Sydney Masonic Centre: Heritage Analysis - September 2019 · 2019-09-27 · • Sydney Masonic...

Level19,100WilliamStreet,WoolloomoolooNSW2011Phone:(02)80765317

SydneyMasonicCentre279-283CastlereaghStreet,SydneySeptember2019|J3276

HERITAGE ANALYSIS

WeirPhillipsHeritageandPlanning|SydneyMasonicCentre|HeritageAnalysis

EXECUTIVESUMMARYTheCityofSydneyCouncilhaspreparedthePlanningProposal–CentralSydneyModernMovementheritageitemswhichiscurrentlyonpublicexhibition.ItproposesthelistingofnineModernMovementbuildingsandartworksforlistingaslocalheritageitemsunderSchedule5,Part1ofSydneyLocalEnvironmentalPlan2012(SydneyLEP2012).AmongtheseistheSydneyMasonicCentreatNo.279-283CastlereaghStreet,Sydney,whichtheaccompanyingreportidentifiesasanoutstandingexampleoftheBrutalistStyle.

Designedbythewell-regardedfirmofJoseland&Gilling,whencompletedin1979thisbuildingdemonstratedthecorecharacteristicsofBrutalistarchitectureincludingtheuseofassertivegeometricforms,dominatingscaleandanexpressionofthebasicstructureofoff-formconcreteastheprincipalaestheticdevice.Thebuildingwhenopenedin1979.Althoughmissingthetowerstructureoriginallyconceived,itwasoriginal,powerfulandwellexecutedandconfidentlycommandeditscornersite.

Sincethattime,however,thebuildinghasbeensubjecttosignificantandhighlyvisiblealterationsandadditionswhichhaveerodedtheoriginalarchitecturalvisionandfundamentallychangeditsexternalcharacter.Thebuildingwhichnowexistshasaninterfacewiththestreetwhichishumaninscaleandcomprisedoflightweight,delicatelyassembledandrefinedmaterialswhichconcealratherthancelebratethesupportingstructureanditssculpturalqualities.Inadditiontothis,anewtoweradditionoverthe

originalpodium,althoughexecutedsuperficiallytotheoriginalunbuiltdesign,isfinishedinpaintedconcreteandlightweightcladdingratherthantherawconcreteoriginallyconceived.TheeffectofthesechangeshasbeentoirreparablyalterthearchitecturalcharacterofthebuildingsothatitnolongerexhibitsthekeycharacteristicsoftheBrutalistStyleandisnotrepresentativeoftheBrutalistmovement.

Theanalysisconductedinlightofthesemodificationsleadstotheconclusionthatthe

buildinginitspresentformdoesnotsatisfythecriteriaforlistingasaheritageitemandthatthesiteshouldnotbeincludedinSchedule5Part1ofSydneyLEP2012.

Withlistingofabuildingofthisageandsizecomesaseriesofimpositionsfargreaterthanwithlistingsofmoremodestbuildings.Whilesomeofficebuildingshavebeenlistedandcontinuetofunctionsuccessfully,buildingssuchastheformerSydneyMasonicCentrecreatearangeofadditionalimpositionsthatcreateadisproportionateburdenonthe

owner,including:

• Officebuildingsofthistypenowhaveanestablishedlifecycle.Asrequirementsforofficespacechange,alongwithrequirementforenergyefficiencyand

occupantfacilities,economicpressuredemandsthebuildingbereplaced.Thisisparticularlyrelevantintermsofenergyefficiency.Manyorganisationsincluding


theStateGovernmentrequireahighlevelofenergyefficiencyinbuildings.This

becomesmuchmoredifficulttoachievewitholderofficebuildings.

• Asthebuildingagesfurtheritsclassofofficespacewillbegraduallydowngraded withtheconsequenceoflowerrentalincomes.Toarrestthismajor refurbishmentwillberequired.Thereisastrongco-relationbetweenthecapital costofrefurbishmentandtheamountofrentalliftpossible.Thiswillonlyworkif otherrequirementssuchasenergyefficiencycanbemet.

• Thebuilding,oncelisted,wouldhavetobeconserved,regardlessofeconomic considerationsandcouldbedemolishedonlyinthemostexceptional circumstances.Thebuildingpodiumwasdesignedspecificallyasaheadquarters forFreemasons.Shouldtheirrequirementschangeandtheynolongerneedthe building,therewillbemajorissuesintermsofreasonableadaptivereuse.This essentiallysterilisesanimportantcentralcitysite.


ReportPreparation

Director JamesPhillipsBSc(Arch),BArch,M.Herit.Cons(Hons.)

HeritageConsultant PhilipNorth

B.App.Sci.(Env.Des.),B.Arch.,M.U.R.P

Revision Date Person Reviewedby

FirstIssue 17.09.2019 PS JP

CoverImage: MasonicCentre,Sydney2019WeirPhillipsHeritageandPlanning.

©AstragalHeritagePtyLtdABN40600197859AllRightsReserved.Nomaterialmaybereproducedwithoutpriorpermission.Whilewehavetriedtoensuretheaccuracyoftheinformationinthispublication,thePublisheracceptsnoresponsibilityorliabilityforanyerrors,omissionsorresultantconsequencesincludinganylossordamagearisingfromrelianceininformationinthispublication.

www.weirphillipsheritage.com.au


CONTENTS PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Preamble 11.2 AuthorshipandAcknowledgements 11.3 Limitations 11.4 Methodology 11.5 PhysicalEvidence 11.6 DocumentaryEvidence 21.6.1 GeneralReferences 21.6.2 HistoricPhotographs 2

1.6.3 Reports 21.6.4 HeritageInventoryListingSheets(Draft) 31.6.5 StatutoryPlanningDocuments 31.6.6 Building/DevelopmentApplicationFiles 3

2 SITEIDENTIFICATION 3

3 HERITAGEMANAGEMENTFRAMEWORK 4

3.1 HeritageManagementFramework-StatutoryListings 43.1.1 TheSite 43.1.2 TheSurroundingArea 4

3.2 RelevantHeritageLegislation 53.2.1 NSWHeritageAct1977 53.2.2 LocalEnvironmentalPlans 63.2.3 DevelopmentControlPlan 6

4 HISTORICALBACKGROUND 7

4.1 OriginalOccupation 74.2 DevelopmentoftheExistingBuildingsontheSite 74.3 TheBrutalistMovementinAustralia 104.4 TheArchitects 17

5 PHYSICALANALYSIS 18

5.1 Preamble 185.2 TheSite 185.3 TheExistingBuilding 185.3.1 Summary 18


5.3.2 SydneyMasonicCentre 18

5.3.3 TheAssociateCafe 195.3.4 TheCivicTower 205.4 ArchitecturalAnalysis 205.5 IntegrityoftheSydneyMasonicCentre 21

6 HERITAGESIGNIFICANCE 25

6.1.1 AssessmentofSignificance 256.1.2 ExistingCitationsandListings 256.1.3 LiteratureReview 256.1.4 DraftListingsandHeritageStudies 26

6.1.5 SignificanceofSydneyMasonicCentre 276.1.6 Preamble 276.1.7 AssessmentUnderNSWHeritageDivisionCriterion 27

6 DISCUSSION 34

7 IMPOSITIONOFLISTING 37

8 CONCLUSION 37

WeirPhillipsHeritageandPlanning|SydneyMasonicCentre|HeritageAnalysis 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Preamble

ThisHeritageAnalysisfortheSydneyMasonicCentreatNo.279-283CastlereaghStreet,Sydney,NewSouthWales,hasbeenpreparedinresponsetothePlanningProposal–CentralSydneyModernMovementheritageitemspreparedbytheCityofSydneyCouncilwhichproposestolistthebuildingasaheritageiteminSchedule5,Part1ofSydneyLocalEnvironmentalPlan2012(SydneyLEP2012).

Thisassessmenthasbeenpreparedattherequestoftheownersoftheproperty.

1.2 AuthorshipandAcknowledgements

ThisHeritageAnalysishasbeenpreparedbyPhilipNorth,B.App.Sci.(Env.Des.),B.Arch.,M.U.R.P.,andJamesPhillips,B.Sc.(Arch.),B.Arch,M.Herit.Cons.(Hons.),ofWeirPhillipsHeritageandPlanning.

Thehistoricalinformationandassessmentsofsignificancecontainedinthisreportpartlyreliesonexistingstudies(refertoSection1.6below).

Acknowledgmentoftheauthorsofthesestudiesisdulygiven.

1.3 Limitations

Afullsearchofprimaryrecords,suchasCouncilrecordsandlandtitlerecords,wasnotundertaken.TheModernMovementArchitectureinCentralSydneyHeritageStudyReview,preparedbyTannerDentonKibbleArchitectsforCouncilin2018(seeSection1.6below),incorporatedinformationfromCouncilrecords.

