DRO Deakin Research Online, Deakin University’s Research Repository Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
Milling it over: Geelong’s new life in forgotten places
Citation: Gray, Fiona, Garduno Freeman, Cristina and Novacevski, Matt 2017, Milling it over: Geelong’s new life in forgotten places, Historic environment, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 58-69.
Milling it over: Geelong’s new life in forgotten places
FionaGray,CristinaGarduñoFreemanandMattNovacevski
HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT | VOLUME 29 NUMBER 2 - 2017 59
Abstract
The gradual departure of heavy industry from Geelong over the last 30 years has left a legacy of forgotten places and an urban identity marooned between fading industrial modernism and an uncertain post-modern world. The rigor mortis of heavy manufacturing has been accompanied by rhetoric of despair about the city’s future. Amid planning approaches focusing on the oft-competing ends of city-centre revitalisation and sprawling suburban growth, the defunct spaces of Geelong’s industrial past are providing an unlikely crucible for renewed optimism, borne from grassroots creativity. This flourishing of creative expression in gritty spaces is a meeting of history, heritage and artistic endeavour that presents the palimpsest of the city writ large; creating unexpected connections between people and places once thought lost in the ethereal whispers of the past. The reinvention of these spaces as sites of and for new makers suggests a need to re-evaluate the significance of industrial heritage by engaging with the perspectives of those actively reinterpreting it. Focusing on the rejuvenation of an abandoned paper mill, this paper explores the recreation of Geelong’s industrial heritage to understand the cultural role of these spaces and how they act as creative incubators, while considering the implications for connections between people, place and creative practice.
Introduction
FoundedontheshoresofCorioBay,some75kmsouth-westofMelbourne,Geelongisoneofmanycitiesgrapplingwiththeimpactsofde-industrialisation.Joblossesandtheclosureoffactorieshavechallengedthecity’seconomy,socialfabricandidentity.Theexitofheavyindustryhasraiseddifficultquestionsregardingthecity’seconomicanddemographicchange,aswellas the need to determine a future for many abandoned industrial buildings that permeatethecity’simageryandpartsofitsurbanfabric.Theseoft-abandonedplacescontinuetocarryGeelong’srichhistoryasacityofmakers, inventorsandfabricators.Whiletheycontinuetoexpresstheambitionsandworkpracticesofdaysgoneby,theyarealsoinspiringnewtypesof post-industrial maker culture. In order to explore the creative potential of this industrialheritageand theappealofgrimeaspartof itshistoric significance, thispaper looksat theFyansford PaperMills, a six-hectare siteonGeelong’soutskirts that is currently undergoingadaptivereusethroughagrass-rootsprocessofcreativematerialandsocialconservation.Thisspace,whileoneofanumberofcreativehubsforminginformerindustrialbuildings,isnotableforthecraftsman-likeapproachtoitsregenerationthatgivesanodtothebuilding’shistoryandthecommunityofmakers thathasbeenconsciouslydevelopedaround it.WeconsiderhowthereinventionofthisspaceconnectswithGeelong’smaker-cityidentity,notsimplybyreusing industrialsites,butbyredefiningtheseplacesviaaprocessofcreativeconservationdrivenbygrassrootsdesirestocontinueasocialtraditionof‘making’.Inthisway,thepaper
THE PEOPLE’S GROUND60
alignsitselfwiththecentraltenetofCriticalHeritageStudies(Harrison2012;Smith2006)inthat itre-framesheritageasadynamicsocio-culturalprocess,whereplacesaresubjecttoalayeringofmeaning,asopposedtomoreconservativenotionsofheritagewherethefabricexistsintemporalstasis.Theprocess ofcreativeconservationconductedattheFyansfordPaperMillsrevealsthepotentialforcommunitypracticestorevealandformalternative,previouslyunacknowledged readingsof aplace’s heritage significance. This article considers how thisprocesscanbothdrawonandfurtherformthesignificanceofaheritageplace.Italsostudieshowthematerialartefactofthebuiltfabricofindustrialheritageisacatalystforconnectionandcreativity;boththroughitsownre-interpretationandrestoration,andasasettingfornewformsofpost-industrialmaking.
