2 December 2016

Fifty shades of beige: The woeful state of the Sydney and Melbourne Buildings

| Maryann Mussared
Join the conversation
49
Looking through the colonnades of the Melbourne Building towards the Sydney Building about 1930. Image courtesy of National Archives of Australia from Mildenhall collection: A3560, 4317

Fast forward for a moment: it is early 2019 and the first sleek and shiny new tram glides down Northbourne Avenue on its maiden voyage from Gungahlin into the Civic Terminus adjacent to the Sydney and Melbourne buildings. Schoolchildren line the route waving commemorative flags at the first tram, full of dignitaries from all over the world.

These are people who could have power and influence over investment in the capital of Australia. A perfect day in a perfect city. What could possibly go wrong with this vision?

As the tram gently glides into the Civic Terminus, the VIPs are astonished at what they see. What was once a pair of much loved inter-war Mediterranean-style building with gracious shady colonnades, are now in a state of advanced decay. They have been allowed to degenerate into a series of individual leaseholdings that have not been required to follow even the most basic of heritage principles. The exterior paint is fifty shades of beige, and the shabby colonnades shelter ugly mismatched shop fronts with poorly designed contemporary signage.

Sydney Building shopfront painted 'mission brown;

Sydney Building shopfront painted ‘mission brown’

We do need to understand how these much-loved buildings got into this state because this is also what they look like today. They were the first to be built by private enterprise in Canberra commencing in 1926, and were built in sections, like Paddington terrace houses.

Building in progress showing how both buildings were built in sections. Image courtesy of National Archives of Australia: A3560, 2573

Building in progress showing how both buildings were built in sections. Image courtesy of National Archives of Australia: A3560, 2573

They are actually divided into a number of individual leases, with a variety of leaseholders operating small businesses ranging from convenience stores to restaurants and hair salons. The leaseholders are individually responsible for maintenance and we can assume are not restrained by specific heritage guidelines. Although the buildings are listed on the ACT Heritage Register, this only protects the heritage value of the place, but does also suggest a need to prepare a conservation management plan.

Sydney Building with peeling and mismatched paint.

Sydney Building with peeling and mismatched paint.

 

The fairly obvious conclusion is something needs to be done – and done now. How do we move forward to achieve an appropriate portal for Civic? At the worst, leaseholders will probably need assistance to repair and paint the exteriors a uniform heritage colour. The immediate disadvantage is current leaseholders will resist such a move, as it will be at their own expense. So what is a possible alternative? At the best, the new government could make a very brave decision, and as part of their already expensive City Metro pet project, take on board the need to do something radical. They could buy back all the leases and clean up and repair both the exterior of the buildings and the shop fronts. This would create the sort of united exterior imaged by the architect of these iconic buildings, Sir John Sulman.

The buildings could then be re-leased with a very specific purpose and shared vision for a new precinct worthy of a capital city: galleries; cafes; bistros with live music; flower stalls; and artist studios. And outside across the tram tracks in the new central plaza public artworks that are currently neglected or vilified elsewhere in Canberra could be re-sited to a setting where they can be appreciated. Imagine Bert Flugelman’s delightful Tumbling Cubes, poorly sited and prone to random damage in a quiet corner of the Belconnenn Town Centre, relocated to the new plaza and protected by a small moat of water.

Bert Flugelman's Tumbling Cubes, Belconnen Town Centre

Bert Flugelman’s Tumbling Cubes, Belconnen Town Centre

With no heritage management plan for these buildings, and if something doesn’t happen in the very near future, the shameful neglect and decay of these important portals, the Sydney and Melbourne buildings, will reach a stage where it will be very expensive to ameliorate the entrenched decay. The new ACT government needs to act decisively and act now.

Main picture: Looking through the colonnades of the Melbourne Building towards the Sydney Building about 1930. Image courtesy of National Archives of Australia from Mildenhall collection: A3560, 4317.

Join the conversation

49
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

wottaway said :

I cannot believe how these buildings have been allowed to decay like this. They are the first structures any stranger is likely to remember after travelling the length of Northbourne Ave. Until 2012, the most beautiful building along there was No78, Manufacturers Mutual Ins., my old office, but of course that had to disappear. Even in the early 60/70s, these stand-out buildings looked forlorn, and given the prominence given to the marketing of Canberra as a place of beauty, regardless of ownership, I’ll nominate politicians as the culprits.

Yes, it’s a toss-up which is the grungiest, the Westside Container Village or the Sydney and Melbourne Buildings.

ChrisinTurner12:15 am 28 Oct 16

Any proposal with a chance would have to line the pockets of a developer mate. I don’t see any proposal that does this.

I cannot believe how these buildings have been allowed to decay like this. They are the first structures any stranger is likely to remember after travelling the length of Northbourne Ave. Until 2012, the most beautiful building along there was No78, Manufacturers Mutual Ins., my old office, but of course that had to disappear. Even in the early 60/70s, these stand-out buildings looked forlorn, and given the prominence given to the marketing of Canberra as a place of beauty, regardless of ownership, I’ll nominate politicians as the culprits.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I did see trams parked overnight in France; I didn’t say I thought I saw them I said I thought it was Lyon.

I have now referred to memoirs and recall that it was at Perrache, Lyon which used to be the main railway station for Lyon but you already know that,don’t you.

In fact there were armed soldiers everywhere 24/7 in Lyon. Apparently there is a terrorist presence in France, so yes, they were being guarded overnight.

Surely you are not suggesting that our Canberra trams parked overnight in the city would be vandalised.

Regarding my suggested 1,000,001 reasons for not having a token tram service, if you put a $ sign in front of that one billion and one figure that may almost cover the cost of the folly.

That alone is a good enough reason not to have the tram as we will soon find out.

Yep know the station well, I have visited Lyon a few times. I used to live in Europe and traveled to France quite a bit, it is quite the place for a transport enthusiast. For trams I liked Strasbourg the most though, especially the Eurotram design. Though Lyon was ok too and has trolley buses for something different.

Though still confused about trams stabling at this station. One line passes through and one line yeah it is a terminus. Now maybe you are right they do park some trams here, I don’t know as I don’t like hanging out at isolated railway stations between 12:30am and 5am . But you got to admit a tram terminus underneath a main line railway station isn’t what you would call a stock standard terminus or stabling location is it? Nor representative of what is the norm? And certainly not quite the same as parking a few up on Northborne Ave overnight, where yes I do reckon they would get vandalised. Canberra isn’t crime free you know.

