Perspectives on built heritage preservation: a study of Queenslander homeowners in Brisbane, Australia

Journal of Housing and the Built Environment volume 35, pages1055–1077(2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Set in Brisbane–Australia’s third city—this study solicits the views of residents regarding the preservation of the iconic Queenslander houses (late nineteenth century–early twentieth century). Through in-depth interviews with twenty participants, we sought to determine whether owner-occupiers of Queenslanders value this heritage and why, whether they are engaged in its protection, and if so, what their motivations are. We found that Queenslanders are valued on multiple levels: as placemaking features, as aesthetic pleasure, and as climatic comfort. While maintaining an older home involves a substantial amount of time and money—available mostly to the middle-class and middle-aged groups—this is viewed as fair considering the benefits of living in a Queenslander. Residents believe that the local government can and should do more to protect what is left of the historical housing stock. However, one portion of the public only cares to preserve the outer shells of heritage homes while extensively renovating and modernising interiors. A concern for heritage is sometimes used as a screen for NIMBYism. As a growing city, Brisbane needs to navigate a fine line between increasing the supply of apartment units and preserving the character of local neighbourhoods, which traditionally have been single-family only.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Source: State Advances Corporation (1935)

Fig. 3

Source: Brisbane City Council (2020)

Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Notes

  1. 1.

    For the purpose of this article, terms such as ‘heritage’ and ‘character’ are defined as built form pre-dating the modern style which emerged after WWII. These are not necessarily of importance as judged by Australian legislation but embody the qualities and characteristics of Queensland vernacular architecture.

  2. 2.

    In local parlance, the term ‘suburb’ is used interchangeably with ‘neighbourhood’; it does not necessarily imply a large distance from the CBD.

References

  1. Allen Consulting Group. (2005). Valuing the priceless: The value of historic heritage in Australia. Report, Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand, Sydney.

  2. Allon, F. (2008). Renovation nation: Our obsession with home. Sydney: UNSW Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aplin, G. (2002). Heritage: Identification, conservation, and management. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aplin, G. (2009). Australian attitudes to heritage. Australian Quarterly, 81(3), 19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Armitage, L., & Irons, J. (2013). The values of built heritage. Property Management, 31(3), 246–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ashworth, G. J. (1994). From history to heritage: From heritage to identity. In G. Ashworth & G. P. Larkham (Eds.), Building a new heritage: Tourism, cultural and identity in the New Europe (pp. 13–30). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Australia International Council on Monuments and Sites. (2013). The Burra charter: The Australia ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance. Report, Australia ICOMOS Incorporated, Melbourne.

  8. Bandarin, F., & Van Oers, R. (2012). The historic urban landscape: Managing heritage in an urban century. London: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bhoge, R., Nolan, H., & Pojani, D. (2019). Designing the subtropical city: An evaluation of climate-sensitive policy effects in Australia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1689934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boer, B., & Wiffen, G. (2006). Heritage law in Australia. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brisbane City Council. (2014). Heritage and character buildings. Brisbane: Report.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brisbane City Council. (2020). Traditional housing: Alterations and extensions design guide. Brisbane: Report.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Budge, T. (1992). Effect of heritage controls on property value on example of Victorian historic towns. Historic Environment, 9(1/2), 37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen, K., Donovan, V., Kerr, R., Kowald, M., Smith, L., & Stewart, J. (2014). Lost Brisbane and surrounding areas 1860–1960. Brisbane: The Royal Historical Society of Queensland.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cole, J. (1984). Shaping a city: Greater Brisbane 1925–1985. Eagle Farm, QLD: William Brooks.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cortright, J. (2017). Historic preservation: NIMBYism for the rich? City Observatory 13 June.

  17. Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A short introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Davison, G. (1991). A brief history of the Australian heritage movement. In G. Davison & C. McConville (Eds.), A heritage handbook (pp. 14–27). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  19. de la Torre, M. (2013). Values and heritage conservation. Heritage and Society, 6(2), 155–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Deilami, K., & Kamruzzaman, M. (2017). Modelling the urban heat island effect of smart growth policy scenarios in Brisbane. Land Use Policy, 64, 38–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Deodhar, V. (2004). Does the housing market value heritage: some empirical evidence. In IDEAS Working Paper Series From RePEc (pp. 1–31). St Louis: Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis.