Geelongwasfirstsurveyedin1838,onlythreeweeksafterMelbourne,andquicklybecamethepivotonwhichPortPhillipBay’scommerceturned(Wynd1972).Despitethisearlyprosperity,Geelong was eclipsed for much of the nineteenth century by Melbourne’s rise as a globaladministrative centre, and the regional centres of Ballarat and Bendigo that were foundedon thewealthof thegoldfieldswithabuilt legacy tomatch.However, asgolddiscoveriesdwindledandthegearsofindustryacceleratedintothetwentiethcentury,Geelong’sroleasacentreformanufacturingsawitoutstripthegoldfieldscentres.Geelong’spopulationdoubledbetween1901and1942,growingfrom25,943to52,408,andby1970haddoubledagainasa resultof immigrationprograms thatbrought factoryworkers to the region.Today, thebroaderGeelongregionhasapopulationof278,929(AustralianBureauofStatistics2016).
Themill produced its first sampleof paper inAugust 1878—brownwrappingpapermadefromoldsugarbagsandotherwaste(Brownhill1990).Themill’sengineeringwasimpressive;machineryimportedfromEnglandwaspoweredbywaterdrawnfromtheBarwonRiverthroughasolidbluestoneracenearlythree-quartersofamilelong(Brownhill1990).Thebuildingsofthemillwereequallyimpressivefortheirimposingappearance:
Themainbuildings,severalof themtwostoreys,wereallbuilt incoursedbluestone, locallyquarried,withbrick internal partitions and iron roofs. Thewallsweregenerally from12 to18 inches (30to46cm) thickandthegeneralappearanceof themill,atoptheprecipitousnorthernbankoftheriver,wasthatofafortress.(Milner1985a:pp.19-20).
HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT | VOLUME 29 NUMBER 2 - 2017 61
Inannouncingthelossof100jobsandthe‘indefiniteclosure’ofthemillin1922duetothelossofagovernmentsupplycontractandcompetitionfromimportedproduct,theMelbourneArgus (15 March 1922) was essentially signalling a narrative that would become familiarduringGeelong’sdeindustrialisationoflateryears.Yet,somewhatparadoxically,themill’sshortproduction life, partly attributable to global trends and its capital-intensive manufacturingprocess—alongwiththebuilding’sisolationfrommajortransportnetworks,hascontributedtothepreservationofitsphysicalandtechnologicalintegrity(Milner1985b:12).
Come2017,themillanditsbuildingsarebeingprogressivelyreinvented.TTheacquisitionofthesitebybuilderAlexRobinsin2002afteracommunitycampaigntosavethemillsfromthegraspofacontainercompanyhasbroughtaboutacraftsman-likerestorationprocess.Robins’focus is on careful preservation and traditional construction methods where fine-graineddetailsarecombinedwithavisionthatembracesthesite’sstoriesandhistoryofaccumulatedindustrialdetritus.Althougharchivalimagesofthefactoryinuseremain,likemanyindustrialcomplexes, themachinery thatgave theFyansfordPaperMills its technological significancehasnowbeen lost.Nonetheless, the conservationprocessof themills ismore than simplyattending to physical detail: In order to build a community around the building, Robins iscarefullybuildinga familyofmakers.Newestablishmentsat themills includeart studios,abookbinder,fibreglass fabricator, café,wineryandgallery,alldrawing inspiration frombothlandscapeandbuildingtoaddtheirownlayersofmeaningtotheplace.Beyondthesemakers,largercommunityeventsarenowheldonsite,addingmorethreadstoanewlywoventapestryoflinksbetweenpeopleandplace.