A couple of points JC.

Firstly, I am not a tram enthusiast like you or the people responsible for committing the rest of us to “transit penury” for the next 20 years.

Enthusiasts and their money are quickly parted.

I have never found travelling in a tram comfortable or fast and in a place like Canberra where travelling by private motor car is the sensible thing to do, a tram line has no place.

Secondly, I am not admitting to anything you are suggesting.

dungfungus said :

I did see trams parked overnight in France; I didn’t say I thought I saw them I said I thought it was Lyon.

I have now referred to memoirs and recall that it was at Perrache, Lyon which used to be the main railway station for Lyon but you already know that,don’t you.

In fact there were armed soldiers everywhere 24/7 in Lyon. Apparently there is a terrorist presence in France, so yes, they were being guarded overnight.

Surely you are not suggesting that our Canberra trams parked overnight in the city would be vandalised.

Regarding my suggested 1,000,001 reasons for not having a token tram service, if you put a $ sign in front of that one billion and one figure that may almost cover the cost of the folly.

That alone is a good enough reason not to have the tram as we will soon find out.

Yep know the station well, I have visited Lyon a few times. I used to live in Europe and traveled to France quite a bit, it is quite the place for a transport enthusiast. For trams I liked Strasbourg the most though, especially the Eurotram design. Though Lyon was ok too and has trolley buses for something different.

Though still confused about trams stabling at this station. One line passes through and one line yeah it is a terminus. Now maybe you are right they do park some trams here, I don’t know as I don’t like hanging out at isolated railway stations between 12:30am and 5am . But you got to admit a tram terminus underneath a main line railway station isn’t what you would call a stock standard terminus or stabling location is it? Nor representative of what is the norm? And certainly not quite the same as parking a few up on Northborne Ave overnight, where yes I do reckon they would get vandalised. Canberra isn’t crime free you know.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I saw trams parked at the end of a track overnight somewhere in France; Lyon I think.

The cleaning can be done by the driver (as is done on Murrays Coaches) and any maintenance would be done at the depot in daytime hours .

Is there any maintenance required on a tram anyhow? They don’t have to have their fuel tanks filled and greasing and oil changes every 10,000 kms, do they?

So you THINK you saw it once in one city, so therefor that is the norm and Canberra stabling trams in a depot overnight is and I quote “But then again, this is Canberra and we do things differently.”

Thanks for the morning laugh.

As for maintenance of trams, they are machines, they have moving parts, they need maintenance.

PS I’ve been to Lyon and I seriously doubt they would stable trams in the street overnight. In fact would say that for most cities in France. They would get vandalised, unless of course they had a couple of security guards sitting with them overnight.

Anyway I look forward to your next installment of 1,000,001 reasons why Canberra should not have light rail according to Dungers.

I did see trams parked overnight in France; I didn’t say I thought I saw them I said I thought it was Lyon.

I have now referred to memoirs and recall that it was at Perrache, Lyon which used to be the main railway station for Lyon but you already know that,don’t you.

In fact there were armed soldiers everywhere 24/7 in Lyon. Apparently there is a terrorist presence in France, so yes, they were being guarded overnight.

Surely you are not suggesting that our Canberra trams parked overnight in the city would be vandalised.

Regarding my suggested 1,000,001 reasons for not having a token tram service, if you put a $ sign in front of that one billion and one figure that may almost cover the cost of the folly.

That alone is a good enough reason not to have the tram as we will soon find out.

dungfungus said :

I saw trams parked at the end of a track overnight somewhere in France; Lyon I think.

The cleaning can be done by the driver (as is done on Murrays Coaches) and any maintenance would be done at the depot in daytime hours .

Is there any maintenance required on a tram anyhow? They don’t have to have their fuel tanks filled and greasing and oil changes every 10,000 kms, do they?

So you THINK you saw it once in one city, so therefor that is the norm and Canberra stabling trams in a depot overnight is and I quote “But then again, this is Canberra and we do things differently.”

Thanks for the morning laugh.

As for maintenance of trams, they are machines, they have moving parts, they need maintenance.

PS I’ve been to Lyon and I seriously doubt they would stable trams in the street overnight. In fact would say that for most cities in France. They would get vandalised, unless of course they had a couple of security guards sitting with them overnight.

Anyway I look forward to your next installment of 1,000,001 reasons why Canberra should not have light rail according to Dungers.

creative_canberran said :

Consolidator said :

modernising ANU endeavouring to capture new income to offset this $capital sponging territory.

I wonder how many Canberrans think ANU is a territory entity, rather than a Commonwealth one?

Canberra University is definitely a territory entity, however.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

creative_canberran said :

Yeah it’s called dead running, and it’s an issue with any mass transit. At the moment busses have to depart Belco to get to Gunghalin anyway in the morning, and some services based out of the newly reopenned Woden depot have dead runs too. At least with light-rail you’re not burning diesel or gas to do it.

Dead running is a favored subject of Mr Coe. Every year or so he comes out with a figure that looks very scary, like Action buses dead run 12,000km every day. Then include some ‘facts’ like that is equivalent to driving from Canberra to Dubai to make it look ev0en worse.

But when you actually consider the number in context 12,000km every day is equivalent to just under 27km for each and everyone of the 450 odd buses Action owns, which is not all that unreasonable in a city the size of Canberra. All you need is for a bus to run from say Fraser to Barton to then return to another terminus empty to start a 2nd route and your dead running adds up. Then add in school services which are notoriously one way and it adds up even more.

And what is the alternative, run buses in service against the flow of traffic in the peak hour, costing the same if not more in fuel, plus because it is in service it will take much longer, meaning more driver time and more buses are needed. Build more depots, which will cost money to run and maintain, or stable buses at terminus where they would be subject to vandilism and other complications, like cleaning and refueling.

Same would apply with light rail too. Dead running is inevitable, though the proposed schedule shows they are trying to minimise it as much as possible.

The alternative is to leave trams ready to go at each end of the track.

It’s done elsewhere and just because the busses stuffed it up doesn’t mean the trams have to as well.

But then again, this is Canberra and we do things differently.

Please name one city where trams are left at termini overnight?

And with this subject Canberra is doing NOTHING different. Stabling in a depot is the norm not an exception. When do you expect the vehicles to be cleaned and maintained?

I saw trams parked at the end of a track overnight somewhere in France; Lyon I think.