TheinformationprovidedbythisreportandbythegeneralreferenceslistedunderSection1.6belowwasreliedupon.

Noarchaeologicalassessmentwascarriedout.

1.4 Methodology

ThisassessmenthasbeenpreparedwithreferencetotheNSWHeritageOffice(nowDivision)publicationAssessingHeritageSignificance,July2001.

1.5 PhysicalEvidence

SitevisitswerecarriedoutinDecember2018andJanuary2019.Unlessotherwisestated,thephotographscontainedinthisassessmentweretakenbyAnnaMcLaurinandPhilipNorth.


1.6 DocumentaryEvidence

Thefollowingdocuments,plansandpublicationshavebeenusedforthepreparationofthisreport:

1.6.1 GeneralReferences

• Apperly,Richard,Irving,RobertandReynolds,Peter,APictorialGuidetoIdentifyingAustralianArchitecture,Sydney,AngusandRobertson,1989.

• Bogle,Michael,“BeautyoftheBeast”,ArchitectureBulletin,March-April2012:pp.10-11.

• Boyd,Noni,‘JoselandandGilling,’inP.GoadandJWillis(ed.),TheEncyclopediaofAustralianArchitecture,NewYork,CambridgeUniversityPress,2012.

• BrutalistSydneyMap,n.p.,BlueCowMedia,n.d.

• ConnellWagner,“Architecturalconceptrealized30yearslater”,ArchitectureBulletin,November-December2006:p.24.

• Elser,Oliveretal,SOSBrutalism,AGlobalSurvey,Zurich,DeutschesArchitekturmuseum&WustenrotFoundationandParkBooksAG,2017.

• Harper,Glenn,Peter,SydneyBrutalism:LostandLegacyProjects,Sydney,2018.

• Irving,Robert,TwentiethCenturyArchitectureinWollongong,NSW,WollongongCityCouncil,2001.

• Johnson,DonaldLeslie,AustralianArchitecture1901-51SourcesofModernism,NSW,SydneyUniversityPress,1980.

• Taylor,Jennifer,AustralianArchitectureSince1960,Canberra,TheRoyalAustralianInstituteofArchitects,1990.

• Woolley,Ken,‘TheEmergenceofaPersonalAustralianResponsetoModernism’inSheridanBurke(ed.),FibroHouse:OperaHouse.ConservingMidTwentiethCenturyHeritage.ProceedingsofaConferenceconvenedbytheHistoricHousesTrustofNewSouthWales,23-24July,1999.

1.6.2 HistoricPhotographs

• SydneyMasonicCentreincludingsignificantinteriorsandMonaHessingartwork,279-283CastlereaghStreet,Sydney.


1.6.3 Reports

• TannerDentonKibbleArchitects,ModernMovementArchitectureinCentralSydney,HeritageStudyReview,2018.


1.6.4 HeritageInventoryListingSheets(Draft)

• FormerColonialMutualLifeBuildingFaçade,MartinPlace,Sydney.StateHeritageInventoryDatabaseNo.:2423826.

• SydneyMasonicCentreincludingsignificantinteriorsandMonaHessingartwork,279-283CastlereaghStreet,Sydney.

1.6.5 StatutoryPlanningDocuments

• CityofSydney,PlanningProposal–CentralSydneyModernMovementheritageitems,Sydney,CityofSydney,2018.

1.6.6 Building/DevelopmentApplicationFiles

• CityofSydney,823/2E/74.• CityofSydney,D2001/461.

2 SITEIDENTIFICATION

Thesiteconsistsofthefollowingthreeindividuallots:

• No.279-283CastlereaghStreet,Sydney(Lot1,D.P.1067328)

• No.66GoulburnStreet,Sydney(Lot2,D.P.1067328)

• No.285CastlereaghStreet,Sydney(Lot3,D.P.1067328)ThesiteasawholeisidentifiedasNo.279-285CastlereaghStreetand66GoulburnStreet,Sydney.RefertoFigures1and2.

Figure1:Detailofthesite(outlinedinred).SIXMaps


Figure2:Locationofthesite(circledinred).SIXMaps

3 HERITAGEMANAGEMENTFRAMEWORK

Thissectionidentifiesthestatutorylistingsaffectingthesiteandthestatutoryrequirementsthatariseoutoftheselistings.

3.1 HeritageManagementFramework-StatutoryListings

3.1.1 TheSite

Thesiteisnotpresentlysubjecttoanystatutoryheritagelistingsincluding:

• StateHeritageRegister

• SydneyLEP2012Further,itisnotlocatedinaheritageconservationareaasdefinedbySchedule5Part2oftheSydneyLEP2012.

3.1.2 TheSurroundingArea

ThereisoneheritageitemlistedontheStateHeritageRegister,undertheauspicesoftheNSWHeritageAct1977,inthevicinityofthesite.Thisis:

• TheSydneyDowningCentre,No.302CastlereaghStreet,Sydney

Figure3providesadetailfromtheSydneyHeritagePlan(SydneyLEP2012),whichidentifiesheritageitems,listedbySchedule5Part1oftheSydneyLEP2012,inthevicinityofthesite.Heritageitemsarecolouredbrownandnumbered.Thesiteisoutlinedinred.


Figure3:DetailoftheHeritagePlanHER_015.Theextentofthesubjectsiteisoutlinedinred.

SydneyLEP2012

Theheritageitemsinthevicinityofthesiteareidentifiedasfollows:

• Formerwarehousefaçade‘MuseumTowers',No.267-277CastlereaghStreet,Sydney.MarkedI1706inFigure3.StateHeritageInventoryDatabaseNo.2424148.

• CivicHotel,No.386-388PittStreet,Sydney.MarkedI1945inFigure3.StateHeritageInventoryDatabaseNo.2424131.

• SydneyDowningCentre,No.302CastlereaghStreet,Sydney,MarkedI1854inFigure3.StateHeritageInventoryDatabaseNo.00393.

TherearenoConservationAreas,listedbySchedule5Part2oftheSydneyLEP2012,withinthevicinityofthesite.

3.2 RelevantHeritageLegislation

InNSW,heritagelistingsgiverisetostatutoryrequirementstoconsidertheheritageimpactofanyproposedworksonaheritageitem.Thefollowingrequirementsarerelevanttoanyworksbeingproposedtothesubjectsite.

3.2.1 NSWHeritageAct1977

TheNSWHeritageAct1977providesstatutoryobligationsfortheconservationofitemsofheritagesignificanceinNSW.Places,buildings,works,relics,movable

objectsorprecinctsconsideredtobeofsignificanceforthewholeofNSWarelistedontheStateHeritageRegister(SHR).TheSHRisadministeredbytheHeritageDivisionoftheOfficeofEnvironmentandHeritage(OEH)andincludesa


diverserangeofover1500items.Anyalterationstotheseassetsisgovernedby

heritageguidelinesandworkscannotbecarriedoutwithoutpriorapprovalfromtheHeritageCouncilofNSW.

ItisnotproposedtolistthesiteasaheritageitemundertheprovisionsoftheNSWHeritageAct1977.

3.2.2 LocalEnvironmentalPlans

InNSW,theEnvironmentalPlanningandAssessmentAct,1979(EP&AAct)setsoutstatutoryobligationsforlocalgovernmentstotakeintoconsiderationtheimpactstotheenvironmentandthecommunityofanyproposeddevelopmentorland-usechange.UndertheEP&AAct,localgovernmentmustprepareandimplementaLocalEnvironmentalPlan(LEP)toregulatedevelopmentwithintheirrespectiveLocalGovernmentArea(LGA).Clause5.10ofanLEPgenerallyprescribesthestatutoryrequirementsrelatedtoheritageconservation.

SydneyLEP2012prescribesthefollowingstatutoryrequirementinrelationtoheritageconservation:

(5)HeritageassessmentTheconsentauthoritymay,beforegrantingconsenttoanydevelopment:(a)onlandonwhichaheritageitemislocated,or(b)onlandthatiswithinaheritageconservationarea,or(c)onlandthatiswithinthevicinityoflandreferredtoinparagraph(a)or(b)requireaheritagemanagementdocumenttobepreparedthatassessestheextenttowhichthecarryingoutoftheproposeddevelopmentwouldaffecttheheritagesignificanceoftheheritageitemorheritageconservationareaconcerned.

ThePlanningProposal–CentralSydneyModernMovementheritageitemspreparedbytheCityofSydney,proposestolistthesubjectsiteasalocalheritageitemunderSydneyLEP2012.Asaconsequence,thesitewouldbecomesubjecttotheseprovisions.