Rebirth of a maker spirit
Today,makercultureismorereadilyassociatedwithentrepreneurship,invention,start-upsanddigitalculture(Katterfeldt,Zeising&Lund2013).Asynthesisofthecraftsmanshipofthepastwiththedemocratisationofknowledgearisingfrominternetaccess,makercultureisahybridofhighandpopularculture.AsthesourceofsomeofAustralia’smostimportantinventions,Geelong’sheritageisentwinedwithitsmakerspirit,whichhasbeenfluidbutalwaysingrainedin the city’s culture. Geelong lays claim to a significant part of the invention of AustralianRules Football, with the game’s first great innovator, Tom Wills, spending much of his lifeinGeelong (DeMoore2008). In1854, refrigerationpioneer JamesHarrisondesigned,builtandpatentedAustralia’s first iceproductionplant inGeelong (Bruce-Wallace1966).At thecity’s most famous manufacturer, the Ford motoring company, Geelong-based automotiveillustratorLewisBandt inventedtheute in1932,whichbecameanoft-replicatedAustralianautomotiveicon(Townsend2008).Formuchofthe20thcentury,this industrialactivitywasheavilysubsidised,helpingtoensureGeelong‘pumped…asaperfectorgan’(Townsend2008,p.194),asymphonyofindustrialmodernityinwhichthecity’sfortunesoftenparalleledthoseof its industrialmakers and institutions. Economicderegulation,modernisationof industrialprocessesandfreetradefromthe1970sonwardhaveposedanexistentialthreattoGeelong’smanufacturingtradition,underminingtheregion’sidentityandstartingaprocessofchange.Over the1990sthewaterfrontofGeelongwastransformedfromamaritimeand industrialprecinctintoalocalandtouristdestinationinanefforttobothshiftanddrawfromthecity’sdistinctivecharacter.Yettheeffectsandnarrativesofdeindustrialisationpersistedbeyondsuchefforts.CoincidingwithannouncementsoftheclosureofFord’sautomotiveplantandtheAlcoaaluminiumsmelter,communityoutragewassparkedin2014whenGeelongwasrepresentedinaprovocativepromotionalvideoasacityof‘zombies’bereftoflife(Gray&Novacevski2015).
THE PEOPLE’S GROUND62
ThisisthesettinginwhichthereinventionoftheFyansfordPaperMillsemerges.AsGeelongexplorestheconceptofcreativitytoreinventitseconomyandidentity(CityofGreaterGeelong,2017),significantquestionsemergearoundtheroleof‘making’inGeelongandthematerialandculturalvalueofthecity’sindustrialheritage.ThesebuildingshaveleftapowerfulimprintonGeelong’surbanlandscape,alegacythatremainsgrittyandsteadfast.ManyofGeelong’smills and factories were built of bluestone or a characteristic red brick, with materiality,durabilityandsoliditythatdefinedagrowingengineofproductionandreflectedtheambitionofanascentVictorianindustrialmodernity.WhilethebehemothsofindustryandthehumofGeelong’smillsandfactorieshasfadedtosilence,theirbuiltlegacyremains.Arethesesites,suchastheFyansfordPaperMills,simplyarchitectureintheformofindustrialspolia?Aretheirhistoricnarrativessimplytoberevealedasrelicsjuxtaposedwithcontemporaryactivity?Orissomething different occurring? Seen through the lens of emerging theory of ‘experimentalpreservation’,whichdrawsoncriticalheritagetoinformpractice,mightthisindustrialheritagebeprovidingacreativewellspringtorecastGeelong’sidentityasapost-industrialmakercity?
