Urban Report: “Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a successful approach towards Heritage? by Nuzhat Nabila

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

ARCH9092 Urban Report Semester 01, 2019 Masters of Urbanism (Heritage Conservation)

Assessment: Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x153;Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a successful approach towards Heritage?

Submitted by NUZHAT NABILA SID 480065366

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................4-6 2.1 Research Question ................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Preamble…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 2.3 Adaptive Reuse in Industrial Sites………………………………………………….…………………………………….5 2.4 Aim of this report……………………………………………….………………………………………………….……………5 2.5 Related policies and guidelines in NSW…………………………………………………….…………….…………..6 2.6 Case Studies……………………………….……………………………………………………………………………………....6

Research Method ........................................................................................................................... 6

Literature Review………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7-11 4.1 NSW Policies and Guidelines………………………………………………………………………………………..……….7 4.2 International Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………….…….….8 4.3 Industrial Case Studies……………………………………………………………………………………………….….……..9 4.4 Scholarly Journal………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….….10 4.5 Quantitative Literature for Community Engagement…………………………………..………….…..………10 4.6 Case Studies………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...……..11 4.7 The Overall Gap between Literatures……………………………………………………..………………….……....11

Analysis-Case Studies……………………………………………………………………………………….………………….11-17 5.1 Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf…………………………………………..………………………………………………..11 5.2 Carriage Works……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……15

Discussion of Findings…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..17-20 6.1 The Problem…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17 6.2 Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………20

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….21-24

Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………25-27

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

1.0 Executive Summary Part of NSW has gone through and still going through a lot of adaptive re-use projects, as well as addition, alteration to heritage buildings projects. The research topic addresses the issue of adaptive reuse of heritage settings in the context of NSW, whether it is an optimal way to enhance their cultural significance. Identifying the appropriate regulations is immensely important in order to conserve the cultural significance of the heritage buildings. The gaps in existing guidelines and policies regarding adaptive reuse portray the problem area of the adaptive reuse process. Delivering the notion of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and the identification of what genuinely needs to be protected in the name of heritage conservation is a critical issue. Integration between financial benefits and protecting cultural significance is a critical issue where guidelines and policies do not contribute adequately to the current practice in NSW. The research topic will be studied through investigating various case studies in the context of NSW whether the conversion of the place into new design has been successful or degraded the significance of the place and if the process and implementation of policies and guidelines are sufficient.

1.1 Acknowledgements The following report is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master of Urbanism (Heritage Conservation), The University of Sydney School of Architecture, Design and Planning. The Author will like to thank the following people for their support and assistance in completing this work: Matthew Devine for his supervision; Dr Cameron Logan, Grazi Prada, Jacqui Goddard, Pranita Srestha, Tonkin Zulaikha Greer architects.

1.2 Key Words Adaptive Reuse; Conservation Approach; Community engagement; Conservation Guidelines; Financial Viability

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

2.0 Introduction 2.1 Research Question

“Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a successful approach towards Heritage? 2.2 Preamble Heritage sites have a strong contribution to the values and culture of a society as well as providing a sense of belonging and identity to the community. Therefore, in the process of protecting the heritage in NSW, it is essential to understand what the community see as ‘heritage’ and how they engage with them. In modern time, apart from conserving these heritage buildings, the great concern for designers, developers and policy-makers is making them useful in the long-term to keep them functionally alive.1 Introducing a new function in a heritage site is inevitable in order to preserve its significance when they no longer function in their original use. Therefore, the adaptive reuse of buildings has become an efficient solution to incorporate heritage buildings instead of demolition with a considerable amount of environmental, economic, and social benefits. Conservation, as defined by The Burra Charter (1999), is the act of retaining the significance of the place, while preservation is the act of maintaining one’s original or existing state.2 ‘The term ‘adaptive reuse’ is defined as ‘the conversion of an existing building site from one use to another allowing for the values of the building to be applied within the present-day applications of both program and function.’3 When a historic building no longer has its use, Adaptive reuse is the design approach which examines the possibilities between demolition and preservation. However, retention of the heritage buildings for a new and contemporary use confront several challenges in terms of regulatory requirements and the conservation guidelines. Apart from the challenges that need to be resolved for adaptive reuse projects, the idea of adaptive reuse itself is a big challenge when tension arises if the new use protecting the cultural significance of the heritage site. Walker (2000) says that even though the Australian building conservation practice is impressive in relation to understanding the significance, the end product of adaptive reuse is sometimes a disappointment in relation to its significance values.4 Renowned preservation practitioner and educator James Marston Fitch describes that in certain cases, preserving the physical fabric as well as the traditional function and indigenous population is desirable. He characterised this elusive goal metaphorically as an ‘‘obligation to intervene to preserve both, the container and the contained.’’5 But in reality, it is quite impossible when it comes to economic viability. Therefore, the process of adaptive reuse in NSW requires to firmly investigated whether it is an optimal solution integrating all the parameters.

Sheila Conejos, Craig Langston, Edwin H. W. Chan & Michael Y. L. Chew (2016) Governance of heritage buildings: Australian regulatory barriers to adaptive reuse 2 ICOMOS Australia, 2013. ‘The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance’. 3

R.H. Crawford and A. Stephan (eds.), Living and Learning: Research for a Better Built Environment: 49th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association 2015, pp.1041–1053. ©2015, The Architectural Science Association and The University of Melbourne. 4

Walker, Meredith. " The Pram Factory and other stories." In Adaptive Reuse: Creativity and Continuity, edited by Jacqui Goddard, 25-31. Barnet Long Room, Customs House, Sydney: The National Trust of Australia (NSW), 2000. 5

Donofrio, Gregory. "Preservation by Adaptation: Is It Sustainable?". Change Over Time 2, no. 2 (2012): 106-31.