The cleaning can be done by the driver (as is done on Murrays Coaches) and any maintenance would be done at the depot in daytime hours .

Is there any maintenance required on a tram anyhow? They don’t have to have their fuel tanks filled and greasing and oil changes every 10,000 kms, do they?

wildturkeycanoe6:49 am 26 Oct 16

creative_canberran said :

At least with light-rail you’re not burning diesel or gas to do it.

No, just burning coal instead. No matter how much they spend on buying “Green energy”, the electrons will inevitably be coming direct from a coal fired power station, unless Canberra is willing or able to disconnect itself from the national grid altogether.

creative_canberran said :

Those public housing buildings were government owned, built to be cheap, and therefore decision to get rid of them was easy. As for Belco and Woden, I can’t think of any nice buildings that have been lost, can think of a few more that can afford to go but..

The Benjamin and Cameron Offices in Belconnen were interesting in design but at least partially lost to development. Woden has also seen some destruction and redevelopment, with bits of Callam Offices torn down [I think]. All of these had interesting designs and are highly regarded for their “outside the square” designs.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

creative_canberran said :

Yeah it’s called dead running, and it’s an issue with any mass transit. At the moment busses have to depart Belco to get to Gunghalin anyway in the morning, and some services based out of the newly reopenned Woden depot have dead runs too. At least with light-rail you’re not burning diesel or gas to do it.

Dead running is a favored subject of Mr Coe. Every year or so he comes out with a figure that looks very scary, like Action buses dead run 12,000km every day. Then include some ‘facts’ like that is equivalent to driving from Canberra to Dubai to make it look ev0en worse.

But when you actually consider the number in context 12,000km every day is equivalent to just under 27km for each and everyone of the 450 odd buses Action owns, which is not all that unreasonable in a city the size of Canberra. All you need is for a bus to run from say Fraser to Barton to then return to another terminus empty to start a 2nd route and your dead running adds up. Then add in school services which are notoriously one way and it adds up even more.

And what is the alternative, run buses in service against the flow of traffic in the peak hour, costing the same if not more in fuel, plus because it is in service it will take much longer, meaning more driver time and more buses are needed. Build more depots, which will cost money to run and maintain, or stable buses at terminus where they would be subject to vandilism and other complications, like cleaning and refueling.

Same would apply with light rail too. Dead running is inevitable, though the proposed schedule shows they are trying to minimise it as much as possible.

The alternative is to leave trams ready to go at each end of the track.

It’s done elsewhere and just because the busses stuffed it up doesn’t mean the trams have to as well.

But then again, this is Canberra and we do things differently.

Please name one city where trams are left at termini overnight?

And with this subject Canberra is doing NOTHING different. Stabling in a depot is the norm not an exception. When do you expect the vehicles to be cleaned and maintained?

JC said :

creative_canberran said :

Yeah it’s called dead running, and it’s an issue with any mass transit. At the moment busses have to depart Belco to get to Gunghalin anyway in the morning, and some services based out of the newly reopenned Woden depot have dead runs too. At least with light-rail you’re not burning diesel or gas to do it.

Dead running is a favored subject of Mr Coe. Every year or so he comes out with a figure that looks very scary, like Action buses dead run 12,000km every day. Then include some ‘facts’ like that is equivalent to driving from Canberra to Dubai to make it look ev0en worse.

But when you actually consider the number in context 12,000km every day is equivalent to just under 27km for each and everyone of the 450 odd buses Action owns, which is not all that unreasonable in a city the size of Canberra. All you need is for a bus to run from say Fraser to Barton to then return to another terminus empty to start a 2nd route and your dead running adds up. Then add in school services which are notoriously one way and it adds up even more.

And what is the alternative, run buses in service against the flow of traffic in the peak hour, costing the same if not more in fuel, plus because it is in service it will take much longer, meaning more driver time and more buses are needed. Build more depots, which will cost money to run and maintain, or stable buses at terminus where they would be subject to vandilism and other complications, like cleaning and refueling.

Same would apply with light rail too. Dead running is inevitable, though the proposed schedule shows they are trying to minimise it as much as possible.

The alternative is to leave trams ready to go at each end of the track.

It’s done elsewhere and just because the busses stuffed it up doesn’t mean the trams have to as well.

But then again, this is Canberra and we do things differently.

creative_canberran6:19 pm 25 Oct 16

Consolidator said :

modernising ANU endeavouring to capture new income to offset this $capital sponging territory.

I wonder how many Canberrans think ANU is a territory entity, rather than a Commonwealth one?

justin heywood said :

Consolidator said :

….There should never be room for heritage here in the ACT, let the other capital cities drown in costly heritage maintenance, inefficient and sickly infrastructure.

The above statement was written mostly for effect I’m sure. Allow me to proffer the outraged response you were probably seeking.
It should be obvious to you that a great many people value our architectural heritage, and no, it can’t be replicated by 3D holograms. Surely you can accept that others have different value systems than you do.
Unless you’re 12.

I think most of the statement was written for effect and to get a reaction, not only your example. 12! I too see some immaturity of thought there. And this from someone who likes a lot of the modern styles in architecture, when done well and especially often when different and original. Bit I also like good older architecture and believe there is a place for both. Some older architecture is okay as it is, while other examples could be updated to make them function better, rather than be knocked down. Insulation for starter, but there are other things that could be done, such as to improve the aesthetics. I find a mixture of styles interesting. However, I also like architecture to be energy efficient, and most architecture, whether old or modern is failing badly here.
I believe the Sydney and Melbourne buildings have so much potential, but I’m not sure about some of the other buildings around the shopping area. Imagine if the shop fronts around Garema Place were three storeys with over hanging balconies with cafes and shops. A garden with fountains and seating at ground level in the middle. Other plants tumbling from the balconies.

justin heywood5:31 pm 25 Oct 16

Consolidator said :

….There should never be room for heritage here in the ACT, let the other capital cities drown in costly heritage maintenance, inefficient and sickly infrastructure.

The above statement was written mostly for effect I’m sure. Allow me to proffer the outraged response you were probably seeking.
It should be obvious to you that a great many people value our architectural heritage, and no, it can’t be replicated by 3D holograms. Surely you can accept that others have different value systems than you do.
Unless you’re 12.

