Archive for July, 2008
Windsor Hotel – Melbourne’s grandest to be "modernised"
One of Melbourne’s institutions, the last remaining grand hotel and Melbourne’s largest former coffee palace Windsor Hotel (formerly the Grand) is to be renovated and “modernised” by developers, the Halim Group who bought it for $37 million and want to spend another $45 million Personally I don’t see anything at all wrong with the Windsor’s old world charm and to be honest I would much rather it remain completely untouched. It is unique and the only other hotel in Australia I have seen which comes close to the Windsor’s Victorian grandeur is the Shamrock in Bendigo. Despite the assurances, I have grave fears that some of these so called improvements could be the end of what has been arguably Melbourne’s most prized piece of heritage.
In its 125th year, the Windsor Hotel is about to be brought into the modern age. Kay O’Sullivan reports.The Hotel Windsor could not exist anywhere else but Melbourne. Built in 1883, Melbourne grew up around the Spring Street hotel.
Similarly, the Windsor is entwined in the story of Melbourne.For much of its 125
years, it was the hotel where “things” happened. It was the first choice for people of importance, long before they were called VIPs, much less celebrities.Prime minister Sir Edmund Barton put the finishing touches to the Australian constitution while in residence during the summer of 1898. Sir Robert and Dame Pattie Menzies called the VIP suite on the third floor home. The doyen of dance, Sir Robert Helpmann, liked the room next door to the Menzies. Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier trod the boards of the corridors. Barry Humphries left a suit behind only to find it cleaned and pressed in his closet when he returned two years later. The Australian cricket team regularly took up residence through the summer, only defecting to the Hilton when that hotel got a pool. And so it goes on.But it was not only the rich, famous or powerful who came to stay, the people of Melbourne were just as enthusiastic in their embrace of the hotel designed by Charles Webb, the architect responsible for the Royal Arcade, Scots Church, Melbourne Grammar and South Melbourne Town Hall.Being at the top end of town, deals were brokered and then celebrated here. Ladies lunched in the lounge and society brides would consider nowhere else to celebrate. The Windsor was a fixture in the social pages of the local press.
Even as its fortunes waxed and waned and owners came and went, the Windsor name could still be found in the business pages. At one stage, the hotel, which began life as the Grand, went dry in a bid to attract customers. At another time, the word on the streets was that it would become Victoria’s first legal casino.Its
very survival was questioned more than once through the years. But a listing by
the National Trust in 1972 ensured the Windsor survived the manic rush to destroy in the name of development that claimed many of the other standout hotels of Melbourne.The Windsor is also one of a small coterie of hotels special enough to warrant a book. Duchess: The Story of the Windsor Hotel, written by Chrystopher Spicer, was published in 1993. In it, Spicer says hotels develop their own personality, taking something from each of its guests. This is why, he contends, older hotels, hotels with history such as the Windsor, have such a strong hold on those who stay with them Which is all well and good for repeat business but not so helpful in building new business.In his book, Spicer describes the hotel as the grand old dame of Australian hotels. Which is true but is an unfortunate choice of words, especially the old.To be frank, the Windsor is looking her age. But first impressions are still impressive as long as you skirt around the now-disused entrance to the Hard Rock Cafe. (The US brand occupied the corner space for 10 years until last November.)The grand old dame’s best angle is the full frontal view you get standing across the road in Spring Street. It is a glorious sight and one that sweeps you back into another era. The same holds true inside. Not such a good thing in this age when new is valued above all else.The old girl is in need of a makeover, a serious makeover.
Thankfully, that is what is about to happen. Over the next two years the Windsor will undergo a massive renovation likely to take every cent of the $45 million the owner, the Halim Group, has put aside for it.Work is scheduled to begin next year. The hotel will stay open during the renovation, which will be done in stages. The only aspect of the interior that won’t change is the number of rooms, although each of the 180 rooms and suites will be redecorated and modernised.When completed in 2011, the interior of the Windsor will be almost unrecognisable from what you see today. There will be new bars, meeting and onvention rooms, the foyer will disappear, the gym will be modernised and the hotel’s main restaurant will be reconfigured and then refurbished. There are also plans for a new restaurant in the sub-basement space off Little Collins Street, the area that used to house the White Hart Grill. That’s just what the public will see. There are months of work and millions of dollars to be spent on infrastructure. Given the hotel’s heritage listing, negotiations with Heritage Victoria have been long. While the bulk of plans have been approved, however plans for the ballroom and the foyer’s grand staircase were rejected. The decision has been appealed against.The Halim Group is a Melbourne-based financial company with interests in property development in Australia and overseas. It bought the Windsor from Oberoi Hotels and Resorts for $37 million three years ago.Brothers and sister Adipoetra, Syahpoetra, Dharmapoetra and Yuliawaty Halim, whose wealth was created in Indonesia but who have lived in Melbourne since coming here for schooling nearly 15 years ago, are aware of the responsibility that comes with owning the Windsor. “Our custodianship of Australia’s only remaining grand hotel which is now celebrating its 125th anniversary is a great honour and our intention is to ensure the hotel enjoys another 125 years at the heart of Melbourne’s social, political and cultural milieu,” they say.The hotel’s chief executive officer and general manager, David Perry, says that when the renovation is finished, the hotel will again be able to take its place alongside the great city hotels of the world. Indeed, he says, the Windsor holds a special place in hotel history in that it was the first of the great 19th-century hotels to be built. Raffles in Singapore, the Savoy in London, the Ritz in Paris and the Plaza and Waldorf Astoria in New York were all built after the Windsor.”It is clearly still a five-star hotel but we need to spend seriously to once again establish the Duchess as one of great luxury brand hotels,” he says. Everyone agrees the hotel’s rich history has to be the starting point for any change.