Industrial heritage as a site of creative conservation
Therecognitionoftheculturalsignificanceofindustrialheritagesitesisgrowingatlocalandinternationallevels.ThisisunderscoredbythedevelopmentofspecialistadvisorybodiessuchasTheInternationalCommitteefortheConservationoftheIndustrialHeritage(TICCIH)inthe1970sand themore recentadoptionof legal instrumentsandbestpracticeguides suchasThe Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage (The Nizhny Tagil Charter) in2003andThe Dublin Principles for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage Sites, Structures, Areas and Landscapes (The Dublin Principles) in2011.Thesedocumentsservetodefineandsetouttheprinciplesfortheconservationofindustrialheritage,whileTICCIHactsasanexpertadvisortoICOMOS.TheNizhny Tagil Charterstatesthat:
…thebuildingsandstructuresbuilt for industrialactivities, theprocessesand toolsusedwithinthemandthetownsandlandscapesinwhichtheyarelocated,alongwithalltheirothertangibleandintangiblemanifestations,areoffundamentalimportance.Theyshouldbestudied,theirhistoryshouldbetaught,theirmeaningandsignificanceshould be probed and made clear for everyone, and the most significant andcharacteristicexamplesshouldbeidentified,protectedandmaintained,inaccordancewiththespiritoftheVeniceCharter,fortheuseandbenefitoftodayandofthefuture.(TICCIH2003,p.1)
TheFyansfordPaperMills isnot thefirstexampleofadaptive reuseof industrialheritage inGeelong. Deakin University’s Waterfront Campus, completed in 1997 is housed within therefurbishedDalgetyandCompanyLimitedWoolstores,anindustrialbuildingmadeforstoring,handling and marketing wool (Architecture Australia 1997). More recently, in 2013, theeastern arm of Little Creatures Brewery was established in the former Valley Worsted Mill(Richardson2015). In theseprojects, thepatinaof timesgonehasprovena valuable assetthatdrawsengagementwith thesenewoperations.Theconservationof industrialheritagethroughadaptivere-use,‘offer[s]opportunitiesforregeneration,sustainablenewusesandaconnectiontoaworthwhilepastuponwhichanewlayerofmeaningmaybeforged’(Lardner2015,p.3).Thispotentialandopportunity iskey tothesignificanceof theconservationoftheFyansfordPaperMills.Theintrinsicvalueoftheremnantfabricisindeedthematerial,yetitssocialvaluehasbeenextended:WhatisparticularlynotableintheFyansfordPaperMillsishowthismaterialformsacruciblefornewlayersofsocialvalueasRobinsnotonlypreservesandrenewsitsfabric,butindoingsocreatessynergiesandrelationshipswithtenantsandthebroadercommunity(Figure1).Atthesametime,theFyansfordPaperMills,canbeseenasanantidotetoformalgovernmentattemptstotransformtheidentityofdecliningcities.IncontrasttothepolishedwaterfrontprecinctoftheGeelongCBD,theFyansfordPaperMillsisagrassrootsoutpostseekingtopresentanalternativenarrativeforgedbytheverypeoplefinanciallyandsociallyinvestedintheregion.AsCossonsobserves,‘industrialheritagemayofferidentityforacommunityorprovidethesignatureforaplace,recognisedexternally’(Cossons2012,p.9).InthecaseoftheFyansfordPaperMills,thisidentitypresentsnotastaticendpoint,butapalimpsestoverlaidthroughcreativesynergiesenabledbytheconservationworks.
HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT | VOLUME 29 NUMBER 2 - 2017 63
Industrial heritage sites present distinct challenges for conservation as the built fabric andmachinery designed for specific processes has become obsolete. Key to the concept ofobsolescence inherent in industrial heritage is the notion that such an engineered andarchitecturallydesignedcomplexwaspurposemade,usedforaperiodoftime,technologicallysupersededand rendereddetritus. These signsofdetritus anddisuse suchas flakingpaint,greaseanddirtpresentpotential fornewmeanings. Industrialheritage is challengedbyanimplicitdisjunctionbetweenpastandpresentusesof thebuilt fabricandmachinery,whichisbestmanagedbydevelopingconnections to thepastby layeringnewusesandmeaningonalreadyvaluedplaces(Lardner2015).Industrialheritagesitesarevulnerabletoreusethatdiscardstheheavier,rustier,industrialequipmentinfavourofeasiertomanagepaintchippedbrick facadesaccentedbyaged timberdoorways (Lardner2015).This ‘destructivecreation’neglectshowtheveryprocessofconservationcanconnectpeopleandcommunitieswithsuchsites;indeed,thecreativepracticeofengagementwithgrease,dirtandchemicalprocessesthatleavebuildingsheavilymarkedandtarnishedwiththepastcanalsoformdistinctworks.Thisisachallengetotraditionalapproachestoheritage,wherethefabricofplacesisconceptualisedas
morevaluablethanitsusesortheprocessofconservation.Understoodthroughexperimentalpreservation,thefabriccanbere-thoughtasanenableroftheprocessratherthansimplyasthe material outcome. This significantly increases the importance of the social connectionsthatcanbecreatedwhenpeoplecometogethertore-imagineadisusedsite.AttheFyansfordPaperMills theconfluenceof small-scaleartisanproductionandcultural industriespresentsa collection of post-industrial makers operating in a rejuvenated industrial setting andcontributingtheirownnarrativestothesebuildings.Restoringtheactof‘making’tothemillsisalsocontinuingtoredefinethematerialityandnarrativesofGeelong’sindustrialpastinnewways.Oneenterpriseatthemillfocusesonrepurposingautomotivepartsasfurniture,intheprocesspossiblyreinventingindividualitemsmanufacturedinGeelongfactoriesinyearsgoneby, re-engagingwithGeelong’s reputationasamotor cityand formingnew linksbetweentheFyansfordPaperMillsandotherindustrialsites(Figures2and3).Thismulti-facetedcross-pollinationbetweenstoriesof innovation, industrialpastsandcontemporary localmakers isenablingaprocessthatusesGeelong’sindustrialmaterialasacrucibletoformandre-formthecity’smakerspirit.
