ST KILDA PIER KIOSK
CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared for
PARKS VICTORIA
by
DAVID MOLONEY
April 2004
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to John Grinpukel and Rob Saunders of Parks Victoria for their
guidance, and to many heritage colleagues who provided advice regarding
methodology, and opinions on the question of reconstruction. Thanks to the Advisory
Committee their support, and to media, archives and library staff of the City of Port
Phillip for their assistance accessing information. Thanks especially to the St Kilda
people I interviewed about the Kiosk, and to the many others who provided
information and shared thoughts about it. Thanks also to Fae Ingledew for her great
help with research.
David Moloney
Cover Photograph: ‘St Kilda Pier’ (December 1995), by Jarek Luszpinski
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background and Study Method
2
1.2
The Study Team
2
1.3
Existing Heritage Registrations
3
CHAPTER 2: HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
2.1
2.2
Contextual History
Pavilions
Pavilions in Australia
Pavilions in China and Korea
Pavilions in Iran and Central Asia
Pavilions in Europe
6
7
13
15
Piers, Promenading and Pavilions: Europe and Australia
England
Australia
21
23
The Development of the St Kilda Foreshore
25
History of the St Kilda Pier Kiosk
The Proposal
Construction and Opening
The Pavilion’s Heyday (1904-1930s)
Adaptation: The Kerby Era (1939-1987)
The Revival of Promenading, and Restoration (1987-2003)
2.3
2.4
36
40
41
46
50
Comparative Analysis
Pier Pavilions and Kiosks
Beach Bathing Pavilions
Other Pier Structures
Boathouses
Garden Pavilions
53
54
55
56
56
Statement of Historical significance
59
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
CHAPTER 3: AESTHETIC SIGNIFICANCE
3.1
Introduction
61
3.2
The Kiosk
Formal Architectural Assessment
Responses to the Architecture
61
63
3.3
The Setting
64
3.4
Non-Visual Aesthetics
65
3.5
Statement of Aesthetic Significance
65
CHAPTER 4:
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Survey
Assessing Social Values
Assessing the Social Values of the Pier Kiosk
Statement of Social Significance
67
68
69
Quantitative Analysis of Opinion Regarding Reconstruction
Summary
Scores
71
71
Exploring the Meanings and Significance of the Kiosk
A St Kilda Place
A Melbourne Place
Visual Impressions of the Kiosk
Its Historical Character
Its Functions
Fabricated Meanings
74
77
79
83
85
90
Opinions on Reconstruction
Arguments in Favour of Reconstruction
Arguments in Favour of a Contemporary Design
Additional Comments and Qualifications
91
92
105
111
CHAPTER 5:
SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE
5.1
Discussion
120
5.2
Statement of Scientific Significance
120
CHAPTER 6:
REPLACEMENT: HERITAGE ISSUES
6.1
Introduction
121
6.2
Statement of Cultural Heritage Significance
121
6.3
Redevelopment Options for the Site
124
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
6.4
Surviving Physical Evidence
124
6.5
Reconstruction: Principles and Practice
Background: Reconstruction in Heritage Theory
Western Practice, and Other Precedents
125
126
137
6.6
Would Reconstruction Be Valid; and Effective in Recovering Significance?
Is Reconstruction of the St Kilda Pier Kiosk Valid?
Would Reconstruction Recover the Cultural Significance of the
St Kilda Pier Kiosk?
CHAPTER 7:
139
143
CONSERVATION POLICY
7.1
Introduction
145
7.2
Policy
146
7.3
Criteria for Assessing Options
147
7.4
Options and Assessment
149
APPENDICES
Appendix No.1:
The Study Brief
Appendix No.2:
Article ‘St Kilda Landmark’ by Gill Upton
Appendix No.3:
Radio ABC 774 (5.30 am to 10 pm, 11th September 2003)
Appendix No.4:
‘News services’ summary reports of radio/television broadcasts.
Appendix No.5:
Print Media (Newspaper articles, ‘vox pop’ surveys, letters to the
editor, editorials)
Appendix No.6:
Views of Specific Communities: Web Chat Rooms
Appendix No.7:
Views of the Local Community: Interviews
Appendix No.8:
Miscellaneous: Comments from Private Straw-Poll Discussions
Appendix No.9:
Images of the Pier and Kiosk
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The destruction of the St Kilda Pier Kiosk by fire in September 2003 generated an
unprecedented outpouring of public grief, and there were immediate calls for and
commitments to its reconstruction.
Parks Victoria as owner of the site determined as a first step to commission a Conservation
Management Plan (Heritage Action Plan) in order to identify the nature of the significance of
the site, and determine whether a reconstruction would in fact be able to recover this
significance to any significant degree. The report would also consider the validity of
reconstruction in terms of current Australian and international heritage principles and
practice, and the range of redevelopment options for the site.
Assessment according to the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter criteria (aesthetic, historical,
social, and scientific) found that the former St Kilda Pier Kiosk was of national heritage
significance.
Five alternative approaches to the replacement building were considered for the site, ranging
from accurate reconstruction of the whole complex as it was in 2003, to a contemporary
pavilion design without reference to the original structure. The degrees to which these
options would preserve or recover the heritage significance of the place, and satisfy other
functional objectives and resource limitations, were then considered.
All of these options, including full reconstruction, were found to be valid according to
international heritage principles. However each alternative approach was found to recover the
cultural significance to varying extents. Using criteria developed in the Nara (Japan)
Document on Authenticity (1994), and also used in the Burra Charter and James Semple
Kerr’s guide to Australian conservation practice (The Conservation Plan), it was found that
the ‘design’ of the place was of greater significance than its actual ‘fabric’.
Through this process it was found that a high quality reconstruction was the optimal approach
to recover this significance. This is Option C, defined as:
‘Reconstruction of the exterior and interior of the 1904 building to the extent possible
(complying with all heritage, building and safety guidelines and codes, and functional
criteria), and replacement of the 1987 component with an improved layout that
integrates the various spaces.’
Option D, ‘Modern Interpretation of the Historic 1904 Building (a new building with
architectural references to the original)’ was also considered to have the potential to recover
the cultural significance of the former place to a considerable degree, and it is also
recommended that this option also be available to an architect to explore further. A design
based on this option would need to demonstrate how it would achieve the significance
qualities of the former place, including its long distance/icon view, up-close architectural
ornamentation, and the other ‘enchanting’ social values for which it was so highly valued by
Melburnians.
This report will now be used to develop a design brief. It will also be a guide for the
architects involved in the immediate site redevelopment, and future site managers and users.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
CHAPTER ONE:
1.1
2
INTRODUCTION
Background and Study Method
On the morning of 11th September 2003 the 1904 St Kilda Pier Kiosk was destroyed
by fire. There was an immediate outpouring of grief at this loss of a place so highly
valued by the public. Commitment by both the State Government and the City of
Port Phillip to its reconstruction was welcomed by the overwhelming majority of
people, as expressed in Talkback Radio, Letters to the Editor and other forums, and
by all major newspaper editors. However, a minority condemned or were
uncomfortable with the idea of reconstruction, thinking it ‘fake’, and recommended
that it be replace by another pavilion of contemporary design.
In order that any replacement structure should respond to the community’s sense of
loss, Parks Victoria, the owner of the site, determined to define that loss as a first
step. This Conservation Management Plan / Heritage Action Plan was commissioned
to identify the historical, social, aesthetic and scientific significance of the former
Kiosk (Chapters 2-5), and to advise whether this significance might be recovered in a
replacement structure (Chapter 6). Chapter 6 also includes the Statement of Cultural
Heritage Significance (Section 6.2).
The study Advisory Group identified five alternative approaches to the replacement
building for the site, ranging from reconstruction of the buildings exactly as they had
been before the fire, to a contemporary ‘pavilion’ design. The ability of these options
to recover the significance of the place and to meet the functional requirements of the
owner and users of the site, was assessed, with two options emerging as the most
likely to successfully recover that significance (Chapter 7).
Chapter Seven of the report (Conservation Policy) was prepared jointly with the
owner, Parks Victoria. The Study Brief is attached (Attachment No.1).
1.2
The Study Team
Heritage consultant David Moloney was engaged to prepare this report, with Fae
Ingledew as research assistant.
The study was undertaken in consultation with the St Kilda Pier Kiosk Advisory
Group:
•
Rob Saunders, Project Manager, Parks Victoria (Chair)
•
John Grinpukel, Team Leader Heritage Programs, Parks Victoria
•
Jim Holdsworth, Manager, Urban Design and Architecture, City of Port Phillip
•
Peter Williams, Williams Boag Architects, and Heritage Council
•
Nick Mazzarella, Manager Major Projects, Parks Victoria
Other specialist advise was provided by Anthea Dee (Parks Victoria Visitor
Research), and Katherine Whiteley and Carly Pearse (Millward Brown Market
Research).
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
1.3
3
Existing Heritage Registrations
The kiosk is listed on all statutory and non-statutory heritage lists. The citations are
as follows:
Register of the National Estate
•
Place ID:
15024
•
Legal Status:
•
Statement of Significance:
‘The pier pavilion, combining ornamental and functional attributes, is a very
rare structure and is unique in Victoria and possibly Australia (Criterion B.2).
Its late nineteenth century and Edwardian styling is of aesthetic importance
and, as a major feature of St Kilda's beachfront and a visual focus of the pier
itself, the structure has considerable townscape value (Criteria E.1 and F.1).
The pavilion is associated with the zenith of the period of St Kilda's
development as a seaside resort and amusement and recreation centre. Its
importance in terms of social history is increased by the fact that it continues
to be a focus for pier promenaders today just as it has been throughout its
lifetime (Criterion A.4).’
•
Description:
‘The pier pavilion is an elaborately detailed structure, aesthetically fusing a
late nineteenth century form and basic details with the commanding arches of
the Edwardian period. Of all timber construction, apart from an iron first
floor main beam and several cast iron columns, the structure is essentially
single storeyed. Over the former cafe, small office and servery at ground
floor level is an open observation deck on all sides of a central observation
room. The observation room has margin light edged windows to all four
sides. Two doors give access to the metal sheet clad outside deck and this
room is crowned by a curved roof and widow's walk. The ground floor
contains a proper staircase giving access to the first floor, while a ladder stair
gives access to the widow's walk. Features of the external design are the
arched reveals to all four sides, scalloped weatherboards, pedimented end
bays, first floor balustrade with round ended slots and diagonal board
cladding/lining panels in the observation room. Early vandalism due to the
isolated location saw additions to provide accommodation and various
unsympathetic additions and alterations were made over the years. These
were removed as part of bicentennial restoration and renovation works, which
included construction of a new largely unsympathetic residence and public
toilets at the rear of the building. The St Kilda pier was developed from the
1850s. From the 1880s St Kilda increasingly became a resort area and in
1904, at the peak of this development process, the pavilion was constructed at
what was then the end of the pier. The pavilion has been a focus for pier
promenaders throughout its history and retains this significance today.’
•
Condition and Integrity:
‘The pavilion underwent restoration work during the Bicentennial Year.
Restoration included removal of unsympathetic external and internal
alterations and repainting of the exterior in colours very close to the original
ones. Unfortunately, since this work was done the pavilion has suffered from
vandalism. (September 1989) Reported totally destroyed by fire 11
September 2003.’
Registered.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
4
Victorian Heritage Register
•
•
VHR Number H1533: ‘Parers Pavilion’
Statement of Significance:
‘Originally known as Parer's Pavilion, the tea and refreshments rooms were
built on the 'L' junction of St. Kilda pier in 1904. The Pavilion follows a
building design that was popular in Europe at the time of its construction, and
is a unique example of this design in Victoria. During its early years, it often
doubled as a meteorological bureau, and has since then played a significant
role in the fashionable seaside life of St. Kilda.’
City of Port Phillip Heritage Overlay
•
Heritage Overlay Number: HO226: ‘Parers Pavilion, St Kilda Pier’.
The site has been identified as significance in three local heritage studies:
•
Nigel Lewis & Associates, ‘St Kilda Conservation Study’, 1982
•
David Bick, St Kilda Conservation Study, n.d.
•
Robert Peck von Hartel Trethowan, ‘St Kilda Twentieth Century
Architectural Study’, May 1992
•
Andrew Ward, ‘City of Port Phillip Heritage Review’, 2000
•
Statement of Significance (from the most recent Ward study, in which it is
identified as part of ‘St Kilda Pier’):‘The St Kilda Pier is of historical and social significance and has functioned
as one of the key elements in the identity of St Kilda as a seaside resort from
the nineteenth century through to the 1930s. In the nineteenth century the pier
provided an important landing place for passenger craft and was at various
times the point of entrance for dignitaries, including several Royal parties,
entering St Kilda and Melbourne. As a gateway to Melbourne, the
environment of the pier was important to the self image of the city. The
various improvements that occurred reflected this perception and the area
around the pier was frequently referred to as being of National rather than
local significance for this reason. The pavilion on the end of the pier is of
significance as a reflection of the shift in the role of the pier away from being
a landing place and toward a role as part of a recreation zone serving
Melbourne. It is an outstanding and rare surviving example of seaside
architecture of the Federation period. Recent additions to the pier include the
pavilion and seating shelters which are mock Federation style, which reflect
concerns of the 1980s but lend a false historical homogeneity to the structure.
Other changes which have detracted from the pier include the replacement of
the timber decking with concrete and the replacement of the handrailing with
steel and aluminium; however as the physical significance of the pier relates
more to its continued existence as a type (little or none of the original 1850s
structure is likely to survive in the present pier (these alterations are of minor
consequence. The breakwater and marina make a positive contribution to the
maritime character of the pier and wider foreshore area.’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
5
National Trust of Australia (Victoria) Register
•
Classified: Regional
•
File No: B5471
•
Statement of Significance:‘Built as Parer's Pavalion in 1904 to Public Works Department plans on the
end of the St. Kilda pier, it remains as a flamboyant timber structure despite
alterations over the years. As well as a kiosk it served as an observatory with
balustraded upper deck and was claimed to be the "first continental pier
pavilion in Australia". It is still a prominent feature of St. Kilda pier and
recalls the once popular activity of promenading.’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
CHAPTER TWO:
2.1
6
HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
CONTEXTUAL HISTORY
Pavilions
Pavilion Buildings in Australia
‘Pavilions’ are generally small, light, and open buildings whose inside/outside qualities
provide both a degree of shelter, and views from inside. Those associated with natural or
garden settings (or sports parks) commonly have architectural qualities or ornamental
features to enhance the beauty of these settings. They are often associated with festive, or
recreational events or activities, and sometimes have a temporary feel. Sometimes they
are a gateway, a point of access between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’.
A pavilion in a garden or park might be referred to as a summerhouse, rotunda, belvedere,
gazebo, temple or bandstand. Their designs range from rendered masonry constructions
in neo-classical styles, lighter timber structures in rustic, gothic revival, or arts & craft
styles and, occasionally, more exotic structures with polygonal plans and Indian, Moorish,
or Chinese features. Typically, even those without special claim to historical or
architectural distinction feature the polygonal plans, pyramid roofs, timber lattices,
shingles, and timber fretwork that characterised the late nineteenth and early twentieth
century period when most were constructed. 1
A common type of ‘pavilion’ provides shelter for participants, and sometimes spectators,
of sport. As well as cricket pavilions and grandstands, there are bowling, croquet and
tennis club pavilions. In contrast to garden pavilions most of the sports pavilions are
simply utilitarian buildings of prosaic design. Perhaps as a result of their ‘inside/outside’
quality, utilitarian buildings for showing sheep and cattle at agricultural showgrounds are
also known as pavilions.
Another formerly common recreation pavilion was the beach bathing pavilion, which
were dressing sheds generally built in the 1920s and 30s at popular urban beaches (see
Comparative Analysis section of this chapter for examples).
Other (non-recreational) types of buildings are sometimes described as having a
‘pavilion’ style. These often have prominent roofs; and many were built in the early
twentieth century. Those with wide eaves are sometimes also described as being in a
‘bungalow’ style. However, the word pavilion is mostly used in connection with ‘shelter’
buildings. ‘Shade shed’ pavilions, sometimes of polygonal plan, can be found at old
primary schools and cemeteries. The pavilion form was also often associated with
‘chalets’, once built as hospital wards to provide shelter and ventilation at the same time
as admitting the ‘fresh air’ that was a major part of treatment prior to the development of
drugs (eg, for tuberculosis patients at the former Greenvale Sanatorium Hospital).
Ammunition magazines, such as at the former Ordnance, Ammunitions and Explosives
factory complexes in Maribyrnong and Footscray, also have similar forms, probably for
similar reasons. ‘Pavilion’ is also sometimes used to describe smaller buildings such as
kiosks, entrances and ticket boxes.
1
Aitken, Richard, ‘Leisure and Pleasure Buildings of Geelong’ (BA Thesis, Deakin University, 1980)
passim.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
7
The sole remaining timber pavilion building at the former Greenvale Sanatorium.
While there are many ornamental garden pavilions in Australia, there are few ornamental
pavilions situated in grand natural landscapes, as was the former St Kilda Pier Kiosk. A
fuller understanding of the broader history of pavilions will therefore help us to appreciate
the purpose, setting and design of this building. Additional detailed research of European
resort architecture, including Spa Towns, English pleasure piers and Mediterranean
resorts, might reveal specific architectural influences. Architecture aside however, it is
evident that there is a close correlation between uses and descriptions of historical
pavilions, and Melburnians’ use and impressions of the St Kilda Pier Kiosk (see Chapter
4, Social Significance).
Pavilions in China and Korea.
Chinese pavilions have had many purposes and designs over the 2000 years of their
history. 2 Called a Ting, the Chinese pavilion is built of wood, stone or bamboo to a plan
that can be square, round, octagonal, fan shape, or the shape of a five-petal flower.
Waterside pavilions are known as a xie. They are simple open-sided structures with
sheltering roof, generally slightly raised, set in and overlooking a beautiful and sublime
natural or garden setting, often beside or over water. They have not only been part of the
landscape, but also belvederes from which to enjoy it.3 ‘In a pavilion, one could gaze off
into the distance, rest, or seek shelter from the rain.’4
In China small pavilions for ‘viewing scenery or resting’ are seen everywhere. The fact
that they have been so ‘closely connected with people’s lives’5 would seem to set Chinese
pavilion history apart from that of European, and perhaps even Middle Eastern, history.
Pavilions have been integral to the Chinese lifestyle, and art, in a way that they have not
in the West.