Consolidator3:33 pm 25 Oct 16

Whilst we get lost in the nostalgia of keeping rundown, mold ridden and highly inefficient so called heritage buildings that are hubs for drug traffickers’ and predators, we are losing sight of the enormous opportunities to modernise and revitalise a dying civic centre and an increasingly uninteresting national capital. Most outsiders believe that Canberra should be the showcase or showroom of the nation (after all they contribute to its being) living in the future not the past, depicting clean modern architecture, advanced education, enriching entertainment and spirited sport whilst being a place to impress international traders, tourists, politicians and investors. Whilst I understand why some older we-ins need to psychologically preserve the old buildings of their own upbringing, they need to let it go and embrace the new generations of architecture, sustainability and modernisation.

We have a new privatised International Airport and a refocused and modernising ANU endeavouring to capture new income to offset this $capital sponging territory. There should never be room for heritage here in the ACT, let the other capital cities drown in costly heritage maintenance, inefficient and sickly infrastructure. For the purpose of time lining and displaying our architectural evolution, that can be achieved with 3D modelling software and displayed on the internet. We would be better served to demonstrate some initiative and encourage our young architects and designers to envision the city they would like to live or visit in 5-20 years from now and I don’t think it includes the current Sydney and Melbourne buildings.

In so far as the tram is concerned like in most other European cities it will be its own demise, awkwardly inefficient, costly, and a poorly used mode of transport. The bright side will be when you remove the ragged tracks, the dangerous overhead wires and poles you can use the space for more efficient electric buses and emergency vehicles that can respond to the citizen’s urgent needs, it’s a shame we can’t learn by their mistakes.

creative_canberran said :

Yeah it’s called dead running, and it’s an issue with any mass transit. At the moment busses have to depart Belco to get to Gunghalin anyway in the morning, and some services based out of the newly reopenned Woden depot have dead runs too. At least with light-rail you’re not burning diesel or gas to do it.

Dead running is a favored subject of Mr Coe. Every year or so he comes out with a figure that looks very scary, like Action buses dead run 12,000km every day. Then include some ‘facts’ like that is equivalent to driving from Canberra to Dubai to make it look ev0en worse.

But when you actually consider the number in context 12,000km every day is equivalent to just under 27km for each and everyone of the 450 odd buses Action owns, which is not all that unreasonable in a city the size of Canberra. All you need is for a bus to run from say Fraser to Barton to then return to another terminus empty to start a 2nd route and your dead running adds up. Then add in school services which are notoriously one way and it adds up even more.

And what is the alternative, run buses in service against the flow of traffic in the peak hour, costing the same if not more in fuel, plus because it is in service it will take much longer, meaning more driver time and more buses are needed. Build more depots, which will cost money to run and maintain, or stable buses at terminus where they would be subject to vandilism and other complications, like cleaning and refueling.

Same would apply with light rail too. Dead running is inevitable, though the proposed schedule shows they are trying to minimise it as much as possible.

creative_canberran said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

There have been many architectually unique buildings demolished for urban densification, even on the Northbourne strip. Where were the protectors of these buildings? The old public housing flats are one example. Belconnen and Woden have lost unique buildings too and I am sure the LDA or government departments responsible simply saw the economic benefits outweighing the heritage value.
You can’t have a vibrant new Canberra while keeping the historical old derelicts standing, plus economically they won’t bring in the expected rates revenue. To survive these buildings need to adapt. If their construction needs to adopt modern materials to fight the decay of time then that is what needs to happen. Patching up with ancient methods will only continue the cycle of ongoing and expensive maintenance. Upgrading to new polymers and cements will reduce costs down the road by preventing crumbling of the features.

Those public housing buildings were government owned, built to be cheap, and therefore decision to get rid of them was easy. As for Belco and Woden, I can’t think of any nice buildings that have been lost, can think of a few more that can afford to go but.

Sydney and Melbourne buildings were built to last, but being comprised of so many private owners, it’s difficult to mandate anything.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

creative_canberran said :

dungfungus said :

Maryann Mussared said :

The Civic Tram stop is currently shown as being between Rudd and Alinga Streets, but all the plans online show the track continuing to Woden, so it will go straight past the Sydney and Melbourne Buildings in the future. In the meantime, the trams have to turn around somewhere, and it looks like it will be the median space between Alinga and Northbourne. There are still too many unresolved issues.

They don’t have to turn around as they are bi-directional in operation.

They will have to park in the city overnight though so they can move air to Gungahlin in the morning.

That’s right isn’t it JC?

Parking and maintenance is in Mitchell via a side line.

So, empty trams will leave Mitchell every morning in separate directions?

Crazy stuff.

As I said above maybe a read of the available documentation is in order rather than just making stuff up to justify your confected outrage.

In the morning vehicles will make their way from the depot at Mitchell to Gungahlin, not sure if in service or out of service. They will then operate in service from Gungahlin to the City.

No vehicle is meant to run directly from Mitchell to the city to start service.

This is just like how buses operate now. In the morning they drive from the depot out of service to the termini to start their services. So why it is crazy is beyond me.

Yeah it’s called dead running, and it’s an issue with any mass transit. At the moment busses have to depart Belco to get to Gunghalin anyway in the morning, and some services based out of the newly reopenned Woden depot have dead runs too. At least with light-rail you’re not burning diesel or gas to do it.

“..At least with light-rail you’re not burning diesel or gas to do it..”

Maybe not, but lots of money is being burned instead.

creative_canberran1:02 am 25 Oct 16

wildturkeycanoe said :

There have been many architectually unique buildings demolished for urban densification, even on the Northbourne strip. Where were the protectors of these buildings? The old public housing flats are one example. Belconnen and Woden have lost unique buildings too and I am sure the LDA or government departments responsible simply saw the economic benefits outweighing the heritage value.
You can’t have a vibrant new Canberra while keeping the historical old derelicts standing, plus economically they won’t bring in the expected rates revenue. To survive these buildings need to adapt. If their construction needs to adopt modern materials to fight the decay of time then that is what needs to happen. Patching up with ancient methods will only continue the cycle of ongoing and expensive maintenance. Upgrading to new polymers and cements will reduce costs down the road by preventing crumbling of the features.

Those public housing buildings were government owned, built to be cheap, and therefore decision to get rid of them was easy. As for Belco and Woden, I can’t think of any nice buildings that have been lost, can think of a few more that can afford to go but.

