these details.

Harrison gets excited about the opening up of the rooms and exposure of its 19th century character, but it is only brief, it will all get filled with the latest interior style. Of all the people on the site, the ones with the greatest sensitivity and appreciation of heritage fabric are the bricklayers and chippies who recognise that "we don't build things the same as this anymore".

Harrison goes all the way to the domed reading room of the State Library Victoria to handle a photo in nitrile gloves, when he could have just done a search on Trove:

Then off to the Archives to learn about plague and rats from City of Sydney Historian, Laila Ellmoos, (who for some reason is only given a first name). A little while later, after more issues with heritage problems, we are told that "the social profile of this part of the city has changed dramatically ... but that is to be expected as public housing falls into the hands of people with money and their own distinctive personal taste." Class is at the root of heritage. There is a general and possibly instinctive desire to conserve the past, to maintain the familiar physical and social environment but as everyone has different priorities and different views about what it means to conserve, some people are preferenced in this process, and it is usually those with money.

Harrison is pleased the stucco, scoring, and finishes and the painting has been beautifully handled, even though externally it hardly looks any different, apart from it has lost its Valhalla name and regained Kindale, presumably from some unstated historical research (the CMP however calls it "Ballara").

The gold silk wallpaper, chandeliers, lacquered and Japanned cabinetwork, gold fittings and marble floors are all befitting the bankers and merchant princes that run the world today, but like about half of all the Restoration Australia episodes, this one is more about interior decorating than heritage conservation, despite how much the host tries to remind us of the need to preserve the past.

PS others also find the 'restoration' less than Burra Charter   https://profile.theguardian.com/user/id/16574534?page=1

Gough Whitlam's birthplace

Harry Frederick (Fred) Whitlam and Martha (“Mattie”) Whitlam nee Maddocks, were married on 10 September 1914 and on 18 December 1914, bought a block of land in Rowland Street Kew with a mortgage from the State Savings Bank of Victoria (under the Credit Foncier programme) signed off on 30 January 1915. Mattie's father, Edward, who was a Master Builder by profession, built, and probably designed the house for the. Plans were prepared by February 1915, and construction completed by May 1915.  On 11 July 1916 their son Edward Gough Whitlam was born in the house built by Mattie's father, on the kitchen table according to family legend. Presumably Gough was conceived in the front bedroom of the house sometime around early October 1915. Fred and Mattie therefore were in the house no more than 5 months before their attempts to produce offspring were successful.

Fred Whitlam was working at this time in the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor’s Office, in the Attorney General’s Department, headed by Robert Garran. In 1917, Fred Whitlam was promoted to senior Clerk in Sydney, and so on 25 October 1917, Ngara was sold. The new owners were Samuel James Woods, a tailor and mercer, and Mabel Lucy Woods who obtained co-operative finance through the Starr-Bowkett Building Society. they only paid off their mortgage in 1932  (City of Boroondara citation 'Ngara'). 

So as far as birthplaces go - Ngara could not be more connected to the birthee. It was built by Gough's grandfather, for his parents to live in as their first proper home, in order that they could start a family and where Gough was conceived, born and raised for his first year and a half. It is a house which tells the origin story of Australia's most transformative leader.

Boroondara  General  Cemetery contains the graves of several Whitlam family members including  his  grandparents,  Edward  and  Elizabeth  Maddocks and their  daughter  Janet, (Gough's maternal aunt) and  Edward’s  brother  John  Henry  Maddocks, (Gough's maternal uncle who died at Fromelles on 19 July 1916). Edward's sister Elizabeth is also buried at the family plot although not listed on the grave stone (Lea Ram, Birth and death in Kew)

The Heritage Council tribunal (comprising Jim Norris (Chair), Oona Nicolson, and Emma Russell), decided that: " ... the association between the birth and, approximately, the first eighteen months of Gough Whitlam's life does not constitute evidence of a special association between Whitlam and the Place."

The Planning Panel (comprising Ray Tonkin (chair) and Peter McEwan) for Amendment c208, (which included the heritage overlay for Gough Whitlam's Birthplace) determined that: "... submissions and evidence do not demonstrate that the association between Gough Whitlam and Ngara is a special one sufficient to warrant recognition in an individual HO."

Although in a contradictory conclusion it states that: "no evidence demonstrated the likelihood of an enduring association of the site with the life and legacy of Mr Whitlam." and then: "The Panel suggested that the place could be recognised by a plaque or sign, presuming that it will soon be demolished." It doesn't make sense to put a plaque on a place that doesn't have "an enduring association with his life and legacy".

But this could also be taken as a challenge to create such an enduring association. It is also likely that the historical narrative will be read in the context of the temporal coincidence of Gough's death and the failure to preserve his birthplace; some are already:

when-it-all-began

memorials-gough-whitlam

We can do better

Its Time - trust advocate

Museum of Australian Democracy

see also  Lea Ram, 'Birth and death in Kew [Gough Whitlam, ‘Ngara’, 46 Rowland Street]' Kew Historical Society: newsletter  No. 109, December 2014, p6.

The decisions are not consistent with considerable numbers of birthplaces in Australia and the World. In Victoria, the birthplaces of HV McKay, John Curtain and Percy Grainger are considered of heritage significance primarily for the fact of these important historical figures having been born there. The US has innumerable birthplaces of its leaders and heroes, commemorated and memorialised, some such as Lincoln's log cabin of doubtful provenance and authenticity. but the point is that we need somewhere to project our feelings about people from the past, or else they may disappear from our consciences and public memory. 

The coincidence of the commencement of demolition and Gough's death, may have sparked public concern for the house, but there is also a causal relationship. We have a natural instinct to connect people to places. the roadside memorials to crash victims remind us of this every day. There will be a hole in our group memory caused by the loss of Gough's house, that a plaque will not fill.

now you see it now you don't

Facadism seems to be more prevalent today than in the '80s when the Smith St supermarket skeleton was created. I see that most of City Road Southbank now has two storey interwar brick factory facades (which were originally bland and now without the factory and warehousing spaces behind them to give them meaning are quite pointless, juxtaposed against the 50 storey glass apartment towers; 

it suggests at the architects have no better ideas for their street frontages

Another form of facadism is either the retention of just the front rooms of a house - or after recladding, replacing windows, new raingoods, etc. Or in the case of The Block's winning couple, knock it all down and rebuild a replica facade. Comments from the crowd are predictably mixed.

What is facilitating this? Has heritage regulation, or even the perception of what constitutes heritage transformed to the extent that original fabric and three dimensional spaces are entirely subservient to a shallow appearance. If this is true, then any approximation of the appearance of the historic streetscape should be sufficient. Even the printed vinyl wraparounds on construction hoardings could be adapted to provide the permanent facades of new buildings, replaced periodically to reflect the latest aesthetic styles or fashions in heritage.

The No 1 Coles store in Smith Street was demolished, but apparently the very plain Deco facade will be reconstructed.

With the new works in prefab concrete tilt slab.

At the other end at 130 Smith St, the 1886 William Pitt designed building appeared briefly beneath later cladding, then was also demolished only to be reconstructed in tilt-slab and with a gaping hole at ground level.

Maybe the same approach could be used for putting back the lost facades of Melbourne - Surely Grollo could put up Robbs building for the front few floors of the revamped Rialto forecourt - I recall the arguments at the time about the imperative for space around the tower that the existing building could not be retained. Others have pointed out the cruel irony of building over an area that was the open space trade off for a large skyscraper.

Which brings me back to the Smith St Safeway

I like the way Streetview makes it look like the Colosseum, but surely keeping old buildings is not meant to be like this.