In the Han dynasty (206 BC - 220 AD) it was recorded that pavilions marked townships:
‘there is a ting (pavilion) every ten li, and ten pavilions for a township’. A ‘far pavilion’
marked every ten li (c.500 metres), and a ‘near pavilion’ every five li. As well as being
2
Zhu, Junzhen, The Art of Chinese Pavilions (Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, 2002), p.8.
Chinese Guide book author Mr Du Feibao, quoted on website www.chinavista.com)
4
Zhu, loc.cit.
5
Zhu, loc cit.
3
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
8
places to ‘dine’, these common roadside pavilions (called liangting, a cooling kiosk) were
places of rest and shelter for wayfarers. Their location on town boundaries also helps
explain a major early use of pavilions as places in which customary Chinese ‘farewell
parties’ were held. Songs, drums and ‘sweet melodies’ would drift along the wind from
the pavilion by the roadside or on the river. Many poems tell of the deep sadness that
remained after a friend had left, and the association which that pavilion then had with
such a cherished memory.6 Similarly, when pavilions came to be built in private
compounds, a host would accompany his guest to the pavilion, and no further.
In addition to ‘sendoff pavilions’, pavilions came to have many and sometimes multiple
other purposes, for example as memorials, forts, protection of wells or cultural artefacts,
as ‘posts’ (for official letters, and lodgings for those bearing them), and for religious
ceremonies.7 Most importantly, pavilions were closely associated with the search for
purity and simplicity that accompanied the spread of religion and metaphysics around the
era 500 AD (the Jin and Sui dynasties). Under the influence of the Buddhist Ch’an sect,
and the ‘i-ching’ (‘Zen’ in Japan) and Taoist philosophical systems, contemplation of
nature became popular, and Chinese ink paintings portray the key role of the pavilion in
this practice. Pavilions built in natural landscapes were positioned so as to provide a view
of a lake (sometimes they were built on piers over the water itself) or an epic mountain
landscape. Some, simple and unadorned, were parts of monk or hermit settlements.
Pavilions were places for writing of poetry and painting, and of discourse between
Confucian scholars on philosophy or the state of society. 8 The choice of site was most
important.
The essential pavilion - a place to contemplate nature.
Li K’e-jan, ‘Listening to the Rain by the Lotus Pond’ (Plate 100, in Hejzlar, Chinese
Watercolours)
6
ibid, pp.9-11
ibid, p.12, 14
8
Hejzlar, J: Chinese Watercolours (Ivy Leaf, London, 1990), passim.
7
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
9
As the centuries progressed pavilion design became more exquisite and decorative. One
such innovation was the ‘Rain Tower’ pavilion, in which rain created curtains of water on
all four sides of the pavilion. They also came to acquire ornamental purposes, regarded
not only as places from which a view could be obtained, but as a contributor to the natural
landscape, and as an integral part of the developing art of Chinese landscape gardening.
Especially in a garden setting a pavilion’s aspect assumed as much importance as its
prospect, and the first ‘luxury pavilions’ appeared. The most notable were imperial
gardens such as the Kuoruting (Pavilion of Expanse) in Beijing’s Summer Palace
(reconstructed late nineteenth century after being burnt down by the British and French in
1860). In language similar to that used to describe the St Kilda Pier Kiosk (chapter 4), it
has been described as ‘elegant and dignified’, and ‘poised and majestic, well in harmony
with the surrounding open landscape’. The wealthy classes also built ornamental
pavilions within their gardens to display their cultured tastes.9 In due course such
pavilions became an integral part of public parks.
The simple pavilion in the big landscape.
Huang Pin-hung ‘Landscape with Pavilions’ (Plate 57, in Hejzlar, Chinese Watercolours).
9
Hejzlar, op cit, p.58
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
10
From the Tan (Tang) dynasty (618 - 906 AD), culminating in the Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty,
pavilions were tinged with literature. They were increasingly depicted in literary works:
romantic tragedies and masterpieces such as ‘A Dream of Red Mansions’. 10 Couplets and
lyric poetry, inspired by running rivers, fragrant lotus flowers, and the ‘vast and
boundless … great void’, were inscribed on pavilions everywhere. Pavilion naming
became important. Names such as ‘Moon Viewing Pavilion’, ‘Clouds-Gathering
Pavilion’, and the ‘Orchid Pavilion’11 give an idea of the emerging importance of siting
pavilions in places of natural and created beauty, as well as on town boundaries.
A Chinese pavilion at sunset. (‘The Art of Chinese Pavilions’, title page.) Similar views of the St
Kilda Pier Kiosk were regularly enjoyed by strollers and photographers.
As much as pavilions were important for resting and meditating, they also remained very
much a part of social life, places of gathering and banqueting. Places for ‘drinking wine,
composing poems, and playing music’ were known as ‘Orchid Towers’ (pavilions).12 The
‘Floating Cup’ pavilion was an interesting (uncommon) variant of this theme. Cups of
wine were placed in a small stream of water that ran through a narrow, meandering
channel sculptured into the floor. If the cup stopped in front of the scholar, he drank it
and composed a poem. 13 (In Korea the party-goer had to compose a poem before the cup
reached him. 14) The role of pavilions as places for drinking and banqueting with friends
is evident in names such as the ‘Drunken Man’s Pavilion’, and the ‘Alone Sober
Pavilion’.15 Most however had more lyrical and elevated titles, such as the ‘Merit and
Virtue’, ‘Harmonious Fragrance’, ‘Happy Rain’, and ‘Complete Rapport’ pavilions.
10
This has continued with modern-era ‘classics’ such as ‘The Peony Pavilion’ (Mu Dan Ting), and
‘The Moonlight Pavilion’ (Bai Yue Ting).
11
Zhu, op cit, pp.16-24.
12
Zhu, op cit, p.12
13
ibid, pp.62-65
14
Kim, Young-Joo, Kyongju: Old Capital of Shilla Dynasty (Woo-jin, Seoul, 1999), p.27
15
Zhu, pp.114, 117
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
11
Some typical Chinese Pavilion forms which forms were taken up in the West from the seventeenth
century, and regularly seen in parks, piers and foreshore promenades as rotundas and bandstands by
the beginning of the twentieth century.
In the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) garden landscaper Ji Cheng wrote Garden Art, the
initial theory of pavilion building. In it he described pavilions as buildings for people to
‘visit or rest in’. While most pavilions were octagonal, he described all of their many
possible plans and eschewed fixing standards designs. He identified good sites for
pavilions as rivers, lakes, running streams, bamboo groves, mountain-tops, valleys and
slopes.16 Today it is said that no famous Chinese mountain, river or lake, and no park or
garden is without its small pavilion.
The ornamental garden/urban pavilion. Some of the pavilions here are places of gathering, while
that in the foreground is occupied by a couple and three others, apparently alone in their thoughts.
Li K’e-jan, ‘Spring Walk to the Chi-ch’ang Park’ (Plate 109, in Hejzlar, Chinese Watercolours.).
16
ibid, pp.18-19
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
12
Pavilions were also common in Korea, and many early examples remain, or have been
rebuilt. Generally they are simple, single-storey buildings. As in China, historical ink
paintings show primitive examples with simple straw roof and trellis underneath. Most
today have decorative pagoda style roofs. Particularly impressive examples are above
city gates (such as the Great East and Great South gates of Seoul) and the
Banhwasuryujeong Pavilion situated on the Hwaseong Fortress, Suwon.17 Larger
pavilions, known as Ru (often banquet halls, such as are found in palace complexes),
sometimes had with multiple eaves (or pagoda-style roofs). An example are the pavilions
on the edge of ancient Anabji Pond, ‘for feasts held on happy occasions’.18
The smaller common Korean pavilions, used for meditating, leisure, and also (as in
China) small parties, are called Jung Ja, or Joengsa (‘retreat’). Many Jung Ja are situated
beside lakes or streams, or on hillsides on the outskirts of villages, commanding views of
local landscapes. In these Korea’s Confucian scholars, monks and ordinary people
meditated, discussed, lectured, undertook religious rituals, rested, socialised and
banqueted. Jung Ja were also built in the private house compounds of scholars and
statesmen, and quite a number of these survive from the sixteenth century. Often they
had an enclosed room at one end, perhaps a concession to the weather.
Picturesque Sea Youn Jung Jung Ja in a created garden/lake setting, Korea. This is also a very
common type of pavilion in China. (Kookmin Bank calendar, 2004)
In Japan pavilions became Zen retreats and ornamental features of meditation gardens. A
common pavilion today is a simple teahouse in a traditional Japanese garden.
The values attributed to the St Kilda Pier Kiosk in Chapter Four (Social Significance), are
in many ways similar to these Oriental pavilions. The siting of rural pavilions in relation
to a grand natural landscape recalls descriptions of the ‘big sky’ and big city setting of the
St Kilda kiosk. Similarly, as the Chinese and Korean pavilions were places (often
17
18
Suh Jae-Sik, World Heritage in Korea, Hollym, New Jersey/Seoul, 2001, pp.80, 97
ibid, p.14
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
13
situated on the boundaries of communities) for refreshment, gathering and small parties
with intimates, so has the St Kilda Kiosk been through its history. The ornamentation of
the kiosk was also a major part of its significance. Above all perhaps, the Oriental use of
pavilions for retreat and contemplation of nature calls to mind the popular use of St Kilda
Pier Kiosk for quietly reading, or writing, or simply ‘the kind of musing that is unloosed
wherever there is a rail to lean on and waves to look upon’.19
Pavilions in Iran and Central Asia
From the sixth century BC the Persians had developed sophisticated irrigation to bring
water from snow-capped mountains to the arid plains, where orchards and gardens were
established around channels formed in a cross pattern. At least by c.500 AD (in ‘the
hunting park’) a palace or pavilion was situated at the cross of these axes. By the Islamic
period this standard garden form, with its tent pavilion, represented images of paradise for
Persians.20
Dignitary receiving guests in garden pavilion, early 16th century. (Miniature, Gulistan Museum,
in Wilber, Persian Gardens and Garden Pavilions, pp.44-45). This typical Persian tent pavilion
include a lantern, and the whole is set in gardens, at the crossing of the channels of flowing water.
Again, the pavilion is a place to entertain.
The tent, for thousands of years a way of life for nomads from Mongolia to Arabia,
reached a new splendor in the reign of the great fourteenth century Mongolian conqueror
19
20
See chapter 4 (Social Significance), including the Age editorial, 13/9/03.
Wilber, Donald N, Persian Gardens and Garden Pavilions (Rutland, Vermont, 19620, pp.19-20.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
14
Timur.21 His capital city Samarkand (in Uzbekistan) had many lavish gardens with tents
and pavilions. Larger enclosures again were used for festivities such as the marriage of
Timur’s grandson, in which some 20,000 tents were pitched in regular streets around a
royal camp. The construction, fabrics and colours of the monarch’s ‘great pavilion’ were
described in great detail by Spanish visitors, enabling modern scholars to prepare
conjectural drawings of its appearance. After describing poles the diameter of a man’s
chest, painted blue and gold with gilt sockets, a domed ceiling, curtains of silk woven in
coloured bands, burnished copper crescents, and its general complexity, beauty and
extraordinary size, one reporter could only say that it was ‘a wonder to behold and
magnificent beyond description’.22 Another described the arabesques, embroideries and
applique of its red velvet, which was ‘so rich and so well made that it could not be told in
writing, unless one had seen it with one’s own eyes.’23
The Spanish observers at Samarkand used the word ‘pavilion’ for a particular type of tent
- ‘a tall tent equal about both axes’.24 This is a pointer to the meaning of pavilions in
Western history: they are invariably small buildings with an overall vertical aspect, and
regularly have a symmetrical or near symmetrical plan (probably because they are
intended to be freestanding, set in a landscape). Scholars note that after descriptions of
Timur’s epitome of pavilion tents circulated Europe, comparable complexes of ‘tall tents’,
also described as ‘round pavilions’, in crimson and gold embroidery, were seen on French
and English battlefields in the early sixteenth century. The French especially were taken
with height in tent pavilions, erecting one 17.7 metres high (which soon collapsed).25
Conjectural reconstruction of Timur’s Twelve Pole Pavilion, AD 1404 (Andrews, Felt Tents and
Pavilions, p.708). Its general form is not unlike the St Kilda Pier Kiosk (which coincidentally had
a tent awning at the time of its destruction). Surface ornamentation (beyond description in
Timur’s pavilion) was also a feature of the St Kilda Pier Kiosk.
The English word ‘kiosk’ also originated in Persia, where it originally meant a ‘small
palace in the city’. While the estates of feudal nobles had been managed from fortified
21
Timur, also known as the Great Khan, and Timurlane/Tamerlane in the West, conquered the area
from Moscow in the north to Persia (Iran) and Delhi in the south. His sultanate at Delhi later grew into
the Moghul empire.
22
Wilber, op cit, pp. 65-66
23
Andrews, Peter A, Felt Tents and Pavilions: The Nomadic Tradition and its Interaction with
Princely Tutelage, 2 Vols (Melisende, London, 1999), pp.693-702.
24
ibid, p.703.
25
ibid, p.704
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
15
palaces in the countryside, a smaller city palace was convenient for trade, diplomacy and
parties. Over time the term ‘kiosk’ was also applied to a merchant’s equivalent of a small
palace, such as the arcaded Chinli Kiosk, the fabulous ‘Tiled Pavilion’ of Istanbul (1473),
and to open-sided summerhouses throughout Turkey and Persia. Europeans began to
build these pavilions in their gardens in the seventeenth century. (In the mid-nineteenth
century the English adopted the French interpretation of the word to mean a lowly booth
providing newspapers, tickets, information or small goods.26)
The permanent ‘palace pavilions’ and kiosks of Persia and then the Middle East and Asia
Minor were extremely grand porticos, with high columns and lavishly decorated surfaces,
attached to the front of palaces. Although bearing no resemblance to the small garden
pavilions of Europe, these pavilions apparently epitomised the ‘indoor/outdoor’ quality
that still characterises pavilions. They brought together ‘free outdoor space and enclosed
living space … in such an intimate relationship that it is hard to say where one stops and
the other begins’.27 And, similar to China, they also overlooked landscaped lakes, or
rivers, and had grand banqueting halls attached. ‘Pavilions’ were also built to
accommodate favourite wives or concubines; they were small, ornamental buildings of
uniform style arranged symmetrically about the water axis in front of the palace.
Pavilions in Europe
‘Follies and pavilions are able to charm us effortlessly, for it is all they were ever
meant to do. They are one of life’s great and simple pleasures, and like the faintly
anachronistic word ‘charm’ itself, they suggest a better, more refined and carefree
world that probably never was ... The buildings themselves celebrate pleasure,
idleness, and amusement…’.28
‘It is a room for reflection: a belvedere, with its wide views over trees and grass and
water; a banqueting room for convivial gatherings of old friends; and, at the same
time, a hermitage for study and for solitude. No one could ask for more.’29
‘Crowning a windy hilltop or reflected in the calm waters of a serpentine lake… they
have a magic, even in decay, that never fails to enchant.’ ‘Their aspects constantly
[change] with the weather and the time of day.’30
The English word ‘pavilion’ comes from the Latin ‘papilio-onis’, meaning ‘butterfly,
tent’. 31 The pavilion derives from the tent: that quintessentially light, temporary structure
that is partly open to and partly sheltered from the elements. The word ‘butterfly’ evokes
an ornamental as well as a light structure. Nineteenth century images of tents at
fairgrounds and festive occasions - vertically striped, festooned with ribbon flags, roof
curving gracefully from a central pole - graphically illustrate this etymology. The
dictionary also defines pavilion as: a ‘summerhouse or other decorative building in a
garden’; a ‘tent, especially a large one with crenellated decorations at a show, fair etc.’;
and a ‘building used for entertainments’.
26
The American Heritage Dictionary; the Oxford English Dictionary; Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary of the English Language.
27
Wilber, op cit, p.100. An example of these is the porch of the Chehel Sutan at Isfanful (ibid, pp.80102).
28
Dams, Bernd H & Zega, Andrew, Pleasure Pavilions and Follies in the Ancien Regime (Flammarion,
Paris/New York, c.1995), p.9
29
George Mott, on his restored eighteenth century pavilion. (Mott, G, Follies and Pleasure Pavilions:
England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Pavilion Books, London, 1989, p.25)
30
ibid, pp.8, 32
31
The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, OUP, Melbourne, 1992.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
16
Pavilions as adjuncts to pleasure gardens date back to ancient Rome and Greece.32 In the
fifteenth century they returned to prominence amongst the nobility of Renaissance Italy.
Their main purpose was as a ‘secluded retreat for dining and conversation within a
garden’. But they accumulated other purposes, becoming elements of garden design,
offering views over the countryside, and housing small antiquaries.33 As architects and
artisans were employed and as the gardens became more extravagant, they assumed more
monumental proportions, and sometimes epic references or meanings. While
contemporary Palladian or Rococo architectural styles were used, ancient Classical styles,
and themes were also employed. The two ‘Houses of the Muses’ at Villa Lante at Bagnaia
(later influential in England) were used for recreation, but their main purpose was to
develop the iconographic program of the garden by representing the twin peaks of Mount
Parnassus between which poured forth the Ovidian deluge. 34 Other garden pavilions
went by names such as the ‘Casinos’ of Psyche or Aurora, and bore inscriptions from
classical antiquity.35 Renaissance Italy’s garden pavilions provided continuing inspiration
in England.
Pavilion in Rome’s famous Villa d’Este garden, Tivoli. (DR Coffin, ‘Gardens and Gardening in
Papal Rome’, p.190) Similarities in form, architectural style, and the first floor ambulatory were
evident in the St Kilda Pier Kiosk.
Whereas pavilions in Asian were part of the public as well as the private realm, European
pavilions appear to have been sequestered within the gardens of royalty, the aristocracy
and the wealthy. They became monumental and didactic expressions of the idiosyncratic
personalities and visions of their builders. Add to this their increasingly exotic
architecture, and use as settings for fetes and banquets, and European garden pavilions
32
Mott, op cit, p.9
Coffin, David R, Gardens and Gardening in Papal Rome (Princeton University Press, New Jersey,
1991), pp.187-188
34
ibid, pp.189-190
35
ibid, pp.189-192
33
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
17
came to be known as ‘follies’. Europeans added a dimension of wonder - part serious
allegory, part deliberate fantasy, and part eccentric - to the idea of the pavilion.
