³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾

It was hard to keep up with all the bad news coming out of the recent report. The rightly attracted attention. However, one important finding was overlooked: the poor state of Australia’s so-called historic heritage

The report this heritage is at risk on many fronts. It’s under pressure from land development, resource extraction, poorly managed tourism, climate change and inadequate management and protections.

In a familiar framing, the report points the finger at and other changes. However, this mindset itself is actually an obstacle to protecting our urban heritage.

Change in our cities, and to our heritage, is both inevitable and necessary. Our relationships to neighbourhoods and places constantly evolve, .

Policy ideas framed by sustainability, such as that encourages heritage places to change and evolve, are more sensible. Flexible and creative responses to heritage places should be allowed.

An example of embracing change is the in Sydney. The project has reimagined maritime heritage for culture and the arts.

Adopting new perspectives won’t only preserve our historic buildings and places by enabling us to shape them for today’s needs. It will also mean urban heritage can contribute to cities becoming more socially, economically and environmentally sustainable.

A problem of definitions

The that the report finds is deteriorating refers to places, buildings and structures dating from 1788 onwards. But the very idea of “historic heritage” .

The term originally contrasted colonial built heritage with so-called “pre-history”. was generally seen as being in the past rather than continuing into the present or having a future.

A more precise term, “cultural heritage”, embraces the diverse historical and societal values that shape cities and historic environments. It better recognises that our urban cultural heritage is a product of colonisation and dispossession and located on Indigenous Country.

On the ground, we see a few examples of more progressive activities. The deeply researched embraced Indigenous perspectives, social values and modern buildings. But this is an unusual case of innovation.

A problem of knowledge

For heritage to contribute more to social sustainability, by ensuring places reflect and strengthen diverse communities, we need more robust knowledge about existing protections.

We simply . Australia has no heritage reporting mechanisms across national, state and local heritage jurisdictions.

As a result, the State of the Environment report was unable to provide a fuller picture of the state of urban heritage: what is protected, why and how it is protected, nor its values and condition. The report was not funded for this kind of comprehensive data collection, nor for widespread site visits.

We cannot identify which Australian communities and histories – whether First Nations, colonial or multicultural stories – are represented within heritage lists. The five-year report identifies exploring gaps in state heritage registers. Only one of these studies foregrounds social value.

Centralising community perspectives in heritage remains a challenge. For example, when the to identify places of importance, the insights could not be translated into protections because planning laws don’t adequately recognise . Work needs to be done to integrate heritage management and social sustainability.

A problem of adaptation

Expanding the scope of urban heritage enables new perspectives on how it can contribute to economic and environmental sustainability. Economic development can threaten heritage, but also rescue it from decay. Leading heritage projects treat existing physical and social spaces as significant but underutilised resources.

The , for example, seeks to return glitz and glamour to the area, albeit minus its gritty and subversive character. Heritage and communities are both enhanced and diminished through development and investment.

The report rightly identifies climate change as a threat to heritage places. Yet, , inadequate emphasis is placed on heritage as of climate adaptation. Reworking existing environments, buildings and structures, whether or not they are heritage-listed, .

Indeed, the report encourages the retention of existing buildings for their due to the resources that have gone into constructing and maintaining them. But it maintains the premise that development tends to undermines conservation.

This longstanding mindset stands in the way of .
Adopting broader perspectives and new approaches empowers heritage for sustainability agendas.

Although not heritage-listed, Broadmeadows Town Hall (1964) in Melbourne has been in a sophisticated and functional way.
At Melbourne’s Southbank, the listed may soon finally be revitalised. Reworking the 1880s industrial building with a skyscraper above may well be the best way forward.

What’s stopping us from doing better?

With clear parallels to today, the reported in 1974 that Australia’s heritage had been “downgraded, disregarded, and neglected”. The Commonwealth government by establishing the independent and innovative (1975-2004).

In recent times, however, the Commonwealth has in conserving urban heritage. Every state and local government now has its own approaches, resulting in . The lack of national leadership, co-ordination and innovation has led to us falling behind .

Urban heritage can strengthen communities and help foster an inclusive and democratic society only by engaging with a diversity of places and stories. Widespread adaptation and reuse of both listed and non-listed heritage places can support economic and environmental sustainability.

New and radical perspectives are needed to keep heritage relevant and thriving in cities.

James Lesh’s book will be at the Robin Boyd Foundation in Melbourne on August 24 2022.

James Lesh has received external research funding from government. He is a member of the Victorian ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Trust’s Heritage Advocacy Committee.