Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Charity and fundraising auctions for the Canberra community

Turner not heritage listed

By Barcham - 31 July 2013 36

The Turner Residents Association were hoping to get a selection of housing blocks in Turner to be added to the ACT Heritage Register, but were shot down by ACT Heritage Council and its chairman Duncan Marshall reports ABC News.

“There’s been a lot of change,” he said.

“Particularly in one of the sections where a lot of the houses have been redeveloped so it’s lost that integrity.

“The council decided that were many better and earlier examples of garden city planning in Canberra.”

The motivation behind getting Turner on the Heritage Register may be less about preserving history and more about some Turner residents not wanting apartments built in their area.

A spokeswoman for the Turner Residents Association, Nicola Watson says that they’ll be launching an appeal.

“We feel that the streets and the surrounding area are now being completely overdeveloped, there’s just endless apartments,” she said.

“We felt that this was a particularly beautiful area and that needed to be preserved for families and future generations.

“I get the feeling that in some ways this is a political decision.

“There’s a lot of pressure at the moment from developers to go ahead with developments, pressure on the Government, pressure on the Heritage Council perhaps.”

Marshall denies that this was a political decision, and claims that even if the suburb were heritage listed that would not mean a blanket ban on development.

Any Rioters live in Turner? Do you think any of the blocks there need to be heritage listed, or is this just another case of Nimby-ism?

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
36 Responses to
Turner not heritage listed
chilli 12:05 am 01 Aug 13

Dunno Barcham; one person’s brave fight to preserve his house against crushing government and commercial forces is another person’s NIMBY ratbag.

I think it’s interesting though that so-called NIMBY’s are derided as ‘selfish’. If your land is rezoned as for redevelopment then you stand to make a lot of money. It doesn’t make a lot of sense for people to oppose it – in fact, it seems they are arguing against their own self interest when they oppose it. If they were really ‘selfish’ they would be arguing for 26 stories to be allowed on their block and to hell with anyone else’s views or access or amenity.

But instead they are arguing against their own financial self interest and, in this case in Turner anyway, for a really lovely area that’s full of young families to be preserved because it’s uniquely Canberran in it’s aesthetics and represents a very significant period of Canberra’s history and development.

I remember in the 1970s the NSW Govt and developers wanted to flatten the Rocks area in Sydney, as well as areas like Paddington and Surry Hills. “NIMBYs” and unionists (with their Green Bans) saved those areas. Maybe a good thing, yes?

chilli 11:32 pm 31 Jul 13

slashdot said :

Thumper said :

And once again the lure of the dollar takes precedent over social/ cultural/ architectural history and Canberra loses in the long run.

One day we will look back and ponder why there are no charming old buildings in inner Canberra. And Canberra, a city with precious little history, built or otherwise, will be all the poorer for it.

And yet the lack of high density housing in the inner city is preventing public transport from being more effective.

I thought ACTION buses were preventing public transport from being more effective.

BTW, plenty of apartments in Turner to buy (~40) or rent (~70). But as a lot of residents here tend to walk or cycle I guess the buses may be losing out a little …

Crazed_Loner 10:49 pm 31 Jul 13

Tetranitrate said :

Thumper said :

And once again the lure of the dollar takes precedent over social/ cultural/ architectural history and Canberra loses in the long run.

And as JB noted, the inner north is already subject to hideous rendered monstrousities that completely destroy the charm of the area.

One day we will look back and ponder why there are no charming old buildings in inner Canberra. And Canberra, a city with precious little history, built or otherwise, will be all the poorer for it.

Let’s not forget that a lot of these ‘charming’ buildings are ancient, un-insulated weatherboard dumps that exist only because they can still be rented out to uni-students at $150+/bedroom/week regardless of how run down they are. Can’t last forever though.

Some of the newish knockdown rebuilds are indeed hideous, but much of the housing built early on was never really meant to last this long and will inevitably be replaced. The mighty dollar will drive that process, especially if/when we see a prolonged softening of the rental market.