Yet English garden pavilions were also pragmatic and multifunctional, serving as summer
banqueting houses, orangeries, gate lodges, plunge baths, and icehouses. Many were
purpose-built for their owners’ hobbies: for example menageries, hunt lodges, musical
concert rooms, and even as sets for naval war games conducted on lakes. Occasionally,
in the Asian tradition, they were even places of study and scholarly reflection.
Mussenden Temple at Downhill, Northern Ireland. (Mott, ‘Follies and Pleasure Pavilions’, p.53) A
British pavilion in a grand natural setting, rather than the usual landscaped garden. ‘The Temple
of the Winds’ in Melbourne’s Botanic Gardens is very similar in style, and considerable care was
also paid to its setting.
The advent in England of the landscape garden and development of theories of the
‘Picturesque’ gave garden pavilions a new importance in the early eighteenth century.36
Pavilions became ‘eyecatchers’ and waymarks within the English picturesque landscaped
gardens. Instead of being places to contemplate nature as in the Orient, neo-classical
garden pavilions (often known as ‘Temples’, and named after the ancient gods, muses,
and heroic figures; or virtues such as friendship or love) and landscapes were shaped in
the image of Classical themes.
Pavilions were regularly built as symbols of wealth and enlightenment, or as somewhat
bizarre political and even erotic allegories. In England pavilions became parts of
poeticised landscapes - tributes to great civilisations and periods of history.37 The most
elaborate of the iconographical landscape gardens was at Stowe. An astonishing number
of pavilions and statutes were carefully situated as part of an unfolding landscape garden,
but also in relation to one another, with contemporary (eighteenth century) English
politicians honored by there proximity to the heroes of Classical antiquity, or condemned
by their non-appearance.38
36
37
38
Mott, op cit, p.10
Mott, op cit, pp.11, 13
The National Trust, Stowe Landscape Gardens (The National Trust, Queens Gate, 1977), passim.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
18
One of the two Boycott Pavilions, in sweeping pastoral setting in the Stowe Landscape Gardens.
(National Trust, ‘Stowe Landscape Gardens’, cover) First built in 1728, their pyramidal roofs
were replace by lead covered domes in 1758. The architecture is very similar to the Dianaburg,
Kranichstein Palace in Germany, also built mid-late eighteenth century. Elements of the form, and
some neo-classical motifs, are shared with the former St Kilda Pier Kiosk.
For monarchy and the nobility garden pavilions came to represent ‘personal space’ - the
possibility of flight from the pomp of court, or retreat from the rituals of the great house.
Pavilions were relatively small and informal places for gatherings with intimates and
(sometimes), solitary study and contemplation. Complementing this desire for intimacy,
the rise of the Romantic Movement made Classical garden architecture seem artificial,
and simple, rusticated and vernacular buildings began to appear. ‘Cottages ornee, and
‘hermitages’ became symbols of ‘delicious retreat’ from the hubbub of the social round.
Sometimes these degenerated into absolute fantasy. For example, the play-acting of
Marie Antoinette in her ‘dairy’ pavilion, dressed in silk milkmaid costume; and the
‘monks’ who were installed in ‘hermitage’ pavilions under instruction to look suitably
contemplative for visitors. Sometimes pavilions expressed more risque subject matter,
and pastimes.39
While garden buildings of the gentry were often monuments to the latest fad, or an
eccentricity of their builder, many were also serious expressions of the architectural
fashions of their times. The proudly independent rulers of small Central European states
were inspired by Louis XIV’s Versailles, the most celebrated and emulated royal
residence in the world, and their own rivalry. A mania of building and an obsession with
architecture took hold of the nobility of this region during the latter portion of the
seventeenth century and raged unchecked for the better part of a hundred years.40 New
palaces and pavilions, in exquisite Baroque and Rococo, were brought to an end by the
new social order ushered in by the French Revolution.
39
40
Mott, op cit, pp.22-23
Barlow, N, & Aall, SS, Follies and Fantasies; Germany and Austria (Harry N Abrams, 1994),p.11
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
19
One of the two paired pavilions built 1675-1679 at the Bosquet des Domes at Versailles, dubbed “the
ultimate party tents.”41 Elements of the St Kilda Kiosk form and style are evident.
Pavilions were invariably flights of fancy, to the former grandeur or elegance of Rome
and Greece, to a nostalgia induced by fake Gothic ruins, and to the exoticism of Egypt
and the East.42 Images of the Orient, based on Turkish architecture and art - Turquerie,
were all the rage before being abandoned for chinoiserie - the European interpretation of
Chinese art.43 Commencing in Versailles in 1670, it arrived in England in the 1730s and
swept over Europe, prevailing until the early nineteenth century.
The craze for the ‘Chinese idiom’ stemmed partly from an apparent freedom in design,
which contrasted to the familiar European geometrical compositions.44 At Versailles
chinoiserie also established a pattern of exhuberant ornamentation, the creation of richly
embellished pleasure domes, colourful curiosities and ‘playthings with the charm of the
useless’. 45 It was characteristically superficial and often whimsical, having more to do
with Europe’s exotic fantasies than with Chinese reality. The chinoiserie garden pavilion
typically emerged as a fretwork arbour, or a summerhouse ‘pagoda’, often beside a lake
in an English picturesque garden. It is estimated that several hundred ‘pagodas’
(presumably referring to the pagoda-style roofs of Chinese pavilions) were built in France
in the decades before the Revolution. Only three remain: at Chanteloup, Cassan, and ‘a
small kiosk at Normandy’. 46
41
Dams, op cit, pp.42-43
Motts, op cit, p.17
43
Yang Hongxun, The Classical Gardens of China: History and Design Techniques (Van Nostrando
Reinhold, New York, 1982), p.113
44
ibid, pp.115-116
45
Dams, op cit, p.156.
46
ibid, p.12
42
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
20
With the waning of rationalism, the urbane thought and formal arts of China became less
compelling than romantic new accounts of India, and the chinoiserie was followed by
‘Indian’ styles. The most famous and influential manifestation of this new romanticism
was Brighton’s Royal Pavilion, completed 1821.47 Thereafter ‘Hindoo’, ‘Turban’,
‘Mogal’, ‘Onion’, ‘Turkish’, and Moorish ogee shapes appeared across the world. 48
In the nineteenth century, with the demise of the Ancien Regime and the waning of the
British social order founded on the land, the concept of pavilions as ornamental ‘follies’
(and, sometimes, serious monuments), together with their distinctive architecture, reemerged as the rotundas, summerhouses, bandstands, belvederes, and gazebos of public
gardens. More restrained and classical pavilion buildings appeared in the spa towns of
England and the Continent (further investigation of these might reveal a model for the St
Kilda Pier Pavilion). Some of the more extravagant pavilions of the ‘old order’ became
models for new commercial resort enterprises such as the English Pleasure Piers, as well
as other resorts with festive themes, such as St Kilda’s Luna Park, and its Sea Baths.
The Pagoda at Bennelles, built c.1780, since destroyed. It is described (in terms similar to those
used in regard to the St Kilda Pier Kiosk) as having ‘undeniable charm and whimsy’49. The use of
‘moon’ windows (circles),50 timber balustrading, timber herringbone patterns, and lantern roofform, are elements that also appeared on the St Kilda Pier Pavilion.
47
Musgrave, C, Royal Pavilion: An Episode in the Romantic (Leonard Hill, London, 1959), pp.48-49.
Eg, the fanciful pavilions of Tower Grove Park, St Louis, USA were described (in similar terms to
those used in relation to the St Kilda Pier Kiosk) as ‘graceful and picturesque’, and a ‘delightful
retreat’. They included a Turkish Pavilion and a Chinese Pavilion. Another elaborate shelter there
was renamed the ‘Sons of Rest Shelter’ in recent times due to its popularity as a shady retreat for
elderly citizens to read and relax.
49
Dams, Zega, op cit, pp.160-161.
50
Suh Jae-Sik,, op cit, pp.64, 116, 118.
48
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
21
While it has been suggested that the freedom and innovation of European pavilion
architecture may have had a role in architectural innovation (eg, garden pavilions were
among the earliest examples of neo-gothic and neo-classical buildings51), pavilion
architecture was generally regarded as eccentric and distinct from the mainstream.
Chinoiserie, for example, had simply been ‘a familiar structure overlaid with rich
fantastic ornament, with the intention of creating an exotic caprice, not a serious essay in
a foreign style.’52
Likewise the generalised ‘Oriental’ style of the late nineteenth century was regarded as
appropriate for pleasure buildings such as garden pavilions, and little else. It was
perceived as ephemeral, not a serious style, and it rarely progressed beyond the garden or
seaside.53 And so it was on piers, over the waves, at the enchanted, savage extremes of
civilisation where the English imagination fabricated Kubla Kahn’s most exotic ‘pleasure
domes’.
Piers, Promenading and Pavilions: Europe and Australia
England
The colossal, riotously ornamented ‘pleasure palaces’ constructed on piers by private
entrepreneurs in English seaside resorts in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century
inspired similar ventures elsewhere in world (notably in Atlanta City USA where five
piers were constructed, and some Northern European resorts that catered to British tastes).
But nothing approached the extent, size, style, or (according to the English) ‘raffish fun’
of the English pier pleasure pavilions. Their style has been alternatively described as
‘pasteboard Taj Mahals’ (Malcolm Muggeridge), and ‘beautiful and incomparable’ (John
Betjeman). They are thought of as ‘pretty’ and ‘stately’ places that can conjure a
‘dreamlike grace’. 54
The advent of seaside promenading in nineteenth century England was a social
phenomenon that altered the form and function of seaside resorts. The concept of the
seaside as a resort was originally modeled on the English inland health spas, which were
important centres of social life for their users.55 But the seaside was rapidly transformed
into a multi-purpose environment for leisure, entertainment, and promenading.
The development of affordable railways, and the rise in disposable income and leisure
made the sea a more affordable and accessible retreat for the newly established middle
class, and eventually for the working class.56 From the 1830s private investors began to
capitalise on the trend for recreational strolling on functional working piers by building
small refreshment pavilions, usually in rather severe classical styles. Gradually designs
softened, with Italianate and the popular French Second Empire forms dominating,
although ‘oriental’ mannerisms were thought fashionable (and appropriate) only in
Brighton, where pier architecture mimicked the Royal Pavilion. By the end of the 1860s
there was a hint of a more pleasure-centred approach to pier buildings, with bandstands,
restaurants, classical concert halls, and shops starting to appear. Hastings Pier (1869-72)
was the first to incorporate a grand pavilion, as well as kiosks, into its design. Notably its
51
Mott, op cit, p.8
Dams, op cit, p.156.
53
Pearson, LF, The People’s Palaces: The Story of the Seaside Pleasure Buildings of 1870-1914
(Barracuda Buildings, Buckingham, 1991), pp.24-25. Also Pearson, LF, Piers and Other Seaside
Architecture (Shire Publications, Buckinghamshire, 2002), pp.7-12.
54
Godfrey Smith, ‘Nostalgia by the Sea’, in Heritage Today, June 1996, pp.36-41
55
Bainbridge, C, Pavilions on the Sea, (Robert Hale Ltd, London, 1986), p.19.
56
ibid, p.20.
52
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
22
pavilion (accommodating 2000) and tollhouses were in the Oriental style: the pavilion
being a jumble of onion domes and tall finials; the elegant tollhouses were tiny domed
octagonal boxes.57
The Hastings Pier, opened 1872. (Pearson, L, The People’s Palaces, p.30)
Between the 1860s and 1910s seventy-eight piers were constructed or rebuilt in
England.58 But the boom in pier pavilions did not occur until the 1890s, with 23 built,
followed by another 20 in the first decades of the 1900s, the Edwardian ‘age of
extravagance’.59
Pier pavilions tended towards the Italianate or Classical, while tollhouses and entrance
kiosks mimicked garden pavilions with octagonal forms and ogee caps. The few larger
pavilions combined Gothic, classical, Second Empire, Italianate, Arts and Craft, with the
occasional touch of the Orient. Until the 1890s the Oriental style had still been little used
outside of Hastings and Eugenius Birch’s outstanding Brighton West Pier and ‘Indian
Pavilion’ on Blackpool North Pier. But by then the Oriental style was perceived to have
the correct overtones of ‘pleasure, luxury and novelty’ for seaside entertainment
buildings.60 The most popular form was a rectangular five domed structure, with a large
central dome marking the central hall, and smaller domes at the four corners.
The variety of entertainment facilities incorporated into the piers included music and
theatre, dance halls, rides, sunbathing and amusement arcades. On the piers that retained
their popularity through the twentieth century (including the vast Weston Super-Mare
Grand Pier), the concert halls and theatres were replaced by large, noisy, neon-lit ‘funfair’
amusement arcades.61 Most piers however have fallen victim to disuse, fire, storms and
shipping collisions. It is presently proposed to rebuild the recently destroyed pavilions on
the Brighton West Pier, regarded as the finest of all the pleasure piers.
57
Pearson, 1991, op cit, pp.23-28
Bainbridge, op cit, p.19.
59
Pearson, 1991, op cit, pp.23-28; Laver, J, Edwardian Promenade, (E.Hulton and Company Ltd,
London, 1958), p.28.
60
Pearson, 1991, op cit, p.27
61
Angeline Wilcox, ‘Precious Piers’ (Postcard Album), in This England (Summer 2003)
58
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
23
Australia
There were numerous ambitious proposals for English style Pleasure Piers in Australia,
but only one comparable example, at Coogee NSW, is known to have actually been built.
It included a theatre with seating for 1400 people, a ballroom for 600, and an upstairs
restaurant seating 400. But it opened very late, in 1929, after the peak of this type of
entertainment, and coinciding with the Depression. It had a very brief life: its
superstructure was demolished after storm damage in 1933.62
The Coogee Ocean Promenade Pier. Characteristic English ‘pleasure pier’ features include the
wide and high pier, large buildings, and some striped domes placed atop what otherwise appears
to have been simple modern buildings. The ogee roofed building at the pier-end may have been
comparable, in function and ornament, to the St Kilda Pier Kiosk.
(Lawrence, Sharp, ‘Pictorial History, Eastern Suburbs’, p.125)
Earlier, in 1912, a very rudimentary version of an English amusement pier had been
erected near Eastern Beach Geelong. The ‘Joy Ark’ was really only a shed,
approximately 40 metres long and 15 metres wide which provided a stage and seating for
1500, but it ‘epitomised’ the Edwardian style of leisure.’63 Its façade was decorated with
half-timbering effects in a manner which suggested a face. There was a promenade with
refreshment booths outside. During the 1912-13 summer it had a program of films dramas, documentaries and comedies - accompanied by live music and other novelties,64
but apparently it was also a venue for dancing, skating and concert activities. The
unusual ambience of a building set above water contributed to its popularity.65
At least one other ‘Amusement Pier’, at Manly NSW, was built sometime in the early or
mid twentieth century and still survives, although much altered. It appears always to have
been simply a collection of functional sheds without any grand or architect designed
buildings at all (see Comparative Analysis section later). Tamarama, NSW, also had a
major beach amusement park, but it was not modelled on the English pleasure pier, and is
long demolished. 66
62
Abell, Lesley, ‘Profits and Pavilions: late nineteenth and early twentieth century plans for South
Australian and Victorian piers’, in Journal of the Historical Society of South Australia (No.31, 2003),
p.21. Also Lawrence, J, Sharpe, A, Pictorial History Eastern Suburbs (Kingsclear Books, Crows Nest,
c.1999), p.125
63
Aitken, op cit, p.29; Federal Record, Vol.17, No.66, January 1913, p.20
64
Geelong Advertiser, December 1912, January 1913.
65
Aitken, loc cit
66
Wells, Lana, Australians at the Seaside (Greenhouse Publications , Richmond, 1982), p.53
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
24
Several proposals to emulate England’s grand pleasure piers at St Kilda had been
unsuccessful. In 1886, about the time that the English pier idea was successfully taken up
in Atlantic City, engineer Henry Woodall submitted a plan to erect ‘an ornamental pier’
extending nearly 500 metres from the level of the Upper Esplanade. It would have
‘kiosks of ornamental character for the supply of periodicals, fruit etc’ along its length,
and at the end a pavilion accommodating 1000 people, a band stand and refreshment
rooms. After long consultations the project ultimately failed for lack of funds. 67 Later,
perhaps in the early twentieth century, Williamson, Garner and Musgrove projected a
plan to build a concert hall on the pier, but it also failed at the drawing board stage.68
Abell suggests numerous reasons for the failure of the English Pleasure Pier idea in
Australia, including our smaller population, and difficulties in raising capital to finance
projects. There was also less need for pavilions to protect against inclement weather, and
early entertainment was often provided in open air theatres on the beach. 69 The more
congenial Australian climate also allowed more informal and vigorous outdoor beach
past-times, such as swimming (or ‘bathing’), and was less dependent on theatre
entertainment for holiday-makers than were English resorts.
Indeed, in Australia the exotic English pleasure pavilion designs appear to have been used
for grand sea baths rather than for grand pier pavilions. St Kilda’s famous original
municipal Sea Baths, replete with domes in the manner of the English five-domed
pavilions, was an outstanding example of this. 70 (It was rebuilt after fire to a more
heavily arcaded ‘Moorish’ design in the 1930s, and then again in the 1990s to a design of
similar proportions with replicas of its Moorish domes and arcades, continuing the Sea
Baths use.) By 1897 Perth also had a wonderful example of Indian Pavilion design sea
baths, since destroyed by storms.71
The ‘New St Kilda Sea Baths’ (built 1907), the ‘largest and most up-to-date enclosed Swimming
Area in the World’, also incorporated ‘hot sea baths with every comfort’ (‘St Kilda by the Sea,
1915-16’, p.60). This is a major example of the transfer of English Pier ‘Pleasure Dome’
architecture to the foreshore in the Australian context. It also signifies the more vigorous outdoor
leisure activities on the Australian foreshore. The present Sea Baths is a 1990s reconstruction
based on the heavily arcaded Moorish style Sea Baths which replaced this in the 1930s.
Another major reason for the failure in Australia of the English pleasure piers was the fact
that the English piers were built at dedicated resort towns which provided extended
67
Abell, op cit, pp.22-23
St Kilda by the Sea, 1913, p.71
69
Abell, op cit, pp.32-33.
70
By 1886 the Queenscliff Baths had a formidable dome (Inglis, A, Beside the Seaside - Victorian
Resorts in the Nineteenth Century, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1999, pp.58-60)
71
Wells, op cit, pp.78-81
68
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
25
holidays for the residents of inland cities. In Australia on the other hand, beach resorts
such as St Kilda required only a day trip on a suburban train or tram; people returning to
their homes in the evening people had less need for theatres or concert halls. The seaside
amusements they did enjoy simply established on the foreshore.