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

2.3 Adaptive Re-Use in Industrial Sites This paper particularly examines two industrial sites as case studies-Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf and Carriage Works. Industrial sites encounter declination temporarily or permanent over time for various reasons, such as- the rise of similar markets. Therefore, finding a new suitable use for the built form is inevitable to keep it alive. The old industrial sites are often identified as a disordered, chaotic, messy site when architect and designers try to incorporate modern highly regulated spaces.6 This contrast between organised modern space and dis-ordered space of industrial settings result in a debate where the fabric of the building is kept only for the namesake and the entire internal area go through demolition and replacement. In the case of industrial sites, adaptive reuse interventions require to retain evidence of past technologies, flows of materials and people and the workersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; histories.7 However, in the dilemma of profit development and retaining the industrial character, the preservation approach often ends into preserving the envelope of the building only. This report explores the policies and guidelines regarding adaptive reuse and intends to relate them to the case studies in order to understand the overall problems in the process.

2.4 Aim of this report This report aims to determine the problems when undertaking adaptive reuse projects in the context of NSW heritage conservation practice and as well as confronts the challenges for a successful adaptive reuse project. Through a critical examination of Case studies of NSW, this report targets to identify if the adaptive reuse practice upholding the guidelines for heritage conservation. Moreover, it examines the challenges to successful adaptive reuse projects in NSW and criticises various aspects of the existing practise that involves comparing case studies to each other and against the adaptive reuse principles. However, this report does not intend to find any absolute solution for successful adaptive reuse process. Instead, point out the problem areas to be explored further in the ongoing practice.

2.5 Related policies and guidelines in NSW Australia uses the Burra Charter adopted from Venice Charter as a standard guideline to conserve and manage places of cultural significance. The Burra Charter states that adaptation is acceptable only where the adaptation has minimal impact on the cultural significance of the place (Article 21.1), while minimal changes to the significant fabric should take place after considering alternatives (Article 21.2).8 Even though Burra Charter does not describe particular guidelines about Adaptive reuse, any project of Adaptive reuse requires to fulfil the general guidelines to maintain its cultural significance. In addition to the guidelines from Burra Charter, a conservation management plan is a prime criterion in prior to any adaptive reuse project of heritage buildings. In 2008, the adaptation guidelines published by 6

R.H. Crawford and A. Stephan (eds.), Living and Learning: Research for a Better Built Environment. Department of Environment and Heritage. (2004). Adaptive Reuse: Preserving our Past, Building our Future. Department of Environment and Heritage, Melbourne. 8 ICOMOS Australia, 2013. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significanceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. 7

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

the NSW Department of Planning and Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA) (2008) were considered best practice for the conservation and adaptation of heritage items of either local or state significance.9 This report evaluates the case studies following the guidelines from documents mentioned above and as well as criticises the viability of these documents.

2.6 Case Studies Both of the case studies- Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf and Carriageworks are chosen from similar building type of Industrial where the adaptive reuse process has been implemented with different approach. They will be evaluated against each other in common criteria to create a scenario of success and failure of the overall adaptive reuse practice in NSW. This report aims to find the problem areas in each case studies and thus tends to produce recommendations for a better adaptive reuse practice in context on NSW.

3.0 Research Method This report examines the current practice of adaptive reuse in NSW using a qualitative approach method. The literature review section explores the policies and guidelines, as well as investigates the global overview. Then, through Scholarly Journals and Conference papers, this report unwraps the background of adaptive reuse in Industrial sites exploring case studies from a similar background. While this report does not perform any quantitative research, it takes the result of the quantitative survey conducted by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. The literature review section will provide a clear perspective of how optimal the practice of adaptive reuse is in NSW and where the gaps are. After exploring the existing situation through different kinds of literature, the analysis is derived from the findings in the literature review and mainly based on comparing two different case studies in NSW. Therefore, the research method can be called â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Comparative Analysis Approachâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. The history of case studies like Carriage works and Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf will be analysed through historical documents, newspaper articles and photo evolution from Trove from different period. With the knowledge of the significance of their cultural significance, the new use would be evaluated if they are doing justice to the original significance. The controls, policies and regulations behind the projects will be studied to understand professional guidelines and the role of different stakeholders like developers; the community will be investigated. The comparison between different case studies is a subjective perspective. Therefore, the method of this report is mostly qualitative, which includes descriptive data rather than facts and figures based quantitative approach. The qualitative comparison will portray the problems lying down in overall Adaptive Reuse process, which will eventually lead to possible recommendations.

Sheila Conejos, Craig Langston, Edwin H. W. Chan & Michael Y. L. Chew (2016) Governance of heritage buildings: Australian regulatory barriers to adaptive reuse

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

4.0 Literature Review 4.1 NSW Policies and Guidelines These report analyses the feasibility of the policies and guidelines on the process of adaptive reuse in NSW through several documents and evaluates case studies against them. 4.1.1 New Uses for Heritage Places: Guidelines for the Adaptation of Historic Buildings and Sites The most relevant document in NSW for adaptive reuse is ‘New Uses for Heritage Places: Guidelines for the Adaptation of Historic Buildings and Sites (2008)’ by Heritage Council of NSW. This document has produced guidelines for projects of adapting heritage buildings to new uses through seven guiding principles and mentioning successful case studies. The seven principles for the adaptation of historic buildings and sites for new functions are summarised as follows:10 • Identify and understand the heritage significance of the place and its fabric. • Provide an appropriate new use that is compatible with the place’s heritage significance. • Minimise the effect on the place’s heritage significance by determining the appropriate level of change to be applied to its significant fabric. • Ensure the principle of reversibility is applied for the place’s conservation in the future. • Protect the association among the settings and conserve important views that contribute to the place’s significance. • Establish sustainable management and feasibility scheme for the heritage place that includes fund sourcing and heritage agreements for its future preservation. • Publicise and translate the place’s heritage significance as a meaningful and important part of the building adaptation project. However, the described case studies in this document are a range of successful NSW adaptation solutions which have been evaluated against the seven principles but does not explicitly say how these principles were adapted in these case studies. Besides, these case studies do not include any community engagement for the projects and do not explain their economic viability. The principles mentioned are merely generic, which are not adequate to evaluate different projects in NSW. 4.1.2 The Burra Charter (The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance) The Burra Charter caters guidance for the conservation and management of places of cultural significance based on the experience and knowledge of Australia ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) members.11 In 1979 the Burra Charter legitimised ‘adaptation’ as a conservation process. The Burra Charter’s affirmation of ‘adaptation’ contains a definition of the term ‘compatible use’ which says