3.2.3 DevelopmentControlPlan

DevelopmentControlPlans(DCP)providesdetailedplanninganddesignguidelinestosupporttheplanningcontrolsintheLocalEnvironmentalPlan(LEP).TheSydneyDevelopmentControlPlanwaspreparedandadoptedin2012byCityofSydneyCouncil(SydneyDCP2012).ItidentifiesCouncilsrequirementsfornewworksonlandtowhichtheSydneyLEP2012applies.Particularreferenceismadetothecontrolsandguidelinesforalterationsandadditionsandnewdevelopmentwithinthevicinityofaheritagelisteditem.


ShouldthesitebelistedasaheritageitemunderSydneyLEP2012asproposed,itwouldbecomesubjecttotheheritageconservationcontrolscontainedinSydneyDCP2012.

4 HISTORICALBACKGROUND

4.1 OriginalOccupation

WhileanAboriginalhistoryhasnotbeenprovidedfor,itisacknowledgedthattheoriginaloccupantsoftheareaweretheGadigalpeople,thetraditional

custodiansofthelandwithintheCityofSydneyboundaries.

4.2 DevelopmentoftheExistingBuildingsontheSite

ThesitehasalongassociationwithfreemasonryandhasaccommodatedaMasonichallsince1884,whichservedastheUnitedGrandLodgeofNSW.Duetotheinadequaciesoftheoriginalbuilding,itwasdeterminedthatanewbuildingwasrequired.Aninitialschemewassubmittedfordevelopmentconsentin1970;

however,thiswasmodifiedandarevisedscheme,preparedbythewell-regardedfirmofJoseland&Gilling,wassubmittedin1973andbuildingapprovalwasfinallygrantedon28July1975.Thisschemeconsistedofafivestoreypodiumhousingthelodgeroomsandassociatedfacilities,twobasements,andatwenty-twostoreyofficetower(seeFigure4).Constructionofthepodiumlevelonlywascompletedin1978andthecentreofficiallyopenedon10March1979(seeFigure

5).

Figure4:OriginalGoulburnStreetelevationapprovedin1976showingtheunbuilttower.CityofSydney,823/2E/74.


Figure5:ThebuildinginitsoriginalformshowingtheGoulburnStreetentryc.1980.ConstructionalReview,Feb1980.

In2001,approvalwasobtainedfortheconstructionofaglazedcaféandlobbybetweentheexistingfrontageandthestreetboundarytoadesignbyPeddleThorpandWalker.Atthesametime,approvalwasgrantedformodificationstotheoriginaltowerdesigninvolvingtheadditionofthreelevelsandotherminorchanges;therewasnochange,however,tothegeneralappearanceofthetower

oritsoriginallyconceivedsplayedbase.Boththeglazedenclosureandthetowerwerecompletedby2005andrepresentthebuildinginitscurrentform(seeFigures6,7and8).

Figure6:CivicTowerunderconstructionin2003showingthe

angledstructuralsupports.JohnPrescott,CityofSydney


Figure7:Thecompletedglazedcafeteriaandpaintedsurfacesofthepresentbuildingshowingthetowerabove.

Figure8:Thecompletedtowerabovetheoriginalpodiumlevel.


4.3 TheBrutalistMovementinAustralia

TheCityofSydney,PlanningProposal–CentralSydneyModernMovementheritageitemsputsthecasethattheSydneyMasonicCentrewarrantslistingasalocalheritageitemduetoitsvalueas

‘anoutstandingexampleoftheBrutalistarchitecturalstyleanddemonstratesmanyofitscharacteristics–strongandexpressiveshapesinreinforcedconcrete,boldcurvedelements,textureprovidedbybuilding

materialsandlargeunbrokenwallsurfaces.’

TheMasonicCentrewasdesignedandconstructedduringaperiodofrapidchange.ThefabricofAustraliansocietywaschangingundertheinfluenceofworld-widetrendsandanincreasingmigrantpopulation.The1960sand1970swere:

‘…audaciousdecadesofdaring,controversy,creativityand

non-conformity,whenconventionswerebroken,valuesrejectedandthecultoftheindividualarose.Itwasthetimeofmini-skirtedwomen,long-hairedmenandtheBeatles…’1

AnewgenerationofPostWarIIeducatedarchitectshademergedintoaworldwherecommunicationhadimprovedandarchitecturalpublicationbroadened;therewasagrowingacceptanceof‘modernarchitecture’byclientsand,tosome

extent,thebuildingindustry:

‘CriticismflourishedonacomfortablefoundationofthepublicacceptanceofModernism.2

ModernarchitecturehadbeguntomakeanimpressionontheAustraliansceneduringthe1930s.3Aconsolidatedmodernmovement,however,didnotgetunderwayuntilthelate1940s,atwhichtimeitfollowedtheleadofarchitects

suchasHarrySeidlerandSydneyAnchor.

Duringthe1950sand1960s,newbuildingformsappearedinAustraliancitiestochallengethearchitectandbuilder.Inresponsetohighlandpricesandtheavailabilityofnewtechnologies,highriseofficeblocksbrokethrougholdheightlimits;thelarge-scaleregionalshoppingcentreandthemulti-storeycarpark

1 ‘The Booming Decades: 1960-1980’ in Robert Irving, Twentieth Century Architecture in Wollongong, NSW, Wollongong City Council, 2001, p.103. 2 Ken Woolley, ‘The Emergence of a Personal Australian Response to Modernism’ in Sheridan Burke (ed.), Fibro House: Opera House. Conserving Mid Twentieth Century Heritage. Proceedings of a Conference convened by the Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales, 23-24 July, 1999, p.44, 3 For further discussion see Donald Leslie Johnson, Australian Architecture 1901-51 Sources of Modernism, NSW, Sydney University Press, 1980, p.85 ff.


begantoappear.FortheAustralianbuildingindustryofthe1960s,thekey

wordswere‘growth,expansionanddevelopment.’4

Theimpactofthenewbuildingmaterialsandtechnologyofthetwentiethcenturyonarchitectureshouldnotbeunder-estimated.AssurmisedbyRobinBoydin1963:

‘…althoughartisticvaluesmaynotchange,newrulesareneedednow.Foronething,theeffectsofindustryremovethe

architectureofthishalfofthetwentiethcenturyfromanythingbutacademicconnectionwiththegreatbuildingsofthepast.’5

When,duringthe1960sand1970s,Australianarchitecturebrokeawayfromthesimplicitydemandedbythe(then)prevailingFunctionaliststylesoftheprecedingdecadestowardsmoretowardsmoresculpturalandoftenextrovertedformsofexpression,wasgenerallyconformingtoworldwidetrends.This

entailedamoveawayfromlightnessandminimalismindesignandconstruction-longestablishedtenantsofmodernarchitecture-towardsexpressionsof‘weight,toughnessandelaboratearticulation.’6TherobustandrawarchitecturethatresultedhadbeeninspiredbythelaterworksofLeCorbusier.PeterandAlisonSmithsoninEnglandprovidedthetheoreticalleadershipforwhatwasthendubbedthe‘NewBrutalistMovement’.ThefirstrecognisedBrutalistbuilding

wastheSmithton’sHunstantonSecondarySchoolinNorfolk,England,1949-54.

TheNewBrutalistMovementrepresentedthe‘firstconsistentassaultontheclassicalconceptionofbeauty’fromwithintherealmofarchitecture.7AshadoccurredinModernArt,eventhoseobjectsthatare‘ugly’inaconventionalsensemaybeintenselystimulatingandthuspleasurable.8TheNewBrutalistslearntfromLeCorbusier’sdirectuseofmaterials,towhichtheythengavetheirown

moralmeaning:

‘TheBrutalistethicwasoneofsocialconcern,urbanresponsibilityandintegrityintheexpressionofmaterial,structureandfunction.Theaesthetic,intheory,wouldbeapowerfulimagethatderivedfromtheseconsiderations.’9

TheprincipalconceptsoftheNewBrutalism-

(1)MemorabilityasanImage,

4 Richard Apperly, Robert Irving and Peter Reynolds, A Pictorial Guide to Identifying Australian Architecture. Styles and Terms from 1788 to the Present, NSW, Angus and Robertson, 1989, p.227. 5 Robin Boyd, The Australian Ugliness, Victoria, Penguin Books, 1963, p.127. 6 Richard Apperly, Robert Irving and Peter Reynolds, op.cit., 1989, p.227. 7 Robin Boyd, op.cit., 1963, p.218. 8 Ibid, p.217. 9 Jennifer Taylor, Australian Architecture Since 1960, ACT, National Education Division, RAIA, 1990, p.78.


(2)Clearexhibitionofstructureand(3)Valuationofmaterials‘asfound’--werenotuniquetothemovement.Thedifferencearosefromthedegreetowhichtheyweretaken…andinthecaseoftheSmithsonsitistheNth.’10

TheNewBrutalistmovementhadaprofoundimpactonAustralianarchitectureindirectandindirectways.SomeAustralianarchitectsdrewontheethicsofthemovement,whileothersworkedprimarilywithitsvisualattributes.