However, small pier recreational buildings such as kiosks were built. The pier at
Cottlesloe Western Australia had a pavilion-style band rotunda situated in its centre, but
like most Australian piers, it was eventually wrecked by storms. 72 Australia’s first
European style kiosk, built on the St Kilda pier in 1904 became the inspiration for others
built at Glenelg, and Semaphore in South Australia. In late 1906 the South Australian
Marine Board received a proposal to build a pier and a two-storey ‘durable pavilion’ at
Glenelg ‘similar in appearance and construction to the Pavilion at St Kilda Pier near
Melbourne’. It would sell ‘confectionary, fruit, non-alcoholic cool drinks and light
refreshments only’. In 1911 a large ‘up to date’ British-inspired pier development with
Oriental styled kiosks and a concert hall was proposed for the pier. Together with a later
development for a large roller skating and promenade building, this never advanced
beyond the drawings, but in 1929 an aquarium was added to the pier. All of these pier
buildings have long since been destroyed in storms.73 At Semaphore a pavilion on the
lines of those built at St Kilda and Glenelg was proposed in 1907, but it was not until
1914 that a pavilion was built. Another storey was added to this in 1915, providing a
‘magnificent dance hall with a verandah around three sides’. This kiosk was destroyed by
fire in 1947.74
The Development of the St Kilda Foreshore
Colonial Australia was ever-ready to replicate the mother country, and their initial
attitudes to the seaside were no exception. At first its therapeutic salt air was
complemented by requisite English-style bathhouses and spas (such as hot sea-baths). Sea
bathing facilities built in St Kilda were Captain Kenney's Bathing Ship (1854), the Royal
Gymnasium Baths and Sea Bathing Company (1858, later Hegarty’s), and the Ladies Sea
Baths (1861).
Picnics and promenading were also popular, although comparisons with ‘home’ brought
little comfort to colonials. James Hingston, in his 1869 Guide for Excursionists from
Melbourne commended the aspirations of miniature resorts such as Queenscliffe and
Brighton but considered that they ‘lacked those pleasing features that so inseparably
connected with the shores of Old England’.75 St Kilda on the other hand was a cut above:
‘There is a fine esplanade here reminding one of Ramsgate or Margate. St
Kilda is, indeed, the only place within a short distance of Melbourne which at
all approximates to the old idea of a watering place. Here towards sundown,
the beauty and fashion of the locality may be seen en promenade: and of a fine
clear evening it is well worth a run down to mingle with the crowd’. 76
St Kilda Hill accommodated the wealthy elite of Melbourne and the Esplanade and
Fitzroy Street were their exclusive promenades.77
The pier was first built as a private working jetty in 1853, replaced by local government
in 1859 after storm damage, and extended in 1873 and 1884. After the construction of
72
ibid, pp.56-57
Abell, op cit, pp.23-28. Note that the eventual kiosk bore little similarity in appearance to the St
Kilda kiosk.
74
ibid, pp. 29-32. No image of this pavilion is provided.
75
Inglis, op cit, p.29.
76
Cited in Inglis, A, Beside the Seaside - Victorian Resorts in the Nineteenth Century, (Miegunyah /
Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1999), pp.28-29.
77
Woo, K , St Kilda Foreshore, (St Kilda City Council, Melbourne, 1993), p.2
73
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
26
bridges across the Yarra River the jetty was little required to provide transport to
Melbourne, was increasingly used for leisure instead. The first seats are recorded as
having been installed for these purposes in 1876, and the subject of adequate seating and
lighting for recreational use remained topical into the twentieth century. In the 1890s a
timber shelter pavilion was erected on the pier (this inspired the shelter built at the foot of
the pier in the 1980s). One of the simple past-times of 1890s St Kilda was sitting on the
pier listening to the organ from a lone foreshore merry-go-round waft the tune of ‘Sweet
Marie’ across the waves. 78 In the early twentieth century it was described as having been
‘largely the foundation of St Kilda’s attractiveness’, and the ‘magnet to attract all
Melbourne to St Kilda’. In the days when sea baths constituted St Kilda’s only
amusement facilities, ‘hot evenings drew crowds of promenaders to the pier’. 79
In 1899 the pier was further extended, with a second ‘L’ shape (called a breakwater), to
provide berthing for the Ozone and other steamers which called in there on summer
excursions ‘down the bay’.80 The arrival of a paddle steamer always generated
excitement around the resort.81 The year 1901 provided another milestone for the pier,
when a long red carpet, temporary welcoming arch, and buntings greeted Duke and
Duchess of Cornwall and York as they arrived on the paddle steamer Hygeia to open the
Australian Parliament. Thereafter, until the construction of the Centenary Bridge at Port
Melbourne in 1934, the St Kilda pier was the place chosen for the official disembarkation
of British Royalty, Governors General, and other public figures in Melbourne. 82 No
doubt such increasing popularity (and status) of the pier played a part in Francis Parer’s
1903 application to build an ornamental kiosk there.
For many years in the nineteenth century the well-to-do regarded beach resorts as their
preserve, in the tradition of Bath and the other inland health spas. As the beach was a
public and relatively uncontrolled setting, genteel families who adhered to rigid social
protocols at the beach to confirm or claim status amongst their class, might find
themselves making contact with undesirable people from outside their social milieu.83
Exclusiveness was an important consideration to the patrician upper-class and
(increasingly) their well-to-do imitators. As the ‘Mediterranean’ (the Riviera) became the
exclusive refuge of English upper-classes in the latter nineteenth century, so the local
gentry withdrew to distant resorts of Queenscliffe, Sorrento, and Lorne to mix and match
safe from the working classes.
78
St Kilda by the Sea, 1913, p.71
St Kilda By the Sea, 1913, p.59; St Kilda By the Sea Annual, 1916-17, p.21; Port Phillip City Council
Art & Heritage Collection Programme, Catalogue: Dredging, Draining, Dipping and Shipping - A
History of the Foreshore and Low-Lying Lands of the City of Port Phillip, (Port Phillip City Council,
1996), p.34 - 35; (Note that the video Bayside Reflections: Port Phillip Bay on Film (Part One, the
Southern Portion), states that the original pier shelter pavilion was built for the arrival of the royals in
1901).
80
See correspondence re controversy between the shipowners (including the Bay Excursion Company),
St Kilda Council, and the Melbourne and Tramways Omnibus Company regarding costs and other
issues surrounding extension of the pier as part of St Kilda’s inclusion on the bay excursion circuit
during ‘the Season’ (in former St Kilda Council Foreshore files).
81
St Kilda by the Sea, 1913, p.53
82
These visits included royals Edward Prince of Wales (1920) and the Duke and Duchess of York
(1927); Governors General Lord Denman (1911), Sir Ronald Munro Ferguson (1914), and Lord Forster
(1921); Lord and Lady Jellico, retired Lord High Admiral of the British Fleet (1919); and Lieutenant
General Sir John Monash (1919). (Bayside Reflections, Parts One and Two, op cit). A 1908
welcoming ceremony to the Atlantic Squadron of the American Fleet stirred interest in the need to
improve the pier. The Prince of Wales’ visit in 1920 was one that St Kilda was apparently particularly
proud of, commissioning a huge photograph of the occasion, making sure to include the whole
panorama of near-complete foreshore improvements, including the Captain Cook lawns, Catani
Gardens, Esplanade, the grand Municipal Sea Baths, and the long pier and stately kiosk.
83
Inglis, op cit, pp.72-90
79
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
27
Although St Kilda was Melbourne’s pre-eminent residential address in the nineteenth
century, it was nevertheless a suburb, accessible by train to undesirable day-trippers.
Towards the end of the century, as in England, developing public transport, holidays,
disposable income and population greatly hastened general accessibility to the seaside. It
was the introduction of a cheap cable-tram service to the Upper Esplanade in 1888 that
would unleash throngs of northern suburban excursionists upon the area in the early
twentieth century. The clash between the two cultures was frankly acknowledged in a
1913 article:
‘There are really two St Kildas - the staid, eminently respectable and superlatively
aristocratic St Kilda, and the cosmopolitan St Kilda which groups around the beach,
and there is a certain sense of jealousy about the two’. 84
Conflicts between ‘aristocratic’ and ‘frivolous’ St Kilda occurred between those (adults)
who insisted on bathing in the open sea, and parading their swimming costumes in front
of lawn picnickers and promenaders (‘even in one’s own home one doesn’t go to four
o’clock tea straight from the bathroom’); and between the ‘rowdy element’ and everyone
else. Many in the upper and middle classes resented the uncouth incursion into their
domain, and in the early decades of the twentieth century the foreshore became an arena
of social change, and some conflict between classes. Primarily these were in relation to
open sea bathing, swimming costumes and objectionable behaviour of various sorts, but
also included the use and development of the foreshore itself. 85
The kiosk as part of the foreshore. An early (undated) postcard view of St Kilda Esplanade (or
‘promenade’ as many people continued to call it) includes the new kiosk in an elegant seaside resort. A
later (1920) City of Port Phillip panorama of the foreshore taken during the arrival of the Prince of
Wales stretches from the original Sea Baths in the south to the completed Catani Gardens in the north,
illustrating more definitively the significance of the kiosk as a central part of a cultural landscape.
(Courtesy Port Phillip City Collection)
84
St Kilda by the Sea, 1913, p.49
As late as the 1930s foreshore rodeo operators found themselves pitted against those for whom
protection of the lawns was paramount, and who objected to ‘unsightly’ canvass hessian structures
erected for this event. St Kilda Councillors also took ‘undignified’ carnival sideshow operators to task.
(Eg, The Sun, 6/2/1934, The Argus, 22/1/1934, The Age, 22/1/1934)
85
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
28
The development of St Kilda foreshore from c.1900 managed to span this gamut of ideas
and interests about recreation. On the one hand common amusements flourished. From
the single merry-go-round, beach donkey rides and miniature railway of c.1905, a triangle
of land next to the present Palais Ballroom (also known as Little Luna Park) was soon full
of rides, arcades and amusements. These amusements culminated in the development of
self-contained ‘theme’ amusement parks, such as the failed ‘Dreamland’ (1906), and then
the fabulous ‘Luna Park’ (1912) by the great American entertainment entrepreneurs JD
Williams and the Phillips brothers, modelled on New York’s Coney Island. St Kilda had
more in common with Coney Island than with English seaside resorts. Both had been
isolated communities which developed into beach resorts in the latter nineteenth century.
They both underwent 1880s building booms, with large new hotels and improved
transport resulting in the encroachment of the metropolis and a shift from exclusive
bayside suburb to an entertainment venue for the masses.86 At Coney Island large
thematic amusement parks were pioneered within view of the grand resort hotels that
represented a very different type of seaside resort.
These amusements had been preceded by the arrival of the English Pierrots in 1904, and
the many other ‘costume companies’ (with names such as the Daisies, the Jesters, the
Follies, the Scarlet Troubadors) that followed in their wake, setting up seasons in outdoor
theatres or former Esplanade mansions. (Such vaudeville acts were tolerated, even
admired, by the ‘aristocratic’ St Kilda, as they had followed the Pierrot’s standard of
‘good taste’, rather than adopting the tone of the ‘old time nigger minstrel show, with its
coarse jokes’. 87) These small venues and garden and open air theatres were the
predecessors of much grander theatres such as the Palais. Closely associated with these
were dance halls such as the Palais de Danse (1913, rebuilt in 1915, burnt down 1968),
and the Wattle Path, which after a stint as Frank Thring’s Eftee film studios, was
converted to the St Moritz Ice Skating Rink in 1939.88
86
Moo, Anna, ‘Luna Park’ (City of St Kilda, 1991), p.1; Sam Marshall, c.1981 (?), ‘Just for Fun: Luna
Park, Melbourne: A History’, in ‘Luna Park: History and Guidelines for Future Development’, Friends
of Luna Park, 1999; Aitken, op cit, p.23.
87
St Kilda by the Sea, 1913, p.71; St Kilda by the Sea Annual, Season 1915-16, pp.19-31.
88
See, eg, Longmire, A, St Kilda - The Show Goes On: A History of St Kilda, Vol.3, (Hudson,
Melbourne, 1989), plate4; typescript by (Sam Marshall ?), ‘Just for Fun: Luna Park Melbourne - a
History’ (Friends of Luna Park, c.1981); and typescript by Anna Moo, ‘Luna Park’ (City of St Kilda,
1991).
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
29
At the very heart of St Kilda’s attractions was the pier promenade and pier kiosk (St Kilda by the
Sea,1915-16). Flanking the kiosk is the exotic new amusement park (Luna Park) on the one hand,
and lawns (Catani Gardens) on the other.
At the other end of the spectrum the formation of the St Kilda Foreshore Committee in
1906 represented a very different vision. Under the leadership of Public Works
Department Chief Engineer, local resident and ‘renaissance man’ Carlo Catani, it insisted
that the St Kilda foreshore was a place of national rather than local importance (probably
due to its role as Melbourne’s premier gateway). It opted for a sophisticated vision
explicitly modelled on the Riviera resorts of Cannes, Nice, Monte Carlo, and Naples,
rather than Blackpool or Coney Island with their more popular artificial seaside
amusements. In contrast to England’s grand enclosed pier pavilions and America’s selfcontained theme parks Catani encouraged an open-air culture, based on lawns, ‘airy
palms’, promenades, and cafes (he established his own ‘continental café’ near Luna
Park).89
The first work of the St Kilda Foreshore Committee was the reclamation of the area now
known as Catani Gardens, commencing with the area at the foot of the pier. It shelved an
earlier plan for a picnic park with sports ovals and Monterey Cypress shelter plantings,
and instead turned the reclaimed land into a cosmopolitan park of lawns and palm
avenues that was explicitly modelled on Naples’ Via Caracciolo and Villa Communale
(National Park).90 St Kilda would look beyond its provincial horizon and be formally cast
as a cosmopolitan and fashionable seaside resort, in the Continental manner.
89
Davison, G, Melbourne on Foot (Rigby, Melbourne, 1980), p.137
ibid, p.15. (Also C McPhee & D Moloney report on historical significance of Catani Gardens for
Heritage Victoria.)
90
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
30
The Riviera resorts were invoked, with lengthy descriptions and photographs, as the
‘Prototypes of St Kilda’ in the 1913 edition of St Kilda by the Sea. While there were
lessons to be had from English seaside resorts regarding erection of theatres, concert halls
and aquariums, ‘more suitable examples in ornamentation are to be found on the shores of
the Mediterranean’. The principal reason for this was the similarities of climate, which
would allow similar flora to the Riviera resorts, in particular avenues of ‘stately palms’,
giving ‘lightness and grace’. A ‘noble esplanade’ (Marine Parade), broad lawns and
elevating statutory were also envisaged for St Kilda.91
A postcard view of the pier, across the first lawn created on reclaimed land by the Foreshore
Committee (c.1906-1909). The Kiosk is a distant focal point and ornament to this pre-WW1 cultural
landscape. (Courtesy Port Phillip City Collection)
Instead of England’s music halls and pier amusements the ‘famous summer resorts of
Europe’, with their hotels, promenades, theatres, casinos, villas - ‘eloquent of wealth and
elegance’ - were the Foreshore Committee’s vision for St Kilda.92 Nice, the Riviera’s
premier resort, favoured by Queen Victoria, Europe’s aristocracy, and the bougeoisie of
Britain and America, was the model.93 By 1913 St Kilda by the Sea, referring to Nice,
was able to report that the ‘green lawns of its new municipal gardens suggest the origin of
those grassy plots which are beginning to adorn our own shores, and everywhere there is
a profusion of palms…’ It also noted that, off Nice’s Promenade des Anglais was ‘a pier,
upon which is built a crystal palace’.
This ‘crystal palace’ must have been the Jetee Promenade, also described in early tourist
literature as the ‘Jetty Promenade Theatre and Restaurant’. This however was not an
English ‘Amusement Pier’ catering for the masses of inland industrial cities, but a
prestigious ‘Jetty Promenade’ for the fashionable set who patronised Nice. It was likely
in the tradition of the English ‘crystal palaces beside the sea’ (on shore) which satisfied
the nineteenth century curiosity about the sea and the desire to view it from behind the
shelter and comfort of glass.94 Although built on a pier it was situated beside the shore, a
quite large building with a prominent dome and minarets (probably the theatre), and an
elegant arcades overlooking the sea (probably its restaurant). In language that was also
used to describe views from the St Kilda Pier, Nice was like a ‘fairyland’, and night views
91
92
93
94
ibid, pp.7-19, 23
St Kilda by the Sea, 1913, p.7
Nelson, M, Queen Victoria and the Discovery of the Riviera (IB Tauris, London, 2001), pp.1-15
Pearson (1961), op cit, p.53
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
31
of the Jetty Promenade were described as being in ‘a blaze of light against the dark sky’.95
The Nice pier and its ‘palace’ would appear to have been lost some time between 1942
and 1978.96
The same edition of St Kilda by the Sea that promoted the Riviera model for St Kilda
carried an advertisement for ‘Parer’s Pavilion’, described as the ‘first continental pier
pavilion in Australia’.97 While the pavilion’s construction (1904) predated the formation
of the St Kilda Foreshore Committee, it certainly claimed the same inspiration. And, like
Italian Catani, the Parer family were also of Mediterranean origin, hailing from near
Barcelona in Spain, so it is possible that their personal knowledge of this region area had
some influence.
The Foreshore Committees plan was to remodel the foreshore from Catani Gardens to the
Catani Arch Bridge, O’Donnell Gardens, and then south to Point Ormond. It was also
behind many other improvements, notable amongst which was the New St Kilda Baths, a
municipal consolidation of the former private baths (necessitated partly by the destruction
of Kenney’s ship by the sea wall built for the foreshore reclamation). On the model of the
‘five-domed’ pavilions on English pleasure piers, this huge baths was built with at least
eleven ‘Moorish’ domes.98 St Kilda was indeed ‘The Pleasure Seekers Mecca’.99 Other
foreshore buildings also adopted the Oriental seaside resort architecture that had been
developed on English pleasures piers (and derived to some extent from earlier garden
pavilions). The most remarkable was Luna Park, with its exotic mogul Indian domes. At
least one small, polygonal, ‘candle-snuffer’ roofed kiosk also appeared on the
foreshore.100 The Palais Theatre also sported domes, and later the Catani Clocktower was
crowned with a tasteful dome.