Heritage Office, NSW Department of Planning, and The Royal Australian Institute of Architects NSW. "New Uses for Heritage Places: Guidelines for the Adaptation of Historic Buildings and Sites." 2008. 11

ICOMOS Australia, 2013. ‘The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance’.

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

adaptation for compatible use must involve no or minimal change to culturally significant fabric, be ‘substantially reversible’ and have ‘minimal impact’.12 However, ‘Reversible’ and ‘minimal impact’ can be subjective from project to project, and there is no specific guidelines and statutory legislation which imply a strict implementation of these terms.

4.1.3 The Conservation Plan (Seventh Edition) The Conservation Plan by James Semple Kerr outlines the logical processes of Burra Charter, and how to prepare a Conservation management plan to manage and guide changes to a heritage item accordingly.13 In reality, many conservation processes jump directly to Conservation Policy from Statement of Cultural Significance without exploring the necessary information needed for the development of Conservation Policy as Dr Kerr referred in his document. In the conservation management plan for any adaptive reuse project, the discussion of the critical management issues is often neglected, which is vital for any implementation.14

4.2 International Overview: New Design for Old Buildings Founded by William Morris and Philip Webb in 1877, The Society for the Protection of Ancient Building (SPAB) encourages to incorporate new design to enrich and complement the built historic environment saving them from decay.15 The book ‘New Design for Old Buildings’ portrays the SPAB philosophy that new architecture can be incorporated in a historic site instead of mimicking the historical design. Hunt, Boyd and McCloud (2019) present case studies throughout the UK from all periods to explore design considerations, material and technical selections, different forms of adaptation for a new design to harmonise them in the old setting making them useful and sustainable for the future. Adapting and reinventing old buildings through intervention and extension is comparatively more critical and time-consuming rather than designing from scratch.16 The main challenges to integrate a new design in a historic setting mentioned in this document are - negotiating between clients’ need and building the character; the economic argument; difficulty to find out the detailing of the historic materials and match them with the new ones; and the question of philosophy and ethics. In recent decades, several historic buildings have been retained, leaving the two-dimensional façade of the historic building stripping away

Nelsen, Ivar. “Adaptation: A legitimate response to redundancy for public sector Heritage”. In Adaptive Reuse: Creativity and Continuity, edited by Jacqui Goddard, 45-50. Barnet Long Room, Customs House, Sydney: The National Trust of Australia (NSW), 2000. 13Kerr,

James Semple. "The Seventh Edition Conservation Plan: A Guide to the Preparation of Conservation Plans for Places of European Cultural Significance." edited by Australia Icomos International Council on Monuments and Sites, 2013. 14

Nelsen, Ivar. “Adaptation: A legitimate response to redundancy for public sector Heritage”, 2000.

'SPAB' About Us. https://www.spab.org.uk/.

Hunt, Roger, Iain Boyd, and Kevin McCloud. New Design for Old Buildings. Riba Bookshop. Edited by Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings UK: RIBA, 2019.

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

everything inside to maximise the financial benefits.17 The concept of Facadism brings the issue of profitability, which is generally the prime concern of any developer.

4.3 Industrial Case Studies: Change over Time: Issue 2.2 – ‘Adaptation’ Issue 2.2 ‘Adaptation’ (2012) of the semi-annual journal ‘Change over Time’ is dedicated to evaluate the current challenges of adaptive reuse in the USA critically. Particularly two Essays- ‘Preservation by Adaptation: Is It Sustainable?’ by Gregory Donofrio and ‘Tobacco Row: Heritage, Environment, and Adaptive Reuse in Richmond, Virginia’ by Danial Bluestone generates a ground for adaptation of Industrial Sites. Both of them arise the question of material preservation at the expense of cultural values. Preservationist Donofrio has established in his paper that to fulfil the demands of an increasingly postindustrial economy, recycling historic industrial buildings like offices, housing, and retail is financially feasible and as well as a tool to produce entertaining and distinctive social and retail environment. Donofrio criticises the practice of separating culture and economics in sustainability, which is a major concern in the contemporary field of historic preservation.18 Boston’s Faneuil Hall (Image: Appendices 01) is considered as the first ‘‘festival markets’’ which is a representation for adaptive reuse around the world with dozens of imitations. This former marketplace and meeting hall have been turned into retail-cantered adaptations featuring unique boutiques, food, and sidewalk entertainments. Donofrio considered it as a case study which was enthusiastically patronised by middle-class consumers. Though this festival marketplace is considered as an exemplary model of public-private partnerships, it created mixed opinions among academic and architecture critics about the type of adaptive reuse associated with them.19 It is worth reviewing the chapter ‘Tobacco Row’ which discusses the various aspects of adaptive reuse of tobacco warehouses and factories along Tobacco Row in Richmond, Virginia (Image: Appendices 02). Similar to Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf conversion, this abandoned former cigarette and cigar factories have been transformed into a mixed-use neighbourhood of residential apartments, offices, restaurants and retail shops. Agreeing on the fact that adaptive reuse can push away buildings away from their historic function and often away from their historic significance as well, Bluestone (2012) argues that critical reflections on the histories associated with the places are way more important than keeping the building exterior. He believes that the guidelines for rehabilitation and preservation in local, state and federal level in Richmond and throughout the United States generally provide primacy to building exteriors rather than its urban context, interior plan, spaces of labour and industrial technology.20 Similar to Donofrio, he expresses priority on the relationship between the histories, the understanding of the present citizens about the buildings. In the case of ‘Tobacco Row’, though the author criticises some

Hunt, Roger, Iain Boyd, and Kevin McCloud. New Design for Old Buildings.