Duringthe1960s,evidenceofNewBrutalistinfluencescouldmostreadilybefoundinthebuildingsoftheSydneySchool,aregionalmovementthatmodifiedBrutalismwithacombinationoftheinfluencesoftheArtandCraftsmovement,traditionalJapanesearchitectureandtheworkofFrankLloydWright.11

Duringthe1970s,amorestringentformof‘betonbrut’becameapopularmediumforpublicandcommercialbuildings.Thefavouredmaterialwas

reinforcedconcreteshowingtheimprintofitsformwork.Architectsworkinginthisstylestretchedthelimitsofhowthismaterialcouldbeshaped.Paradoxically,giventheemphasisplacedonmaterialsbeingusedas‘found’,greatattentionhadtobepaidtothedesignandqualityofthatformwork:

‘…enormouscarehadtobetakentoobtainexactlytherightdegreeof‘artless’roughness.’12

Workinthisidiomappearsaggressive,uncompromising,chunky,andover-scaled,oftenwithanextroverteddisplayofstructureandservices.Materialsandotherfunctionalcomponentswereexpressedasafundamentalpartofthebuildingaesthetic.Decorativecladdingandsurfacefinishessuchaspaintorrenderweregenerallyeschewedinfavourofrawunfinishedconcrete,oftencarefullyexecutedandbearingtheimprintoftheoriginalformwork,while

buildingserviceswereoftenexternalisedandutilisedfortheiraestheticeffect.13

Initspurestform,NewBrutalismasnota‘longlived’architecturalmovement.Asthevalidityandrelevanceofsuchanunadornedandabstractformofaestheticswasbroughtintoquestioninthe1970s,themovementstalled:

‘…theclichésofthecritiquemadenodistinctionbetweentheblandsimplicityandintenseformalpurificationofthebest

modernarchitecture.However,thiswholesalerejectionfittedapublicmoodofdissatisfactionwiththedebasedmodern

10 Jennifer Taylor, Australian Architecture Since 1960, ACT, National Education Division, RAIA, 1990, p.218. 11 Richard Apperly, Robert Irving and Peter Reynolds, op.cit., 1989, p. 240ff. 12 Ibid, p.240 ff. 13 Ibid,p.252


movement,andservedthepolemicnottoattemptfinedistinctions…’14

TheprincipalAustralianarchitectsworkingintheBrutalistStyleinthe1960s-early1980sincludedEdwardMadigan,Torzillo&Briggs;HarrySeidler;Anchor,Mortlock,MurrayandWoolley;JohnAndrews;andCameron,ChisholmandNichol.ExamplesofNewBrutalistbuildingsinAustraliainclude:

• ChristCollege,SandyBay(1960).Architect:DirkBolt.

• UnionCollege,UniversityofQLD.(c.1960).Architect:JamesBirrell.

• HaleSchoolMemorialHallinPerth(1961).Architect:MarshallCliftonandAnthonyBrand,withBrandFergusonandSolarskiinassociation.

• MountSaintCaniceGymnasium,LowerSandyBay(c.1966).Architect:RobertNation-Cooper&Vincent.

• HaroldHoltSwimmingCentre,Malvern(1967).Architect:KevinBorlandandDarylJackson

• SeidlerHouse,Killara,NSW(1967).Architect:HarrySeidler.

• NationalCarillon,Canberra(1968).Architect:CameronChisholmNicol.

• Ku-ring-gaiCollegeofAdvancedEducation,Lindfield(1968-84).NSWGovernmentArchitect(DavidTurner).

• CameronOffices,Canberra(c.1969).Architect:JohnAndrews.

• St.LeonardsCentre,St.Leonards,formerlyCBCBankHeadquarters(1972).Architect:KerrandSmith.

• CivicCentre,Noarlunga(1976).Architect:KeithNeighbour.

• CanberraSchoolofMusic(1976).Architect:DarylJacksonandEvanWalker.

• HighCourtofAustralia,Canberra(1980).Architect:EdwardsMadiganTorzilloandBriggs.

• NationalGalleryofAustralia(1982).Architect:EdwardsMadiganTorzilloandBriggs.

Table1identifiesexampleswithintheCityofSydneyandtheircurrentheritagestatus.AustralianInstituteofArchitect’s(AIA)RegisterofSignificantBuildingsinNSWdatefromtheregisterofJuly2018.Thisregisterisnotastatutoryregister.

14 William J.R. Curtis, op.cit., 1982, Preface; p. 377.


BuildingName Architect HeritageStatus

Image

FormerReadersDigestBuilding,SurryHills,26

WaterlooStreet,SurryHills(1968)

JohnJames. Statutory:SydneyLEP2012:Localsignificance.

Non-Statutory:RegisterofSignificantbuildingsin

NSW(AIA).

GoogleImages.

UTSTower,No.15Broadway,Ultimo(1968-75)

NSWGovernmentArchitect,MichaelDysart

projectarchitect.

Statutory:Notlisted.

Non-Statutory:None.

GoogleImages.

WentworthBuilding,Universityof

Sydney(1972)

AncherMortlockand

Woolley.


Non-

Statutory:None.

GoogleImages.



Image

QantasInternationalCentre-Stage1

(former),No.259GeorgeStreet(1970-83).

JoselandandGilling.


Non-

Statutory:None.

No.259GeorgeStreetwebsite.

SydneyTownHallHouse,No.456KentStreet,Sydney(1971-75)

AncherMortlockandWoolley


ProposedforlistingontheSydneyLEP2012.

Non-Statutory:None.

GoogleImages.

SiriusApartments,No.

48CumberlandStreet,TheRocks(1975-80).

NSWHousing

Commission,TaoGofersdesignarchitect.


Statutory:RegisterofSignificantbuildingsinNSW(AIA).

GoogleImages.



Image

SydneyPoliceCentre,No.151-241Goulburn

Street,SurryHills(1975-87)

NSWGovernmentArchitect

withRichardDinhamasprojectarchitect.


Non-

Statutory:None.

GoogleImages.

Carpark,GardenIsland,NSW(1980)

JohnAndrews


Non-

Statutory:None.

GoogleImages.

FormerRegentHotel,Sydney,No.199GeorgeStreet(1982).

DavisHeatherandDysart


Non-Statutory:None.

GoogleImages.



Image

BiduraChildren’sCourt(1984)

NSWGovernmentArchitect

(AndrewMilcz,ProjectArchitect)


Statutory:

RegisterofSignificantbuildingsinNSW(AIA).

Domain.

Table1:BrutalistBuildingsinSydney.

4.4 TheArchitects

ThefirmofJoselandandGillingwasestablishedin1919byRichardGeorge

HowardJoselandandFrederickGlynnGilling.Duringthe1920s,thefirmdesignedbuildings,largelyhouses,inavarietyofstyles.Joselandretiredinthelate1920s;Gilling,however,retainedthenameofthefirm.Afterhisretirement,hisson,RonaldAndrewGilling,apartnerfrom1948,continuedtofirm.AccordingtoNoniBody,thefirmbecamelargelycommercial,designingsubstantialBrutalistbuildingsincludingtheMasonicCentreandthefirststageof

theformerQantasTower(seeabove).15

ThesearetheonlytwoexamplesoftheworkofJoselandandGillingintheBrutalistStyleidentifiedthroughreadilyavailableresources.AlloftheexamplesoftheirworkidentifiedontheStateHeritageRegisterandtheStateHeritageInventoryarePre-WorldWarIIbuildings.OneothersitecontainingaPostWorldWarIIperiodbuildingdesignedbythefirmislistedontheStateHeritage

Inventory(SydneyLEP2012),beingtheFormerColonialMutualLifeBuildinginMartinPlace.ThisVictorianperiodbuildingwasguttedin1975,retainingonlytheFreeClassicalStylefaçadeandanewbuildingerectedbehind,designedbyJoselandandGilling.Thissiteisnot,however,listedonthebasisofitsassociationwithJoselandandGillingbutbecauseoftheremnantVictorianperiodfaçade.16

15 Noni Boyd, ‘Joseland and Gilling,’ in P. Goad and J Willis (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Australian Architecture, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2012, p.376. 16 Former Colonial Mutual Life Building Façade, Martin Place, Sydney. State Heritage Inventory Database No.: 2423826.


5 PHYSICALANALYSIS

5.1 Preamble

Thepurposeofthissectionistoidentifythecharacterofthesiteanditssetting.

5.2 TheSite

TheSiteislocatedontheveryprominentnorthwesterncorneroftheintersectionofCastlereaghandGoulburnStreets.AdjacentthesitetothewestistheCivicHotelandtothenorthisMuseumTowers.OppositethesitetothesouthistheLionelBowenBuildingcontainingtheFamilyCourtofNSWwhiletothe

eastisJohnMadisonToweranddiagonallyoppositethesitetothesoutheastistheGoulburnStreetCarPark.Thisisaprominentvehicularandpedestrianthoroughfareandthesiteishighlyconspicuousinthislocation(seeFigure2).