All the houses in question are double-brick, know-all. A number have even been sympathetically altered already. This is about preserving the almost intact, coherent character of one Section of Turner, not much to ask really.

Crazed_Loner 10:34 pm 31 Jul 13

A_Cog said :

I’m glad that the shrill, shreiking hysteria of these selfish little NIMBY clowns has been trumped by common sense.

In a number of suburbs, heritage listing applications have been abused by selfish NIMBY-flucks who want to freeze their suburbs in 1956 and stop anything from changing. They nominate an area to the heritage council, but also mobilise a local support base – sometimes as little as 5% of the local residents, and the heritage council ‘provisionally registers’ the suburb/part/street/building. Provisional registration can drag on for more than a decade, with no decision reached.

Meanwhile, any resident who wants to renovate their home (add a storey/room for a growing family) are prevented from doing so by the much more restrictive rules that apply to renovating a home which has not even been determined to be heritage, just provisionally registered pending a decision. It is a gaping loophole in the Act which should be closed, and some of the more ridiculous clauses of heritage shoudl be removed.

And how unfair that a small pack of geriatric flucks, with endless time on their hands, can dictate to the other 95% of residents what they can and cannot do with their own homes.

Yeah ISCCC , I’m looking at YOU!

Your offensiveness is only exceeded by your ignorance. This is not about preventing alterations or even knock-down rebuilds (which have already occurred on the adjoining Section) but the irrevocable alteration to the fabric of the street and Section.

Oh that’s right, I’m talking about the proposed imposition of ten one-bedroom shoe-box style (slum) units on a single, visually dominating site within this family-oriented environment and streetscape. It will result in almost a doubling of traffic movements in one fell swoop. This is no less than barbarism. And, for your information, the street has undergone an almost complete regeneration with new families and their children moving in. People have actually moved here because of the park character – the parks within Holder Street or those facing green space such as Haig Park.

But don’t let me stop you shooting off your mouth to justify your preconceived biases. “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” So goes it with Canberra.

unclebill 3:28 pm 31 Jul 13

There is a meeting about the Northbourne flats redevelopment on Monday at Havelock House from 5pm till 6pm.

slashdot 2:12 pm 31 Jul 13

Thumper said :

And once again the lure of the dollar takes precedent over social/ cultural/ architectural history and Canberra loses in the long run.

One day we will look back and ponder why there are no charming old buildings in inner Canberra. And Canberra, a city with precious little history, built or otherwise, will be all the poorer for it.

And yet the lack of high density housing in the inner city is preventing public transport from being more effective.

A_Cog 1:12 pm 31 Jul 13

I’m glad that the shrill, shreiking hysteria of these selfish little NIMBY clowns has been trumped by common sense.

In a number of suburbs, heritage listing applications have been abused by selfish NIMBY-flucks who want to freeze their suburbs in 1956 and stop anything from changing. They nominate an area to the heritage council, but also mobilise a local support base – sometimes as little as 5% of the local residents, and the heritage council ‘provisionally registers’ the suburb/part/street/building. Provisional registration can drag on for more than a decade, with no decision reached.

Meanwhile, any resident who wants to renovate their home (add a storey/room for a growing family) are prevented from doing so by the much more restrictive rules that apply to renovating a home which has not even been determined to be heritage, just provisionally registered pending a decision. It is a gaping loophole in the Act which should be closed, and some of the more ridiculous clauses of heritage shoudl be removed.

And how unfair that a small pack of geriatric flucks, with endless time on their hands, can dictate to the other 95% of residents what they can and cannot do with their own homes.

Yeah ISCCC , I’m looking at YOU!

IrishPete 11:59 am 31 Jul 13

Thumper said :

johnboy said :

Never had to prepare a heritage plan then IP?

Conservation plan JB. I’ve done quite a few, but that was a long time ago 🙂

And IP is correct. They really don’t provide protection. The government of the day can still bulldoze the place if they wish. What the conservation plan does is ensure that it is not altered in too radical a way that it takes away from the original building and grounds, as such it retains it historical integrity.