Donofrio, Gregory. "Preservation by Adaptation: Is It Sustainable?". Change Over Time 2, no. 2 (2012): 106-31.

Donofrio, Gregory. "Preservation by Adaptation: Is It Sustainable?". Change Over Time 2, no. 2 (2012): 106-31. Bluestone, Daniel. "Tobacco Row, Heritage, Environment, and Adaptive Reuse in Richmond, Virginia." Change Over Time, no. 2.2 Adaptation (2012): 132-219. 20

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

approaches demining historic values, it is worth noting that there were successful direct and indirect public investments which promoted Tobacco Row adaptation.21

4.4 Scholarly Journal: Residential adaptive reuse in inner city Melbourne Onsman (2015) describes the relationship between adaptive reuse and profitability in the context of Melbourne Adaptive Reuse projects in the chapter of ‘Residential adaptive reuse in inner city Melbourne’ in the Conference Paper ‘Research for a Better Built Environment’. This literature describes the scope of new development in historic context in terms of profitability, sustainability and preservation engaging design imperatives, administrative and regulative constraints, energy and sustainability ambitions and real estate market fluctuation.22 This literature forms a background for the controversy of financial profitability where the impression of the building exterior is kept compromising the inner integration of heritage.

4.5 Quantitative Literature for Community Engagement: NSW Community Attitudes to Heritage Report The result of the quantitative survey of the document ‘NSW Community Attitudes to Heritage Report’ by Office of Environment and Heritage provides a robust and representative overview of perceptions and attitude from people towards the heritage in NSW. Heritage is regarded as valuable for both individuals and community in terms of the connection between a person and their local community and preservation of traditions and culture. People tend to interact with heritage in a multitude of ways, for instance, visiting the site, participating in activities, playing an active role in heritage protection. To understand how the community, see ‘heritage’ this document measures perceived awareness and determines the types of heritage-related behaviours, which are commonly observed in public in NSW. For half of the people surveyed, indicated that keeping traditions alive for the future generation is the key motivator to protect heritage (Appendices 3). On the question of how successful the heritage protection in NSW is, the survey result shows the community is disengaged with heritage protection efforts across NSW (Appendices 4).23 Appendices 5 represents that the most substantial portion of the population believes that financial support for maintenance is the biggest challenge for using a heritage site. ‘While a substantial proportion of the community believe the Government should prioritise heritage protection over other activities, there is also a question around what types of strategies the community would like to have implemented.’24 While the larger part of the community has a relatively high interest in heritage, this does not represent any strong awareness of heritage protection efforts in NSW. For instance, more than half neither agreed 21

Bluestone, Daniel. "Tobacco Row, Heritage, Environment, and Adaptive Reuse in Richmond, Virginia." Change Over Time. Onsman, Andrys. "Residential Adaptive Reuse in Inner City Melbourne." In Living and Learning: Research for a Better Built Environment: 49th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association, edited by R.H. Crawford and A. Stephan (eds.). The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, 2015. 22

"Nsw Community Attitudes to Heritage Report." edited by Office of Environment and Heritage, 1-58. Sydney: EY Sweeney, 2017. 24 "Nsw Community Attitudes to Heritage Report." edited by Office of Environment and Heritage.

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

nor disagreed if heritage protection in NSW is well managed and 4 in 10 did not know if protection of heritage in NSW or their local area is adequate or not. In contrast, those with knowledge about heritage have strong opinions on the matter. For example, one quarter feels that current protection efforts provide adequate protection for heritage in NSW. Alternatively, a third did not think that the protection of heritage was adequate – highlighting a split amongst the community on heritage conservation issue. Dissatisfaction among the Indigenous population was also high, with 6 in 10, believing the protection of heritage is inadequate.25

4.6 Case Studies For case studies, site-specific resources have been included in this report. For instance, the Conference Paper Adaptive Reuse: Creativity and Continuity by Jacqui Goddard presented different opinions about the adaption of Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf as well as the overall approach about Adaptive Reuse.

4.7 The Overall Gap between Literatures NSW Office of Environment and Heritage has created different documents of guidelines and policies for conservation approach and Community engagement mentioned above. But in reality, the application of these guidelines is not faultless in the process. While it is clear to have community engagement in the process of heritage conservation, no guidelines or policies depict how to combine them in the process. Moreover, the challenge of economic viability, which is one of the biggest challenges to keep a building alive is not mentioned in any of the guideline’s documents. The case studies of this report further explain this gap in the context of NSW and the discussion section attempts to discover suitable solutions and precedents from successful case studies to fill this gap.

5.0 Analysis-Case Studies 5.1 Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf 5.1.1 History The Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf was built by the Sydney Harbour Trust between 1911 and 1915. The wharf had 60 years of active service as a wool processing port and was a major hub for immigrants and sailors (Figure 01). By 1980s’ it was scheduled to be demolished when its use was declined because of cruise liner terminals and new container ports with more extensive wharfing facilities around the city.26 But the demolition was stopped by a Green Bans (Figure 02) in 1991 which is a form of strike action, usually taken by the trade union or other organised labour groups conducting for environmentalist or 25

"Nsw Community Attitudes to Heritage Report." edited by Office of Environment and Heritage.

"Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf | NSW Office Of Environment & Heritage" 2014.

