Recently, I completed an essay for my Heritage Planning Course at UNSW on the topic of the Sirius Building in The Rocks. The complex history of the building and how it came to be was quite fascinating and I thought I would share it with you all. Not many people in New South Wales seem to know about the Green Bans Movement or the history of the Sirius Building - A vital part of our history and how planning in NSW came to be what it is today. I ended up with a High Distinction overall for this essay. Enjoy!

Introduction

“Located on one of the finest sites on Sydney Harbour, sharing magnificent panorama of the Harbour in all its moods and the exciting city skyline and nestling against the Harbour Bridge approaches, a new neighbour has arrived just across the water from the famed Opera House” – NSW Housing Commission, announcing the completion of the Sirius Building, 1980 (Dunn, et al., 2017)

Situated at 38-70 Cumberland Street, The Rocks, the Sirius Building towers above The Rocks Heritage Precinct as a glorious monument to the hard-fought achievements of the Green Bans Movement of the late 20th Century. Its extraordinary history is only rivalled by that of its extreme brutalist architecture, solidifying its reputation as the building that Sydneysiders love to hate (Hoh, 2016). The announcement of the building’s impending sale (and potential demolition) in 2015 however, sparked a movement in Sydney to save the building and have it listed on the NSW State Heritage Register. The Sirius Building had become, once again, a symbol of resistance for the people against a callous and developer-backed state government whose mission had (once again) become the socio-economic cleansing of The Rocks/Millers Point community.

This essay will explore the complex origins and history of the Sirius Building and the subsequent community-led ‘Save Our Sirius’ campaign to save the building from its impending destruction. In addition, this essay will review the NSW state heritage listing process, and the decisions of successive Ministers for Heritage to refuse to list the building as a state heritage item. Finally, this essay will conduct its own review of the Minister’s decisions and puts forward that the Sirius Building is of state heritage significance, and worthy of registration on the NSW State Heritage Register.

Sirius: A Brief History

Sirius and the Green Bans Movement

The origins of the Sirius Building date back to the early 1970s, when the then Askin State Government began the redevelopment of the historic The Rocks Precinct. The redevelopment consisted of shifting public housing tenants out of the area through demolition of public housing and privatisation of most land in the precinct. Facing much community opposition, the redevelopment (spearheaded by the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority) was halted by a ban placed on the area by the NSW Builders Labourers Federation (a trade union) which prohibited “…any of its members to engage in the redevelopment plans for the area” (Morris, 2017). By 1975, the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority surrendered to the demands of the union and the broader community, and agreed to “…suspend most of its development plans and rehouse displaced public housing tenants in new public housing” (Pickett, 2013). Thus, the Sirius Building was born as a new home for those that were displaced.

Designed by Tao Gofers, then architect for the NSW Housing Commission, the Sirius Building was “…conceived towards the end of a period when the brutalist idiom dominated architectural thinking and practice” (Rodrigo, 2015). As one of four proposals for a public housing development in the area, the Sirius Building was announced as the preferred design by none other than Jack Mundey himself, the leader of the Green Bans Movement in the 1970s. The announcement was hailed as a success of the Green Bans movement in The Rocks, with the architect describing the building as “a physical solution to a political problem” (Dunn, et al., 2017). With construction completed in 1980, the apartment complex comprised of 78 units split over twelve stories (Dunn, et al., 2017). An unusual feat (at the time) of the Sirius Building was its success in creating community cohesion, with varying dwelling types and communal rooms scattered throughout the complex.

The Campaign to Save the Monument to the Green Bans: 2014 to 2019

Since its completion in 1980, the Sirius Building has been “… perennially nominated as one of Sydney’s great architectural eyesores” (Rodrigo, 2015), with the building being loathed by members of the community throughout the decades. On the 19th of March 2014, it was announced that the Sirius building, would be sold on the private market amongst 293 public housing dwellings also to be sold in the area (Morris, 2017). With no formal statutory protection, it was widely predicted that the Sirius Building would be demolished after being sold. Following the announcement, an impassioned response from the community led to the establishment of the ‘Save Our Sirius’ campaign, aimed at preserving the Sirius complex and having it officially recognised as a State Heritage Item. The campaign lasted a total of five years, and involved a Land and Environment Court Appeal and much political debate.

