ACT National Trust Issues List of Most at Risk Heritage Places

You might be confusing “criteria” with “Value”. The BC I’m looking at identifies aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations under Article 1.2 and values and their relationship to cultural significance are explored further at Article 5, but I can’t find any “criteria” as such.

On the other hand, the ACT Heritage Act 2004 does in fact provide criteria for assessing places for inclusion on the ACT Heritage Register. I’m guessing, but I’d suggest that someone with an understanding of sixties public architecture in Australian could come up with something against:

A)it demonstrates a high degree of technical or creative achievement (or both), by showing qualities of innovation, discovery, invention or an exceptionally fine level of application of existing techniques or approaches;

F)it is a rare or unique example of its kind, or is rare or unique in its comparative intactness;

G)it is a notable example of a kind of place or object and demonstrates the main characteristics of that kind.

Where does the Burra Charter detail criteria for for assessing significance?

While you all sneer now, your grandchildren will probably be grateful that something of historical importance was left in this town, rather than demolishing just about everything after twenty years of use

Exactly. Imagine if they just knocked down OPH. After all, we got a brand new shiny one.

Thumper did you just compare Old Parliament House with a block of flats in Lyneham? Come on mate, turn it up.

I think Meconiums comments are a strawman. It’s not about demolishing everything after 20 years of use, it’s about sensibly determining what is and what is not worth saving, and the true cost of saving it.

It wouldn’t be so bad if there was an innovate way to preserve an example of the Dickson-Lyneham flats.

I am quite partial to the approach that was taken in Melbourne for the Coops Shot Tower:

Before:
http://www.walkingmelbourne.com/building543_coops-shot-tower.html

After:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coops_%28Melbourne_Central%29_Shot_Tower
http://austtrams.tripod.com/citycircle/citycircle06.jpg
http://wikimapia.org/#lat=-37.810365&lon=144.963221&z=18&l=0&m=a&v=2

I believe a similar approach was proposed for the Sydney/Melbourne buildings in Civic several years ago but that was knocked back by the government on the basis of cost.

The flats are in a prime real estate location, and I can imagine a lot of developers are licking their lips at the prospect of putting up some James Court/The Avenue-type apartments up, and making a pile of money from those who can afford to buy them.

While one block of flats is in my opinion as valid as another, I’m glad they’ve brought to light the architectural and cultural merit of these places, because otherwise they’d be forgotten. On top of this, we’re short of public housing and developers obviously have absolutely no interest in that.

While you all sneer now, your grandchildren will probably be grateful that something of historical importance was left in this town, rather than demolishing just about everything after twenty years of use.

Is that the three blocks of flats on the left (southbound) on Northbourne Avenue? If so, I’ve been in there, they are like prison cells. Certainly not worth listing IMO !

I think that with some TLC and architectural facade work, those flats could be converted into some very nice apartments. Less residences per block, maybe just one per block for some of them?, some awnings and shade devices to break up the blockiness, replace the windows with better noise buffering glass options, and some landscaping to break up the expanses of plain grass. The open space around them would be something some people would be quite willing to pay for I think.

While I like the Space buildings, preserving some of the old flats would ensure some breaks to along Northbourne.

Those redwoods (it’s our original arboretum) are dying of some nasty tree disease. It’s a real shame as they’re old, and no one seems to know they’re out there.

It’s a difficult issue. The age of something is only one aspect of its value – so not all old stuff is significant and noit all new stuff is insignificant. I suspect that the Dickson-Lyneham Flats are probably on the list for somthing like being a good example of architectural design for that era (1950s I think). Whilst OI don’t have a lot of problems with recognising that as a value, I still doubt there’s a lot of community support for keeping them.

That said, the ongoing conservation of a place is only one response to heritage assessment – you could effect a detailed recording of the site before letting rip with the wrecking ball if those values could be retained in that way.

I can’t help but think that sometimes heritage listing goes too far.

I think because Canberra is only 80 years old we suffer from a bit of a skewed perspective. Comparing the Sydney and Melbourne buildings to the Parthenon…..well of course there is no comparison.

However that isn’t to say that buildings that have a significant historical importance for Canberra shouldn’t be protected. I hardly think that the Dickson-Lyneham flats are a good example though.