5.3 TheExistingBuilding

5.3.1 Summary

Thesubjectsitecomprises(seeFigure1):

• TheSydneyMasonicCentre(279-283CastlereaghStreet,Sydney(Lot1,DP1067328));

• TheAssociateCafé(285CastlereaghStreet,Sydney(Lot3,DP1067328));and

• TheCivicTower(66GoulburnStreet,Sydney(Lot2,DP1067328)).TheCivicTowerisintegratedwiththesitebutisaccessedandoperated

separately.

5.3.2 SydneyMasonicCentre

TheSydneyMasonicCentre,thefirstofthecurrentbuildingstobeconstructedonthesite,consistsofuptosixstoreys(someinternalspacesspanseveralfloors)withtwolevelsofbasementcarparking.Thebuildingiscentredaroundthelargegrandlodgeroomwhichisaugmentedbyseveralsmallerlodgerooms,

alargebanquethall,offices,meetingrooms,functionrooms,apublicfoyerandsupportspaces.Themainfoyercontainsalargefabricwallartwork.AseparatepublicfoyeraccessedfromGoulburnStreetprovidesaccesstotheliftlobbyoftheCivicTowerwhichrisesabove.

Thebuildingisarrangedaroundadiagonalaxisrunningthroughthecornerofthesite.Setonthisaxisisthecentralgrandlodgeroom,theformofwhichis

expressedexternallyonthecornerofthebuilding.Symmetricallyarrangedaroundthemainaxisoneithersideofthelodgeroomaretwopairsofverticalconcretestairshaftswhichframe,respectively,theentrancetothemasonic


centreitselfandtheentrytotheofficetowerabove.Subsidiaryspacesare

arrangedaroundtheseprincipalcompositionalelements(seeFigure9).Thebuildingissteppedoutwardsfromanarrowbasetowardsadominantoverhangingupperlevelwhichcontainsofficesandmeetingroomsbehindawindowlessexternalface(seeFigure7).

Figure9:Secondfloorplanapprovedin1976showingthearrangementofelementsaroundadiagonalaxisandthemonumentalentryportalscontainingconcretestairshaftsarrangedsymmetricallyaroundtheaxis.CityofSydney,823/2E/74

Theprincipalconstructionmaterial,bothinternallyandexternally,is

unfinishedoff-formconcrete(thefaceoftheupperlevelispainted)withframelessglassinfillandtravertinestoneflooringalongwithsomesectionsofverticaltimberpanellinginternally.

5.3.3 TheAssociateCafe

Acafeteria,notassociatedwiththefunctionsofthecentre,iswrappedaroundtheoutsideofthecornerofthebuildingbetweenthemainlodgeroomandthe

cornerstreetboundarybeneaththeoverhangingupperlevels(seeFigure10).Itisenclosedbyframelessglasspanelssupportedbystainlesssteelsuspensioncableshangingfromtheundersideoftheoverhangingconcretestructureabove.Theinteriorconsistsofaconventionalfit-outuponatimberframedplinth.


5.3.4 TheCivicTower

TheCivicTowerconsistsofacommercialofficebuildingrising24storeysabovethetopofthepodiumlevelcomprisingtheMasonicCentre(seeFigure8).AlthoughtheliftlobbyislocatedinthemainbodyoftheMasonicCentrebuilding,itisfunctionallyseparatewithaseparatestreetentry.Thetowerislocatedtothewestofthegrandlodgeroom(ratherthanaboveit)butechoesitsformwithitscurvedcornersandanangularcantileveratitsbase.Incontrast

withthepodium,however,thematerialissmoothfacedconcretecoatedwithacreampaintfinishwhiletheundersideoftheangularcantileveriscladinlightweightmodularpanels(seeFigure17).

5.4 ArchitecturalAnalysis

TheMasonicCentreisstronglycharacteristicofbrutalistmovementarchitecture.Theexternalform,whichiscraftedaroundtheshapeoftheprincipallodgeroom,

isanexpressionoftheinteriorprogrammewhilethesupportingstructureisclearlyexpressedaspartofangularcompositionofinterplayinggeometricshapes.Theheavycantileveredupperlevelhoveringunsupportedoverthefootwaybelowdefiesconventionalarchitecturalpracticetocreateanoverpoweringscalewhilethewindowlesswallsofrough-castin-situconcretecompletetheaggressiveanduncompromisingcharacter.

Incontrast,thecaféisadelicatelyexecutedglassstructurewithexpressedstainless-steelcablesupportsconstructedinandearly21stcenturyminimalistidiom.Theinteriorisaconventionalcommercialfit-outwhichwrapsaroundtheouterwallofthegrandlodgewithadisabledaccessramp,commercialkitchenandassociatedshelvingandartworkonthewalls.

Theofficetoweris,withtheexceptionoftheangularcantileveredbase,a

relativelyconventionaltowerbuilding.Althoughsuperficiallybuiltinaccordancewiththeoriginal1974designdrawingsbyJoseland&Gilling,ithasnoneofthecharacteristicsofformormaterialassociatedwithbrutalistbuildings.Theinterestingstructuralsupportforthecantileveredtowerishiddenunderlightweightcladding(ratherthanexposedasafeatureasitwouldinatruebrutalistbuilding)whiletheexternalconcretefaçadeissimplyover-coatedwith

creampaint(seeFigure17).Thetoweritselfissquareinplanwithslightlyroundedcornerstofollowthethemeofthepodium.Apartfromthecantileveredbase,theprincipalarchitecturaldeviceistheuseofcloselyspacedconcretefinsrunningupthefaçadetoprovideastrongsenseofverticalitytoanotherwisesimpleandunremarkablefaçadecomprisingregularlyspacedwindowopenings.


5.5 IntegrityoftheSydneyMasonicCentre

TheoriginalMasonicCentrebuildinghasbeensubjecttoanumberofalterationsandadditionssinceitscompletionin1979.Theseinclude:

• Thepaintingoftheoff-formconcreteontheupperlevelfrontfaçadeoverhangingthestreet(seeFigure11).

• Theconstructionoftheglazedcaféspaceonthecornerofthesitebetweenthefrontofthegrandlodgeroomandthefrontpropertyboundary(see

• Figure12).

• TheglazedenclosureatthefrontpropertyboundaryoftheforecourttotheGoulburnStreetliftlobby(seeFigure13).

• ThecladdingoftheGoulburnStreetstairshaftsinaluminiumsandwichpanel(see

• Figure16).

• Theremovaloftheoriginalradialpatterntilingbetweenthefrontwallsofthesiteandthestreetboundary(seeFigure15).

• Refittingofbathroomsandutilityareas.Althoughmuchoftheoriginalfabric,includingtheinteriors,isintact,thesechangeshaveappliedasubstantialadditionallayertothemostprominentpublicelementsofthebuilding.Theglazedcaféconcealsmuchofthefrontoftheoriginalbuildingatitsmostprominentcornerandsignificantlydilutesthe

emphaticanddramaticeffectoftheangularbaseandthecantileveredupperfloor(compareFigures10and11).Evenintheinterior,wheretheoriginalfaçadematerialshouldbemostvisible,itisconcealedbyaclutterofaccessramps(seeFigures15and16),walldecorationsandcaféfitoutincludingfurniture,wallshelving,kitchenenclosuresandthelike(seeFigure14).Itwouldalsohaveconcealedtheoriginalradialpatterntilingbetweenthefrontwallsofthesiteand

thestreetboundarybutthisappearstohavebeenentirelyremovedandreplacedwithgenericcommercialfloortiles(seeFigure15).

Similarly,theglazedenclosurealongGoulburnStreetconcealstheoriginaltwinconcretestairshaftswhichweredesignedasamonumentalframetothetowerentryandasymmetricalpairtothesamedeviceontheCastlereaghStreetentry(compareFigure4&Figure13).Althoughconstructedinglassandtheoretically

semi-transparent,theseelementshaveasubstantialvisualimpactuponthemostpublicelementsofthebuildingandfundamentallyalteritscharacterstrippingitofmuchofitsassertiveandoverbearingscaleanditsuncompromisingrelationshiptothestreetedge.TheyalsoreducetherelevanceoftheangularcantileverontheCivicTowerwhichwasintendedtocreateadialoguewithsimilarcantileveratthegroundlevelcorner(seeFigure4).

Thepaintingofpartoftheoff-formconcretefaçadeandthecladdingoftheGoulburnStreetstairshaftsconcealtheoriginalcarefullyexecutedoff-form


concretesurfacesanddisguisethematerialityoftheconstruction.Thesechanges

haveconsequentlysignificantlyerodedthequalityofthebuildingasanexampleofbrutalistarchitecturebyremovingordegradingitskeycharacteristicsincludingtheemphaticscale,processionalsiteplanning,theexpressionofstructureandthecandidexpressionoftheconstructionmaterials.