Sydney and Melbourne buildings were built to last, but being comprised of so many private owners, it’s difficult to mandate anything.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

creative_canberran said :

dungfungus said :

Maryann Mussared said :

The Civic Tram stop is currently shown as being between Rudd and Alinga Streets, but all the plans online show the track continuing to Woden, so it will go straight past the Sydney and Melbourne Buildings in the future. In the meantime, the trams have to turn around somewhere, and it looks like it will be the median space between Alinga and Northbourne. There are still too many unresolved issues.

They don’t have to turn around as they are bi-directional in operation.

They will have to park in the city overnight though so they can move air to Gungahlin in the morning.

That’s right isn’t it JC?

Parking and maintenance is in Mitchell via a side line.

So, empty trams will leave Mitchell every morning in separate directions?

Crazy stuff.

As I said above maybe a read of the available documentation is in order rather than just making stuff up to justify your confected outrage.

In the morning vehicles will make their way from the depot at Mitchell to Gungahlin, not sure if in service or out of service. They will then operate in service from Gungahlin to the City.

No vehicle is meant to run directly from Mitchell to the city to start service.

This is just like how buses operate now. In the morning they drive from the depot out of service to the termini to start their services. So why it is crazy is beyond me.

Yeah it’s called dead running, and it’s an issue with any mass transit. At the moment busses have to depart Belco to get to Gunghalin anyway in the morning, and some services based out of the newly reopenned Woden depot have dead runs too. At least with light-rail you’re not burning diesel or gas to do it.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

creative_canberran said :

dungfungus said :

Maryann Mussared said :

The Civic Tram stop is currently shown as being between Rudd and Alinga Streets, but all the plans online show the track continuing to Woden, so it will go straight past the Sydney and Melbourne Buildings in the future. In the meantime, the trams have to turn around somewhere, and it looks like it will be the median space between Alinga and Northbourne. There are still too many unresolved issues.

They don’t have to turn around as they are bi-directional in operation.

They will have to park in the city overnight though so they can move air to Gungahlin in the morning.

That’s right isn’t it JC?

Parking and maintenance is in Mitchell via a side line.

So, empty trams will leave Mitchell every morning in separate directions?

Crazy stuff.

As I said above maybe a read of the available documentation is in order rather than just making stuff up to justify your confected outrage.

In the morning vehicles will make their way from the depot at Mitchell to Gungahlin, not sure if in service or out of service. They will then operate in service from Gungahlin to the City.

No vehicle is meant to run directly from Mitchell to the city to start service.

The wording in the documentation quite clearly states that City to Gungahlin services start approximately 30 minutes after the first service leaves Gungahlin. So clearly showing what I mentioned above.

This is just like how buses operate now. In the morning they drive from the depot out of service to the termini to start their services. So why it is crazy is beyond me.

It’s the unavailable documentation that we all have to worry about.

wildturkeycanoe3:34 pm 24 Oct 16

madelini said :

I believe that if any building is heritage listing, there should be a governmental responsibility for it even if it is privately owned. That is our history, and we have already lost many of the oldest buildings in Canberra due to accident, poor maintenance and poor decisions. I wholeheartedly believe that is a worthwhile government expense, not that the naysayers would agree with me.

It’s not just about aesthetics, although of course architectural styles are important (keeping in mind that something being “pretty” is not the same as having aesthetic value). It’s about history and identity. The Sydney and Melbourne buildings are deserving of the investment.

There have been many architectually unique buildings demolished for urban densification, even on the Northbourne strip. Where were the protectors of these buildings? The old public housing flats are one example. Belconnen and Woden have lost unique buildings too and I am sure the LDA or government departments responsible simply saw the economic benefits outweighing the heritage value.
You can’t have a vibrant new Canberra while keeping the historical old derelicts standing, plus economically they won’t bring in the expected rates revenue. To survive these buildings need to adapt. If their construction needs to adopt modern materials to fight the decay of time then that is what needs to happen. Patching up with ancient methods will only continue the cycle of ongoing and expensive maintenance. Upgrading to new polymers and cements will reduce costs down the road by preventing crumbling of the features.

dungfungus said :

creative_canberran said :

dungfungus said :

Maryann Mussared said :

The Civic Tram stop is currently shown as being between Rudd and Alinga Streets, but all the plans online show the track continuing to Woden, so it will go straight past the Sydney and Melbourne Buildings in the future. In the meantime, the trams have to turn around somewhere, and it looks like it will be the median space between Alinga and Northbourne. There are still too many unresolved issues.

They don’t have to turn around as they are bi-directional in operation.

They will have to park in the city overnight though so they can move air to Gungahlin in the morning.

That’s right isn’t it JC?

Parking and maintenance is in Mitchell via a side line.

So, empty trams will leave Mitchell every morning in separate directions?

Crazy stuff.

As I said above maybe a read of the available documentation is in order rather than just making stuff up to justify your confected outrage.

In the morning vehicles will make their way from the depot at Mitchell to Gungahlin, not sure if in service or out of service. They will then operate in service from Gungahlin to the City.

No vehicle is meant to run directly from Mitchell to the city to start service.

The wording in the documentation quite clearly states that City to Gungahlin services start approximately 30 minutes after the first service leaves Gungahlin. So clearly showing what I mentioned above.

This is just like how buses operate now. In the morning they drive from the depot out of service to the termini to start their services. So why it is crazy is beyond me.

wildturkeycanoe said :

So now the government needs to step in and spend money upkeeping privately owned buildings, just because they are in Civic? How about the rest of Gareema Place? … Can you force people to renovate their properties just for aesthetics? If so and this sets a precedent for the rest of Canberra, where does it end?

I believe that if any building is heritage listing, there should be a governmental responsibility for it even if it is privately owned. That is our history, and we have already lost many of the oldest buildings in Canberra due to accident, poor maintenance and poor decisions. I wholeheartedly believe that is a worthwhile government expense, not that the naysayers would agree with me.

It’s not just about aesthetics, although of course architectural styles are important (keeping in mind that something being “pretty” is not the same as having aesthetic value). It’s about history and identity. The Sydney and Melbourne buildings are deserving of the investment.

Who wants to live or do business in these 100 years old buildings ?? its freaking crazy. all these heritage stuff !!

creative_canberran said :

dungfungus said :

Maryann Mussared said :

The Civic Tram stop is currently shown as being between Rudd and Alinga Streets, but all the plans online show the track continuing to Woden, so it will go straight past the Sydney and Melbourne Buildings in the future. In the meantime, the trams have to turn around somewhere, and it looks like it will be the median space between Alinga and Northbourne. There are still too many unresolved issues.