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

conservationist purposes.27 The enormous public reaction to proposals for the demolition has proved extensive community esteem towards Finger Wharf. At present, the Finger Wharf is occupied by the Ovolo Hotel, restaurants and upmarket apartments.28

Figure 01: The Finger Wharf in 1995 before its redevelopment; Source: The Daily Telegraph,2015 29

Figure 02: The Protest of Green Bans (Poster in Finger Wharf); Source: Flickr, 2007

Burgmann, Meredith, and Verity Burgmann. Green Bans, Red Union: Environmental Activism and the New South Wales Builders Labourers' Federation. Edited by Verity Burgmann1998. 28 "Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf | NSW Office Of Environment & Heritage" 2014. 29 Lennon, Troy. 2015. "Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf: Centenary Celebrations As Gateway To Sydney Turns 100". Dailytelegraph.Com.Au.

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

5.1.2 The Problem One of the major significances of the Finger Wharf lies down in the vastness of the place which has been terminated by dividing into pieces for Hotels and Apartments. Moreover, as it has become a Strata site, it will be immensely difficult to reverse it back to one title. The significant Industrial site has been renovated into a private property which cannot involve any public engagement anymore. The only accessible area is the Hotel Lobby and Restaurants, where the vastness of the space has been destroyed, putting the expensive restaurant kiosks (Figure 03). The Finger Wharf is an immense example of prioritising economic benefits where the community has lost the right on their cultural heritage site (Figure 04). Even though people have limited access to certain parts of the restaurant areas, there is not enough interpretation of the industrial era, rather than visitors get intimated with the luxury imposed in it. Thus, the state registered heritage has turned into a place of luxury for rich people. The few remaining from the original site are old wooden framed conveyor belts, big steel wheels and metal walkways have been displayed in this heritage building. In the case of Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf, the first radical approach was demolishing the whole site to build luxurious commercial facilities. But even though it was stopped by public protest, the purpose of commercialisation was served anyway with maintaining the faรงade only and rebuilding everything inside where the significance of the original industrial building is lost anyway.

Figure 03: The vastness of the Only accessible Space destroyed by new development; Source : Author

Figure 04: Accessible to residents only, No interpreation available outside; Source : Author

In a first view, it seems like the Finger Wharf is an example of Facadism, but in reality, it is not. The picture comparison with the old time (Figure 05 and 06) shows the exterior faรงade has been modified over time, which cannot be distinguished if someone is not aware of the process. The gap in the guidelines is worth noting here. Several documents of guidelines say any new change needs to be distinguished from the original, but it does not clarify by whom- heritage specialists or general people as well.

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

Figure 05: Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf Before Renovation; Source: Domain.com.au,2015

Figure 06: Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf After Renovation; Source: Domain.com.au,2015

The heritage character of Finger Wharf does not lie in the façade character which has been created newly anyway but mostly lies in the spatial organisation and the workers' stories involved. Therefore, pretending to retain the façade and dividing into multiple small spaces where one cannot read the original volumes of the space, is not an acceptable approach for heritage conservation. The interior has been changed drastically for apartment conversion with placing the huge number of partitions in the formerly open floors. Broadbent (2000) has compared the adaptive reuse process of Finger Wharf with transforming a tyre into a swan by destroying the integrity of a tread worn tyre. This integrity which needs to be kept should be the historical integrity rather than physical integrity or stylistic integrity. He compared Finger wharf with Walsh Bay 4 where he believes the ‘tyre’ is adaptively reused but still a tyre, but the Finger wharf has been recycled into a Swan where even if the elements are there does not feel like a tyre anymore.30 Community’s consciousness and sense of history and place do not lie in the physical integrity, rather than in historical integrity which cannot be found in the new polished version, in Broadbent’s word, turning into a Swan. Even its architectural style remains, even the fabric largely remains the history of the struggle of the workers are gone. The public can have a look at the goods conveyors and external travelling platforms in the common area. But Picking up the best-polished piece of machinery and displaying it randomly does not interpret the industrial buildings historic integrity.

Broadbent, James. "The Tyre Swan: Continuity Vs Creativity." In Adaptive Reuse: Creativity and Continuity, edited by Jacqui Goddard, 21-24. Barnet Long Room, Customs House, Sydney: The National Trust of Australia (NSW), 2000.

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

It is worth understanding the developer’s perspective as well as this paper identifies that prioritising commercial benefits over cultural significance as a major problem. Malcolm Rose presents his view as the developer of the Finger Wharf in the Conference ‘Adaptive Reuse: Continuity and Creativity’. The major objective of the developers was to express an entrepreneurial ‘point of difference’ that would facilitate to finance and develop it correctly for a successful market place entry.31 Rose mentioned that there was a significant amount of discussion with Mayor Clover Moore and with Sydney City Council about the amount of public realm and whether they had an entitlement to restrict public access, but there is no clear discussion of how it was finally decided and how they tried to balance between the public realm and development aspects. The developers’ view represents how the commercial gain took over cultural significance. For example, the northern building was divided into a series of apartments, which generated $36m worth of revenue without which it would not be possible to cover the costs of rebuilding the structure. In Malcolm Rose’s words- “In a process like this adaptive reuse, there are no guidelines, and one must rely on the goodwill of all the players to move forward.”32 Even though there could be a better option to represent significance, the absence of management of all financial viability is not integrated. Malcolm Rose uttered- “The wharf at Woolloomooloo was considered to be a building which could have become an Art Gallery or one of many other uses, but there were no public uses that could afford to develop it. It needed to have this adaptation.”33 Even though keeping the scale and form of the 400m wharf visible and retaining the context of waterfront use represent one side of significance of being one of the most massive timber structures in the southern hemisphere, but the modified façade and the absence of history provide people only a partial truth of heritage.

