Heritage protection examples

[Sorontar]

Not sure if this should really be in Historical or Metaphysical.

Many countries, states and territories have heritage protection of sorts to prevent demolition of architectural or landscaping of cultural significance. For some areas, this may be buildings that are 500 years old. In others, protection may be granted to 50 year old buildings. There will often be debate about whether society will benefit more from trying to find someone top spend the money to maintain buildings that no longer have a profitable function versus redeveloping them to modern needs.

This thread is for examples in the press or otherwise of heritage needs for larger scale constructions, like gardens, buildings, and bridges. It is not about antiques or vehicles or other portable items as they don't normally get treated in the same way by laws.   

While discussion of the pros and cons of preserving each example are allowed, as are discussions on how the preservation/protection may be achieved or enforcd, you are reminded that debate about modern political interests is not part of the BG forum.

Sorontar

[Sorontar]

Let's start this one off with an article about heritage protection in the state of Queensland, Australia. Hopefully many of you can read this article from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) -
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-01/queensland-heritage-law-the-broadway-hotel-lamb-house/101803776

Basically the issue is whereabouts heritage protection fits in if a developer wants to change a building and whether it can force a building's owner to spend money to maintain a protected building. There are some nice photos of example 19th C buildings in QLD. 

Sorontar

[Madasasteamfish]

As someone who works in heritage (specifically caring for historic houses) IRL this is of particular interest to me on a personal level, and there is an ongoing debate as to what should qualify and why.

Although I don't have any specific examples, here in the UK there is a system of 'Listing' Historic buildings and or landscapes for various reasons (such as their historic, artistic and or cultural significance), which then provides them with differing levels of protection under law.

Although I'm sure someone else is more knowledgable than myself about how the system works, generally a building is 'listed' as "Grade I", or "Grade II" (with or without stars) that dictate what can be done and by whom. The most stringent level of protection means NOTHING can be done to alter them at all, and any and all work carried out has to be to done in the original style (using the same methods) by approved contractors, whilst other levels only restrict changes to the interior, exterior of the building and or require permissions from relevant bodies before work can begin. The penalities for breaching these laws are usually quite severe (IIRC fines start in the six figure range, and also require the wrongdoer to pay for any corrective work to be carried out).

[James Harrison]

Not quite correct, the listing system is perhaps better viewed as simply an additional layer of planning control that a development has to negotiate.  It's not something that serves to preserve a building for evermore (I think the French have something like that, but the name of it eludes me at the moment). 

The listing system is basically a means of identifying which buildings are of significance (whether historical or architectural or social) and then seeks to control their development subsequent to that significance being acknowledged. 

That said, yes it is very rarely that Grade II* or Grade I buildings are demolished (or even massively redeveloped) intentionally- any that are lost it's more usually to accidents such as fire (see for instance the Glasgow School of Art or Clanden Park). 

[Sorontar]

My Aussie state is made up of councils from cities and shires. Each of them can place heritage restrictions on areas, and town planning will take that into consideration when reviewing plans for renovations/demolitions. At the state level, there is a heritage registry that supersedes the council bylaws. The state can also approve major projects/make laws about planning approval that also supersede the council bylaws. Sometimes this means that the council wants to protect a building but the state government wants to approve change. These normally end up with a court deciding. I think there is also a federal heritage registry that supercedes the state laws and decisions. Until recently (in the last decade), the problem was what to do if a developer makes a demolition without approval, or refuses to maintain a building so that eventually demolition is the only option. New laws and penalties were put in place when a historic hotel was demolished without approval (and the developers couldn't/wouldn't rebuild it). As the article points out for QLD, forcing owners to maintain a building is harder to do.

We have an independent heritage body called the National Trust who often takes over the management and sometimes ownership of old buildings but that is a charity, not an official body, so they are often at odds with the states on what should be on the registry.

Sorontar

[James Harrison]

The UK system is a bit convoluted (bare with me).

Broadly;

- Everything pre-1700(ish) is listed at some level on grounds of age and consequent rarity of survival;
- A lot of buildings between 1700 and 1900 are listed at some level, but the criteria is greater than 'it's old and therefore needs protection';
- A fair number of early 20th Century buildings are listed (up to about the 1930s), it's unusual to list anything earlier than that. 
- That said, there are a few buildings that are as recent as the 1970s and 1980s that have been listed.

The reasons why more modern buildings aren't listed is quite easy to see; austerity architecture of the late 1940s and 1950s is still extant in abundance, the Brutalist school of thought of the 1960s and 70s has its enthusiasts but isn't particularly seen as picturesque, and the Post Modern movement of the 1980s and 90s is still seen as being practically just yesterday and therefore not yet historic. 

In terms of the listing process;

- Some Local Authorities still maintain their own independent lists of structures of significance, though that's not required by central government any more. 
- The national lists are compiled and maintained by Historic England, Historic Scotland and CADW (the government heritage bodies of England, Scotland and Wales respectively);
- Anybody can approach the above organisations and suggest a building to be worthy of listing.
- If the relevant government body agrees that a suggested building is eligible for listing, they put together a case and then present it to the Government department (I believe this is currently known as the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport) and it's either the Secretary of State or an appointed civil servant who makes the decision.  Of course this being a democratic process the whole thing is publicised and if somebody doesn't want the building listed then we're in the realm of public inquiries and the like.

[Sorontar]

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-66452284

It seems that the Crooked House in the UK was sold, burnt, destroyed. Sounds like a drinking game. The locals want it rebuilt because it is heritage for them from the 1700s.

Sorontar

[Sorontar]

https://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/about-council/news-and-media/boroondara-news/push-rebuild-heritage-listed-home-after-arson

"After a heritage-listed Canterbury house was gutted in an arson attack, Councillors have voted to take the strongest action possible to protect the home's remains and prevent illegal destruction of heritage-listed property in Boroondara.

The 118-year-old Mangarra Road house, called Shenley Croft, was set alight in December 2023. It is included in Boroondara's Heritage Overlay, which intends to protect it from inappropriate development and demolition. The property's Statement of Significance described it as a 'fine and substantially intact example of a large timber Edwardian residence in the Queen Anne style'."

[Sir Henry]

Before the arson attack, had it been bought by a property developer, by any chance?

It's surprising how often that happens (see the Crooked House pub story last year).

[Sorontar]

The suburb of Canterbury is upper class territory. An article said it was listed at $AUD 3.9 million to $AUD 4.1 million (https://www.urban.com.au/news/canterbury-edwardian-villa-shenley-croft-listed-for-sale) but apparently it was actually auctioned for $AUD 3.1 million in Dec 2019 (that's about $USD 2 million or GBP1.6 million). You pay for the land, not the building. Developers aren't likely to buy it - owners are. However, they are then likely to knock it down and built up something new. The heritage protection is what would normally be "protecting" it. The problem is there are different levels of heritage protection. The council overlay is not the strongest.

Here is the 2019 listing: https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-vic-canterbury-131205874

Sorontar

[mizzarrogh]

A realy nice collection of old farmhouses from this particular area where i live quite recently became an international herritage, i live in one of them, but not one on the list and it has been heavily modified in later eras, but one can still see many traces of the past.