They don’t have to turn around as they are bi-directional in operation.

They will have to park in the city overnight though so they can move air to Gungahlin in the morning.

That’s right isn’t it JC?

Parking and maintenance is in Mitchell via a side line.

So, empty trams will leave Mitchell every morning in separate directions?

Crazy stuff.

creative_canberran10:38 pm 23 Oct 16

dungfungus said :

Maryann Mussared said :

The Civic Tram stop is currently shown as being between Rudd and Alinga Streets, but all the plans online show the track continuing to Woden, so it will go straight past the Sydney and Melbourne Buildings in the future. In the meantime, the trams have to turn around somewhere, and it looks like it will be the median space between Alinga and Northbourne. There are still too many unresolved issues.

They don’t have to turn around as they are bi-directional in operation.

They will have to park in the city overnight though so they can move air to Gungahlin in the morning.

That’s right isn’t it JC?

Parking and maintenance is in Mitchell via a side line.

dungfungus said :

Maryann Mussared said :

The Civic Tram stop is currently shown as being between Rudd and Alinga Streets, but all the plans online show the track continuing to Woden, so it will go straight past the Sydney and Melbourne Buildings in the future. In the meantime, the trams have to turn around somewhere, and it looks like it will be the median space between Alinga and Northbourne. There are still too many unresolved issues.

They don’t have to turn around as they are bi-directional in operation.

They will have to park in the city overnight though so they can move air to Gungahlin in the morning.

That’s right isn’t it JC?

Nope that’s wrong. The contracted frequency clearly shows that trams will in the am make their way from the Mitchell depot to Gungahlin before operating to the city. Then returning to Gungahlin in service.

They may not be heavily used Gungahlin bound in the am but what is the alternative and how is it different to buses that run empty and out of service from the city at the moment. In actual fact Mr Coe will be very pleased. He has a serious weed in on about the number of km’s action buses run out of service. At least the tram will run in service.

Maryann Mussared said :

The Civic Tram stop is currently shown as being between Rudd and Alinga Streets, but all the plans online show the track continuing to Woden, so it will go straight past the Sydney and Melbourne Buildings in the future. In the meantime, the trams have to turn around somewhere, and it looks like it will be the median space between Alinga and Northbourne. There are still too many unresolved issues.

They don’t have to turn around as they are bi-directional in operation.

They will have to park in the city overnight though so they can move air to Gungahlin in the morning.

That’s right isn’t it JC?

Charlotte Harper said :

What they need is a fairy godmother/godfather type person to come in and buy both buildings with a vision to turn them into the icons they the potential to be. This person or organisation would need to see it as a long term investment made partly for altruistic/historic/love for the city reasons. They would be someone who understands the potential for the arts to play a role, and who recognises the heritage value of the sites.
I can think of three such organisations in Canberra off the top of my head.
You know who you are, people! Here’s a challenge for you, and one with fantastic potential given the lift light rail will give to the area. I’m picturing Degraves St-style laneways in the courtyards, music streaming out of studios on the top floor, and cafe strips to rival Lonsdale St.
These buildings should be Canberra’s answer to the Queen Victoria Building in Sydney, with somewhere – perhaps on the rooftop – to have High Tea and somewhere to learn about what Canberra was like in the 1920s featured. There is so much potential! I think perhaps I might have to write a follow up to Maryann’s piece.

Terry? Terr-y!!!!!

Is the “colon irrigator” sculpture one of the ones there? It can go outside the LA, please!

Maryann Mussared said :

The Civic Tram stop is currently shown as being between Rudd and Alinga Streets, but all the plans online show the track continuing to Woden, so it will go straight past the Sydney and Melbourne Buildings in the future. In the meantime, the trams have to turn around somewhere, and it looks like it will be the median space between Alinga and Northbourne. There are still too many unresolved issues.

What are these unresolved issues? The published plans were pretty detailed.

And most trams including the ones we are getting are doubled ended so don’t need to turn around. They driver just changes ends at the terminus.

Maryann Mussared4:52 pm 23 Oct 16

The Civic Tram stop is currently shown as being between Rudd and Alinga Streets, but all the plans online show the track continuing to Woden, so it will go straight past the Sydney and Melbourne Buildings in the future. In the meantime, the trams have to turn around somewhere, and it looks like it will be the median space between Alinga and Northbourne. There are still too many unresolved issues.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

aussielyn said :

I believe that owners of heritage buildings should be given an incentive to maintain & conserve them. They should be given a discount on their rates if they spend money, maintaining & conserving the heritage elements of buildings. The Planning Institute of Australia in a submission to a 2005 Productivity Commission review of heritage wrote “5. Various tax incentives should be put in place for the repair/maintenance of heritage places to encourage, and practically support, their conservation.”
Maintenance & conservation of heritage properties is very expensive, maybe double the cost. Finding tradesmen with artisan skills of the past is difficult.

ACT treasury will be horrified by this suggestion as it will mean less revenue. Heritage Ministers only turns up for the Heritage Week and awards.

So the tram adjacent these buildings is not going to reap the benefits of “land value capture”, but instead will create a black hole into which government funds will disappear, in the form of heritage funding, tax incentives, business startup grants and such? I though the tram was supposed to make the area improve it’s revenue stream, not destroy it.

The light rail is stopping the next block down! So not adjacent.

…… unless the brakes fail.

Trams generally have 3 seperate braking systems withnlast resort being magnetic track brakes that would bring a tram to a stop in a heartbeat. So wouldn’t be too worried.

I’m not worried – I won’t be riding on it anyway.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

aussielyn said :

I believe that owners of heritage buildings should be given an incentive to maintain & conserve them. They should be given a discount on their rates if they spend money, maintaining & conserving the heritage elements of buildings. The Planning Institute of Australia in a submission to a 2005 Productivity Commission review of heritage wrote “5. Various tax incentives should be put in place for the repair/maintenance of heritage places to encourage, and practically support, their conservation.”
Maintenance & conservation of heritage properties is very expensive, maybe double the cost. Finding tradesmen with artisan skills of the past is difficult.

ACT treasury will be horrified by this suggestion as it will mean less revenue. Heritage Ministers only turns up for the Heritage Week and awards.

So the tram adjacent these buildings is not going to reap the benefits of “land value capture”, but instead will create a black hole into which government funds will disappear, in the form of heritage funding, tax incentives, business startup grants and such? I though the tram was supposed to make the area improve it’s revenue stream, not destroy it.