Sadly, governments can slap heritage orders on anything they like and then flog them off later if they so wish.

Unlike the UK, we have little regard for our heritage.

Thanks for answering for me. And hear hear in relation to UK heritage. They have so much of it, and yet they still value it. Oz has so little post-settlement heritage, and gives it little protection.

IP

Holden Caulfield 11:03 am 31 Jul 13

Thumper said :

One day we will look back and ponder why there are no charming old buildings in inner Canberra. And Canberra, a city with precious little history, built or otherwise, will be all the poorer for it.

I tend to agree with this position and I also dislike some knockdown rebuilds in our older suburbs.

However, these old inefficient houses are people’s homes and someone has to live in the often uncomfortable conditions they offer.

Some development is inevitable, the trick is finding a right balance, which is hard.

Take for example the Harry Seidler house that was knocked down on Yapunyah Street in O’Connor. It was a lovely house that was typical of Seidler’s work, on the outside at least.

But I expect it was cold and not well suited to what people expect from a house today. While I will always regret that it was knocked down the only alternative that I can see was for a private individual to buy it and maintain it. In effect it needed a private patron to ensure Seidler’s legacy was not lost.

Sadly, that’s not a very realistic option.

Tetranitrate 10:47 am 31 Jul 13

Thumper said :

And once again the lure of the dollar takes precedent over social/ cultural/ architectural history and Canberra loses in the long run.

And as JB noted, the inner north is already subject to hideous rendered monstrousities that completely destroy the charm of the area.

One day we will look back and ponder why there are no charming old buildings in inner Canberra. And Canberra, a city with precious little history, built or otherwise, will be all the poorer for it.

Let’s not forget that a lot of these ‘charming’ buildings are ancient, un-insulated weatherboard dumps that exist only because they can still be rented out to uni-students at $150+/bedroom/week regardless of how run down they are. Can’t last forever though.

Some of the newish knockdown rebuilds are indeed hideous, but much of the housing built early on was never really meant to last this long and will inevitably be replaced. The mighty dollar will drive that process, especially if/when we see a prolonged softening of the rental market.

Thumper 10:28 am 31 Jul 13

johnboy said :

Never had to prepare a heritage plan then IP?

Conservation plan JB. I’ve done quite a few, but that was a long time ago 🙂

And IP is correct. They really don’t provide protection. The government of the day can still bulldoze the place if they wish. What the conservation plan does is ensure that it is not altered in too radical a way that it takes away from the original building and grounds, as such it retains it historical integrity.

Sadly, governments can slap heritage orders on anything they like and then flog them off later if they so wish.

Unlike the UK, we have little regard for our heritage.

Thumper 10:24 am 31 Jul 13

And once again the lure of the dollar takes precedent over social/ cultural/ architectural history and Canberra loses in the long run.

And as JB noted, the inner north is already subject to hideous rendered monstrousities that completely destroy the charm of the area.

One day we will look back and ponder why there are no charming old buildings in inner Canberra. And Canberra, a city with precious little history, built or otherwise, will be all the poorer for it.

johnboy 10:23 am 31 Jul 13

Never had to prepare a heritage plan then IP?

IrishPete 10:15 am 31 Jul 13

johnboy said :

It’s a tough one.

I despise the hideous knockdown rebuilds plaguing the inner north.

On the other hand the Turner Residents Association members are free to keep their houses anyway they like.

until they die, move away, or are bought out by someone with an offer they can’t refuse. Heritage listing provides little protection anyway, so it doesn’t do a lot of harm to put it in place. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-26/storm-in-a-country-tea-cup/4847320

IP

johnboy 9:58 am 31 Jul 13

It’s a tough one.

I despise the hideous knockdown rebuilds plaguing the inner north.

On the other hand the Turner Residents Association members are free to keep their houses anyway they like.

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site