|
|
Post by istapleton on Jul 5, 2013 13:01:35 GMT 10
I think the note should say outright that being clearly new work does not make the work automatically sympathetic to the place.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidyoung on Jul 7, 2013 18:47:20 GMT 10
Hi Ian. Thanks for that — that's a useful addition to make to the Practice Note.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Benson on Jul 24, 2013 15:30:56 GMT 10
SUMMARY:
DELETE Article 22.2, “New work should be readily identifiable as such”. It has already been covered in Article 22.1 and in the Explanatory Notes as “imitation should be avoided”. It is also covered in Articles 8, 15 & 21.
COMMENTS:
As the Heritage Advisor to the City of Ballarat, and previously to the City of Greater Geelong and also as a former Heritage Architect with Heritage Victoria, I have always had problems with Article 22, New Works.
One of things I find I have to be careful with is to make sure I am wearing my ‘Heritage Advisor Hat’ and not my ‘Design Hat’ when assessing applications. Part of the problem I believe is that most of us Heritage Advisors have architectural and design training and thus have an eye for pleasing design, be it traditional or contemporary. Indeed I will go so far as to say that I personally like many of the contemporary designs more than many of the traditional submissions. However, my job as a Heritage Advisor is to ensure the application is assessed in line with the Burra Charter, the Heritage Overlay Guidelines and the local Planning Scheme.
While most of us heritage professionals understand what the Burra Charter says and that we appreciate that it needs to be read as a whole, the lay person and those with an agenda (be them building owners or managers, developers, real estate agents, town planners consultants, architects, building designers, engineers and so on, or consultants delivering ‘client driven’ reports on behalf of their clients) usually only read or quote the first column.
I have been in consultation with Susan Fayad, whom I work alongside at Ballarat, and we strongly recommend the following.
DELETE Article 22.2, “New work should be readily identifiable as such”. It has already been covered in Article 22.1 and in the Explanatory Notes as “imitation should be avoided”. It is also covered in Articles 8, 15 & 21.
We suggest amend Article 22 by deleting 22.2 and adding in Explanatory Notes reference to Articles 8, 15, 21 & 22.1,
Article:
22.1
New work such as additions or other changes to theplace may be acceptable where it does not distort or obscure the cultural significance of the place, or detract from its interpretation and appreciation.
22.2 Delete
Explanatory Notes:
New work may be sympathetic if its siting, bulk, form, scale, character, colour, texture and material are similar to the existing fabric, but imitation should be avoided.
The means by which new work is identified must be compatible with the significance of the place and not diminish it, consistent with Articles 8, 15, 21 and 22.1.
The new reference to Articles 8, 15, 21 & 22.1 are excellent.
Our job as ‘protectors’ of our past heritage is to do just that, protect and respect our heritage. We should not be getting into a debate about what might be tomorrow's heritage though we should encourage good design.
Regards.
Brian
|
|
|
|
Post by lhonman on Jul 24, 2013 23:22:35 GMT 10
More guidance would be useful for clients and practitioners on the subject of new work to heritage places. There is only minimal reference to the place in its setting but more emphasis on distinguishing of new fabric. I have known owners and agencies to be perplexed about this - especially when there seems to be an over emphasis on small things at the expense of some very big things. I would like to see guidance on how practitioners should undertake (and authorities should review) site analyses and heritage impact assessments as routine, before new work is approved. Impact on heritage values is so very much more than whether new work can be distinguished from old.
|
|