Grassroots heritage-making and ‘creative conservation’
In seeking to understand how thegrassrootsoriginandapproachtothereuseof thepapermillsgoesbeyondcommonapproachestoadaptivereuseofindustrialheritage,inthecontextofGeelong’sdeindustrialisation,werefertothetheoreticallensof‘experimentalpreservation’ (Otero-Pailos,Langdalen&Arrhenius2017).Thiscontemporarytheorisation of heritage practice hasemerged from interrogating preserv-ation techniques, in order to offernew alternative modes of practiceand extend those already accepted.Experimental preservation exploreshowthevalueofheritageplacescan
be altered through operations such as copying, digitising, rematerialising and multiplying,which challenge accepted notions of authenticity and integrity. In doing so, experimentalpreservation opens up a space in which significance can be considered to be networked;existing within the field of social relations, practices and representations fluidly connectedto thematerial fabricof theplace inquestion (Otero-Pailos, Langdalen&Arrhenius2017;Garduño Freeman 2018). Such an approach values the craft of conservation, the practiceof repairsandactof repairing tobeas significantas theoutcome.This rebalancing iskeytotheargumentpresentedinthisarticle,thatintheconservationofthepapermillsanewregionalidentityisemergingthatenablescommunitiestoreinventthemselvesinthewakeofdeindustrialisationas‘makers’byreinterpretingGeelong’spast.
HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT | VOLUME 29 NUMBER 2 - 2017 65
Robins approaches the task ofrestoration with an ethos of care,authenticity and a constant focusacross scales, from fine-grain detailto the whole place. This is evidentin the hardwood windows that hehas handcrafted to replace thosethat have rotted away after beingboarded up with corrugated ironsheetsthatallowedwatertopoolatthe sills, causing irreparabledamage(Figure 4). The windows have beenremade using traditional joinerytechniques in accordance with theoriginal window specifications,including theglass.Robins’ sensitiveapproach is similarlyapparent in theremaking of timber support capitalsforthecolumnsofoneofthemainbuildings(Figure5).Matching the original capitals precisely, including theselection of timber species, the old capitals are beingremoved,onebyone, and replacedwithnewcapitalstoreinstatetheirstructuralfunction.Asimportantastheadherencetotheoriginalbuildingdetailsis,thetimeandpersonalconnectionRobinscreatesthroughtheprocessofcarryingouttheworkhimselfisanequallysignificantpart of the mills’ value. Gauntlett (2011) argues thatthe process of making brings opportunities for socialand personal connection. The practice of making attheFyansfordPaperMills,beitconservingthebuildingor establishing and conducting new uses in the mills,enablesastrongsenseofattachmentwiththesitethatextends the value of the material from the intrinsic,to a deeper, layered intangible social value createdthrough an ever-growing network of interactionsbetweenpeopleandplace.Atabroaderlevel,thesocialpracticeof communitiesandvisitors thatparticipate inother activities at the mills enabled through the site’srestoration canbeunderstood tobe contributing to anewidentityforGeelongcentredongivingnewlifetodisregardedsitesofindustrialheritage.