“You cannot do anything with a place like this without understanding its history,” Perry says.The Sydney division of Chhada Siembieda and Associates, an international design house with an impressive portfolio, won the brief after an international search.Perry likens the task ahead to the renaissance of the Gucci
and Louis Vuitton brands. “The integrity of the brand is still there, that is the basis of the product, but around it is a thoroughly modern casing. That is what we intend to do.”The images drawn up by Chhada Siembieda suggest the Windsor will be a different creature to the one we are accustomed to. The lobby is to disappear and become a space that Perry says people will want to stay in rather than move straight through.”Modern communication means that registration can be c
ompleted anywhere,” he says. “It might be done in the car on the way from the airport or in your room.” There will be a small registration desk on the first floor for those who like the comfort of the familiar.Food and beverage will be integral to the hotel’s future success. “It is not enough to only have the captive audience of guests dining in your restaurant,” Perry says. “What we want is to have a reputation that people will travel a reasonable distance to dine here.”He cites the much-awarded Est at the Establishment Hotel in Sydney as a model to emulate.What is certain is that the Cricketer’s Arms bar will disappear. In its place, a more glamorous space (not hard, the bar is decidedly tired) designed to attract movers and shakers rather than being just an after-work watering hole. The cricket memorabilia decorating its bar will be displayed in other spaces through the hotel. Somewhat surprisingly, there is no spa on the drawing board for the modern Windsor. The hotel will continue to recommend various day spas within the area. But the gym, the other badge of honour of cutting-edge hotels, will be remodelled and refitted.In the end, Perry says, the hotel’s reputation and its success will come down to the staff. He is confident they will get it right. History counts for a great deal when it comes to staff and many of the hotel’s staff have been there for decades, although none as long as head butler Joseph De Rozario, who has been with the hotel for more than 30 years.”He has invaluable experience and knowledge and that makes a difference,” Perry says. “It is something you cannot manufacture overnight.”
Closing in Verandahs – A pet hate
Since living in Brisbane, where the whole idea of closing in verandahs on Queenslanders to create new room and space was a common practice, I’ve come to recognise the damage that this practice can do to our built environment.
This twin terrace complex which once had over 4 terraces but has since been subdivided into apartments and to create more room – you guessed it – they whacked up a great big ugly 1980s curtain wall in front. The only way you can tell what it really is (besides living there) is in winter when the London Planes lose their leaves you can see the old high pitched slate roof, eaves brackets and chimneys. Otherwise it has all the hallmarks of a crappy 1960s dog box.
One in Four of Melbourne’s former tallest buildings have been demolished
I’m of the strong opinion that no city should demolish a previously tallest building, however old and ugly as they may seem at the moment. They are bound to be a landmark of their era and are more often than not a representation of the finest in architectural and engineering achievements of their time. These factors should be taken into strong consideration when registering buildings for heritage value.
Melbourne is a city with an impressive record of skyscrapers. Perhaps not holding a candle up to New York or Chicago at the moment, but in the 19th Century at least- it did. In the area between Elizabeth and Spencer Street on either side of the Yarra, there were no less than a dozen buildings exceeding 10 storeys by 1890. The Australian Building was reputedly the third tallest in the world in 1889 (and the tallest in the southern hemisphere) but has sadly been demolished as late as 1980 and the majority of buildings in its era which included Fink’s Building, the Federal Coffee Palace, City of Melbourne Bank, Modern Permanent Building Society, Commercial Union Assurance Building, Colonial Mutual Chambers, Colonial Mutual Life (CML) Building and Prell’s
Buildings (and Melbourne Sun Insurance Building) are all now sadly gone. The city is very lucky to have retained such gems as A.C Goode House, Former Stock Exchange, Safe Deposit Building, Lombard Building, Stalbridge Chambers and James Bond Store.