5.2 Carriage Works 5.2.1 History Carriageworks was built in a massive site of ten hectares at Eveleigh Street between 1880 and 1889 as part of the Eveleigh Railway Workshops. Till 1989, several thousand people worked here including metalworkers, blacksmiths and boilermakers to build and maintain locomotive engines and carriages for Only Accessible Area Lost the Vastness the expanding rail network.34 Moreover, the Carriageworks site was one of the first place to employ migrants and Aboriginal people on an equal basis.35 Therefore, Carriageworks had an immense influence to shape the development of the city for over 100 years. The expanded use of steel against timber and carriages started the declination of Carriageworks in 1927-1945. Then the Economic Road and Air 31

Rose, Malcolm. " The Wharf at Woolloomooloo: A Developer’s Perspective on Adaptive Reuse." In Adaptive Reuse: Creativity and Continuity, edited by Jacqui Goddard, 55-62. Barnet Long Room, Customs House, Sydney: The National Trust of Australia (NSW), 2000. 32

Rose, Malcolm. " The Wharf at Woolloomooloo: A Developer’s Perspective on Adaptive Reuse."

Rose, Malcolm. " The Wharf at Woolloomooloo: A Developer’s Perspective on Adaptive Reuse." Scheer, Edward. 2007. "Off the Rails". The Nation Reviewed, no. March 2007: 16-18. 35 "About - Carriageworks". 2018. Carriageworks. 34

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

Transport after World War 2 created new competitors for the railway. The Locomotive works were closed by the end of 1987, and the Suburban Car workshops of the Carriageworks were finally closed in 1989. After several years of being vacant, few years being used by Paddy’s Market, in 2007 the Carriageworks were converted into Carriageworks Drama and Arts Precinct. Today, Carriageworks is one of the largest multi-arts centres in Australia.36

5.2.2 The Adaptive Reuse The carriage works is located one level below the main street where the workshop building is dislocated from its urban context, with no proper public address. Moreover, the main structure is hidden by the pitched roofs of the blacksmith workshop structure. Therefore, when the original use declined of the carriage works, making it useful for the community was a challenge. The proposed modifications by TZG raised a lot of debate among the committees. Different opinions were advocated on its form and whether modifications to the envelope should be permitted at all. Maintaining and stabilising the existing fabric for future generations was the hardest challenge. The decision to occupy the space with such an ambitious programme of contemporary performance art centre meant the end of a spatial era and heralded the beginning of a new one. Currently, the entry of the main building is glazed and embellished with bold interpretative graphics which denotes a new threshold to a new era of occupation.37 In Carriageworks, the rawness of the new structures imitates the industrial characters of the I880s fabric. The new unadorned off-form concrete surfaces have successfully merged with the atmosphere, and they are distinguishable from the original ornate cast-iron columns and patina (Figure 09). These material qualities portray their inherent value as a means of reading the evolution of the place. All these material qualities are respecting the heritage value of the place but still managing remittance for its investors.38 From the opening in January 2007, the adaptive reuse development is bringing an exciting addition to Sydney’s cultural life by generating significant new community and cultural activities in a dilapidated industrial site. Though firmly in the capitalist mode of economic organisation, Carriageworks promotes a revival of a sense of community. Carriage Works appropriately abbreviates revival of community engagement, through the adaptive reuse of the Eveleigh workshops as multi-functional contemporary art and leisure centre. With an array of galleries, performance spaces, function rooms, the inclusion of café and bar, and the weekly growers’ markets (Figure 10) occurring in the premises introduce a creative economy and facilitate the presentation of a diverse range of visual, performance and interactive art.39

"About - Carriageworks". 2018. Carriageworks.

Manincor, John De. "Carriage Works." 64-75, 2007.

38Manincor, 39

John De. "Carriage Works." 64-75, 2007.

Wharton, Ruby. 2014. "Lo-Comotion at Carriageworks: Reviving the Redfern Railway". Ideas in History.

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

Figure 07: Festivals at Carriageworks e.g.- Sydney Writers’ Festival, Source: Author

Figure 09: Addition of distinct New Fabric; Source: Michael Nicholson

Figure 08: Festivals gaining financial benefits dedicated for a selective class e.g.-Marcedez Benz SHoe, Source: gettyimage

Figure 10: Community Engagement at Weekend Market; Source: Author

However, even though Carriage Works serves better in terms of Public Engagement, it serves people with certain cultural background. This is comparable with Primary Food District Faneuil Hall Marketplace adaptive reuse mentioned in Change over Time (Appendices 01). The reuse of Faneuil Hall was one of the several urban renewal projects in the 1960s. Rather than the structural modifications or design interventions or the radical alteration, the loss of the ‘‘honest shabbiness’’ of the old Faneuil was more problematic in terms of heritage conservation.40 Donofrio (2012) uttered “According to Huxtable, in the process of restoration and adaptation, the markets had become ‘‘elite, cleaned-up, skilfully merchandised’’ to appeal to the ‘‘affluent and sophisticated public’’ that she called the ‘‘Saturday generation.’’ Similarly, it can be said in the case of Carriageworks, where the weekend market and the weekend activities had become a place to pursue leisure and entertainment for the ‘‘Saturday generation’’ where it could be a venue for purchase of life’s more fundamental everyday necessities.

Donofrio, Gregory. "Preservation by Adaptation: Is It Sustainable?". Change Over Time 2, no. 2 (2012): 106-31.