Thevalueoftheprocessofconservationcanbeelaboratedbyoneofthemainproponentsofexperimentalpreserv-ation, Spanish architect, Jorge Otero-Pailos. Whilstimmersed in the material practices of restoration,conservationandpreservationofbuildings,andpartic-ularlyintheactofcleaningbuildingsfromdust,dirtandgrime,Otero-Pailos seeks toposition theseactivitiesascreative and critical architectural interventions (Otero-Pailos 2006). For example, in his work at the Doge’sPalaceinVenicein2009,thecleaningprocessbecomesa process for making art. The high-tech latex used intheprocessofremovingtheexistinglayersofdustanddirt formthepalacewalls isexhibited in itsownright,repositionedasaculturalentityratherthananobjectof
wastefordiscarding.Hetreatsthebuiltfabricaskindofpalimpsest,arguingthatthelayersofdustanddirtthatcollectuponitshouldbeunderstoodascomponentsofthatobject’smaterialselfandequallyvalidformsofculture.Seenthroughthe lensof‘process’offeredbyOtero-Pailos’sexperimentalpreservationratherthansimplyinthefinishedarchitecturalartefact,theconservationworkbeingcarriedoutattheFyansfordPaperMillsisnotonlysignificantbecauseofitsmaterialpreservationofanimportantplace,butalsobecauseofthewayitisproducingnewformsofculturefortheregion.Thefabricofthebuildingandtheprocessofconservationitself are equally important and clearly dependent upon one another. The conservation oftheFyansfordPaperMillscanbereframedandreconceivedasaformofcommunityheritagemaking,whereengagingwith thebuildingasacreativesiteallowsconnectionstobemadewithGeelong’spastinnovationandindustrialmaking,hintingatanevolvingmaker-cityidentity.
While not necessarily drawing direct comparisons between Otero-Pailos’ experimental artpracticesarisingoutoftechnicalheritageconservationandRobins’moreorganicapproachtopiecingtogethertheFyansfordPaperMills,theircommonfocusontheprocessofconservationalignswithadefinitionofheritageasadynamicandcomplexentanglementbetweenpastmeanings,materialitythatresistsstasis,andemergingcommunitynarratives.AsRobinsreplacesthecapitalsofthecolumnshisattentiontothetypeoftimber,tomakingthepieceshimself,andtointegratingthesenewerpiecesintotheexistingbrickworkarecrucialmeanstoconnectwiththebuilding.Whatissignificanthereisnotjustthewaythebuildingisconservedbutthedesiretoactuallydotheconservation,tomakethedecisionsaboutwhichaspectsofthepatinashouldbemaintainedasculturallyvaluablepartsofthebuilding’sstoryandwhichneedtobepeeledbacktorevealandre-formthenarrative.AswithOtero-Pailos’approach,theprocessof reparation becomes a creative act, and the damaged capital a site of potency, valuablebecauseitspeaksoftheravagesoftimeonthemill’sarchitectureandofferstheopportunityforengagementthroughmakingitsreplacement.Thisrevealssomethingsignificantaboutindustrialheritage,whereinitsdiscardedstate,itsapparentfunctionalobsolescenceandunsalvageableformerusesofferregenerativepotential,askingforsomethingnewtobemade.Thispotencyinvitesprocessesandengagementinwaysthatcannotbecontemplatedinsitesthatremainrelevantoroperational.Likethepotentialofindustry,whichpromisednewopportunitiesformodernistprosperity,thediscardedqualityoftheFyansfordPaperMillsinvokesamakercultureandmeanstoconnectwithamakerpasttoformamakerfuture.
In a period of significant economic and social upheaval for Geelong, such acts of creativeconservationactasavehicle forurbanregenerationby investingdiscardedelementsof theurbanenvironmentwith renewedphysicaland socialpurpose.While localauthorities focustheireffortsonslow,policy-drivenrevitalisationinitiativesforthecitycentre,amoreorganic,grassroots approach is driving a practical, hands-on renewal of all-but-forgotten spaces, inwhichindustrialbuiltheritageisbecominganimportantpartofthecommunity’sappreciationofitsrichmakerpast,onewhichisbeingbroughtintothepresentasanewregionalculture.ThisawarenessisbeingfosteredbytheRobins’ethosofcommunityinvolvementasakeyingredientofthePaperMills’futuresuccess(Mitchell2011).Despitehissignificantpersonalinvestmentoftime,moneyandcare,Robinsiskeentosharethisuniqueassetwiththebroadercommunity,believingthat‘historybelongstoeveryonenotjustthepersonwhoownsthebuilding’(Cannon2015).PubliceventsatthePaperMillssuchas‘Fyansfest’thatcelebratestheVernalEquinoxwithafamily-friendlyprogramincludingmusic,food,wine,art,lanternwalkandbonfirecreateaninclusiveenvironmentthatinvitesengagementbetweenthemillbuilding,itsenvironmentandanewcommunity. Inthelead-uptotheevent,participationintherenewalofthemillsby volunteering for spring cleaning or gardening is encouraged. This informal participationallowspeopletolearnaboutthehistory,characteristicsandqualitieshiddenwithintheirurbanenvironment, and in turn encourages a sense of collective responsibility for this importantheritageassetratherthanthehelplessnessoflamentingitsdemise.
