Seidler Demolition in Canberra

peter_j

Harry isn't happy that a demolition permit has been issued for one of his houses in the Sydney suburb of O'Connor. "It's a cultural unfortunate situation in this country that people have no appreciation of progress in architecture."

http://www.abc.net.au/act/news/200502/s1307162.htm NEWS
http://www.seidler.net.au/

The 1956 house at 12 Yapunyah Street has a Heritage Status of R1, which means, "places rejected from inclusion to an Interim Heritage Place Register by the ACT Heritage Council". The house is on a 910sqm lot and sold for $650,000 in late 2003. It is apparently one of two detached houses by Seidler in Canberra. There is a picture of it on the Canberra House website front page, here .

http://www.environment.act.gov.au/Files/actheritageplacesregister.pdf"
http://www.propertyguide.com.au/Stats/O'CONNOR/YAPUNYAH+STREET
http://www.canberrahouse.com.au/biographies/harryseidler.html BIO

Anonymous

Seidler has confirmed that he designed only two free standing houses in Canberra. This Yapunyah Street one and another in Northcote Crescent, Deakin (documented in the book Peter Blake, Architecture for the New World). The Yapunyah Street one was extended around 1970 to a design by Seidler and remained in the original family until sold in late 2003.

Catherine Townsend (RAIA Chapter Head) and Harry Seidler were on local radio here the other morning talking about it. Townsend said the RAIA won't oppose the demolition because although it's obviously rare (one of two) it's not a great example of his work and there are other better examples of '50s modernism in Canberra (true, but there are probably less than 6). She added that the "other one was safe because it was on the RAIA's RSTCA list and they'd be lobbying the ACT government to add it to the Interim Heritage Register".

Now, this is just plain wrong. Even if a site is on the Interim Register, becomes accepted to the Register itself and has 'protected status' it doesn't guarantee protection of anything. It simply means that before modifications (or demolition) can take place, the proposal has to go before the ACT Heritage Council. If they judge that modifications will not compromise the heritage significance, the Tuscanisation, or whatever, can proceed.

A small group of pre-WWII modernist public housing here known as the Whitley houses were examples of this - the only examples of their type in Australia. They were on the Heritage List, and they've been 'protected' by being gutted and having a three storey apartment block grafted on to them. All a formal listing does is guarantee that there will be an assessment process.

I contacted the ACT Planning Authority and they sent me the plans for the proposed demolition and new residence along with the design report. The period for comment has closed and there are two or three objections - whether for the demolition of the Seidler house or the proposed residence, I'm not sure. So at this stage nothing has been officially decided.

However, one comment in the design report under 'Design opportunities' (submitted by the builder of the new residence) says it all:

Under opportunities: "Removal of boxy Harry Seidler house which is old and ugly in the street."

Bah.

peter_j

A few things come to mind...

* How hard it is for the 'specimen house' on a big suburban site to be protected. If it had been a whole street full and they were visible from the road, then this house might well have been more highly valued, as it would have contributed to the public streetscape. If it's private, out of sight, and a one-off (as architect's houses tend to be) then it is of less interest to the heritage authorities.

* Even more endangered is the modest experimental 50s to 70s house, many sitting on properties now worth a million. There are a case or two like this a year in Melbourne.

* The National Gallery in Canberra was to have some major renovations done to it the other year. The original architect, Colin Madigan, made a bit of a fuss about it. I believe he refered to the Moral Rights Act which had recently been passed, which implies that the architect should be consulted whenever a major alteration is made to a building. Presumably a demolition is a very major alteration - shouldn't this mean that the demolisher should have to architecturally justify their course of action to the demolishee? I don't think a proper justification should include any of the following words: boxy, old, and ugly.