Startlingly 4 out of 12 (or 25%) of Melbourne’s former tallest buildings since the skyscraper era have disappeared from the Melbourne skyline. A further half of these are either under serious threat of demolition or significant modification.
The Melbourne City Council and fire legislation following the Great Fire are mainly to blame, while height restrictions which precluded anything but decorative towers put a ceiling on the skyline between 1916 and 1957.
Admittedly most of the buildings that are no longer with us were built before the era of reinforced concrete and steel construction and mostly load bearing stone foundations. While some would point to examples of concrete cancer to argue that “they don’t make buildings like they used to” it is true that not all of them could have stood the test of time. But most could have.
Tall buildings seem to always admired when first built and admired less as they grow older, until they dissapear into obscurity as they are dwarfed by their neighbours. One such example is the AMP building, which, depsite it’s formidibale size, was recently touted for demolition to be replaced by a newer development – the taller Church Place tower. The AMP building is a fine example of 1960s high-rise construction, and shows heavy influence from the CBS building in New York. I’ve even seen it frequently used as a backdrop in the great Australian TV show City Homicide. The lower St James buildings that frame the tower could be demolished to make way for several towers. The main tower and plaza however should at the very least be preserved, as along with it’s neighbour BHP house as one of the best examples of 60s corporate self-referential architecture in Melbourne – if not Australia. There is no point in waiting until someone wants to tear a former tallest down to do the research. Sometimes these subtle facts of local significance tend to slip through the cracks. It would be a tragedy if this once tallest landmark were demolished, and it would further blemish the city’s poor performance in preserving it’s talls for future generations.
For a previous tallest building, the Yorkshire Brewery (1880), although heritage registered is in an appalling state. Other previous talls which have been modified, but perhaps not fully compromised include Marland House (1971-1972) and Nauru House (1977-1980), both which have been reclad and “brought up to date”.
Preservation doesn’t require any sort of detailed study or assessment. Just start by registering ALL of these fantastic towers now while we can, before they too fall under the wrecking ball of speculative development. Then future generations will be able to marvel at the engineering feats of the past.
Start with the Rialto Tower (1986-1991), which has been iconic to Melbourne and the tallest for almost two decades (if you don’t include 120 Collins Street’s gigantic spire) and has a timeless style. Then the Eureka (2006-). Both these buildings have at one point been the tallest in the southern hemisphere, and the Eureka has held the contested title of tallest residential tower in the world. These buildings should be listed now and whatever is built in future to superceed it should automatically also ….
Olrig Restoration, Cragieburn
Spotted on Fading Victoria a great article about an impressive small bluestone house restoration up at Craigieburn on the fringe of the metropolitan area in one of Melbourne’s growth corridors. Some great work there, both in the restoration and documenting it.
The link is here …
http://www.fadingvictoria.com/image/20080728XF9N3954/
Facadism – is heritage really a case of "all or nothing" ?

Former Collins Street Bank facade relocated to Melbourne University in the 1930s may be one of the earliest example of facadism.
I’ve read a lot of fors and against the practice facadism or facadomy (the practice of demolishing everything of a building but its facade), but what really disturbs me is the National Trust’s such staunch stance against it.
For some buildings it is the only change of retaining some heritage at all, and it would seem that the Trust’s fatalistic attitude would rather see a building demolished in its entirety than save anything. In fact, I find that ironically the Trust is so appalled by facadism, that it is these days is possibly more obsessed with stopping the practice than what I thought they did – save buildings and protect heritage for future generations.
An interesting article on the situation in Vancouver also points out the pros and cons, stating that “Developers are clearly counting on being allowed to façade more or less any heritage building they choose”. In many cases, facadism is the only compromise between preservation and complete demolition.
And are times changing, unfortunately the Trust aren’t changing with it. Are developers now expecting, particularly in Victoria, that they can use the attitudes of the conservationists to demolish buildings in their entirety ? A recent case in point is the now demolished Eastern Arcade. Amazingly the building had its wonderful Moorish Revival facade completely obscured in the 1950s by one of those cheap and nasty looking corrugated panels, only to be discovered intact underneath many decades latter. The building is now, after being hidden for so long, completely gone for the rest of time after agreement could not be reached between developers and preservationists. In the current climate of pro-development government – when no compromise is reached, the developer will always win.