The same panorama appears in this early 1990s view of St Kilda Pier, this time to illustrate
‘places where people gather’, in Chris Johnston’s ‘What is Social Value’ paper (Australian
Heritage Commission, photograph by Martin Saunders)
95
Scott, W, The Riviera (A&C Black, London, 1905), p.104
Blume, M, Cote d’Azur: Inventing the French Riviera (Thames & Hudson, Slovenia, 1992), figure
64 shows the pavilion in 1942; Lyall, A, The Companion Guide to the South of France (Collins,
London, 1978), map (p.42) does not include the jetty; similarly, maps in the Lonely Planet Guide for
Provence and Cote d’Azur show other (smaller) jetties, but not the Jetee Promenade.
97
ibid, p.15.
98
St Kilda by the Sea Annual, 1916-17, p.30
99
St Kilda by the Sea, 1913 (cover).
100
St Kilda by the Sea Annual, 1916-17, p.86
96
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
32
Nice’s ‘Promenade des Anglais’, showing the municipal gardens, the ‘Jetee Promenade’, and a
glimpse of one of the grand buildings that line the world’s most famous seaside promenade.101
Grandeur aside, a comparison can be made with the beginnings of the St Kilda Foreshore seen
below, which has the same promenade-on-the-sea concept, and a similar features such as the
lawns, circular path system, use of palm trees (although most are not shown here), statuary, and a
pier promenade with pavilion. Both photographs were probably taken in the 1920s.
The same panorama again, and perhaps the Foreshore Committee’s most popular in the early
twentieth century vista. (Cooper, Vol.2) The pier and ‘continental’ pier kiosk cap off the
Mediterranean vision for the foreshore. Although the Foreshore Committee’s vision was
implemented too late for the heyday of promenading, the pier retained its attraction to strollers.
While the Catani Gardens have been comparatively little used, the pier and kiosk have always
been embraced by Melburnians.
101
Devoluy, P & Borel, P, The French Riviera (Medici, London, 1924), p.76. See also Blume, op cit,
p.64
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
33
Other recreation pavilions were built, or proposed, on the foreshore. In keeping with
shifting development, the bandstand (demolished) was shifted from the Upper to the
Lower Esplanade. The rockeries and ornamental elliptical arch concrete ‘Catani’ bridge
provided access to the top level of the new Municipal Pavilion, and romantically framed
the view of the bay from the new picnic lawn. A proposal to build another small pier to
link with this bridge was not realised. An ‘ornamental rotunda’ had been planned for this
pier, so it was clearly another link in the grand St Kilda promenade envisaged by
Catani.102
The ‘Municipal Pavilion’, also known as the ‘Foreshore Tea Rooms’ and the ‘Public
Shelter Pavilion and Tea Rooms’ (and now the Stokehouse Restaurant), was a two-storied
timber pavilion with Art Nouveau decoration situated on the Lower Esplanade. The open
balcony on its upper storey was ‘a most popular outlook’ always occupied by people who
brought picnics (and obtained hot water downstairs) or took ‘tea in comfort’. They
enjoyed the ‘sea breezes, and the everchanging seascape away across the bay’.103 In all
there were eight refreshment teahouses and kiosks on the foreshore in this period, 104 all
advertising (as far as they could) the sea views and breezes which could be obtained from
their open side pavilions or kiosks.
‘The Pavilion Tea Rooms’ in the early 1930s. (Cooper, Vol.2, opposite p.43) This quintessential
pavilion, built in timber in a mildly decorated Edwardian style, later had its upper level enclosed.
This former ‘peoples place’ is now a restaurant catering to a more exclusive clientelle.
In 1928 three Open Sea Bathing Pavilions - ‘modern conveniences for bathers’ - were
built, at Elwood (demolished), Marine Parade (now Donovans Restaurant), and West
Beach. Immediately they were built the bathing pavilions were recognised as
representing ‘the evolutionary movement for freedom for mixed bathing and open sea
bathing’.105 After decades of slow (painstaking in St Kilda) progress, adult bathing was
no longer confined to the sea baths, and an issue that had generated so much anxiety over
the preceding decades was conclusively resolved.
102
103
104
105
ibid, p.85
St Kilda by the Sea, 1913, pp.101, 145.
Cooper, J.B, The History of St Kilda -Vol 1,(Printers Propriety Ltd, Melbourne, 1931), p.207.
St Kilda the Beautiful (c.1930s), p.27
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
34
Marine Parade Open Sea Bathing Pavilion, early 1930s . (Cooper, Vol.2, opposite p.222)
When in 1923 the Government sought to withdraw Foreshore Committee funding the
Council protested that the beautification of the St Kilda foreshore was a national
concern.106 But in fact, by the time that the reclamation had been completed and the
promenading vision was fully implemented, the days of the parasol and top-hat had been
replaced by the jazz age and ‘flappers’. Open beach bathing, the motor car, electronic
media, and dance halls provided new, more informal opportunities for recreation and
social intercourse than the genteel rituals of promenading. And especially after the tram
opened it up to Melbourne, St Kilda was not an aristocratic enclave of genteel culture,
accessible only to the wealthy in the way of a Riviera resort. The stage had been set, but
it is doubtful that the Catani promenades were ever used in the way their founder
intended. The number of new Foreshore Committee beautification schemes declined as
the heyday of St Kilda foreshore drew to a close around the time of the Second World
War.
The role of the kiosk in gracing the arrival of dignitaries to Melbourne, prior to 1934 improvements of
Port Melbourne environs. The St Kilda Town Clerk chats to British Vice Admiral and officers of the
British Special Service Squadron as they walk down the pier to a civic reception (1924).
(Courtesy Port Phillip City Collection)
106
Port Phillip City Council Art & Heritage Collection Programme, op cit, p.35.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
35
With Carlo Catani’s death all that was left to do was to mark the achievement. Council
and the Foreshore Committee had been planning a fitting memorial since 1918,107 and in
1930 the Catani Memorial Clocktower was placed on the Upper Esplanade. The design
was inspired by the Italian Campanile, significantly, to reflect the ‘varied and rich
character of St Kilda.’108 Other legacies of this era are the Art Deco toilet block set into
the Upper Esplanade embankment, and near Brooks Jetty, Walter Burley Griffin pylons,
the remains of a once extensive streetscape design.
In the 1980s Maggie Fooke, one of the new wave of St Kilda artists, uncovered Catani’s
long buried vision of St Kilda. St Kilda’s foreshore precinct, including its links with the
Riviera, is the subject of her film ‘Pleasure Domes’. The foreshore is revealed as a
‘cultural landscape’ shaped by metaphors: a rich, intense, dense, concentrated,
seaside/urban landscape, associated with the idea of pleasure in European history.
St Kilda’s foreshore is today a rich and remarkably intact representation of an outstanding
late nineteenth and early twentieth century Australian seaside resort. There is, firstly, the
evidence of the vigorous recreation of swimming that set Australian seaside resorts apart
from their English counterparts, in the form of the (now reconstructed) sea baths, and the
two remaining open bathing pavilions. Again in contrast to England St Kilda’s landmark
amusement facilities, theatres and dance halls were established on the foreshore rather
than on piers, although often in the same festively exotic architecture that distinguished
the English pier pavilions. Then there is Luna Park, one of the earliest self-contained
theme amusement parks surviving in the world, which came straight from Coney Island in
the United States. But the St Kilda foreshore is also an eminent expression of another
entirely different vision of foreshore development. This, inspired by Mediterranean and
Riviera resorts, saw palms, gardens, ornamental bridges, kiosks, more promenades and
more elevating statuary added to ‘aristocratic’ St Kilda’s foundation of grand hotels,
mansions, The Esplanade, and bandstands.
The former St Kilda Pier Pavilion articulated the conservative models of sedate, sociable,
genteel recreation, with a touch of fantasy, and a touch of the fashionable Continent. It
was not, as is sometimes thought, a diminutive copy of an English amusement or
‘pleasure’ pier pavilion, although its rich architecture might evoke these (or perhaps even
been slightly influenced by them). It was a small treasure: a unique legacy of an
uncommonly strong and cohesive Continental resort vision in Australia; with clear
associations with the long history of pavilions and kiosks; architecturally stately, yet also
festive; and the focal point of a remarkable foreshore cultural landscape.
107
Cooper, J.B, The History of St Kilda -Vol 1,(Printers Propriety Ltd, Melbourne, 1931), p.228; St
Kilda Foreshore Committee Report, 1924, p.4.
108
Longmire, A, St Kilda - The Show Goes On: A History of St Kilda, Vol.3, (Hudson, Melbourne,
1989), p.7.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
2.2
36
HISTORY OF THE ST KILDA PIER KIOSK
The Proposal
By 1899 St Kilda pier had attained its full length of 2300 feet complete with an 'L' shaped
end of 200 feet that enabled the bay excursion paddle steamers to berth alongside. 109
Crowds flooded onto the pier to board or simply greet the Ozone as she picked up
excursionists for a trip ‘down the bay’110, mingling with well-dressed promenaders. The
1901 landing of Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York on the pier confirmed the pier’s
new civic role, and stirred foreshore beautification initiatives. The opening of the kiosk
in 1904 completed the transition of the St Kilda pier from a working jetting to a
recreational facility.
On the 25th of November 1903 a Mr V Lemme wrote to the City of St Kilda to put Francis
Parer’s proposal for a building on the completed pier:On behalf of Francis A. Parer of Swanston St. Melbourne, I beg to apply for
permission to erect an observatory and refreshment kiosk on the first L of the St Kilda
Pier.
Mr Parer is willing to pay a reasonable rent for the concession. The object is
to provide an observatory for the information of visitors, yachtsmen and others and
provision will be made for the distribution of a daily chart of the weather and
astronomical memoranda.
Mr Parer to have the right to sell light refreshments at the kiosk’111
Lemme was ‘Secretary of the Improvement League’112 - the local ‘residents action’ group
- so Parer’s decision to approach the Council through him suggests that his kiosk proposal
was very much in accord with the vision for the foreshore held by the St Kilda
‘establishment’.
Parer and Lemme attended the next meeting of the Council’s Public Works Committee,
where it is reported they ‘submitted rough plans and details of their proposal’.113 This
strongly infers that the original architectural concept came from Parer. A 1960s letter
from a niece who had a ‘close association’ with Francis, supports the likelihood that he
designed the Kiosk (with his wife): ‘He and my aunt designed and had built the pavilion
on St Kilda pier.’114
On 12th October Council referred Parer on to the Government for a decision, ‘in the first
instance’. 115 Only one further record has been found relating to the application, a Public
Works Department plan titled ‘Pavilion, St Kilda Pier’, initialled ‘JCM’ and dated
25/1/04. It has been established that JCM is James Charles Morrell, an architect with the
PWD.116 The proposal had progressed very quickly, so there was obviously support for it,
and the design, from both levels of government, the community, and the architect.
109
Port Phillip City Council Art & Heritage Collections Programme, op cit, p.35.
St Kilda by the Sea Annual, 1913, p.53
111
Letter in St Kilda Foreshore File
112
City of St Kilda, Council Minutes, 26/10/1903, p.603
113
City of St Kilda, Minutes of the Public Works Committee , 8/10/1903.
114
Letter from ‘MC’ in Michael Parer’s family history archive.
115
City of St Kilda, Council Minutes, 12/10/1903, p.595
116
National Trust of Australia (Victoria), File No. 5471; Bruce Trethowan, ‘The Public Works
Department of Victoria 1851-1900: An Architectural History, Vol.2’, Research Report, University of
Melbourne, Appendix 3.
110
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
37
Although based on a popular European building form the plan was unique to Victoria and
rare in Australia.117 It follows a traditional pavilion form in being freestanding - able to
be viewed from all sides - and generally symmetrical, situated in a grand natural setting
and at a popular resort. It allowed for indoor and outdoor dining, including on the
ambulatory around the upstairs lantern. Its form was traditional: small, with a primarily
vertical aspect, diminishing in size as it rose (and was topped off with a weather vane,
popular on European follies). Architecturally it combined classical (windows), French
Second Empire (mansard roof and widows walk), and Chinese (round or ‘moon’ arches
around some openings) influences in a subtly asymmetrical composition. It was clearly
designed as an ornamental building. Its use of timber especially enabled distinctive
touches not normally associated with neo-classical architecture, such as herringbone
patterns, scalloped weatherboards, and a fretwork balustrade (again, perhaps loosely
influenced by chinoiserie). The pattern of the mullions on the large windows at its southeast corner may also exhibit Chinese influence.
Part of plan for ‘Pavilion, St Kilda Pier’, Public Works Department Drawing. (Original plan now
held at Queenscliffe Maritime Museum).
No specific design influence has been found. The Parers had continuing Mediterranean
contacts, so that part of the world may have provided an influence. The architecture of
eighteenth and nineteenth century European spa and seaside resorts is also a very likely
influence. In common with many other resort buildings it was intended to be ornamental.
The mansard roof form was a common decorative feature of the time, contributing an
elegance to narrow, vertical buildings: for example, Parer’s Crystal Pavilion on Bourke
Street.
It is likely that Francis Parer conceived the design of the kiosk, and that JC Morrell, and
perhaps other government architects also had a hand in its design.
117
Lewis, N, St Kilda Conservation Study, Area One, Final Report, (Nigel Lewis & Associates,
Melbourne, 1982), p.141.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
38
Francis Parer
Francis Parer was from a large extended family with a flour mill business in the
Catelonian town of Alella, near Barcelonia, many of whose members came separately to
Melbourne in the nineteenth century. Siblings of the elder generation came out in the
1850s and 60s, to be followed by nephews and nieces. Francis, born 1860, was one of this
second generation, arriving in Melbourne in 1888 at aged 28. He was naturalised in
1894.118
The Parers quickly made their mark in the hospitality industry, acquiring grand Bourke
Street hotels and restaurants such as the Duke de la Victoria, and the Temple of Pamona.
In 1886 some of the brothers of elder generation established ‘Parer’s Crystal Palace’, also
on Bourke Street, which became a landmark for generations of Melburnians. Although it
ended its life after the Second World War as a hotel (now demolished), in the nineteenth
century it was sumptuously appointed, with a saloon, café, club-rooms, banquet hall,
private dining rooms, billiard rooms and overnight accommodation.119 In 1888 the
Jubilee History of Victoria and Melbourne described it as the ‘leading Café in the
Southern Hemisphere’, and unsurpassed by similar ‘Café Palaces of the world’. It stood
tall over its neighbours, and was described as a ‘stately’ structure externally; internally it
was a ‘marvel of taste and design’ whose costly fittings, including a wealth of mirrors,
fountains, draperies etc ‘dazzle the beholder, and make him wonder whether he has not
entered fairyland’. ‘The names of Messrs. Parer Brothers are a by-word throughout
Australia’ it asserted. 120
In the meantime Francis’ brother John had obtained the licence of the restaurant at the
Melbourne Exhibition Buildings. John’s mathematical interest in gambling systems
would make him a regular visitor to the Casino at Monte Carlo, where he lost many hotels
over the course of his life. His cinematographer son Damien became Australia’s first
winner of an Academy award for his documentary coverage of Australians at war, most
famously in New Guinea; he was killed filming American marines in action in the Pacific
Islands.121 Another of Francis’ nephews, Ray Parer, was a noted early aviator and
adventurer who made the first single-engine aircraft flight from England to Australia, and
established an airline in New Guinea where other family members were involved in gold
mining.122
Francis is a comparatively little remembered member of the family. In 1892 he was
living in the London Tavern Hotel on Elizabeth Street, and in 1901 at the Royal Mail
Hotel, corner of Bourke and Swanston Street. This hotel, owned by his brother John, that
was likely his address at the time of his application for the kiosk in 1903. Family folklore
has him as being thought a ‘bit funny’ for ‘living on the end of a pier’ with his wife Mary
(nee Curran, born Clunes, Victoria), their daughter Veronica, and a teenage girl ‘Minnie’,
who came from the Good Samaritan Orphanage in Beaconsfield Parade Middle Park to
help out in the Pavilion, and later became a part of the family. Mary died in 22nd
September 1920, and Francis died 4th October 1935 in Nazareth House East Camberwell.
It is thought that Francis operated the Pavilion into the 1930s.
118
Unless otherwise cited, information the Parer family comes from Michael Parer family records and
personal conversations; and also Damien Parer, Xmas Down South, 1939 (with a postscript by Michael
Parer), Alella Book, Geelong, 1982.
119
Catherine de Courcy, in Morrison, I, A New City: Photographs of Melbourne’s Land Boom
(Miegunyah/MUP, Carlton, 2003), pp.40-41
120
Damien Parer, op cit, pp.51-53
121
See also Maslyn Williams in Eureka Street, Vol.4, No.9, Nov.1994, pp.10-15
122
Isaacs, K, in Serle, G, Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol.11, pp.133-134.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
39
Parer’s Crystal Palace, Bourke Street Melbourne, one of numerous sketches and photographs of
this building. The rounded mansard roof and widow’s walk also feature in the St Kilda Pier
Kiosk. (La Trobe Picture Collection, State Library of Victoria).
JC Morrell
James Charles Morrell was born 6th November 1869123 and by 1889 was employed as an
architect in the Public Works Department. Limited information available on his early
architectural career at the PWD records him as having designed (in some cases with
others) small public buildings in country towns:- police quarters at Tungamah (1890) and
Cavendish (1891); and post offices at Bridgewater (1889), Pyramid Hill (1890) and
Caramut (1892).124 Presumably he continued to work on larger projects thereafter.
By 1913 he was developing an interest in the fledgling town planning movement, 125 of
which he was to become a leading Australian commentator and practitioner. In 1915, still
at the PWD, he was asked to report on overseas developments in town planning, and
visited the United States, England and Scotland. His report, printed as a white paper for
the Victorian government, was also reprinted in the journals Building, and Town Planning
and Housing, and is now a major document of Australian town planning history. The
main concerns of the Morrell report were slum clearance, civic beautification and garden
suburbs; his prediction that the American rather than British style garden suburbs was
more suitable to Australian conditions proved prophetic. He is today regarded as one of
the major architects in Australia’s pioneering town planning era.126 In 1918 he was
123
State Library of Victoria Biographical Index: Morrell, James Charles.
Trethowan, 1975, op cit, Appendix 3.
125
Miles Lewis, Australian Architectural Index: Morrell, JC.