Figure10:Thebuildinginitsoriginalformc.1989.IdentifyingAustralianArchitecture.

Figure11:Thepaintedupperlevelfaçade,glazedcaféenclosureandtheCivic

Towerabove.


Figure12:Theglazedcaféenclosureconcealingtheboldoff-formconcreteformsbeneath.

Figure13:TheglazedenclosureoftheGoulburnStreetentryportals.


Figure14:Theclutteroftheglazedcaféenclosureconcealingtheoriginaloff-formconcreteexternalwalls.

Figure15:Thenewfloortilesandclutterofthecaféincludingaccessrampconcealingtheoriginalexternaloff-formconcretefacade.


Figure16:Aluminiumsandwichpanelcladdingconcealingtheoriginaloff-formconcreteofthecolumnstotheGoulburnStreetentry.

6 HERITAGESIGNIFICANCE

6.1.1 AssessmentofSignificance

6.1.2 ExistingCitationsandListings

Thesiteisnot:

• ListedasaheritageitembytheStateHeritageRegisterundertheauspicesoftheNSWHeritageAct1977.

• ListedasaheritageitembySchedule7oftheSydneyLEP2012.

• LocatedwithinaConservationAreaasdefinedbythisplan.

• NotlocatedwithintheimmediatevicinityofaConservationAreaasdefinedbythisplan.

Thesiteis:

• LocatedwithintheimmediatevicinityofheritageitemsheritageitembySchedule7oftheSydneyLEP2012.

6.1.3 LiteratureReview

AreviewofthekeyliteraturecoveringbrutalistarchitectureinAustraliarevealsthatthesiteisreferencedinthefollowingpublications:



ItisusedasoneofanumberofexamplesofAustralianBrutalistbuildings.Itis

noted,however,thatthispublicationpredatesthemodificationstothesiteandthebuildingisrepresentedhereinitsoriginalform.

• Bogle,Michael,“BeautyoftheBeast”,ArchitectureBulletin,March-April2012:pp.10-11.

Theinteriorsareusedasoneofanumberofexamplesoflarge-scaleceremonialentrancesandcavernousreceptionareastypicalofAustralianBrutalistbuildings.

• ConnellWagner,“Architecturalconceptrealized30yearslater”,ArchitectureBulletin,November-December2006:p.24.

Thisarticleprovidesabriefdiscussionofthestructuralengineeringchallengesassociatedwiththeconstructionofthetower.Thefocusisnot,however,onthearchitecturalqualitiesofthebuilding.

Thesiteisnotreferencedinthesekeyworks:

• Elser,Oliveretal,SOSBrutalism,AGlobalSurvey,Zurich,DeutschesArchitekturmuseum&WustenrotFoundationandParkBooksAG,2017.

• Taylor,Jennifer,AustralianArchitectureSince1960,Canberra,TheRoyalAustralianInstituteofArchitects,1990.

TheMasonicCentrehasreceivedonlybriefmentionintheliteratureasan

exampleofBrutalisminNewSouthWalesandthenonlypriortomodificationorinrelationtoitsunalteredentryspaces.Innoneofthepublishedworksdoesitreceiveclearfocusindividuallyorisitlaudedasafineexampleoftheidiom.

6.1.4 DraftListingsandHeritageStudies

Thesiteisrecommendedforlistingasalocalheritageitemin:

• TannerDentonKibbleArchitects,ModernMovementArchitectureinCentralSydney,HeritageStudyReview,2018.

Thesiteisnotlistedbythe

• AustralianInstituteofArchitects,RegisterofSignificantBuildingsinNSW,July2018.


6.1.5 SignificanceofSydneyMasonicCentre

6.1.6 Preamble

Oncethehistoricalandphysicalevidencehasbeenestablished,itispossibletoassesstheheritagesignificanceofaplace.TheAustralianICOMOSBurraCharterdefinesheritagesignificanceas‘aesthetic,historic,scientificorspiritualvalueforpast,presentorfuturegenerations.’17Heritagesignificancemayrelatetohowrareorrepresentativeaplacemaybeandoritsrelationshiptoitssettingand

context,whetherhistorical,contemporary,physicalorsocial.Itmayrelatetotheplaceasawholeortosomeofitscomponents.TheNSWHeritageOfficehasdevelopedaseriesofcriteriabasedontheprinciplesoftheBurraCharter.Thesecriteriaareasfollows.

Fewoftheaspectsofsignificancediscussedbelowareexclusive:acharacteristicmay,forexample,havebothhistoricalandaestheticsignificance.

6.1.7 AssessmentUnderNSWHeritageDivisionCriterion

TheStateHeritageInventorylistingsheetforthisitemprovidesthefollowing,verylimited,assessmentofsignificance.

17 Article 1.2, The Burra Charter (The Australian ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance), adopted 19th August, 1979 and revised 23 February, 1981, 23 April 1988 and November 1999.


Criteria DraftInventoryAssessment Comment GuidelinesforExclusion

a)HistoricalSignificance

ThesiteoftheSydneyMasonicCentrehaslongassociationswithfreemasonryinSydney,inparticulartheUnitedGrandLodge,whichhasoccupieditsnorthernsectionafterthecompletionoftheso-calledNewMasonicHallinCastlereaghStreetinJanuary1884.

Thelonghistoricalassociationwiththesiteoffreemasonryisnotdisputed.Despitethis,thesignificanceoffreemasonryitselfandthatoftheGrandUnitedLodgecanbeascribedtoanylocationwhereMasonicmeetingstakeplace.

Providesevidenceofactivitiesorprocessesthatareofdubioushistoricalimportance:Alonghistoricalassociationwithfreemasonryisnot,initself,ofparticularhistoricalsignificance.Suchaclaimcouldbemadefornumerousothersiteswithoutwarrantingtheirlisting.

b)HistoricalAssociationSignificance

TheSydneyMasonicCentrehasstrongassociationswiththeUnitedGrandLodge,whichwasformedinthe1870s.ThebuildingisassociatedwiththeprominentarchitecturalfirmofJoseland&Gilling.Itisoneofseveralinnovativebuildingsdesignedbythefirmduringthelate1960sandthefirsthalfofthe1970s.

TheassociationwiththeUnitedGrandLodgeandthearchitecturalfirmofJoseland&Gillingisnotdisputed.

Providesevidenceofpeopleoreventsthatareofdubioushistoricalimportance:AstrongassociationwiththeUnitedGrandLodgeisnot,initself,ofparticularhistoricalsignificance.Hasbeenalteredsothatiscannolongerprovideevidenceofaparticularassociation:Thebuildinghasbeensignificantlymodified,inparticularontheexterior,sothatitnolongerretainsthecorearchitectural



characteristicswhicharisefromitsconnectionwithJoseland&Gilling.

c)Aesthetic/TechnicalSignificance

TheSydneyMasonicCentreisanoutstandingandpowerfulexampleoftheBrutalistarchitecturalstyle,withamonumentalinteriorthatranksamongstthefinestinteriorsinSydneyfromthesecondhalfofthe20thcentury.ItisanimportantlandmarkandstreetscapeelementinthissectionofSydney.TheSydneyMasonicCentredemonstratesaveryhighstandardofoff-formconcreteconstruction.TheCivicTowerhasaestheticsignificancebecauseitcloselyfollowsJoseland&Gilling'soriginalintentionforthedevelopmentofthesiteinthe1970s.TheCivicToweris

Thequalityoftheoriginalarchitecturaldesignisnotdisputednorthequalityofitsexecution.Muchofthisquality,however,derivedfromthesplayedcornerpodiumrisingtotheassertivecantileveredcanopy.Thisoriginalarchitecturalintenthasbeenfundamentallyalteredbytheexternalmodificationsundertakenin2001-2003andthebuildinghaslostafundamentalelementofitsBrutalistcharacteristics.Inparticular,thisincludesthepaintingoftheoff-formconcreteandtheconstructionofaglassfaçadeatthebaseofthebuilding.Althoughthebuildingisarecognisablelandmark,thisinitselfdoesnotwarrantlisting.Thestandardofoff-formconcreteconstruction,althoughhigh,alsodoesnotinitselfwarrantlisting.Evenifthiswerenot