On the 30th of July 2016, then Minister for Heritage Mark Speakman announced that despite the New South Wales Heritage Council’s recommendation for the listing of the Sirius Building on the State Heritage Register, the building would not be listed. The Minister’s reasoning was based on the “…undue financial hardship its listing would cause to its owner, by diminishing what would otherwise be its sale value (possibly in the order of $70 million) …” (Speakman, 2016). Further to this, the Minister found that the Sirius building was not an extraordinary example of late Brutalist architectural style in social housing, and was not “…of such merit as to be of State Heritage Significance…” (Speakman, 2016). Despite this decision being declared invalid by way of judicial review through the NSW Land and Environment Court on the 25th of July 2017, the Minister’s successor (Gabrielle Upton) arrived at the same decision after all proper statutory processes were adhered to on the 25th of October 2017 (New South Wales Minister for Heritage, 2017).

New South Wales State Heritage Register: An Overview of the Heritage Listing Process

Existing Legislation and Processes

Following the successes of the Green Bans Movement in the 1970s, the Heritage Act 1977 was passed by the New South Wales Parliament which established the state’s first statutory measures to protect items deemed to be of State Heritage Significance. The State Heritage Register was later established in 1999 following a comprehensive policy review in NSW which resulted in the establishment of the NSW Heritage Office and passing of the Heritage Amendment Act 1998 (White & Baskerville, 2005). The existing processes for state heritage item listings are based on these policies and legislation. There are three formal steps that inform the heritage listing process under New South Wales legislation; the first being nomination of an item to the Heritage Council of New South Wales. The Heritage Council will then consider the nomination (step two) against several key criteria extrapolated from the Heritage Act 1977. Specifically, the following definition of State Heritage Significance is used to evaluate the potential significance of any given nominated item:

“State Heritage Significance: in relation to a place, building, work, relic, moveable object or precinct, means significance to the State in relation to the historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic value of the item.” (Parliament of New South Wales, 2019)

The criteria the Heritage Council of New South Wales sets out to determine the potential heritage significance of an item is published and reviewed frequently. The final step is recommendation of an item to the Minister for Heritage who will then determine whether the item is to be included on the State Heritage Register or not (White & Baskerville, 2005).

The Attempted Listing of the Sirius Building

The attempted heritage listing of the Sirius Building followed the processes listed above, under the relevant legislation and policies. After nomination of the building to the NSW State Heritage Register, the Heritage Council of New South Wales reviewed the potential heritage significance of the Sirius Building and recommended to the Minister for Heritage that it should be listed as a State Heritage Item. This recommendation was made on the basis that the Sirius Building met two of the seven criteria for listing; being criteria C (aesthetic values) and criteria F (rarity) (Heritage Council for New South Wales, 2016).

Following this recommendation, the then Minister for Heritage Mark Speakman determined that the building would not be listed on the New South Wales state heritage register in 2016. Despite this decision being declared invalid by way of judicial review in the Land and Environment Court, the Sirius Building was once again declared not to be of state heritage significance in 2017 by the Minister for Heritage Gabrielle Upton (Dunn, et al., 2017).

Critical Analysis of the Minister’s Determination for Refusal of Heritage Listing

This section of the essay provides a critical analysis of successive Minister’s decisions to refuse to list the Sirius Building on the State Heritage Register (both Minister Mark Speakman and Minister Gabrielle Upton), and asserts that the Sirius Building should be listed on the register.