126
Freestone, R, Model Communities: The Garden City Movement in Australia (Nelson, Australia,
1989), pp.63, 74, 80; Hamnet, S, Freestone, R, The Australian Metropolis: A Planning History (Allen
& Unwin, Australia, 2000), pp. 63-64; He also contributed numerous articles on town planning
124
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
40
appointed consultant to the Commonwealth’s Arsenal Town Committee, where he
advised the government on munitions housing projects around Canberra and Lithgow.
He later became responsible for all site plans developed by the War Service Homes
Commission, but his progressive ‘economic and aesthetic’ town planning principles were
eventually judged unnecessary by a Parliamentary review. Nevertheless, many of
Morrell’s views, such as internal parkbelts to separate distinct land uses, were taken up in
the 1920s by agencies such as the Melbourne Town Planning Commission, and were
realised in the town of Yallourn.127
Construction and Opening
Construction was undertaken by John W Douglas.128 Douglas, of Block Place,
Melbourne, advertised as a ‘showcase maker; shop and office fitter; alterations and
general repairs’129 which suggests that special attention to the detail and fittings of the
kiosk were intended.
An article in the St Kilda Advertiser of September 1904 notes that the kiosk, whose plan
‘was drawn by government architects’, was in the course of erection with the intention of
being partly opened by Caufield Cup Day 15th October 1904.130 It declared that it would
be ‘an imposing and useful adjunct to the attractions of the resort’, and went on to
provide a useful detailed preview of its construction and features:
‘The situation of the Kiosk is just on the corner of the first L of the pier where
some 60 piles have been driven into the water on which to erect the decking covering
a space of 66 feet by 48 feet. On top of this superstructure is being bolted having also
corner angle plates of 2 inch by ¾ inch iron. Around the edge of the decking has been
erected a very handsome jarrah picket fence 3 feet 3 inches high with jarrah rounded
capping.
‘The style of architecture is oriental with a large circular sweep of window
on every side to be glazed with the very best Muranese glass. There is a concert
room about 26 feet square, which will contain comfortable lounges, and all
appurtances for musical enjoyment. A neat shop will form the angle corner nearest
the pier behind which will be a kitchen.
‘On the flat roof will be erected an observatory 19 feet by 9 feet glazed on all
sides from which will be seen a magnificent sea view as well as a wonderful
panorama of the metropolis. Then on top of the observatory will be another outlook
safely fenced in. The design is being carried out in the best plain and fancy
weatherboards with embellishments of fancy scalloped scrolls and woodwork. The
necessity for great strength has not been lost sight of as may be exemplified by the
fact that 4 x 4 best oregon struts and 3 x 4 intermediates are being used while the
joists are 3 x 4 by 9 inches. Inside the concert room the roof promenade will be
shored up with iron pillars.
‘Around the whole of this building has been left a wide promenade where
tete-a-tete tables will be placed for refreshments. Seats and lounges are to be
principles and model subdivision layouts to magazines and journals as diverse as Australian Home
Beautiful and the Royal Victorian Institute of Architects Journal.
127
Freestone (1989), op cit, pp.156-159, 178-9
128
St. Kilda Advertiser, 24 September 1904, in Kellaway, C, National Trust of Australia (Victoria)
Research Notes, 27 February 1984.
129
Melbourne Directories, 1904, in Kellaway, C, National Trust of Australia (Victoria) Research
Notes, 27 February 1984.
130
St. Kilda Advertiser, 24/9/1904, in Kellaway, C, National Trust of Australia (Victoria) Research
Notes, 27 February 1984.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
41
plentifully provided. Mr. Parer's intention is to provide only fish and fruit luncheons
without any intoxicating liquors of any sort.’ 131
The description of its architecture as ‘oriental’ is of interest as today it is regarded as
essentially ‘French Empire Classicism.’132 Presumably, in a time when the classical style
was common, exotic touches such as the moon windows would have been more
noticeable than they are today. They would also have been immediately understood as a
reference to the Oriental style pier pleasure pavilions then fashionable in England. 133
The kiosk was probably opened before Caulfield Cup Day, as a St Kilda Advertiser of 12th
November includes a report of the Council in which it was claimed that the ‘lights on the
new Kiosk had quite overshadowed the pier lights’. This ‘private enterprise’ on the pier
also stimulated talk in the local press of other improvements, including a ‘miniature
railway’ to ‘improve our ancient … out of date pier’.134
The Pavilion’s Heyday: 1904 to 1930s.
Parer’s Pavilion came into its own in the summer of 1905. A 1905 article titled ‘The
Esplanade at Christmas’ referred to ‘Mr Parer, the popular caterer’, and compared the
pavilion with fashionable Continental and American exemplars:
‘The fame of the Pavilion is growing and justly so for nowhere can be more enjoyable
happiness be secured at St. Kilda than by lounging restfully on the broad balcony of
this pleasure place .. .opening up possibilities only to be equalled in a Continental or
American watering place."135
The premises was listed in the 1906 Melbourne Directory as 'Francis Parer's Austral
Refreshment Rooms',136 the kiosk became popularly known as ‘Parer's Pavilion’.
An article that appeared in the promotional publication St Kilda by the Sea Annuals
between 1913 and 1917 emphasised the new and unique experiences provided by the pier
kiosk:
‘… The seating facilities are extensive, and parties make take their tea on the
tables, on the ground or pier floor, or they may go aloft to the spacious circular
balcony. From this a magnificent view may be obtained round the bay, and on a fine
day, the headland of Portarlington is visible with the naked eye, though the lengths of
vision may be increased by a convenient telescope, kept on this floor.’
131
St. Kilda Advertiser, 24/9/1904, in Kellaway, C, National Trust of Australia (Victoria) Research
Notes, 27 February 1984.
132
Eg, ‘St Kilda Pier and Kiosk, Jacka Boulevard, St Kilda’, Special Feature article No.15, in St Kilda
Historical Society No.163, October 2003. This notes that despite its reputation for quirkiness today ‘the
design is actually sedate and symmetrical French Empire Classicism in the tradition of William Pitt’s
earlier design for the Princess’ Theatre Spring Street’.
133
Pearson, L, Piers and Other Seaside Architecture, (Shire Publications, Buckinghamshire, 2002), p.7.
134
Kellaway, National Trust, op cit, p.4
135
ibid, p.5.
136
ibid, p.5.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
42
‘The first Continental Pier Pavilion in Australia’. (St Kilda by the Sea, 1915-16, p.66)
The tradition of the kiosk as an observatory was continued with the ‘Giant Telescope’
Kerby established on the ground floor. The telescopes symbolise the success of Parer’s
vision of the place as an ‘observatory’: as many photographs appear to have been taken
from the kiosk (upper level) as of it in its early days. (It was also no doubt put to good
use by Francis in relation to his interest in astronomy.)
Parer’s idea for an ‘observatory - kiosk’ seems to have been a success, the building providing a
platform for many photographs such as this. (Brady, EJ, Picturesque Port Phillip, c.1911, p.108)
The same article went on to describe, in terms still being used nearly one hundred years
later, the enchantment of the kiosk in its setting:
‘At night, the view shorewards resembles a fairy scene. The many lights are glowing,
and they are just far enough away to give a feeling of mystery and enchantment. No
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
43
visitor to St. Kilda should miss the opportunity to view the Esplanade, indeed, the
whole shore line, lit up with its thousands of lights, and to see the dancing of the
reflections in the ever-moving waters. The picture formed is truly a notable sight.’ 137
The article concluded with an intriguing discussion of another more curious feature of the
kiosk: its official status with the Commonwealth Meteorological Bureau. Mr Parer, ‘an
enthusiast in weather lore’ registered the velocity of the winds, and kept a record of the
weather:
‘Flags are flown, showing what the weather forecast for the day is, and these flags
are hoisted from information received each morning from the office of Mr HA Hunt,
the Commonwealth meteorologist. A card, issued under the authority of the Minister
of State for Home Affairs, explaining the meaning of the flags flown on the staff on
Parer’s Pavilion on the pier, may be obtained at these excellent tea rooms.’
The weather, Francis Parer’s hobby, may have been the ultimate reason for the
establishment of the kiosk. His original brief proposal described an ‘observatory’ first,
and then a ‘refreshment kiosk’, and specifically noted that he would keep daily charts of
the ‘weather and astronomical memoranda’. While an observatory was not an unusual
function for a seaside pavilion at that time, his interest in meteorology was more unusual.
It undoubtedly contributed to his decision to establish his family in a pier lifestyle that his
siblings may have thought a little eccentric, probably declining much more comfortable
and potentially profitable opportunities in city hospitality businesses to do so. If early
visitors to St Kilda’s Municipal Pavilion (The Stokehouse) were able to enjoy the ‘sea
breezes, and the everchanging seascape away across the bay’, 138 how much better would
a pier kiosk serve the lover of Melbourne’s dramatic weather-quarter. A Chinese poet or
monk would have been hard-pressed to find a better ‘Moon Viewing Pavilion’ or
‘Clouds-Gathering Pavilion’, 139 or pavilion from which to enjoy ‘the fleeting changes in
the weather.’140
In the meantime St Kilda tourist literature provided plenty of word-pictures of the kiosk
in the most balmy conditions, and in terms of the best social traditions. The recurring St
Kilda by the Sea article casually alludes to traditions of Regency England at play:- ‘…its
[the Pavilion’s] coffee, ice cream, and lollies are as famous to visitors to St Kilda as the
buns were to the elderly bucks of Bath.’ Parer’s wife attracted praise for her ‘preparation
of seaside dainties, dear to the heart of the visitor.’141 Another article provides a picture
of the Kiosk in idyllic conditions and pre-Titanic bliss:‘At the end of the long pier there is situated the beautiful Tea Kiosk … Around the
ground floor of this one may see, any morning or afternoon, groups of ladies or
young girls, with their work or their novels, seated in groups at the tables, sipping
iced beverages and enjoying the soft zephyrs. Inside and upstairs is accommodation
for those who do not care for so much exposure, and upstairs are the romanticlooking little balconies much favoured by young couples.’142
The kiosk became an integral part St Kilda’s special romance. Underneath a photograph
of the pier, taken from the kiosk, an author of Port Phillip’s beaches observed : ‘St Kilda
137
St Kilda By The Sea Annual 1913, (St Kilda City Council, Prahran Telegraph Printing Co.,
Melbourne, 1915), p.179.
138
St Kilda by the Sea, 1913, p. 145.
139
Zhu, op cit, pp.16-24.
140
Hejzlar, op cit, pp.58-59
141
St Kilda by the Sea, 1915-16, p.179
142
‘Austral Pavilion, St Kilda Pier’, in Fun on the Foreshore: St Kilda by Day and by Night’ (c.1910,
p.10)
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
44
is, of course, a trysting for true love. It has formed a background to many a passionate
declaration. ... With electric lights twinkling upon the water, the lapping of the tides
around the long, wide piers, the music in the distance, youth and the stars, Cupid cannot
complain of accessories.’143 The pier and kiosk were still strongly associated with
romance at the time of the kiosk’s destruction.
‘Austral Pavilion, St Kilda Pier’. An early view of the kiosk, showing its position beside, rather
than on, the pier. (‘Fun on the Foreshore: St Kilda by Day and by Night’, c.1910, p.10)
It would appear that Parer decided to live in the kiosk within a very few years of its
opening. While a very early postcard of the rear of the pavilion, looking towards the
foreshore, shows the pavilion built according to plan (see image below), by c.1908 the
same view of the ‘New Pavilion, St Kilda Pier’ showed a new timber extension across
almost half the width of the building. 144 Also, on 8th December 1908 Parer wrote a letter
to Council in which he gave his address as ‘St Kilda Pier Pavilion’.145 Perhaps vandalism
necessitated this major change in plan.
143
Brady, EJ, Picturesque Port Phillip (nd, c.1911), p.109.
State Library of Victoria Collection: ‘The New Pavilion, St Kilda Pier’ (c.1908) Picture Image
No.a02570.
145
Letter in St Kilda Foreshore Files, (Port Phillip City Council Local History Centre)
144
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
45
A postcard view of the back of the brand new Kiosk (the postcard was written in February 1905),
looking towards the St Kilda Esplanade. This portion of pier has been replaced by the rock
breakwater. The photograph shows the pavilion as built, prior to the addition of a rear room for the
Parer family. (Courtesy Port Phillip City Collection)
This postcard of ‘The New Pavilion, St Kilda Pier, c1908’ shows that the kiosk already includes the
rear addition. (La Trobe Picture Collection, State Library of Victoria).
These living quarters had not been further added to by the time of the Prince of Wales
visit in 1920.146 Francis Parer died in 1925147 and it would have been around this time
that the kiosk passed to other lessees about whom nothing is presently known.
In the 1930s, when vigorous and informal open (beach) bathing was the principal seaside
attraction, the Kiosk features as the small but identifying backdrop to the beach beauty on
the cover of ‘St Kilda the Beautiful’. In the Edwardian period the pier and the kiosk had
been centre-stage in the promotion of St Kilda as a seaside resort (see previous illustration
146
147
‘Bayside Reflections’ Video, Part 2, op cit.
Michael Parer, personal conversation.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
46
- cover of St Kilda by the Sea, 1915-16). By the 1930s the kiosk had been relegated to the
background, but was in the process of being transformed into a symbol, an emblem, of St
Kilda.
‘St Kilda the Beautiful’ (c.early 1930s). St Kilda now billed itself the ‘Lido of the South’, but this was
to be the Foreshore Committee’s last promotion of St Kilda as ‘Melbourne’s Playground’.
The Kerby Era (1939 - 1987)
Changes in St Kilda: 1930s - 1980s
From the 1920s through to the early 1930s St Kilda's popularity as a seaside resort
peaked.148 By this time the popularity of seaside ‘promenading’ as a St Kilda social ritual
was finished, and the nature of recreation at St Kilda began to change. The rise of the
motor car in particular enabled Melbourne families (and the many families from country
towns who had once come to St Kilda) to holiday at clean new beaches down the bay, or
further afield. But the foreshore and pier remained popular, especially when depression
and war (petrol rationing) severely restricted mobility, and there were so many public
transport routes to St Kilda.
In the 1930s St Kilda was the centre of the new phenomenon of flat building, which
attracted a transient population on the one hand, and on the other a ‘new’ type of person
for whom family and suburb wasn’t the ideal. The old mansions and large villas had also
succumbed to the social changes: at first the mansions were transformed into fully catered
‘respectable’ boarding houses, for those bachelors and other gentry who stayed on, but
148
Longmire, A, St Kilda: The Show Goes On - vol. 3, 1930 to 1983 (Hudson,Melbourne, 1989), p.2.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
47
increasingly for the thousands of young country people who came to Melbourne for work
in the 1920s and 30s. Then gas cookers began to appear in cupboards and under
stairways as the mansions were divided into rooming houses to accommodate the postwar flood of refugees from central and northern Europe. Staid Melburnians joked that you
needed a passport to enter St Kilda.149
In the post-war era establishing families looked to live in new houses in new suburbs, and
by the 1960s only a remnant of families remained in St Kilda. Many who replaced them,
including criminals and prostitutes, were attracted by life’s more exotic frontiers
especially after drugs became widespread in the 1970s. Then, in the late 1970s and early
80s there was a sudden influx of young artists into St Kilda, especially to the Upper
Esplanade area, in Leber’s Court and similar accommodation. 150
While the notion of St Kilda as a Mediterranean promenading resort was by now long
forgotten, there were now perhaps more people than ever living in St Kilda and enjoying
its foreshore. And established attractions such as Luna Park and St Moritz remained
popular with suburbanites, especially those who relied on public transport, in particular
the youth.
In the wake of the young artists, old buildings were revived as attractions such as The
Venue, ‘The Espy’, and the ‘Prince’. However, many of the large buildings of St Kilda’s
heyday reflected St Kilda’s decline, and were in poor repair. Some, like St Moritz and
The Venue would not survive. Others, such as Luna Park, and the Sea Baths
(reincarnated into nightclubs such as ‘Whisky a Go Go’, and ‘Les Girls’) were down-atheel, and their fortunes mixed.
‘Kerby’s Kiosk’
The pier pavilion also reflected St Kilda’s social change, and shared its physical decline.
However the commitment of two generations of the Kerby family to operate and maintain
the kiosk from the period c.1939 to 1987 enabled it to adapt and survive. In 1942 the
famous ‘Parer’s Pavilion’ era categorically concluded when a shingle with the name
‘Kerby’s Kiosk’ was tacked over the door.
Noble and Ivy Kerby took up the lease in and moved in with their son Colin in c.1939 (in
some accounts Kerby give 1939, in others 1942), on the death of the previous lessee,
known as ‘Major Payne’ (who had never been in the army).151 Colin Kerby eventually
purchased the business from his parents who continued to share in the management of the
kiosk until Noble's death in 1957.152 Colin, at different times an inventor, bio-medical
research laboratory assistant, and salvage diver, married Judy Lingard, a Tivoli dancer, in
1959 and the couple permanently resided in the upstairs living quarters of the kiosk.153 It
was during the Kerby family’s occupancy that the kiosk underwent many alterations, with
the second floor converted and extended into the family’s residence, and many more
additions made to the rear.
In the changed times and the tea parties, ‘elegant dainties’ and light lunches of the
Edwardian era were no longer possible. The Kerbys attempt to open a restaurant to which
149
Moloney, D, From Mission to Mission: The History of Sacred Heart Parish West St Kilda 18871987 (Sacred Heart Parish, St Kilda, 1987), pp.15-82.
150
Jon Cattapan, personal conversation.
151
Port Phillip City Council Art & Heritage Collections Programme, op cit, p.35.; Garner, H, ‘Life at
the End of the Pier: Kerby’s’, in This Australia, Vol.1, No.4, 1982, p.57
152
The location of ratebooks to confirm the exact dates is unknown.
153
Wells, L, Australians at the Seaside, (Greenhouse Publications Pty Ltd, Melbourne, 1982), p.66.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
48
diners would be bussed along the pier fell foul of fishermens’ rods and was abandoned.
But they were adaptable, and improvised ways to make the kiosk pay.
