Personally I hate the character protections. It seems like an area can escape them for years (decades) then all of a sudden council does a quick consultation and hey presto now you’re stuck with the old dump that you couldn’t afford to knock down and rebuild before!
Old houses are not insulated and often not well designed. I love the look of an old Queenslander but I have no issues with those houses being moved and sold, and the owner putting up a new build that suits the Brisbane lifestyle and climate much more.
Great post Cam, which captures aspects ignored in most of these discussions.
I agree with the comment from zack d that some of the combinations of older and newer dwellings aren’t great, but then, some of the entirely new projects aren’t great either. Our political system has to balance the interests of existing and prospective new residents, which means that the nature and rate of change in exiting areas has to be managed to levels that existing residents can tolerate, lest the community support for infill and redevelopment is lost.
On a side note, I was in DA at BCC when the proposal to locate the Sky Needle, an Expo 88 legacy item, was considered. We recommended against it being located in South Brisbane on the grounds of it being out of character!
I agree that rules like this make little difference when it comes to housing affordability in general, but I disagree that such rules help preserve the beauty or even the character of the past. Some of the compliant designs that incorporate old houses are not only ridiculous but also ugly.
What I hear from foreigners - who have good judgment when it comes to urban planning issues and the history of art, and who have visited Australia and seen this - is that most of these developments look ridiculous and that such rules are often counterproductive. If Europe had maintained similar rules throughout its history, European cities today would not only be significantly less functional but also much uglier.
They exist because people value them.
I would argue this is not true. This is a question of a second-order observation. Few people actually value the aesthetics of pre-1947 character homes, but most people think that other people value them (almost like taste for dry wine). People also think that, in the absence of such rules, the only alternative is the ugliness of modern, flat-roof, IKEA-style boxes.
The reality is that councils could enforce any visual aspects of new construction they wish without preserving everything pre-1947 (including ugly buildings from that period). in fact, councils could enforce aesthetics to a large degree without even explicitly codifying it, by making it much harder, longer, and more expensive to build ugly buildings by enforcing technical rules about flat roofs, surface areas, materials, etc.
Personally I hate the character protections. It seems like an area can escape them for years (decades) then all of a sudden council does a quick consultation and hey presto now you’re stuck with the old dump that you couldn’t afford to knock down and rebuild before!
Old houses are not insulated and often not well designed. I love the look of an old Queenslander but I have no issues with those houses being moved and sold, and the owner putting up a new build that suits the Brisbane lifestyle and climate much more.
Mmm. Yeah, they definitely are not insulated! I have been upgrading my own Queenslander cottage to improve thermal efficiency.
https://www.fresheconomicthinking.com/p/how-william-baumol-solved-the-construction?utm_source=publication-search
I think the old Treasury turned into a casino says BrisVegas like nothing else
Great post Cam, which captures aspects ignored in most of these discussions.
I agree with the comment from zack d that some of the combinations of older and newer dwellings aren’t great, but then, some of the entirely new projects aren’t great either. Our political system has to balance the interests of existing and prospective new residents, which means that the nature and rate of change in exiting areas has to be managed to levels that existing residents can tolerate, lest the community support for infill and redevelopment is lost.
On a side note, I was in DA at BCC when the proposal to locate the Sky Needle, an Expo 88 legacy item, was considered. We recommended against it being located in South Brisbane on the grounds of it being out of character!
I agree that rules like this make little difference when it comes to housing affordability in general, but I disagree that such rules help preserve the beauty or even the character of the past. Some of the compliant designs that incorporate old houses are not only ridiculous but also ugly.
What I hear from foreigners - who have good judgment when it comes to urban planning issues and the history of art, and who have visited Australia and seen this - is that most of these developments look ridiculous and that such rules are often counterproductive. If Europe had maintained similar rules throughout its history, European cities today would not only be significantly less functional but also much uglier.
They exist because people value them.
I would argue this is not true. This is a question of a second-order observation. Few people actually value the aesthetics of pre-1947 character homes, but most people think that other people value them (almost like taste for dry wine). People also think that, in the absence of such rules, the only alternative is the ugliness of modern, flat-roof, IKEA-style boxes.
The reality is that councils could enforce any visual aspects of new construction they wish without preserving everything pre-1947 (including ugly buildings from that period). in fact, councils could enforce aesthetics to a large degree without even explicitly codifying it, by making it much harder, longer, and more expensive to build ugly buildings by enforcing technical rules about flat roofs, surface areas, materials, etc.