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

6.0 Discussion of findings Reinventing a purpose is essential when the building’s function turns into obsolete and Adaptive reuse can be an ideal way to preserve and maintain its inherent heritage value only if adapted properly for an appropriate use. The principle of the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings should be the restoration of the building’s value to a place or community while ensuring its future usefulness and contribution.41

6.1 The Problem In the practice of Adaptive Reuse in NSW, instead of employing creative ideas to revive the community engagement, often the implemented approach is largely a loophole for the developers to allow them to solely focus on financial benefits where the heritage guidelines do not play any vital role. For instance, the Green Bans protest was an immensely important event in the case of Finger Wharf but there is no mention anywhere how the authority incorporated their demands or if these movements lead to any legislation changes. Moreover, there is no clear guidelines to produce a fair public-private partnership approach. Besides, radical change of the function, use, and socioeconomic context of the industrial sites seem to undermine its historic character, regardless of its material preservation. The solution of integrating financial benefits and protecting the significance is critical and cannot be solved overnight. Practicality and Ethics of conversation conflict with each other in different cases. The ideal solution to prioritise either profitability or heritage significance or balancing these two requires further investigations. The rich histories in the industrial buildings were created in both space and materiality of these places which are often at doubt whether to be kept or eliminated when trying to integrate in new fabric. The modern needs of purification diminish the declined industrial buildings into extinction. However, the facadism restricts the building get demolished, they fail to follow the conservation definition defined by Burra Charter (1999)- ‘the act of retaining the significance of the place’ by ending up nothing but a wallpaper thin walls onto new developments. The practice of retention of the front face only of a building disrespects the relationship the original activity within the building and the built form. This approach creates an illusion at the street scape failing to address the design inside or behind the façade.42

6.2 Recommendations Bluestone (2012) puts insight into the similar case study of Tobacco Row, Richmond, Virginia, which can provide a precedent image to a case like Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf. He criticises that the tobacco workers were only represented by occasional photography hanging in the residential lobby of the adapted tobacco plants or images in rental brochures and promotional videos. Therefore, Bluestone suggests providing some affordable housing units in exchange for Tax-Exempt financing insisted by customary congressional which represent the history of residence by slaves and working-class tobacco workers in

Sheila Conejos, Craig Langston, Edwin H. W. Chan & Michael Y. L. Chew (2016) Governance of heritage buildings: Australian regulatory barriers to adaptive reuse, Building Research & Information, 44:5-6, 507-519, DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2016.1156951 42

R.H. Crawford and A. Stephan (eds.), Living and Learning: Research for a Better Built Environment.

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

the Tobacco Row. In this way, people with incomes comparable to tobacco workers, people of modest means can find units that would afford to rent on.43 In this case, one exciting preservation was restoring the original Lucky Strike plant’s executive boardroom as an event space for apartment residents, which allows exploring the historical and heritage values. The above precedent of Tobacco Row represents a possible solution to negotiate the slippage between the economic vision of adaptive reuse and the historical realities. However, it is essential to deal with each case separately, understanding their respective histories. In cases like Finger Wharf and Carriageworks, one major conservation approach should be interpreting the life of struggling workers to the community through historic and symbolic value. And that should not be a partial period in history, for instance, the story of the Green Bans to stop the demolishing of Finger Wharf is an important part of the history as well. While this paper strongly emphasis on the involvement of the community, it does not imply with requisite of public access but enhances public engagement with appropriate representation and interpretation. It is difficult but not impossible to interpret the production, economic and social history, for instancerepresenting in the form of building arts can be a simple way. Comparing two case studies, it can be said that Carriageworks has portrayed more success in relation to serving a bigger community than Finger Wharf, which displayed an illusion of protecting the outer fabric only. In order to avoid the practice of protecting external fabric only, Oliver Jonathan (2015) suggests in his framework to acknowledge the evolution of cultural and social heritage value by proposing address of changing social needs and engage with the ongoing culture within its community. Another successful precedent can be Dolores Hayden’s Power of Place project. Donofrio (2012) mentioned Dolores Hayden’s Power of Place project, which is an example of successful representation of community values, meaningful stories and shared heritage without any apparent physical referent to historic events or person. In this way, substantial research and understanding of places can interpret successful adaptive reuse which recognises the value of historic practices, meanings, and uses that are historically fluid and incidental, even sometimes possible without material integrity. The biggest problem found in the case study of Finger Wharf is to achieve financial benefits over cultural significance. Therefore, instead of separating cultural significance and economic values, they should be evaluated against each other and explore how they benefit the bigger community. People’s participation and their attitude towards a building should be a parameter to decide what is considered significant. Rather than considering the population as passive recipients of the old buildings, the present-day users of the historic buildings should be treated as the active participants.44 Another essential criterion is understanding the history from each period of time. Donofrio (2012) argues to reconsider the theoretical orientation of the past by incorporating the past uses and the users as an integral component of preservation practice and understand the present function of the historic

Bluestone, Daniel. "Tobacco Row, Heritage, Environment, and Adaptive Reuse in Richmond, Virginia." Change Over Time.

Donofrio, Gregory. "Preservation by Adaptation: Is It Sustainable?". Change Over Time 2, no. 2 (2012): 106-31.

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

property.45 When changing a built form in present time, it is essential to consider the question of reversibility carefully whether the changes need to be reversible or not. Any irreversible change, which will impact the significance of the historic place, needs to be prohibited.

7.0 Conclusion Demonstrating two different approaches towards the adaptation of Industrial Sites, Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf and Carriageworks have achieved different outcomes in terms of protecting cultural significance. Carriageworks has been successful in obtaining community engagement in certain level validating the fact that conservation of heritage is vital mainly to represent the cultural and historical identity of a community. On the other hand, the purpose of commercial gain took over the cultural significance in the case of Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf. Therefore, it can be said that selecting the appropriate use for Adaptive Reuse and at the same time integrating that with financial viability play a critical role to ensure historical significance. However, the existing NSW policies and guidelines do not provide sufficient guidelines to establish this integrity between cultural significance and financial viability. Any necessary change in order to give new life to a historical site needs to be justified against their cultural significance. Even though in cases, community engagement is not achievable through direct public access, the interpretation of the original history, the inner meaning and the spiritual values are required to be presented in front of the community. Rather than merely preserving the physical heritage faรงade or creating confusion to be the original, it is crucial to recognise the heritage value underlying within the functional history of the building in the ongoing practice in NSW. Adapting the industrial built forms to evolve according to changing social needs, demand further development in policy and guidelines in NSW. Two major things require to get integrated into the implementation of process-the involvement in the community and clear framework regarding financial benefits.