Haslostitsdesignortechnicalintegrity:Asnotedinthisreport,theoriginaldesignintegrityhasbeenfundamentallydamagedsuchthatthebuildingnolongerexpressesitsoriginalarchitecturalintentandisnolongerrepresentativeofthearchitecturalmovementwithwhichitisassociated.Thetowerelement,althoughsuperficiallyconsistentwiththeoriginaldesign,hasbeenexecutedinamannerwhichdeviatesincriticalaspectsfromtheoriginaldesignvisionandhasnotechnicalintegrityasanexampleofthebrutalistmovement.Itspositivevisualorsensoryappealorlandmarkandscenicqualitieshavebeenmorethantemporarilydegraded:Theglazedenclosureofthefaçadeandtheattendantinternalfitoutincludingthe



notableforitsmethodofconstruction,beingsupportedoffitscentralliftcore.TheMonaHessingartwork,whichwascommissionedforthebuilding,isregardedasoneherfinestworks.

thecase,theoriginalconcretehasbeensoobscuredwithanewglassfaçade,internalfitoutandpaintfinishesthatithaslostitsfundamentalintegrityasanelementoftheoriginalarchitecturalvision.TheCivicTower,althoughgenerallyconsistentwiththeoriginalJoseland&Gillingdesign,hasbeenexecutedwithsignificantvariationswhichrenderituncharacteristicofboththeoriginaldesignvisionandBrutalistworkgenerally.Theseincludetheuseofpaintedexternalfinishes(ratherthantheoffformconcretepre-castpanelsoriginallyproposed)andtheuseofasuperficialcladdingtoachievetheoriginaldesignappearanceoftheslopingtowerundercroft(ratherthanexpressingthestructureitselfwhich,thoughpotentiallyaestheticallyinteresting,isnowconcealed).Thestructuralelementsthemselvesareaproductof21stcenturyengineeringwhilethetoweritself,althoughaestheticallywell-

claddingoftheoff-formconcretecurvedstairshaftsistheoreticallyreversiblebutwouldentailthelossoflettablespaceandconsequentlyislikelytoremaininplacemorethantemporarily.Theapplicationofpaintedfinishestopartsoftheoff-formconcretefaçadecompromisesthefundamentalarchitecturalcharacterofthebuildingandisextremelydifficulttoreverse.



mannered,isunremarkableandnotinitselfdeservingoflisting.ThequalityoftheMonaHessingartworkisnotdisputedbutdoesnotrelyexclusivelyonthebuildingfortheretentionofitsqualityorfordisplay.

d)Social/CulturalSignificance

Thebuilding'ssocialsignificancehasnotbeenascertained.Ithaspotentialsocialsignificanceforthemasoncommunityandarchitecturalcommunity.

AlthoughthesitehasaspecificandlongstandingassociationwithFreemasonry,thesamecouldbesaidofmanysitesandisnotparticularlyremarkable.Itwouldnotinitselfwarrantlisting.

Isonlyimportanttothecommunityforamenityreasons:ThereisnoevidencetosuggestthatthecommunityofFreemasonsappliesanyspecialsignificancetothebuildingotherthanthatassociatedwithitsamenityforMasonicactivities.

e)ResearchSignificance

Notechnicalorresearchsignificanceissuggested.

Onlycontainsinformationthatisreadilyavailablefromotherresourcesofarchaeologicalsites:Althoughthemethodofconstructionistechnicallyinteresting,thisinformationis



availablefromtheoriginalarchitecturalandengineeringdocumentationwhichstillexists.

f)Rarity

TheSydneyMasonicCentreisarareexampleofaMasonicbuildingfromthesecondhalfofthe20thcenturyintheCityofSydney.

Freemasonryroseinpopularitythroughtheearlyandmid-partoftwentiethcentury,thegreaterproportionofMasonicbuildings.Bythesecondhalfofthecentury,thenumberofMasonswasindeclineandtherewasnoreasonforabuildingprogram.AscribingrarityofthebuildingasaplacewhereFreemasonsassembletoaparticularperioddoesnotacknowledgetheubiquityofMasonicHallsandTemplesacrossSydney,theStateandtheNation.

Isnotrare:Thebuilding,asaplaceforFreemasonstoassembleisnotrare.ThatfewMasonicHallsorTempleswerebuiltinthelatterhalfofthe20thcenturyisaverynarrowcategoryintermsofrarity.

g)Represent-ative

Thebuildingrepresentsanoutstandingexampleofpost-worldwarIIarchitectureinthebrutaliststyleandoff-formconcreteconstruction.

Thequalityoftheoriginalbuildingasafineexampleofthebrutaliststyleandtheassociateduseofoff-formconcreteisnotdisputed.Theoriginaldesignintent,however,hasbeensignificantlydegradedbyadditionsandalterationsintheearly2000s.Althoughlightweightandtheoreticallyreversible,thesehavebeenplaced.Inthemostprominentlocationof

Doesnotincludeorhaslosttherangeofcharacteristicsofatype:Thebuildinghaslostmanyofthekeycharacteristicsofitstypeincluding:• Theoriginalaggressivesculpturalpresentationtothestreetcornerwhichwastheprincipalcomponentofthebuilding’sarchitecturalcharacter,hasbeenlostwith



thesiteandfundamentallyaltertherelationshipofthebuildingtothestreetinawaywhich,althoughmoresensitivetocurrentthinkingonappropriateurbanform,isatoddswiththedesignethosinherentintheoriginaldesignandthearchitecturalmovementwhichspawnedit.

theadditionofaglazedenclosureandaninternalcaféfitout.

• Off-formconcretecolumnsfrontingGoulburnStreethavebeeninternalisedinaglazedenclosureandcladinaluminiumtoconcealtheiroriginalmateriality.

• Theoriginalpavementfinishbetweenthefrontofthepodiumundercroftandthestreetboundarywhichechoedtheradiallinesofthestructureabovehasbeenremovedandreplacedwithagenerictiledfinish,enclosedwithglassandlargelycoveredbyacaféfitout.

• Thepodiumfasciahasbeenpaintedtoconcealtheoriginaloff-formconcretefinish.


Thisanalysisdemonstratesthateitherthecriteriaforlistingarenotsatisfied.InparticularthekeyreasonforlistingasanexampleofBrutalistarchitectureisnotmetduetotheextensivealterationstothebuildingovertime.ManyofthechangeshavebeenundertakentodeliberatelyridthebuildingofitsBrutalistcharacteristicsandinsodoingchangethebuildingsofundamentallyastomakeithardlyrecognisibleasaBrutalistbuilding.Consequently,thereisinadequatejustificationforthelistingofthebuilding.

6 Discussion

6.1 ArchitecturalCharacter

AlthoughtheoriginalbuildingwasanprominentexampleoftheBrutalistmovement,ithassinceundergonesubstantialalterationwhichwasdeliberatelyaimedatsofteningitsBrutalistcharacteristicsandconsequentlygreatlydegradeditssignificanceasbothanexampleoftheworkofJoselandandGillingand,particularly,asanexampleoftheBrutaliststyle.Theadditionstothefaçade,althoughtheoreticallylightweightandtransparenttoberespectfuloftheoriginalstructurebehind,arehighlyvisible,locatedinthemostprominentpartofthebuilding,andsignificantlyaltertherelationshipofthebuildingtothestreettocreateaninvitingandurbanefrontage.Althoughconsistentwithcurrenturbandesignthinking,thisinterventionisfundamentallyatoddswiththeBrutalistidiomexpressedinthealmostaggressivesculpturalqualitiesoftheoriginalwithitsattendantemphasisontheexpressionofconstructionmaterialandinparticulartheplasticqualitiesofconcreteandexternalexpressionoftheinternalfunctions.

Theoriginalcornertreatmentclearlyexpressedtheformoftheprincipallodgeroomwithin(thecentralsymbolicspaceofthebuilding)withitstieredseatingprovidingexternalexpressioninanassertiveangularformextendingoutwardsandupwardswithexpressedconcretestructuralwebsfromanarrowbasetoanemphaticoverhangingformcontainingsecondaryspacesabove(see

Figure10).Thisinvertedtheconventionalarchitecturalapproachofsteppingabuildingbackfromthebasetothetopandcreatedvisualdramabybreakingthispattern.Setonadiagonalaxisbisectingthesite,thiskeycornerelementwasthenframedbytwopairsofdoublecurvedstairshaftsformingentrancestothelodgeandthefuturetoweroneachstreetfrontagerespectivelytocompleteadiagonallysymmetricalstreetcomposition(seeFigure9).Thestructurewasthencompletedincarefullyexecutedroughfinishedoff-formconcreteinanhonestexpressionofthematerialsandstructuralsystem.Finally,thegroundlevelspacebetweenthecornerofthepodiumandthestreetboundarywastiledinaradial


patterntoechothestructuralconcretewebssupportingtheoverhangingstructureabove.

Theoriginaldesignalsoincludedatowerwhichwasnotexecutedatthetime.Itwastobesupportedfromthecentralliftshafttocantileveroveranangularbasepositionedabovethepodiumbelowtoechotheformoftheprincipallodgeroomonthecornerofthepodiumitself.Theangledbasewastoconsistofsupportingexposedconcretewebsinafurtherreferencetothepodiumstructure.Thistowerwastobecladinpre-castconcretepanelswhichwouldhavebeenleftinarawfinishinthesamemannerastherestofthebuilding(seeFigure4).