During the Second World War when St Kilda was booming they held special Sunday
afternoon and evening dances, a venture that proved popular to the US servicemen
stationed in Melbourne. 154 A platform was put over the second floor balcony for a variety
of bands and the verandah's steel floor was polished for dancing to gramophone records,
the jitterbug being ‘all the rage’.155 Many Melburnians still have vivid memories of
watching, or being taught to jitterbug by, the Americans at Kerbys.156
Other entrepreneurial ventures undertaken by the Kerbys including the performing seals
in the 1950s; these ‘would perform for the crowds gathered at early dusk and warm
afternoons’.157 In the 1950s they made and sold ‘beer on the pier’; the authorities would
sometimes inquire as to whether it was under the prescribed alcohol content, and
invariably much of the beverage had to be poured into the bay. Less controversial was
the importing of gyrocopters in the 1960's to sell from the kiosk. 158 The fresh pine-apple
crush was a salutary lesson for Colin Kerby re the problems of making a living from
catering at the end of a pier: ‘I'd go ashore early in the morning and buy all the
pineapples, then by the time we'd crushed them the weather would change, no one would
come on the pier, and we'd be stuck with gallons of the stuff.’159
Kiosk, mid twentieth century. (Courtesy Port Phillip City Collection)
Retaining the commercial viability of the Kiosk was difficult, particularly during winter,
and from competition from the large increase in St Kilda’s cafes and restaurants during
the 1960s and 70s. Compounding this the year 1966 saw the end of 6 o’clock closing at
154
Mulhill, L, 'Realm of the Pier...', Weekend Herald Dec. 13 - 14, 1986, p.11.
Wells, L, Australians at the Seaside, (Greenhouse Publications Pty Ltd, Melbourne, 1982), p.66.
156
This phase of history was came up several times in media discussions after the fire.
157
Mulhill, L, 'Realm of the Pier...', Weekend Herald Dec. 13 - 14, 1986, p.11.
158
Heath, S, 'View From The End Of The Pier', Emerald Hill, Sandridge & St Kilda Times, c.1986
(Clipping from St Kilda Foreshore files); also ‘View from the End of the Pier’, Emerald Hill Sandridge
& St Kilda Times, 4/12/1986
159
Wells, L, Australians at the Seaside, (Greenhouse Publications Pty Ltd, Melbourne, 1982), p.66.
155
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
49
hotels, drawing even more after-hours trade away from the kiosk.160 The impact of this
was devastating: the Kerby’s income ‘dropped 82% that week and stayed there’. 161
Although the Kerbys managed to subsidize their income through other enterprises, the
exposure of the building to severe weather conditions necessitated costly maintenance and
repairs. One of the internal alterations undertaken by the Kerbys was the replacement of
the original round Edwardian windows with large rectangular picture windows, probably
to provide better views of the foreshore and seascape panorama from their wellremembered ‘Giant Telescope’.162
Another of the unorthodox enterprises that the government landlord apparently was
unaware of was the sheep that Colin kept amongst the buildings (including a shipping
container) that had accumulated on the north deck of the kiosk. They were part of
university research he was helping to conduct.
The Kerbys were apparently equally comfortable with the influx of young artists into St
Kilda. Playwright Barry Dickens was one who found in the makeshift and by now
rundown kiosk a kindred spirit for his bohemian ways. He contentedly squatted there
amongst the empty Tarax crates, chatting happily to all and sundry during the day. 163
The extensive alterations made by the Kerbys meant that the upper deck and north and
west terraces were occupied by clothes lines and ramshackle building extensions, and no
longer available to the public. Photographs show the odd person sitting on the timber
steps looking back down the pier, perhaps enjoying a snack that had been purchased in
the kiosk. By this time the kiosk was not much more than a milk bar, with pinball
machines in a corner, and trading in ice-creams, soft drinks, cigarettes, fish cakes and a
few other hot ‘take-aways’.
All this was wonderfully authentic, and affordable, to St Kilda’s new artistic set.
Presumably the word spread, because quite suddenly there was a spate of publicity about
the Kerbys and their kiosk. In his regular Age newspaper column John Lahey brought to
public attention the countless rescues that the Kerbys had performed at the end of the
pier.164 In 1982 Lana Wells’ book Australians at the Seaside featured a two page insert
with large glossy photographs on the Kerbys’ pier lifestyle. In another national
publication that same year, noted author Helen Garner wrote a lavishly illustrated feature
article on the ‘strange and famous, structure made of nautically scalloped weatherboard
with an onion-shaped curve outlining its front door’ that was the home of the Kerbys.165
Garner described the ambience of the setting: the ‘waving masts, and a great deal of
bright breezy air’. To the Kerbys it was ‘a beautiful spot … there are lights all around at
night there’s always something happening … yachts sail past’. The focus of the stories at
this time however was on the kiosk as a home, which was by now its primary function.
Garner provides a sense of the nautical feel of life on the pier: the kiosk had the ‘slightly
impermanent feel of a caravan’, and was almost like living on ‘a boat’; at times the
building gave a ‘shiver’. It was:- ‘a light, bright house whose floor shifts slightly under
your feet, where you can’t hear cars, and where salty air blows right off the sea into your
room.’
160
Carruthers, J, 'Kerbys Battle to Keep Pier Kiosk', Emerald Hill Times. 17 March, 1988, p.4.
‘New Look for Vintage Era: Not Quite the Same as Jitterbug Days’, unattributed interview and
media article in St Kilda City Council File No. 06/13/009.
162
Sedley, A 2001, Existing Condition Survey Report, (Unpublished) in Heritage Victoria File
No.H1533. p.6.
163
ABC Local Radio, AM Talkback, 11/9/2003.
164
The Age, 30/9/1982
165
Garner, op cit, pp.56-59
161
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
50
The charm of Kerby’s Kiosk c.1970s-80s was distinctive, but not glossy. As well as the additions
and alterations seen here, the whole deck areas to the north and west (rear) were occupied by
makeshift additions and sheds. (Unidentified photographer, National Trust File No.5471)
The ramshackle but friendly life of the Kerbys was evident: a house shared with other
peoples’ unwanted or injured pets, all sorts of exotic brick-a-brack, and a general ‘busy
untidiness’. One of the sheds on the deck acted as a workshop for the building of the
Kerby’s yacht ‘Ooroo’.
Garner also reported that the Kerbys believed that ‘there must be caretakers in the
residence, otherwise people they call “the young gentlemen from the village” would
indulge their unpredictable passion for arson.’ The Kerbys had also extinguished many
‘nasty fires’, up to three a night, started from cigarette butts dropped between the timbers
of the pier.
For his efforts in forestalling many drownings and suicides over the decades, in 1984
Colin Kerby was awarded an Order of Australia.166
The Revival of Promenading, and Restoration (1980s- 2003)
Although inner city living had been revived elsewhere, St Kilda in the mid 80s still
offered some of Melbourne’s cheapest accommodation. But with signs that Melburnians
were rediscovering their bay, St Kilda Council released a report announcing its intention
to ‘rid the city of its pinball and massage parlour image and develop its tourist appeal
with seaside developments’. Included in this plan were ‘tea and refreshment rooms on St
Kilda Pier’.167
The plan’s grand visions for a harbour village including a huge marina and motel
generated much opposition in the local community. The proposal to change the kiosk
166
Giles, T, 'Historic Kiosk to Rise From Ashes'. Herald Sun, 12th September, 2003, p.5. In another
media article the Kerbys reported that sometime in the 1960s a very old man came to the kiosk and
introduced himself as its builder. He said he built three similar buildings, all called the ‘Palma
Pavilions’, of which this was the last to survive (Weekend Herald, Dec 13-14, 1986, p.11)
167
Roy Eccleston, newspaper article (nd, c.1984). National Trust File No.5471
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
51
into a restaurant/bistro also generated controversy.168 From 1986 to 1988 there was a
deluge of articles in the local and metropolitan press regarding the Kerbys’ long and
colourful association with the kiosk - recounting stories of the seals, the wartime swing
bands, and the rescues - and sympathetic to their arguments to remain in the kiosk.
By the 1980s the cultural heritage significance of the Kiosk had been officially recognised
by the National Trust, the Australian Heritage Commission and the Historic Buildings
Council (Heritage Victoria). In 1987 a $1 million Bicenntenial Commemorative Program
Project grant was provided for the restoration and reconstruction of the kiosk’s original
historic features.169
The 1987-88 restoration works included the removal of additions on both floors, the
replacement of windows, cladding, balustrades, first floor roof/ambulatory decking, and
repainting in an historical colour scheme determined by the Ministry of Planning and
Environment and the Council (although some Council officers had questioned this
scheme170). New single storey accommodation (soon to be converted into a kitchen for
the new kiosk) was built on an extended deck area at the rear of the building. 171 The
Council architect advised that ‘what we have created is a very close replica of the kiosk as
it used to be at the turn of the century.’172
Upon its completion the Kerbys made submissions regarding the suitability of the ‘new’
kiosk’s security, and the best internal arrangements of counters.173 Despite the strong
support of the media and the St Kilda City Council they lost their bid to remain in the
kiosk, being unable to afford a rent increase, from $40 to $500 a week, that accompanied
the restoration. 174 The local media kept up the tributes to the Kerbys, and in 1990 the St
Kilda Council unveiled a plaque at the new pier entry pavilion in honour of their long
association with the kiosk, and their achievements in lifesaving.
The vandalism that occurred to the restored kiosk until a lease was secured in 1989
received wide publicity, and seemed to validate the Kerbys warnings about security.
Minatee Pty Ltd who won the tender promised to keep the kiosk a ‘peoples café’, and it
was renamed the St Kilda Pier Kiosk. 175
Media reports now marvelled at the authenticity of the renovation works, and delighted in
the recovery of the historic café experience. 176 With other recent improvements,
including the reconstruction of the pier in concrete (on the north side of the original,
meaning that the kiosk was now directly at the end of the new pier), completed in 1988,
and construction of a ‘replica’ historical shelter building at the pier’s entrance, newspaper
articles now carried headings such as ‘Style and Grace to Return to St Kilda’, and ‘A
Slice of Europe at the Beach’. 177
168
The National Times, 11-17 July 1986, pp.9-10
Spcifications and Details of Tender for the operation of the St. Kilda Pier Kiosk, Residence and
Public Toilet Facilities, August 1988, (St Kilda Foreshore Files, City of Port Phillip)
170
City of St Kilda, Works & Permits Committee, 10/2/1988 (File No.06/13/009).
171
St Kilda Pier Bicenntenial Project program, 1987, (St Kilda Foreshore Files, City of Port Phillip)
172
‘New Look for Vintage Era’, op cit.
173
City of St Kilda File No.06/13/011. (Their correspondence includes a sketch diagram showing the
counter arrangement when they arrived in 1939, and the problems with sunlight and space that lead to
them relocating the counter on the west wall in 1959.)
174
The Sun, 23/3/1988
175
Emerald Hill St Kilda Times, 20/4/1989.
176
‘Fine Pickings at the Pier’, Herald Sun, 25/10/1990.
177
The Herald, 11/1/1988; The Age, 25/5/1988. (St Kilda Council decided to build a loose imitation of
this structure ‘for the impending Royal Visit in November 1985’. City of St Kilda, General Purposes
Committee, 14/8/1985.)
169
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
52
The lease had transferred to Joe Sillitoe, and then Carmel Grant, who was operating it as a
café and venue for evening functions before the building was destroyed by fire on the
morning of 11th September 2003.
By the 1990s images of the restored kiosk were everywhere: on postcards, in paintings by
both amateur landscape and professional artists, on a Paul Kelly concert poster, in art
photography, and in a myriad of tourism promotion literature and websites.
Some of the professional artists show it as part of the wider St Kilda foreshore landscape,
or through a telescopic lens enhance its impact in terminating the pier promenade. Many
images have it anchoring a big sky and seascape, often misty and atmospheric, or with
inky clouds stained by sunset; these scenes are often unpeopled. Still other views are
close, capturing more of its historical form and decorative detailing, perhaps in an
highlighting light.
Historic texture is the focus of this Matt Irwin postcard photograph entitled ‘St Kilda Pier, 10.15
am’. It shows the kiosk’s much-admired proportions and scale, and its perfect termination of the
long pier promenade and vista.
Changes in Council meant that the early plans for huge foreshore redevelopment did not
eventuate. Instead the Council revived Catani’s vision, extending Canary Island palm
avenues along the Upper Esplanade and elsewhere, adapting old buildings for restaurants,
building a new path system to facilitate beach promenading, and recreating ‘period’
buildings and pier lamp standards.
The restored kiosk combined history, nature, and views to city skyscrapers, and became a
major Melbourne tourist attraction. It also a much loved place for Melburnians, the place
for weekend stroll, for meeting friends for a coffee, or wedding photos. By the time it
was destroyed by fire in the early hours of 11th September 2003 the kiosk was cherished
by the people of Melbourne. For many it had been an enchanting place, with a quirky
beauty, in a world apart, and with memories of quiet retreat, or pleasant gatherings on a
sunny weekend. There was an immediate outpouring of grief at its lost, and
overwhelming (but contested) calls for its reconstruction.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
2.3
53
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
The former St Kilda Pier Kiosk was the only historic pier pavilion in Australia at the time
of its destruction. No comparable structures are known; the following buildings have
some relation, in terms of location, location, and sometimes architectural origins.
Pier Pavilions and Kiosks
Although many have been proposed, there were very few English Style amusement piers
built in Australia. The Coogee pier (see previous photograph) seems to have been the
only one that could be compared with the English pleasure pier.
The only such pier known to survive is the Manly Fun (or Amusement) Pier, built beside
the ferry wharf. Its construction date is unknown, but it is situated on a wharf which had
occupied this position since early 1900s. It comprises a series of sheds for amusements
and rides that have been redeveloped regularly over time. It was substantially altered in
1980/81, at which time it included (at ground floor level): shark aquarium, dodgems,
workshop and storage, ghost train, wax museum, fun castle and kiddies games. Rides
included the Ferris Wheel, Octopus, Space-Walk and Mexican Whip. Only the Ferris
Wheel remains, and the rest of the wharf is now much altered. 178 There is no evidence
that it ever had any architect-designed buildings whatsoever.
There may be other structures similar to this in smaller coastal towns around Australia,
for example at Bunbury and Albany. There are modern restaurants, kiosks, bars etc on
piers and jetties, for example at Cunningham Pier Geelong, and at the site of the former
Barrack Street Baths (demolished 1920) in Perth.
Manly Fun Pier (nd). Since subject to further alterations. (Photograph courtesy Manly Library)
178
John MacRitchie, Local Studies Librarian, Manly Library.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
54
Beach Bathing Pavilions
In the inter-war period when ‘open beach bathing’ (as distinct from enclosed, and often
gender-divided sea-baths) became acceptable for adults, many large dressing sheds were
constructed by municipalities. They appear to have been predominantly solid, rendered
masonry structures, and as a consequence many survive. Their beachside locations have
made them attractive for restaurant use, and many have been modified for this purpose in
recent decades. They are similar in purpose, form and date to the three pavilions built by
the City of St Kilda in 1928, on Marine Parade (now altered and used as Donovans
Restaurant), West Beach (future currently under consideration), and at Elwood
(demolished).
Manly Cove Pavilion, also a restaurant, is the exception in being built on a pier over
water (but adjacent to the shore rather than at the end of a pier), suggesting it may have
been a reconstruction of an earlier enclosed Sea Baths.
The following is a sample of this type of structure:
•
Bondi Pavilion. (NSW).
Built in 1928 in the popular Spanish Mission style, it originally housed Turkish baths,
a ballroom, palm court and changing sheds. It was the largest beach pavilion built in
Australia, and is now described as ‘one of Sydney’s most recognisable icons’.179
Bondi Pavilion. (From painting by Simon Fieldhouse, National Trust Desk Diary 2004.)
•
179
180
Manly Cove Pavilion, NSW
Erected c.1933 in the interwar Mediterranean style as a two-storied tiled roof dressing
pavilion and amenities block built on a pier, with colonnade to the ground floor, and
some wrought-iron balustrading. It is one of the few remaining harbour pavilion
structures of this period and style in Sydney. It underwent interior refurbishment
c.1980 as part of its conversion to a restaurant. Its exterior is largely intact, of white
painted rendered brick, decorative ceramic tile insets and arched colonnade. 180 Its
exterior is intact.
Simon Fieldhouse, ‘Historic Architecture of Australia II’ (National Trust Desk Diary 2004)
NSW Heritage Office Listing No. 01433
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
55
•
Balmoral Bathers Pavilion, NSW
Built 1928-29, the pavilion is part of an ensemble of buildings, structures and
landscape which together comprise the Balmoral Beach reserve. The building is a two
storey, rendered brick construction of classic Mediterranean influence employing
elements and finishes common to the 'Spanish Mission' style. 181 Converted to a
restaurant; exterior intact.
•
Kings Beach Bathing Pavilion, Caloundra, Queensland. (Extant; altered).
This altered single storey masonry bathing pavilion was constructed in 1937. It
demonstrates a Spanish Mission architectural influence.182
•
Dressing Pavilion, The Espanade, Williamstown, Victoria
Constructed a little later than the others (1936), it is set apart architecturally, being an
extraordinarily strong example of the European Modernism style. It has been
converted to a restaurant. Its exterior is intact.
Other Pier Structures
Piers and their curtilages sometimes include miscellaneous structures, such as the
Queenscliffe Life Boat Shelter Shed, sheds relating to the fishing industry (eg, at Cowes,
Port Fairy, and formerly at Barwon Heads), or the large reception buildings on Station
(and formerly Princes) Pier.
The most comparable with the kiosk in terms of age, materials and recreational
associations, are probably the Queenscliffe Pier Shelter Shed (timber, simple gable
roofed, 1886-87), and the former Bay Paddle Steamer waiting shelters/kiosks on Station
Pier (mid 1920s).
Station Pier East Waiting Shed-Kiosk. (Matt Irwin Picture Card)
181
182
NSW Heritage Office Listing No. 00760
Queensland Heritage Register, Place No.601513
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
56
Boathouses
The kiosk is in the Victorian and Edwardian tradition of light ornamental structures on
places of resort and pleasure, such as boathouses, garden shelters and piers.
Nineteenth and early twentieth century boatsheds and rowing sheds are comparable in
their characteristic use of timber, usually with some degree of ornamentation, and in their
picturesque settings. Some incorporate kiosks. Examples include:•
Studley Park Boatshed, Kiosk and Residence, Yarra Boulevard, Kew (timber, two
storey, pre-1900). The buildings include verandahs with timber balustrade and fretted
valence, and are set in a contemporary garden beside the Yarra River.
•
Fairfield Boathouse, off Heidelberg Road, Yarra River Fairfield (timber, c.early
twentieth century, modified late twentieth century).
•
Proudfoots Boathouse, Hopkins River, Warrnambool (timber, 1885, 1893, 1990s,
VHR H620). These buildings feature elaborate bargeboards and timber valence.
Built partly on piers over the river.