Donofrio, Gregory. "Preservation by Adaptation: Is It Sustainable?". Change Over Time 2, no. 2 (2012): 106-31.

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

8.0 Bibliography "Adaptive Reuse: Creativity and Continuity." In National Trust of Australia (NSW) Conference, edited by Jacqui Goddard, 1-121. Barnet Long Room, Customs House, Sydney.

Bluestone, Daniel. "Tobacco Row, Heritage, Environment, and Adaptive Reuse in Richmond, Virginia." Change Over Time, no. 2.2 Adaptation (2012): 132-219.

Bullen, Peter A. 2007. "Adaptive Reuse and Sustainability of Commercial Buildings". Facilities 25 (1/2): 2031. doi:10.1108/02632770710716911.

Burgmann, Meredith, and Verity Burgmann. Green Bans, Red Union: Environmental Activism and the New South Wales Builders Labourers' Federation. Edited by Verity Burgmann1998.

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Carriageworksâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; About Us. 2018. Carriageworks. https://carriageworks.com.au/about/.

De Manincor, John. Carriage Works [Carriage Works, by Tonkin Zulaikha Greer, is a new centre for physical theatre and contemporary dance within the Eveleigh Railway Workshops precinct in Sydney's Redfern.] [online]. Architecture Australia, Vol. 96, No. 4, July-Aug 2007: 64-75. Availability: <https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=200712195;res=IELAPA> ISSN: 0003-8725. [cited 25 Apr 19].

Department of Environment and Heritage. (2004). Adaptive Reuse: Preserving our Past, Building our Future. Department of Environment and Heritage, Melbourne.

Donofrio, Gregory. "Preservation by Adaptation: Is It Sustainable?". Change Over Time 2, no. 2 (2012): 106-31.

Don Godden and Associates. Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf Heritage Report.

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

Eveleigh Railway Workshops | NSW Environment & Heritage. (2016). Retrieved https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=4801102

from

"Faneuil Hall History And Information Guide". 2019. Old Town Trolley Tours. Accessed June 6. https://www.trolleytours.com/boston/faneuil-hall.

Heritage Office, NSW Department of Planning, and The Royal Australian Institute of Architects NSW. "New Uses for Heritage Places: Guidelines for the Adaptation of Historic Buildings and Sites." 2008.

Hunt, Roger, Iain Boyd, and Kevin McCloud. New Design for Old Buildings. Riba Bookshop. Edited by Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings UK: RIBA, 2019.

ICOMOS Australia, 2013. ‘The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance’.

“International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter 1964),” (International Council of Monuments and Sites, 1965), Article 7, < http:// www.international.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf>

Kerr, James Semple. "The Seventh Edition Conservation Plan: A Guide to the Preparation of Conservation Plans for Places of European Cultural Significance." edited by Australia Icomos International Council on Monuments and Sites, 2013.

Lennon, Troy. 2015. "Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf: Centenary Celebrations As Gateway To Sydney Turns 100". Dailytelegraph.Com.Au.https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/tragic-and-triumphant-as-woolloomooloo-finger-wharf-turns--100/news-story/85df048ada86988f4c760db72248ef9c.

Manincor, John De. "Carriage Works." 64-75, 2007.

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

"NSW Community Attitudes to Heritage Report." edited by Office of Environment and Heritage, 1-58. Sydney: EY Sweeney, 2017.

NSW Heritage Office. HERITAGE INFORMATION SERIES: A GUIDE TO THE HERITAGE SYSTEM,2005.

Onsman, Andrys. "Residential Adaptive Reuse in Inner City Melbourne." In Living and Learning: Research for a Better Built Environment: 49th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association, edited by R.H. Crawford and A. Stephan (eds.). The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, 2015.

Otto Cserhalmi and Partners PL. "Eveleigh Carriageworks Conservation Management Plan Volume 01 ", 2003.

Richards, J. (1994). Facadism. New York: Routledge.

'SPAB' About Us. https://www.spab.org.uk/.

Scheer, Edward. 2007. "Off the Rails". The Nation Reviewed, no. March 2007: 16-18.

" Woolloomooloo: A Day Walk through This Complex Suburb." edited by Joanne Karcz, 2018.

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

"Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf | NSW Office Of Environment & Heritage". 2014. Environment.NSW.Gov.Au. https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5051359.

Wharton, Ruby. 2014. "Lo-Commotion at Carriageworks: Reviving the Redfern Railway". Ideas in History.

Williams, Sue. 2015. "Woolloomoolooâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Historic Finger Wharf Celebrates 100 Years". Domain. https://www.domain.com.au/news/woolloomooloos-historic-finger-wharf-celebrates-100-years-20151105gkrfgm/.

Yan, Oliver Jonathan Cheung Chin. "Beyond the Front Elevation: A Conceptual Framework for Re (Thinking) Facadism." In Living and Learning: Research for a Better Built Environment: 49th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association, edited by R.H. Crawford and A. Stephan (eds.). The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, 2015.

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

9.0 Appendices

Appendices 01: Image of Faneuil Hall, Boston Source: ("Faneuil Hall History and Information Guide" 2019)

Appendices 02: Image of Cigarette workers and packaging machines, American Tobacco Company, Lucky Strike factory, Richmond, Virginia, c. 1935. Source: Roy C. Flannagan, The Story of Lucky Strike, 1938.)

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

Appendices 03: Key motivator to protect heritage Source: "NSW Community Attitudes to Heritage Report." edited by Office of Environment and Heritage

Is the Adaptive Reuse Practice in NSW a correct approach towards Heritage? | Nuzhat Nabila

Appendices 05: Support mechanism of heritage buildings

Appendices 04: Community Perception about heritage

Source: "NSW Community Attitudes to Heritage Report." edited by Office of Environment and Heritage