Mark Speakman, Minister for Heritage: “Undue Financial Hardship”

“I consider that in this case whatever the heritage significance of the building…this is outweighed by the undue financial hardship its listing would cause on its owners…” (Speakman, 2016)

The criterion for “undue financial hardship” is not set out in the provisions of the Heritage Act 1977; as such, interpretations of the term are extracted from case law. The term is discussed in depth in the NSW Land and Environment Court appeal against the Minister for Heritage’s initial determination to not list the Sirius Building on the State Heritage Register. The presiding judge set two ‘yardsticks’ to determine ‘undue financial hardship’ to be applicable. The first ‘yardstick’ is the consideration of financial hardship with regard to the financial status of the affected owner. As determined by the court, there is a clear distinction between financial loss and financial hardship, whereby one does not necessarily lead to the other (Millers Point Community Assoc. Incorporated v Property NSW [2017] NSWLEC 92; 224 LGERA 407 , 2017). In this context, the financial position of the owner of the site at the time (being Property NSW) must be considered.

The approximate comprehensive income of Property New South Wales for the 2016/2017 financial year was in the order of $281,529,000, with approximately $1,495,458,000 worth of assets (Liao, 2017). The Minister for Heritage asserted that the “undue financial hardship” the listing of the Sirius Building would have on its owner (being Property NSW) could possibly be in the order of $70 million (New South Wales Minister for Heritage, 2017). As this amount only constitutes 24.86% of the total profit made by Property New South Wales in the 2016/2017 financial year and would not result in the company recording losses for that financial year, it is reasonable to assert that the listing of the Sirius Building would not cause “financial hardship” on Property NSW.

The second ‘yardstick’ to establish whether ‘undue financial hardship’ is applicable, as determined by Judge Molesworth in Millers Point Community Assoc. Incorporated v Property NSW, is a review of the term ‘undue’ in the context of heritage values. Essentially, the heritage values of a building may be “so significant, irreplaceable or important to society, that the financial hardship is not undue and must be tolerated or addressed in some other way” (Millers Point Community Assoc. Incorporated v Property NSW [2017] NSWLEC 92; 224 LGERA 407 , 2017). Any consideration of ‘undue financial hardship’ in this regard must account for the heritage value of the item itself, and the burden on the societal fabric of the state of New South Wales should the item be demolished or removed. As determined by Judge Molesworth, the Minister in this regard did not “consider whether financial hardship is undue” as the “consideration of the heritage significance of the building was not crystalised” (Millers Point Community Assoc. Incorporated v Property NSW [2017] NSWLEC 92; 224 LGERA 407 , 2017).

Based on the above, it is therefore reasonable to assert that the heritage listing of the Sirius Building would not cause “undue financial hardship” on the owner, and that the Minister’s reasons for refusal were incorrect.

Gabrielle Upton, Minister for Heritage: Brutalist Architecture

“On balance, I do not agree that the Sirius Building is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in New South Wales…” (New South Wales Minister for Heritage, 2017)

As explored in this essay, the Sirius Building represents a significant political achievement and outcome of the Green Bans Movement in Sydney. The movement was the first of its kind in New South Wales and resulted in the preservation of hundreds of heritage buildings across the State. It therefore may be argued that the Sirius Building could be representative of the ‘creative achievements’ of this unique political movement and period in New South Wales’ history.

Further to this, the aesthetic significance of the Sirius Building has been recognised through various awards and recognition from architects and architectural institutions. The design of the building has also been subject to numerous academic articles. For example, Rodrigo Russell describes the unique architectural and aesthetic qualities of the Sirius Building in his article Aesthetics as a Practical Ethic: Situating the Brutalist Architecture of the Sirius Apartments, 1975-1980:

“… In the design of the Sirius Apartments there is an appeal to fundamental architectural principles, such as the emphasis on repetitive forms and geometries, the parts strongly expressive of individual functions within an overall structural and formal system. The modular spaces and forms of Sirius parallel the Brutalist desire for the expression of an egalitarian society.” (Rodrigo, 2015)

In addition to the aesthetic significance of the building being recognised in academics, the Sirius Building was the recipient of the 2018 Enduring Architecture Award from the New South Wales Australian Institute of Architects. The award recognises “… achievement for the design of buildings of outstanding merit, which remain important as high-quality works of architecture when considered in a contemporary context” (Save Our Sirius, 2018). The Sirius complex has also been included on the German Architecture Museum’s (Deutsches Architekturmuseum) Brutalist database, a collection of over 1800 buildings identifying significant brutalist architecture around the world (German Architecture Museum, 2019).