The light rail is stopping the next block down! So not adjacent.

…… unless the brakes fail.

Trams generally have 3 seperate braking systems withnlast resort being magnetic track brakes that would bring a tram to a stop in a heartbeat. So wouldn’t be too worried.

JC said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

aussielyn said :

I believe that owners of heritage buildings should be given an incentive to maintain & conserve them. They should be given a discount on their rates if they spend money, maintaining & conserving the heritage elements of buildings. The Planning Institute of Australia in a submission to a 2005 Productivity Commission review of heritage wrote “5. Various tax incentives should be put in place for the repair/maintenance of heritage places to encourage, and practically support, their conservation.”
Maintenance & conservation of heritage properties is very expensive, maybe double the cost. Finding tradesmen with artisan skills of the past is difficult.

ACT treasury will be horrified by this suggestion as it will mean less revenue. Heritage Ministers only turns up for the Heritage Week and awards.

So the tram adjacent these buildings is not going to reap the benefits of “land value capture”, but instead will create a black hole into which government funds will disappear, in the form of heritage funding, tax incentives, business startup grants and such? I though the tram was supposed to make the area improve it’s revenue stream, not destroy it.

The light rail is stopping the next block down! So not adjacent.

…… unless the brakes fail.

wildturkeycanoe said :

aussielyn said :

I believe that owners of heritage buildings should be given an incentive to maintain & conserve them. They should be given a discount on their rates if they spend money, maintaining & conserving the heritage elements of buildings. The Planning Institute of Australia in a submission to a 2005 Productivity Commission review of heritage wrote “5. Various tax incentives should be put in place for the repair/maintenance of heritage places to encourage, and practically support, their conservation.”
Maintenance & conservation of heritage properties is very expensive, maybe double the cost. Finding tradesmen with artisan skills of the past is difficult.

ACT treasury will be horrified by this suggestion as it will mean less revenue. Heritage Ministers only turns up for the Heritage Week and awards.

So the tram adjacent these buildings is not going to reap the benefits of “land value capture”, but instead will create a black hole into which government funds will disappear, in the form of heritage funding, tax incentives, business startup grants and such? I though the tram was supposed to make the area improve it’s revenue stream, not destroy it.

The light rail is stopping the next block down! So not adjacent.

creative_canberran5:08 pm 22 Oct 16

wildturkeycanoe said :

That reminds me of another issue with the structures, asbestos. There is probably a tonne of it in there, which will also hamper any renovation work and make it more expensive to approach.

May not as big of an issue as you might think. The building is so old that it would predate the very wide use of asbestos.

So the bones of the building in that respect are good. Don’t forget they’ve converted the upstairs of the Melbourne building into a hotel, so significant remediation clearly isn’t a big deal. And both buildings have been burnt a number of times, the bones withstood it and they’ve refitted them to correct the damage.

There would be a bit to do though. A lot of fitouts done over the decades would introduce asbestos, in kitchens and windows. Fire proofing would be a big thing if its been added, that limpet introduces a lot of brown asbestos. Age of the building means it’s certain there would be high level lead paint. Electrics would need to be replaced to get rid of PCbs.

wildturkeycanoe12:51 pm 22 Oct 16

aussielyn said :

I believe that owners of heritage buildings should be given an incentive to maintain & conserve them. They should be given a discount on their rates if they spend money, maintaining & conserving the heritage elements of buildings. The Planning Institute of Australia in a submission to a 2005 Productivity Commission review of heritage wrote “5. Various tax incentives should be put in place for the repair/maintenance of heritage places to encourage, and practically support, their conservation.”
Maintenance & conservation of heritage properties is very expensive, maybe double the cost. Finding tradesmen with artisan skills of the past is difficult.

ACT treasury will be horrified by this suggestion as it will mean less revenue. Heritage Ministers only turns up for the Heritage Week and awards.

So the tram adjacent these buildings is not going to reap the benefits of “land value capture”, but instead will create a black hole into which government funds will disappear, in the form of heritage funding, tax incentives, business startup grants and such? I though the tram was supposed to make the area improve it’s revenue stream, not destroy it.

I have given a lot of thought to the maintenance & conservation of heritage buildings it has been given publicity because of the demolition of the Corkman Irish Pub in Melbourne.
Landlords are notoriously reluctant to spend money on maintenance as they prefer to squeeze tenants as far as they can. The power of the Property Council over the ACT Govt is enormous; a rep is on the Heritage Council. They could slow investment in the ACT if the ACT Govt forced them to spend money.
I believe that owners of heritage buildings should be given an incentive to maintain & conserve them. They should be given a discount on their rates if they spend money, maintaining & conserving the heritage elements of buildings. The Planning Institute of Australia in a submission to a 2005 Productivity Commission review of heritage wrote “5. Various tax incentives should be put in place for the repair/maintenance of heritage places to encourage, and practically support, their conservation.”
Maintenance & conservation of heritage properties is very expensive, maybe double the cost. Finding tradesmen with artisan skills of the past is difficult.

ACT treasury will be horrified by this suggestion as it will mean less revenue. Heritage Ministers only turns up for the Heritage Week and awards.
I look forward to your future article Charlotte; your thoughts on adaptive re-use of the Melbourne & Sydney buildings were innovative.

wildturkeycanoe7:34 am 22 Oct 16

From the OP – “The buildings could then be re-leased with a very specific purpose and shared vision for a new precinct worthy of a capital city: galleries; cafes; bistros with live music; flower stalls; and artist studios.”
In what world would a flower shop, gallery or art studio be able to make enough money to pay the rent, let alone fork out for expensive restoration of the facade? You need to have a business with a lot of turnover to pay premium rental in the central hub of the city. There is already a flower shop just a block away for competition anyway.
Another point not being made is that because of the heritage value of the building, there are limits and guidelines on what you can and can’t do to the place, restricting your freedom to design your premises the way you want. I’m also sure that on top of the high rental prices being asked, insurance will not be cheap because insurers know the huge costs of replacing or repairing such an old building should anything happen – remember the fire a few years ago in the Sydney Building?
That reminds me of another issue with the structures, asbestos. There is probably a tonne of it in there, which will also hamper any renovation work and make it more expensive to approach. There is simply nothing promising about setting up a business there except for location, but that alone may not be enough as evidenced by the empty shops for lease.

creative_canberran1:28 am 22 Oct 16

HiddenDragon said :

“Although the buildings are listed on the ACT Heritage Register, this only protects the heritage value of the place, but does also suggest a need to prepare a conservation management plan”

The most realistic longer-term option might be to do what has happened with older buildings in other cities – keep the facade at street level and a storey, or two, up from street level and build a modern, multi-storey building above that.

