Thursday, 14 May 2015

Heritage and Gentrification (by Charles Wood)

 
In Melbourne the changing face of the city is increasingly a contentious issue, especially considering the exponential influx of city dwellers, putting further demands on the urban landscape. It’s the fastest growing city in Australia with around 100,000 new inhabitants a year (ABS, 2014) and policies on the preservation and character of the streets that make up Melbourne are as important now as they were when then population hiked with swathes of immigrants from Europe after the war.
 
During this time modern forms or architecture were flourishing and Henry Bolte, the Victorian Premier, saw the opportunity to re-energize the state with new buildings. There was a widely shared opinion that older structures only retained value if they were being fully engaged with by the public, with complete disregard thrown to their aesthetics. This enthusiasm for modernism led many to believe that new buildings were always the answer and that new practices allowed the betterment of the streets in every case. It is worth recognising the desires of the community at this time and realising that it was part of a cycle of fashion and style tastes, which invariably change constantly. However in this circumstance there was such certainty in the style of the time that the demolition of the fabric of the city was celebrated, the presence of Whelan the Wrecker (the demolition company) filled the people with joy; heritage was virtually non-existent.
 
Many schemes were drawn up to reform suburbs and introduce masses of social housing. Height limits were drastically increased and the city began to get taller. In one case there was a plan to demolish the entire stock of terrace housing in Paddington (Sydney) and replace the whole suburb with new large-scale housing. There’s a case to be made that many of the Australian citizens saw Australia as a modern, young nation and that they had to continue to keep up with the times to represent what they stood for as a country, almost to give nationalism to the country; a sense of pride to the people. However ironically, whilst many where still searching for this uniqueness as a state, this radical change in planning gave realisation of the underlying heritage values within the city. As Graeme Davison (2006) points out in his book ‘The view from the Palisade Hotel’ many people continued to question the distinctive features of where they lived, although it wasn’t until the settlement of immigrants in the 60s and 70s that they began to realise their inherent qualities. The immigrants massively favoured the old Victorian terrace houses, with the cast iron work and the suburban lifestyle that came with it. They wrote books promoting the terrace house such as ‘Let’s Buy a Terrace House’ by Rob Hillier and after the tragic defacing of Collins Street, during the demolition years, sought to restore many of these wrecked homes once realising their preserved worth. Previous ideas on buildings began to change, such as the Exhibition Building in Carlton Gardens being seen as ‘redundant’, where it was noticeably symbolic of the International festivals taking place towards the end of the 19th century. Or Flinders street station, once proclaimed an eyesore was now starting to be appreciated in its representation of Australian history. This led to the Whitlam government to begin to put in legislation to protect and preserve significant buildings and stop the terrible wrecking of landmark structures from ever happening again.
 
Another example of government intervening to protect the heritage of the city is when the Hamer government restricted the number of freeways due to be built around Melbourne, he bought in ‘green wedges’, which saved the suburbs from being harmed by easements cutting across them as had happened with the Tullamarine freeway and Moonee Ponds. This kind of act shows foresight as at the time provision of more road accessibility seems like a good idea to increase mobility however its abolition has allowed the preservation of valuable communities either side of Merri creek and restricted the detrimental impact that excessive use of the automobile has on society.   
 
The suburbs of Fitzroy and Carlton are also a great example of immigrants coming in and recognising the worth of the area, something unanimous with its gentrification as a suburb. As mentioned in Howe, Nichols & Davison (2014, p.161) both Carlton and Fitzroy went through this cycle of being a favoured place to live, they suddenly became unfashionable and ‘people looked down their noses at Victorian houses and passed through the inner suburbs,’ leading to the occupancy of poorer families. Consequently new cultures settled in these suburbs considered ‘slums’ when they moved to Melbourne and as Nichols (2015) examined in his lecture, they began the process of gentrification. These creative classes came in with their bohemian lifestyles and over time gave rise to the extremely valuable real estate through the individual character they created.
 
Currently challenges and changes are still being dealt with, mainly due to the pressure and strains the growing population puts on the city. ‘Melbourne 2030’ was a policy adopted by the state government in the previous decade, which has severely affected the heritage and character of an area through its ultimate aim of consolidating the city. The theme seems to ignore or be oblivious to qualities that make Australian cities stand out with their suburban sprawl and emphasis on the outdoors, by trying to conform the city to an international model. This has led to power being taken away from local councils and given to authorities at state level, there are many examples of developments being given approval across Melbourne against the will of the locals, upsetting the make up of a community and devaluing its character.   
 
In conclusion we need to be fairly holistic in our approach to protecting the environments that we live in, it’s no use constantly reshaping the urban area as it leads to a streetscape were buildings are perceived to have been preserved yet simply look out of place. More power should be given at a local level to the development of communities in order to maintain their qualities and character, with their knowledge of the suburbs being greater than anyone else’s.      
 
 

No comments:

Post a Comment