Facadism was once rampant in my home town of Brisbane. Most of what you see on Queen Street Mall is “hollow heritage”. Brisbane’s love affair with facadism very much continues with the of the Queensland Country Life Building into the Aurora Tower complex. I was once very cynical of it and thought the only value was for tourists. Now, however I realise now that buildings weren’t all built to last forever – particularly in Melbourne. While Brisbane has a shocking record of demolition, facadism has spared it from losing its soul. While you can’t stop a building from falling down (a strategy that many developers use to force demolition), you can preserve a facade almost indefinitely. And in Brisbane at least, I can wander the streets and still get a sense of former streetscapes and relationships of buildings. At the Myer centre, I can see the names of the old hotels and appreciate their ornate cast iron balconies, even if it is no longer possible to have a beer there.
Then there is the false heritage which popped up in the 1990s. The fashion of post modernism was a great thing for protecting our heritage by blending in old and new. However extreme examples of post-modernism appeared which attempted to recreate buildings even grander than their original. Many of Brisbane’s Queenslanders have been “puffed up” this way. 333 Collins Street in Melbourne is a fantastic example of puffing up heritage in a CBD context. Many of the uneducated simply couldn’t tell the difference In many ways, postmodernism has contributed to the demise of true heritage by simply outdoing it. I mean, why buy a grand 19th Century doer upper in the inner city when you can have an authentic looking McMansion in the suburbs ?
There is also the issue of practicality. Most of the buildings that the conservationists want to conserve are no longer used for a reason. It is because technology has changed. You can’t always literally adapt an old building to new use without making some adjustments. It is a matter of fact that we don’t have saddliers or blacksmiths anymore. Virtually all of the old Carlton and United Brewery that remains is facades and I doubt that they intend to make beer there again. The shot tower at Melbourne Central no longer makes bullets and instead sells shirts and jeans. It is simply not practical for our cities to remain the way they were centuries ago, only to become museums.
Added to this is the fact that much of Victorian architecture, of which Melbourne is famous, focused not only on borrowing styles from the entire history of architecture, but heavily on facade decoration as being inherent to the architectural quality of the building. Ruskin wrote a great deal on the importance of the expressiveness of a building to its onlookers in conveying the craftsmanship of those who contributed to building it.
And the attitude is also at odds with the Heritage Council, whose own laws advocate the rebuilding of replicas in the event that a developer breaks the law and unlawfully demolishes a heritage listed building. I’ve seen quite a few instances of this around Port Melbourne, South Melbourne and works by Boyd which were perhaps unintentionally demolished due to poor knowledge or care. While the prohibitive cost of rebuilding may be seen as a deterrent, the result is simply hollow replicas, with even less heritage value than a facade. Perhaps in this case, it is the conservationists role to educate the public about the value of buildings.

The Bad - Facadism gone wrong. 188-200 King Street, clashing modern structures engulf a collection of facades of dubious conservation value creating a "stuck on" look.
Adding insult to injury is that the Trust, while their intentions have been great, have dug their own financial grave by purchasing buildings to preserve them. While the strategy was the only one to save some of our much loved buildings like Como and Ripponleas, the costs of complete preservation and operating as museum pieces will eventually cripple them. Not every Trust member can be expected to visit these properties more than once a year and practical uses need to be found. With such high property prices these days, the same approach would not be the slightest bit feasible. In my opinion, preservationists should be moving along the lines of the environmental preservationists towards the concept of voluntary convenants. Organisations that do this well include Trust for Nature and the Tasmanian Land Conservancy. Rather than simply buying ecologically significant land, they encourage land owners to become caretakers of the land. This sort of nuturing of heritage buildings can only be a positive thing toward the ongoing maintenance of them. For example, while Melbourne’s most iconic building – Flinders Street Station is heritage registered and legally protected, it still does not stop its owners and operators (State Government and Connex) from shamefully neglecting it in some cases to the point of disrepair.
Let’s not forget that Melbourne is home to some of facadisms landmarks. The Old Commerce building at the University of Melbourne is the relocated facade of a Collins Street bank which was superimposed to the front of a “new” campus. Then there is relocation, a process which has gone on since the city’s foundation. Examples include the old St James Old Cathedral, Latrobe Cottage and Captain Cook’s cottage (brought all the way from England) – several of our statues including that of Burke and Wills. These buildings have lost their original settings and relationships, so they are really just another form of hollow heritage – possibly even more shallow, except that they are examples of the use and interior spaces of a bygone era. But most of them are just that – museum pieces. And ironically these buildings are all Trust listed.
In the 1990s, the concept of podiums helped to offset the new buildings from the street and give the old facades an “integrated” appearance. Unfortunately, it was a loosening of these policies in the last decade which saw many “tacked on” appearance. This in my opinion is not acceptable, but only requires the slightest tweaks in planning policy and needs to be done at the state level to ensure that all local governments are on the same page.
There are countless examples of facadomy in Melbourne and our city has a long history of it. Like it or not, the practice is here to stay and I believe that it should not only be tolerated, but not get in the way of preservation of our heritage and history.