Summary

Based on the above, it is considered that the Sirius Building demonstrates high aesthetic characteristics (as identified from varying academics and architectural institutions) and is a fine example of the creative achievements of the Green Bans Movement in New South Wales. In addition, the listing of the Sirius Building on the state heritage register would not cause ‘undue financial hardship’ to the owner of the building. It is therefore summarised that there is no significant argument to refuse the listing of the Sirius building on the state heritage register, and that the Heritage Council of New South Wales’ recommendation should be adhered to by the Minister for Heritage.

Conclusion

As discussed in this essay, the Sirius Building is a significant political achievement of the Green Bans Movement in New South Wales, and of significant worth/value to be included on the NSW State Heritage Register. The building’s recent tumultuous history only adds to its heritage significance and proves the importance of the building to both the local community of The Rocks, and broader community of New South Wales. Despite the building’s relatively unknown future, its extensive documentation in academia and international architectural institutions ensures that the significant history of the building and its status as a monument to the Green Bans Movement will live on in perpetuity.

2,087 words (minus bibliography and direct quotes)

Bibliography

Dunn, J., Peake, B. & Piscopo, A., 2017. Sirius. Dawes Point, New South Wales, Australia: Piper Press.

German Architecture Museum, 2019. SOS Brutalism. [Online] Available at: http://www.sosbrutalism.org/cms/15802395#about [Accessed 30 October 2019].

Heritage Council for New South Wales, 2016. Save Our Sirius. [Online] Available at: http://saveoursirius.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Sirius-Heritage-Council-Reccomendation-to-list.pdf [Accessed 27 October 2019].

Hoh, A., 2016. Brutalist architecture of Sydney: The buildings many love to hate, Sydney: ABC News.

Liao, W., 2017. Property NSW Annual Report 2016-2017, Sydney: Auditor General for New South Wales.

Millers Point Community Assoc. Incorporated v Property NSW [2017] NSWLEC 92; 224 LGERA 407 (2017).

Morris, A., 2017. "It was like leaving your family": Gentrification and the Impacts of Displacement on Public Housing Tenants in Inner-Sydney. Australian Journal of Social Issues, pp. 147-162.

Morris, A., 2017. The Removal of Millers Point Public Housing Tenants in Inner-Sydney by the New South Wales Government: Narratives of Government and Tenants. Urban Policy and Research, 35(4), pp. 459-471.

New South Wales Minister for Heritage, 2017. NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. [Online] Available at: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/news/sirius-apartment-building [Accessed 27 October 2019].

Parliament of New South Wales, 2019. New South Wales Legislation. [Online] Available at: https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1977/136/part1/sec4a [Accessed 27 October 2019].

Pickett, C., 2013. Museum of Applied Arts & Sciences. [Online] Available at: https://maas.museum/inside-the-collection/2013/05/08/sirius-on-the-rocks/ [Accessed 27 October 2019].

Rodrigo, R., 2015. Aesthetics as a Practical Ethic: Situating the Brutalist Architecture of the Sirius Apartments, 1975-1980. Fabrications, 25(2), pp. 234-261.

Save Our Sirius, 2018. Sirius Wins 2018 Enduring Architecture Award from NSW Australian Institutes of Architects. [Online] Available at: http://saveoursirius.org/blog/2018/07/08/sirius-wins-2018-enduring-architecture-award-from-nsw-australian-institute-of-architects/ [Accessed 30 October 2019].

Speakman, M. f. H. M., 2016. Reasons for Refusal of Heritage Listing of the Sirius Builidng, Sydney: New South Wales Government.

White, C. & Baskerville, B., 2005. 'Sustaining Heritage - Conserving Sets and Classes of Heritage Items - Assessing Sets and Classes of Heritage Items for the New South Wales State Heritage Register', in Sustaining Heritage: Second International and Thirteenth National Heritage Conference. Sydney, Engineers Australia.

Cover Page Illustration from Dunn, J., Peake, B. & Piscopo, A., 2017. Sirius. Dawes Point, New South Wales, Australia: Piper Press.

A Monument to the Green Bans Movement: The Sirius Building