In theactof re-makingthebuildings,Robins isalsocreatingspaceforothermakers tonotonlyinhabit,buttoinvestwithnewmeaning.Thegritty,authenticcharacterofthebuildingsisattractingarangeofartisantenantsthattogetherareformingauniqueandvibrantmaker’svillage. Marcus Johnson, owner of Ubu Gallery, is one of the tenants contributing to the
HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT | VOLUME 29 NUMBER 2 - 2017 67
precinct’s renaissance. Like Robins, Johnson invested in the Fyansford Paper Mills withouta specificplan,but ratherbecausehe feltaconnectionwith thebuilding.UbuGallerywasthe post-rationalisation of his commitment to the place, and now fuses exhibition withmaking,invitingmulti-disciplinaryandexperimentalarttotakeplaceinsidethegallerywhileencouraging visitors to ‘explore, participate, ask questions and learn’ (UBU Gallery 2015).Thegallery’stenancyisfarmorethanatypicalcommercialarrangementbasedonrealestateand rent. Johnson sharesRobins’ senseof communityand isakeydriver in cultivating thisspiritamongthosewhopassthroughthegallery’s industrialslidingdoors.Thoughbuiltoutofthesamebluestoneasotherbuildingsintheprecinct,thegalleryhasadifferentaesthetictomanyof thebuildingsnowbeingre-usedandthosethathaveyetnotbeenrefurbished.However,theroughsurfaceandrusticcharacterofthebluestoneremainsclearlyevidenteventhoughthewallshavebeenpaintedwhite,allowingtheexhibitedartworkstobethehero.Thewalls’treatmentwastheresultoflengthydiscussionsbetweenJohnsonandRobins,againdemonstratingthevalueoftheprocess ofconservation.Thechoiceoffurnishingsinsidethegalleryalsocontributes to themill’smaker-spacenarrative (Figure6).The longtimber tablethatformsthegallery’scentrepieceisasignificantnodtoGeelong’smanufacturingpast.ThetablewasoriginallyusedasacuttingtableinGeelong’sGodfreyHirsttextilefactory.FoundedinGeelonginthelate1800s,GodfreyHirstmanufacturedqualitytextiles,helpingtoeliminateAustralia’sdependenceonEnglandforcloth.Inthe1960sitbecameAustralia’slargestcarpetmanufactureranditcontinuestooperateinGeelongtoday.Thenewusesofthegalleryspaceanditsfurnishingsentrenchdialoguesbetweenoldandnewandbetweennewlylinkedobjectsof Geelong’s industrial past, allowing social value in the present to create new notions ofauthenticity.Whilethepatinaofthepastbeckonsnewmakerstoinhabitthespace,thenewinhabitants add further richness to the layeredhistoryof thebuilt fabric. Johnson sumsupthemills’appealwhenhestates‘Isaw(thegalleryspace)andthought“Idon’tknowwhatIwanttodowithitbutIwantit”’(Cannon2015).Infindinganew,sociallyinclusiveuseforthebuildings,Robins,Johnsonandthespace’sotherusersarecreatinganenvironmentthatcontributestoarenewedurbanculture,groundedinanidentitythatisauthenticallyGeelong.
ThegrassrootsprocessofcreativeconservationofindustrialheritagepresentsanewparadigmwithhithertounderexploredpossibilitiesfortherejuvenationofGeelong’sindustrialbuildings,andforapost-industrialmaker’scity.Thecityhasalegacyofgrandindustrialbuildingsbuiltwithasoliditythathasoutlastedtheirearlierfunctionsandtheambitionsoftheircreators.Theprojects canvassed in this article arebut someof the industrial heritage spacesbeingreinvented inGeelong,manyofwhichre-engagetherelationshipofhistoricbuildingswiththeprocessofmaking.
TherejuvenationoftheFyansfordPaperMillsdemonstratesthefine-graineddecision-makingprocessesandfocusontheplaceasawholethatareessentialforcreativeconservation.Thefocus turns not just to individual fittings and materials, but the potential for engagementproffered by detritus, rust and dust that defines the identity of spaces and their city. Theseprocessesdonotinvolvestrippingtheinteriorandmemoriesofthespace’sfunction,butrathera conscious focuson leaving intactor revivingpastnarrativesasa crucible to inform futureinterpretation.AsbuildingsliketheFyansfordPaperMillsarereinvented,themakersthatusethespacesandtheircreativeprocessesinturnprovidenewlayerstothepalimpsestofindustrialheritage.Thisrepresentsasymbioticrelationshipbetweentheserejuvenatedmaker’sspacesandtheirpost-industrialmakersthatcanrenewimportantelementsofacity’sidentityandpride.
The theoretical approach of experimental preservation, the work of Otero-Pailos and thepracticeofRobinsandJohnsonattheFyansfordPaperMillsshowthepotentialofindustrialspolia to be redeployed through creative conservation and the act of making. As Geelonggrappleswithitssearchforapost-industrialidentity,thesuccessesofemergingexemplarsofmaterialconservationsuggestthevalueofdistilling,retainingandbuildingonthenarrativesofthecity’sindustrialheritageinforminganewsocialcohesion.Inthisway,eventhefunctionalobsolescenceofindustrialheritageisovercomebyretainingpracticesofworkingandmakingwithinthebuiltfabric,formingnewlayersthatbuildafuturebasedonthepast.
Brownhill,W.1990,The History of Geelong and Corio Bay,2nded,GeelongAdvertiser,Geelong.
Bruce-Wallace,L.G.1966,‘Harrison,James(1816–1893)’,inAustralian Dictionary of Biography,NationalCentreofBiography,AustralianNationalUniversity,viewed30August2016,<http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/harrison-james-2165/text2775>.
Cossons,N.2012,‘Whypreservetheindustrialheritage’,Industrial Heritage Re-tooled: The TICCIH guide to Industrial Heritage Conservation,editedbyJDouet.Lancaster:CarnegiePublishing.
DeMoore,G.2008,Tom Wills: First wild man of Australian sport,Allan&Unwin,Sydney.
Douet,J.2012,‘Introduction’,Industrial Heritage Re-tooled: The TICCIH guide to Industrial Heritage Conservation,editedbyJamesDouet.Lancaster:CarnegiePublishing.
HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT | VOLUME 29 NUMBER 2 - 2017 69
GarduñoFreeman,C.2018,Participatory Culture and the Social Value of an Architectural Icon: Sydney Opera House.UK:Routledge.
Gauntlett,D.2011,Making is connecting: The social meaning of creativity, from DIY and knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0.Cambridge,UK:PolityPress.
Gray,F.,andNovacevski,M.2015,‘TheZombiesofSleepyHollow:ReimaginingGeelong’, in SOAC 2015: Proceedings of the State of Australian Cities National Conference,GriffithUniversity,GoldCoast,Qld.,pp.1-8.
HeritageCouncilVictoria,2013,Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Heritage: Opportunities & Challenges,Melbourne.
Katterfeldt,E.,Zeising,A.andLund,M.2013,‘NotesonMakerCulture’,FabLab: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors,editedbyJuliaWalter-HerrmannandCorinneBüching.Bielefeld:Verlag.
TheInternationalCommitteefortheConservationoftheIndustrialHeritage(TICCIH),2003,The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage, viewed15September2016,<http://ticcih.org/about/charter/>.
Townsend,H.2008,‘BorntoRun’,inJSchultz(ed.),Cities on Edge: Griffith REVIEW, no.20,pp.191-200.
