This program (https://iview.abc.net.au/video/DO1910H002S00) (Series 4, Episode 2 of Restoration Australia) looks at a sympathetic restoration of a Lyon Mid-Century Modern house built in the Melbourne suburb of Beaumaris. It also made reference to Beaumaris Modern (https://beaumarismodern.com.au/), a “non-profit organisation whose mission is to celebrate, educate and promote public awareness of the importance of preserving the mid-century architecture of Beaumaris”. The program outlines that many of the suburb’s houses are being torn down and replaced by either McMansions or by apartments and townhouses.

As such, this program shows on a micro scale the issues facing Australia (and no doubt other nations) in 2023 in regards to housing, planning rules and heritage. For me personally, it brought to mind quite a few things. For a start, I grew up in a suburb within a 30-minute drive of Beaumaris, but this is the first thing I ever heard about Beaumaris being such an important site for Mid-Century Modern housing.

I am interested in architecture now as an adult, but as a child, I thought houses came in only three styles – brand new, existing and old. I will point out I grew up before housing shows like The Block became mainstream. And of course, as a kid, houses were not something I talked about, except to notice perhaps that some of my friend’s houses had more space, a pool, or a second floor. Indeed, it took a visit to Japan to really open my eyes to the power of architecture. But the show last night made me think of the following questions:

·         Why are we not made aware of such things? Not just me, but Australians more broadly?

·         If 20% of the population are interested in architecture, and feel that it is fundamental to our culture, why isn't that belief shared by the other 80%?

·         Why is an (arguably) important cultural location like Beaumaris not recognised and celebrated?

·         Is it because we are so mobile as a nation that we don't feel a connection to place?

·         Is it because in the past 30 years, housing has become much more of an investment good than a cultural one?

·         Does this lack of interest reflect us turning in upon ourselves, and away from one another?

·         Does it run even deeper – if we live in the “eternal now”, and we don’t attach ourselves to anywhere or anything, then we don’t have to take responsibility for anything that happens (including the fact we are on Aboriginal land)? And do our existing legal and economic structures encourage this frontier mentality in migrant Australians when they arrive?

There are two sides to the issues being raised in Beaumaris, and I will honesty say that I don’t have the answers. On one side, it was very notable in the TV program that most of those arguing in favour of retaining the Mid-Century Modern Houses were those who owned them. Likewise, they were all Anglo-Saxon people, and by definition, they were all well off. This may not have accurately reflected Beaumaris back in the 1950’s and 60’s, but given the price of houses there now, you’d need a high amount of income or wealth simply to pay the land rates and taxes.

The fact that the show was broadcast on the ABC, an organisation with an aging audience and concerns around diversity, would seem to some to validate criticisms that those who hold social and economic power are the only ones interested in the idea of heritage, and then only for selfish reasons. It can be argued that heritage is used as an excuse not to allow higher levels of density, which forces housing prices up (naturally benefitting home owners in heritage areas), which forces less wealthy people away from the amenity and infrastructure available in such areas.

It really depends, I think, upon which lens we look at when examining the situation. If it’s only the economic argument, then the market would likely rapidly tear down older houses to allow for higher density. If it’s a cultural argument, then things are more evenly poised.

Our previous housing choices provide a sense of place, and of history. They are the backgrounds to our lives, not just inside each house, but in how they present to the outside world. We go past them on a daily basis when commuting, walking the dog, and more. If our friends live nearby, we use them as landmarks – “I’ll meet you in front of the house with the blue gate; or the lemon tree; or with the round roof”. When we lose a lot of houses due to demolition, we lose a sense of place, of belonging, and of shared history from one generation to the next.

And one of the strongest arguments the heritage lobby has is that the vast majority of modern Australian buildings are so irredeemably ugly. If everything resembles something seen on television, where it’s all about size and showing off with fancy materials (because the television sponsors want to flog their products), then we will (and do) get essentially the same buildings from Hobart through to Darwin and the Gold Coast, regardless of the different cultures and climates of these places.

It's the “shared” bit, I think, that is at risk. If recent migrants buy an existing house, do they have an understanding of why it is important to the local people? Or do they feel that it has nothing to do with them? It’s hard to imagine Europeans feeling like that about their housing styles (although I am sure that incredibly ugly modern housing is built over there too). Admittedly, there is much in Australian history that doesn’t speak of an open welcome, and of course housing built in different eras doesn’t necessarily work for our modern needs.

But if Australians have only recently become aware of the importance of our shared architectural history, should we not (regardless of our background, or when we arrived) wish to be part of that longer story? If we turn our backs on this idea, then much of the effort put into the 1970’s Green Bans (https://jacobin.com/2021/07/australia-sydney-urbanism-construction-builders-labourers-federation-nsw-green-labor-militancy) will have gone to waste. 

If we now have a population who only perceive housing in a utilitarian way, then who will be interested in such houses 30 years from now? There are, naturally, some people who love architecture for its own sake, but as the culture gets more diverse, will anyone in fact stand in the way of the developers? Or will the increasing pressure to lift density mean that much of our remaining heritage housing gets flattened?

Maybe there is another solution, and it is to take what's best of the previous styles, and to make it fit for purpose. We could call it "new modernism" or "New Deco", etc. But I suspect that the current ugliness will continue, simply because the vast majority of the population has no idea how design works, and are content to buy the rubbish that is served up by developers across the nation.

What do you think?