  22. Florida, R. (2005). The flight of the creative class: The new global competition for talent. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Forster, C. (2004). Australian cities: Continuity and change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Freestone, R. (1999). Preserving Sydney’s built heritage in the early twentieth century. Australian Historical Studies, 29(112), 44–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gholamhosseini, R., Pojani, D., Babiano, I. M., Johnson, L., & Minnery, J. (2019). The place of public space in the lives of Middle Eastern women migrants in Australia. Journal of Urban Design, 24(2), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.1498293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gray, P., & Lane, G. (1982). The battle for Bowen Hills. London: Crowfoot Films.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hooi, E., & Pojani, D. (2019). Urban design quality and walkability: An audit of suburban high streets in an Australian city. Journal of Urban Design. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.1554996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Howe, R., Nichols, D., & Davison, G. (2014). Trendyville. Melbourne: Monash University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jager, M. (2013). Class definition and the esthetics of gentrification: Victoriana in Melbourne. In N. Smith & P. Williams (Eds.), Gentrification of the city (pp. 147–168). Boston: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Judson, E., Iyer-Raniga, U., & Horne, R. (2013). Greening heritage housing: Understanding homeowners’ renovation practices in Australia. Journal of Housing and Built Environment, 29(1), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kostof, S. (1993). The city assembled. London: Thames & Huston.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kwok, M., Johnson, L., & Pojani, D. (2018). Discretion and the erosion of community trust in planning: Reflections on the post-political. Geographical Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Marsden, S. (2000). Urban heritage: The rise and postwar development of Australia’s capital city centres. Report, Australian Council of National Trusts and Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra.

  34. Mason, R. (2002). Assessing values in conservation planning: methodological issues and choices. In Assessing the values of cultural heritage (pp. 5–30). Report, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.

  35. McDonald, H. (2011). Understanding the antecedents to public interest and engagement with heritage. European Journal of Marketing, 45(5), 780–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mullins, P. (1979). The struggle against Brisbane’s freeways: 1966–1974. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 3(4), 542–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Olson, M., & Kendrick, R. (2012). Attitude formation. In V. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (pp. 230–235). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). A call for qualitative power analyses. Quality & Quantity, 41, 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pegler, C., Li, H., Pojani, D. (2020). Gentrification in Australia’s largest cities: A bird’s-eye view. Australian Planner. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2020.1775666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rechner, J. (1998). Brisbane house styles 1880 to 1940: A guide to the affordable house. Report, Brisbane History Group, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane.

  41. Rowe, H. (2011). The rise and fall of modernist architecture. Student Pulse, 3, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Seresinhe, I., Preis, T., & Moat, H. (2015). Quantifying the impact of scenic environments on health. Nature, 5, 16899.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Shaw, W. (2005). Heritage and gentrification: Remembering ‘the good old days’ in postcolonial Sydney. In R. Atkinson & G. Bridge (Eds.), Gentrification in a global context: The new urban colonialism (pp. 57–71). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Shipley, R. (2000). Heritage designation and property values: Is there an effect? International Journal of Heritage Studies, 6(1), 83–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Smith, N., & Williams, P. (2013). Alternatives to orthodoxy: Invitation to a debate. In N. Smith & P. Williams (Eds.), Gentrification of the city (pp. 27–46). Boston: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  47. State Advances Corporation. (1935). Designs of dwellings. Brisbane: State Advances Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Sunikka-Blank, M., & Galvin, R. (2016). Irrational homeowners? How aesthetics and heritage values influence thermal retrofit decisions in the United Kingdom. Energy Research & Social Science, 11, 97–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Throsby, D. (2007). The value of heritage. Paper presented at conference on Integrating the Costs and Benefits of Heritage into Government Decision Making, Canberra, 11–12 October.

  50. Watson, D. (2016). Excerpts from a history of Brisbane icons. In Proceedings of the 13th Australasian urban history planning history conference (pp. 9–22). Griffith University, Gold Coast, Qld, 31 January–3 February.

  51. Willing, R., & Pojani, D. (2017). Is the suburban dream still alive in Australia? Evidence from Brisbane. Australian Planner. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2017.1296875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all the participants in this research. This research was supported by The University of Queensland, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, ‘Higher Degree by Research’ funding.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Vanessa Neilsen & Dorina Pojani

Authors
  1. Vanessa Neilsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dorina Pojani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dorina Pojani.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neilsen, V., Pojani, D. Perspectives on built heritage preservation: a study of Queenslander homeowners in Brisbane, Australia. J Hous and the Built Environ 35, 1055–1077 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-020-09767-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Built heritage preservation
  • Brisbane, Australia
  • Queenslander houses
  • NIMBY syndrome
  • Neoliberal planning