GPO and Treasury buildings in Sydney are wonderful examples of that. But those fit with the character of the city. You couldn’t really add height to these buildings. But I think something like the QVB could work. Gut the innards, maybe fill in the alley ways, make them a unified structure. And they’re actually planning something like that for the Sydney building, or at least were. Plans were announced, not sure where it’s at.

creative_canberran1:26 am 22 Oct 16

I know the thought of public money being used to bring the aesthetics of these buildings up to standard is unpalatable, but these are gateway buildings. We should take a bit of pride in this city.

But there’s also another factor. Compare the two buildings and you see the Melbourne Building is in far better condition. Good upkeep, unified branding, and a strong theme to the stores. The quiet side is the one that faces Northbourne which also had an adult shop formerly (what a planning stuff up that was).

The Melbourne Building helps to explain why the Sydney Building is in such trouble. It’s surrounded by heavy traffic on all sides, with the bus interchange destroying the character of two sides. Now that is the government’s fault. Plans were originally to put the City Bus Interchange across the road in a dedicated structure. Instead they got lazy, didn’t want to make the investment, plonked it where it is now.

Now I know you’re thinking, well the interchange brings in potential customers, it should be a plus. But the City Interchange is no Circular Quay, it’s not even like Southern Cross Station. People spend as little time there as possible. So in a way government splashing out for a splash of paint is making up for their own planning mistakes.

HiddenDragon5:58 pm 21 Oct 16

“Although the buildings are listed on the ACT Heritage Register, this only protects the heritage value of the place, but does also suggest a need to prepare a conservation management plan”

The most realistic longer-term option might be to do what has happened with older buildings in other cities – keep the facade at street level and a storey, or two, up from street level and build a modern, multi-storey building above that.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Can you force people to renovate their properties just for aesthetics?

If you read the legislation on land leases it stipulates you must maintain your building and if you do not the government can enter your property, make the repairs and recover costs.

Boo hoo to the owners. They should be forced to maintain the building to a heritage standard. If they can not afford it, they will have sell to the building.

The market value of commercial property is based on the investment return. If the owners did not factor in the maintenance costs and thus paid too much, that is their problem, and not the taxpayers.

The government should force a resolution. They should issue a repair order. If the order is not complied with make the repairs and seek costs. If the costs are not paid seek a court order to sell the building or cancel the land lease.

justin heywood4:36 pm 21 Oct 16

wildturkeycanoe said :

So now the government needs to step in and spend money upkeeping privately owned buildings?… .

Yes, in this case I think they should. These buildings are the face of Canberra.

It’s surely the role of the government to keep the city looking attractive and well maintained. They’re attractive and iconic buildings – they COULD look great, but they are looking pretty sad at the moment.

With a myriad of small leaseholders, it is unlikely there will be any change unless there is an external incentive or requirement to do so.

Charlotte Harper said :

What they need is a fairy godmother/godfather type person to come in and buy both buildings with a vision to turn them into the icons they the potential to be. This person or organisation would need to see it as a long term investment made partly for altruistic/historic/love for the city reasons. They would be someone who understands the potential for the arts to play a role, and who recognises the heritage value of the sites.
I can think of three such organisations in Canberra off the top of my head.
You know who you are, people! Here’s a challenge for you, and one with fantastic potential given the lift light rail will give to the area. I’m picturing Degraves St-style laneways in the courtyards, music streaming out of studios on the top floor, and cafe strips to rival Lonsdale St.
These buildings should be Canberra’s answer to the Queen Victoria Building in Sydney, with somewhere – perhaps on the rooftop – to have High Tea and somewhere to learn about what Canberra was like in the 1920s featured. There is so much potential! I think perhaps I might have to write a follow up to Maryann’s piece.

The “fairy-godmother person” could also do what Adelaide is doing:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-21/pride-walk-adelaide-feast-festival-rainbow-pathway/7953524

Charlotte Harper11:57 am 21 Oct 16

What they need is a fairy godmother/godfather type person to come in and buy both buildings with a vision to turn them into the icons they the potential to be. This person or organisation would need to see it as a long term investment made partly for altruistic/historic/love for the city reasons. They would be someone who understands the potential for the arts to play a role, and who recognises the heritage value of the sites.
I can think of three such organisations in Canberra off the top of my head.
You know who you are, people! Here’s a challenge for you, and one with fantastic potential given the lift light rail will give to the area. I’m picturing Degraves St-style laneways in the courtyards, music streaming out of studios on the top floor, and cafe strips to rival Lonsdale St.
These buildings should be Canberra’s answer to the Queen Victoria Building in Sydney, with somewhere – perhaps on the rooftop – to have High Tea and somewhere to learn about what Canberra was like in the 1920s featured. There is so much potential! I think perhaps I might have to write a follow up to Maryann’s piece.

LOL post. The Greens made a heritage election commitment which included giving these private businesses $500,000 to paint their own Sydney/Melbourne building premises and make them look nice. What a joke.

But if the ACT Heritage Council wanted to, it can simply issue a remediation notice on the owners, and force them to do it out of their own pockets. No outrageous subsidy required.

wildturkeycanoe7:55 am 21 Oct 16

So now the government needs to step in and spend money upkeeping privately owned buildings, just because they are in Civic? How about the rest of Gareema Place? What about the dilapidated state of Dickson shops, which are also on the tram journey?
Taxpayer dollars can’t even keep our roads in one piece or public housing maintained. Just because something looks old and run down, doesn’t mean we need to throw public money at it. Sure it is the first thing people will see after disembarking, but they remain in private ownership and not for us to fund the upkeep for.
Can you force people to renovate their properties just for aesthetics? If so and this sets a precedent for the rest of Canberra, where does it end? Do we get building inspectors issuing repair orders for poorly maintained homes?
What if the century old timber is rotten and needs replacing, the render crumbles upon touch and structural beams no longer provide support? If forced repair costs go into the hundreds of thousands and bankrupt the owner, what then?
As nice as it might sound to give the place a lick of paint, the costs would flow to the tenants and probably shut them down. They might look nice but become empty, useless relics.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.