Theadditionsmadeintheearly2000s,however,effectivelyconcealedthebaseoftheprincipallodgeroomandfundamentallyalteredthearchitecturalexpressionbydisguisingtheformoftheseprincipalspacesandfillinginthevoidbeneaththeoverhangtoeliminatethemajorityofthearchitecturaldramaitcreated.Italsoeliminatedtheclearvisualrelationshipbetweentheangledoverhangatthecornerofthepodiumandtheangledoverhangatthebaseofthetower.TheglazedenclosurewasalsoextendedaroundtheGoulburnStreetfrontageanddisguisedthematchingpairofcurvedstairshaftstodisrupttheoriginalsymmetryofthepodium.Further,theadditionscompletelyremovedtheoriginalexternalradialpavingpatternwhichreferencedthestructuralelementsabove.

Althoughmuchoftheoriginalmaterialitywasretained,theprominentfaceoftheoverhangwaspaintedinacreamcolourthusconcealingitsmaterial,separatingitfromtheunpaintedsupportingstructurebelowandgivingitmorerefinedbutcompletelydifferentarchitecturalcharacter.Thenowinternaloff-formconcreteoftheGoulburnStreetstairshaftswerealsocladinaluminiumsandwichpanels,concealingtheoriginalmaterialandonceagainalteringtheoriginalarchitecturalintent.Theseseeminglyminorinterventionscompletelysubvertedtheoriginalintentofthearchitecttouseraw,unfinishedmaterialsexpressedasanintegralpartofthearchitecturalcharacter.

Althoughthetowerwasultimatelyconstructed,basedtoanextentontheoriginaldesign,itvariedfromitinanumberofcriticalways.Theprecastconcretepanelfaçadewasreplacedbypaintedsmoothfinishedin-situconcrete;theangledsupportingwebs,designedtomimicthoseonthepodium,werereplacedwithanangledsupportingsubstructureconcealedunderalightweightmodularcladdingdesignedtomimictheoriginaldesign(seeFigure17).Onceagain,thisdeviatedfromtheoriginalarchitecturalintent,andthecoreelementsoftheBrutalistmovement,byconcealing,ratherthanexpressing,boththestructuralmethodandthemateriality.


Figure17:TheundersideoftheCivicTowershowingboththesuperficiallightweight

claddingontheangledundersideconcealingthestructurebeneathandthesmoothpaintedconcretesurfaceofthefaçadeabove.

Thesemodificationswereanattempttoreshapethebuildingintoamorehumanscale,morepeoplefriendly,morepolishedandmoreconsistentwithcurrentthinkingregardingurbandesignwhichis,initself,areactiontotheBrutalistidiom.Theresultisdramaticallydifferentinitseffectfromthebuildingwhichwasoriginallyconceivedandhasnoneoftheemphaticuncompromisingform,overpoweringscaleandtough,honestexpressionofmaterialitywhichcharacterisestheBrutalistidiom.

Themodificationstothetowerdesignmayseemlessconsequentialbutrendersitclearlyaproductoftheearly2000sandnotoftheBrutalistmovement.Thetowerwallswereoriginallyconceivedascarefullyfinishedpre-castconcretepanelsleftunpaintedtoexpressthenaturalcharacteroftheirmaterials.Moreimportantly,theangledundersideofthetowerwastohaveconsistedofunfinishedconcreteclearlyexpressingtheactualformofthestructure;itwouldneverhavebeencladtopresentadifferentsuperficialexternalappearance.Theuseofpaintand,especially,ofanexternalmodularlightweightundercroftcladding,isinconsistentwiththespiritoftheBrutalistmovementwhichthetowerwasintendedtoemulate.Thetower,consequently,failstoauthenticallycompletetheoriginalarchitecturalvisionforthesiteanddemonstrateslittlerelationshiptotheBrutalistoriginsofthepodiumbuilding.


Giventheextenttowhichtheoriginaldesignandarchitecturalqualitiesofthebuildinghavebeencompromised,theSydneyMasonicCentreisnolongereitheranoutstandingorrepresentativeexampleofBrutalistarchitecture.

7 IMPOSITIONOFLISTING

Withlistingofabuildingofthisageandsizecomesaseriesofimpositionsfargreaterthanwithlistingsofmoremodestbuildings.Whilesomeofficebuildingshavebeenlistedandcontinuetofunctionsuccessfully,buildingssuchastheformerSydneyMasonicCentrecreatearangeofadditionalimpositionsthatcreateadisproportionateburdenontheowner,including:

• Officebuildingsofthistypenowhaveanestablishedlifecycle.Asrequirementsforofficespacechange,alongwithrequirementforenergyefficiencyandoccupantfacilities,economicpressuredemandsthebuildingbereplaced.Thisisparticularlyrelevantintermsofenergyefficiency.ManyorganisationsincludingtheStateGovernmentrequireahighlevelofenergyefficiencyinbuildings.Thisbecomesmuchmoredifficulttoachievewitholderofficebuildings.

• Asthebuildingagesfurtheritsclassofofficespacewillbegraduallydowngradedwiththeconsequenceoflowerrentalincomes.Toarrestthismajorrefurbishmentwillberequired.Thereisastrongco-relationbetweenthecapitalcostofrefurbishmentandtheamountofrentalliftpossible.Thiswillonlyworkifotherrequirementssuchasenergyefficiencycanbemet.

• Thebuilding,oncelisted,wouldhavetobeconserved,regardlessofeconomicconsiderationsandcouldbedemolishedonlyinthemostexceptionalcircumstances.ThebuildingpodiumwasdesignedspecificallyasaheadquartersforFreemasons.Shouldtheirrequirementschangeandtheynolongerneedthebuilding,therewillbemajorissuesinremsofreasonableadaptivereuse.Thisessentiallysterilisesanimportantcentralcitysite.

8 CONCLUSION

ThisheritageanalysisdoesnotsupporttheproposedlistingoftheSydneyMasonicCentreatNo.279-285CastlereaghStreetand66GoulburnStreetbecauseitdoesnotmeetthethresholdforlistingasaheritageitemundertheNSWHeritageBranchcriterion;norarethereasonsforlistinggivenbythePlanningProposal–CentralSydneyModernMovementheritageitemssupportedupondetailedassessment.

Inparticular:

• TheconnectionofthesitetofreemasonryinSydneyanditsassociationwiththeUnitedGrandLodgeisoflimitedhistorical


importanceandonlyexistswhilethesiteisoccupiedforitscurrentpurpose.Inthisrespect,itisnodifferentfrommanyothersitesinNewSouthWaleswhichalsoperformsimilarfunctions.

• TheassociationofthebuildingwiththeprominentarchitecturalfirmofJoseland&Gillinghasbeengreatlycompromisedbyextensivealterationswhichhavesubstantiallyerodedtheoriginalarchitecturalintent.WhilenotedashavingdesignedbuildingsintheBrutalistStyle,theyarenotparticularlyidentifiedwiththestyle.

• ThebuildinghasbeenalteredovertimetoapointwhereithaslostitsdesignintegrityasanexampleoftheBrutalistStyleandthosechangescannotbereversed.Therearebetterpreservedexamplesofthisstyleofbuilding.

• Itsidentifiabilityasacitylandmarkisnotuniqueandisofminimalhistoricalimportance.

• Itsuseofhighqualityoff-formconcreteconstructionisnotuniqueandisoflimitedhistoricalimportance.

• TheCivicTowerisanearly2000sconstruction,isaflawedrealisationoftheoriginaldesignandisnotrepresentativeofthefinishesanddetailofabuildingintheBrutaliststyle.Inparticular,thevisualrelationshipcreatedbythedialoguebetweentheangledcantileverbelowthetowerandtheangledcantileveratthecornerofthepodiumhasbeendestroyedbytheglazedinfillofthecornerofthepodium.

• TheMonaHessingartworkisnotreliantuponthebuildingforitssignificanceorpreservation.

• ThefactthatitisarareexampleofaMasonicbuildingfromthesecondhalfofthe20thcenturyinSydneyisoflimitedhistoricalimportance.

• ItisnolongeranoutstandingexampleofBrutalistarchitectureoroff-formconcreteconstructionasitskeycharacteristicshavebeencompromisedbylateradditionsandsomeoftheoff-formconcretesurfaceshavebeenpaintedoverorcladwithothermaterials.

Giventhisanalysis,itissubmittedthattheSydneyMasonicCentredoesnotmeetthethresholdforlistingunderthecriteriaNSWHeritageBranchandthusshouldnotbelistedasaheritageitemontheSydneyLEP2012.

Date post:	27-Dec-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	23 times
Download:	2 times