Proudfoots Boathouse, Hopkins River Warrnambool. (National Trust File No.5525)
Garden Pavilions
These incorporate bandstands, rotundas, picnic shelters, kiosks and summerhouses.
Aitken shows their origins in the ‘oriental’ ornate tents of the eighteenth century,183 in
common with larger pavilions. He distinguishes some types of these shelter structures in
Victorian parks and gardens:
Small Shelters
These small garden ‘shelter’ pavilions, for example summerhouses, bandstands, rotundas,
were intended to provide shelter from sun or rain for people, and bands.
They often had a secondary ‘eyecatching’ function. Some bandstands, particularly those
with ‘oriental’ architecture, were particularly ornate. For example the Elder Park
183
Aitken (1980), op cit, pp.13-15
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
57
Adelaide, Beaufort, Camperdown Botanical Gardens, and the Queen Alexandra
bandstands.184
Larger Rotundas
These larger shelters accommodated large groups, who used them for picnic luncheons.
They catered for the growing number of picnic parties using popular places such as
botanic gardens around the turn of century. Examples are at Ballarat Gardens (1904),
Maddingly Park (Bacchus Marsh), Lake Weeroona (Bendigo), and White Hills Botanic
Gardens (Bendigo).185
The Municipal Tea House on St Kilda Foreshore, and Eastern Park Geelong186 may also
have fitted this category.
Bandstand, Elder Park, Adelaide. A catalogue illustration of a type of structure imported into
Australia from Britain. (Aitken, 1980, p.49)
Refreshment Pavilions
These provided tea, coffee and light luncheons, in the tradition of the early (from the late
1840s) Australian ‘Tea Gardens’, or ‘Pleasure Gardens’. 187
Examples include the St Kilda Pier Kiosk (1904), and others that were located at:- Fitzroy
Gardens (since replaced by a modern building188); ‘Lake Lodge’ Ballarat189 (1890); Royal
Botanical Gardens Melbourne (the c.1905 ‘Bougainvillia Rest House’, now replaced by a
modern building); Adelaide Botanic Gardens (1895, extant), Sydney Botanic Gardens
(fragments of the original survive in a new building).
184
Aitken, op cit, pp.49-50, 55; Aitken, R, ‘Camperdown Rotunda: Proposal for Reconstruction’,
(1985), passim.
185
Jacobs, W, Lewis, N, Vines, E, Aitken, R, Ballarat: A Guide to Buildings and Areas, 1851-1940
(City of Ballaarat, 1981), p.78
186
Aitken (1980), op cit, p.31
187
Aitken (1980), op cit, p.27
188
Whitehead, Georgina, Civilising the City: A History of Melbourne’s Public Gardens (State Library
of Victoria, Melbourne, 1997), p.101
189
Jacobs et al, op cit, p.77
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
Former Fitzroy Gardens Refreshment Kiosk. An ornate building that complemented its garden
setting, it had a raised bandstand inside its L plan. (Whitehead, Civilising the City, p.101)
58
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
2.4
59
STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The St Kilda Pier Kiosk was of historical significance at the national level as an emblem
of Melbourne’s premier early seaside resort, and as a defining part of a unique and
outstanding Australian historical seaside resort. Built in 1904 as an observatory and
refreshment kiosk it was the first ‘continental style’ pier pavilion in Australia. It
remained the only example of this type of building in Victoria, and was the only such pier
pavilion known to remain in Australia at the time of its destruction by fire in 2003.
As the major structure on St Kilda Pier, it was a prominent part of Melbourne’s gateway
to dignitaries, particularly royalty, in the early decades of the twentieth century when the
city was the seat of government in Australia. Improvements to the pier and its
environment at this time were important to the self-image of the city, and considered to be
of national significance.
Francis Parer, who conceived the design of the kiosk, and operated it at least until the
1920s, was a member of a Spanish-Australian family famous in Melbourne’s hospitality
history, and later accomplished at an international level in other spheres. James Morrell,
the Public Works Department architect to whom the design is attributed, became a
leading member of Australia’s early town planning movement.
Never intended to be a scaled-down English ‘amusement pier’ pavilion, the kiosk was
instead an accessory and ornament to the primary function of the pier as a place of
promenade and passive recreation. Occupying the most prominent site on the foreshore,
the focus of St Kilda’s Edwardian promenading culture, and ‘continental’ in style, the
pavilion fitted perfectly Carlo Catani’s bold early twentieth century vision of St Kilda as a
cosmopolitan open-air resort in the Mediterranean style, with open lawns, stately palms,
garden promenades, statuary and cafés. Most promotional photographs of the Catani plan
being implemented included the pier and kiosk, with the new plantings and pathways in
the foreground.
The kiosk was thus a unique and prominent part of the St Kilda foreshore heritage
precinct, a remarkably intact and distinctively Australian late nineteenth and early
twentieth century seaside resort. As well as Catani’s vision of a fashionable Riviera
resort, this outstanding cultural landscape represents many other important historical
strands, including:- the old patrician and European idea of a resort as a genteel, exclusive
place for health and promenading (the pier, the kiosk itself, The Esplanade, the remnant
grand hotels and villas, and the rebuilt Sea Baths); the Coney Island model of an enclosed
theme amusement park (the early and architecturally fabulous Luna Park); the more
informal and vigorous pursuit of swimming that set Australian seaside resorts apart from
their English counterparts, and which became an important part of Australia’s culture and
identity (the reconstructed Sea Baths, and the Open Sea Bathing Pavilions); the general
resort amusements and facilities (the Palais Theatre, the former Municipal Tea Pavilion
and adjacent lawns); and the influence of the great era of English pier pavilions evident in
the exotic/Oriental tinges to the architecture of many of these on-shore buildings (and the
kiosk).
The kiosk’s Classical and Second Empire style, its graceful ornamentation, and slightly
Oriental motifs encapsulated much of the long history of pavilion design. Future research
might establish a more direct link to the architecture of the pavilions of European spa and
seaside resorts, in particular late nineteenth century English piers, or Riviera resorts. Its
other associations with the history of pavilions were also important: its isolated siting in a
grand natural landscape; its function as a place of retreat, contemplation and intimacy;
and its simultaneous role as a place of refreshment, social gathering, and banqueting. An
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
60
appreciation of the setting of the place, at the boundary between the elements and the
metropolis, over the sea and under Melbourne’s dramatic western sky, appears to have
been instrumental in the founding of the place by Parer, a weather and astronomy
enthusiast, and in its continued allure, as captured by writers, artists and photographers.
The kiosk was also significant for its association with two generations of the Kerby
family, whose adaptability kept the kiosk going through approximately 50 years of
dramatic social change, and St Kilda decline. During the 1980s the Kerbys’ colourful
lifestyle attracted national interest. In 1984 Colin Kerby was awarded the Order of
Australia for saving many people from drowning during his long occupancy of the kiosk.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
CHAPTER THREE:
3.1
61
AESTHETIC SIGNIFICANCE
INTRODUCTION
The Australian Heritage Commission’s criteria include a place’s ‘importance in
exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural
group’. Aesthetic value is the esteem or value in which the community, or a group
within that community (which could include architectural historians), holds a place.
Accordingly we must consider not just the Kiosk’s formal architecture, but also the
community’s emotional responses to this architecture, as well as its setting, and its
non-visual qualities.
While the Kiosk’s formal architecture has been regarded as slightly exotic (due to its
‘Oriental’ allusions), it has generally been thought of as having been a rather
characteristic Edwardian pavilion, without any particular claim to design distinction.
However, its less formal aesthetic - its setting in the landscape/seascape, and its
connection with people - was clearly unique and powerful.
3.2
THE KIOSK
Formal Architectural Assessment
Pavilions: An Historical Perspective
History suggests that the quintessential pavilion is a freestanding structure; of modest
size; with an overall vertical orientation; externally symmetrical or near symmetrical
in plan and elevation; and situated in an open landscape (be it a grand natural one, or
a garden or designed one), originally to provide a view, but eventually for more
iconographical and ornamental purposes. Most pavilions were designed for
informality and pleasure, to sit lightly in the landscape, sometimes with touches of
fantasy or fun.
Pavilion architecture is often not regarded too seriously. Dams described chinoiserie
pavilions in France as the creation of ‘an exotic caprice, not a serious essay in a
foreign style.’1 In England, Pearson noted that: ‘the generalised ‘Oriental’ style of the
late nineteenth century … was perceived as ephemeral, not a serious style, and it
rarely progressed beyond the garden or seaside.’2 This same formal judgement
continues today. The architectural and material significance of Brighton’s West Pier
is deemed to be less important because its intention was to be ‘splendid and lavish
rather than earnest’. 3
Assessment of Design
JS Kerr provides some detailed design criteria with which to assess a place’s ‘formal
or aesthetic qualities’:- its scale, form, materials, textures, colour, space and the
1
Dams, op cit, p.156.
Pearson, LF, The People’s Palaces: The Story of the Seaside Pleasure Buildings of 1870-1914
(Barracuda Buildings, Buckingham, 1991), pp.24-25. Also Pearson, LF, Piers and Other Seaside
Architecture (Shire Publications, Buckinghamshire, 2002), pp.7-12.
3
Morrice, R, ‘A Report into Practice Following Catastrophic Damage at Historic Places, with
Particular Reference to Brighton’s West Pier’ (English Heritage, December 2003), p.14
2
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
62
relationship of components.4 The ‘scale’ of the Kiosk is clearly small and human, as
evident in words such as ‘modest’, ‘humble’, ‘little’ used to describe it (Chapter
Four). Its material is essentially timber, whose warm texture and lightness enhances
its engaging ‘human’ quality, and also allows distinctive types of decoration not seen
in most other classically styled buildings (such as Princess’ Theatre). Its colour was
more contentious: the colour scheme for the 1988 created opposition early on, and
many people still express a strong aversion to its ‘unattractive “heritage colours”’.5
However, the use of timber did allow the Kiosk to be expressive and colourful in a
way that most historical masonry structures are not. Its ‘degree of unity in scale,
form and materials’, was regarded (by the public at least) to have been of the highest
order (Chapter Four).
Previous Heritage Assessments of Formal Aesthetics
Descriptions and assessments of the Kiosk’s formal architectural qualities in previous
heritage listings include:
•
The Australian Heritage Commission:
‘ …The pier pavilion is an elaborately detailed structure, aesthetically fusing
a late nineteenth century form and basic details with the commanding arches
of the Edwardian period. Of all timber construction, apart from an iron first
floor main beam and several cast iron columns, the structure is essentially
single storeyed. Over the former cafe, small office and servery at ground
floor level is an open observation deck on all sides of a central observation
room. The observation room has margin light edged windows to all four
sides. Two doors give access to the metal sheet clad outside deck and this
room is crowned by a curved roof and widow's walk. The ground floor
contains a proper staircase giving access to the first floor, while a ladder
stair gives access to the widow's walk. Features of the external design are
the arched reveals to all four sides, scalloped weatherboards, pedimented
end bays, first floor balustrade with round ended slots and diagonal board
cladding/lining panels in the observation room.
Early vandalism due to the isolated location saw additions to provide
accommodation and various unsympathetic additions and alterations were
made over the years. These were removed as part of bicentennial restoration
and renovation works, which included construction of a new largely
unsympathetic residence and public toilets at the rear of the building.’
•
The Victorian Heritage Register:
‘ …The Pavilion follows a building design that was popular in Europe at the
time of its construction, and is a unique example of this design in Victoria.’
•
The National Trust:
‘… it remains as a flamboyant timber structure despite alterations over the
years. As well as a Kiosk it served as an observatory with balustraded upper
deck .’
4
5
Kerr, JS, The Conservation Plan (Fifth Edition), National Trust of Australia (NSW), 2000, pp.15-16
Peterson, op cit.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
63
The City of Port Phillip:
Nigel Lewis & Associates, ‘St Kilda Conservation Study’ (1982)
‘…The unusual timber building features large round horseshoe arches which
frame windows and doors for three elevations, and is crowned with a curved
pavilion roof with cast-iron balustrading and weather vane finial. The
balustrading at the lower level is composed of alternating vertical and
horizontal timber slats and scalloped boards appear above and below
windows. Classical elements, such as pediments and window architraves are
also displayed and constructed of timber. The form of the building is novel,
employing subtle assymetry within an overall symmetrical composition.’
Andrew Ward, ‘City of Port Phillip Heritage Review’ (2000).
‘…The pavilion … is an outstanding and rare surviving example of seaside
architecture of the Federation period.’
•
Heritage architect Richard Peterson provided a more recent assessment of its
formal aesthetic qualities for the St Kilda Historical Society:‘The design, despite its reputation for quirkiness, is actually sedate and
symmetrical French Empire Classicism in the tradition of William Pitt’s
earlier design for the Princess’ Theatre Spring Street, with its flanking
pediments, round mansard roof and widow’s walk. It’s only eccentricity, it’s
two Moorish horse-shoe arches, are actually relatively common in Federation
domestic design.’6
Peterson also describes the timber pavilion-Kiosk as ‘tiny’, ‘curious’, and
‘one of many such quirky Edwardian establishments’.
•
A 1904 Assessment:
At the time of its construction the style of architecture was described as
‘…oriental, with a large circular sweep of window on every side to be glazed
with the very best Muranese glass.’7
While we now view the Kiosk as essentially a Classically styled building, it
appears that the large ‘circular’ windows were regarded in their time as a
major exotic feature which distinguished the Kiosk from the many other
similar French Classicism style buildings. In China and Korea similar arches
(but entirely circular rather than segmented) were called ‘moon’ gates, or
windows, and their use at the Kiosk may date back to eighteenth century
European chinoiserie pavilions.
Responses to the Architecture
There has previously been little recognition of the Kiosk’s informal aesthetics,
including the public’s response to it.
6
Richard Peterson, ‘No.15: St Kilda Pier Kiosk, Jacka Boulevard, St Kilda’ (St Kilda Historical
Society, 2003). This description is reprinted in the St Kilda Historical Society, (Newsletter) No.163,
October 2003.
7
St. Kilda Advertiser, 24/9/1904, in Kellaway, C, National Trust of Australia (Victoria) Research
Notes, 27 February 1984
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
64
The Kiosk has always been regarded as an ornament. In 1915 it was described as
‘pretty and convenient’ (‘St Kilda by the Sea’); in 2003 it was described as ‘a pretty
little thing at the end of the pier.’ (Dimity Reed)
The public reaction to its aesthetics after the fire in 2003 was especially powerful (see
, Social Significance). The strong and colourful descriptions of its aesthetic impact
on people was striking. They could best be summed by the word ‘enchanting’. Other
prominent descriptive words included: modest, light, casual, graceful, pretty, perfect,
beautiful, gentle, delicate and welcoming. Complementary sentiments were expressed
with words such as timeless, fantasy, soft, folly, uplifting, fairy-tale quality, timeless,
quaint, magical, float, hover, and surreal.
At the same time as it was engendering these powerful emotional responses, people
also appreciated its more formal architectural qualities: the strong sense of it being a
‘noble’ and ‘gracious’ building, in spite of its modest size and materials.
3.3
THE SETTING
The Kiosk’s aesthetic value also encompasses its setting. The Kiosk is unusual in
having had strong cultural and natural settings. It was a major feature of the St Kilda
foreshore, the pier, and the seascape. It was a visual focus of the pier, with which it
had a symbiotic relationship - as ornament, enticement and refreshment facility for
the walk on a long pier. It had been the focus of a Riviera inspired vision of
foreshore design based on promenading, on open lawns amongst palms, and on the
pier. Its slightly exotic architecture contributed to and reflected the ‘carnival’
‘oriental’ theme of St Kilda architecture, particularly in the foreshore precinct, with
its Moorish and Moghul domes.
From the Kiosk there were grand views of the city skyline, the St Kilda foreshore,
and the sea and sky. Views were an important part of the place from its earliest days.
A description of Parer’s Pier Pavilion in 1915 provides a sample: ‘At night, the view
shorewards resembles a fairy scene. The many lights are glowing, and they feel just
far enough away to give a feeling of mystery and enchantment’. 8 Many early
photographs were taken of pier promenading from the Kiosk’s upper levels.
Many photographs have been taken in the modern era of the Kiosk in its foreshore,
pier, sea, and sky settings. It had a much-observed ‘lightness’ in relation to its
seascape; some people thought that it seemed to ‘float’ or ‘hover’. Such a
transcendent quality befitted its frontier location, on the boundary between nature and
civilisation. The image of a link to another world is suggested in many heavily
atmospheric photographs of the Kiosk, which became a distinguishing emblem below
dramatic skies in Melbourne’s inimitable ‘weather’ quarter.
Kerr notes that the ‘relationship of a place to its setting’ is as important as the design
of the building.9 He advises that an assessment of aesthetic significance should pose
the question: ‘To what degree has the place a relationship between its parts and the
setting which reinforces the quality of both?’ The common response to the survey in
Chapter Four - that the Kiosk ‘fits the pier’, and was ‘perfect’ at the ‘end of the pier’ indicates that the relationship between the Kiosk and its setting was exceptionally
positive and strong.
8
9
St Kilda by the Sea, 1915
Kerr, op cit, p.15
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
65
Ward’s heritage assessment for the City of Port Phillip considers some of the finer
details of the Kiosk’s relationship with its setting:
‘Recent additions to the pier include the pavilion and seating shelters which
are mock Federation style, which reflect concerns of the 1980s but lend a
false historical homogeneity to the structure. Other changes which have
detracted from the pier include the replacement of the timber decking with
concrete and the replacement of the handrailing with steel and aluminium;
however as the physical significance of the pier relates more to its continued
existence as a type (little or none of the original 1850s structure is likely to
survive in the present pier) these alterations are of minor consequence. The
breakwater and marina make a positive contribution to the maritime
character of the pier and wider foreshore area.’
3.4
NON VISUAL AESTHETICS
The informal aesthetic of a place encompasses the emotional or symbolic response of
the public not only to the building, but to the building in its setting, and also to nonvisual factors.10
The Australian Heritage Commission's report 'More than meets the Eye: Identifying
and Assessing Aesthetic Value', which explores community perceptions of and
responses to places, puts it as follows:
‘Aesthetic value is the response derived from the experience of the environment
or particular natural and cultural attributes within it. This response can be to
either visual or non-visual elements and can embrace emotional response, sense
of place, sound, smell and any other factors having a strong impact on human
thought, feelings and attitude.’11
A number of the responses to the social survey (Chapter Four) included reference to
touch (the weather, be it the warm sun, or wind), the maritime smells (salt), and
sounds (water lapping/crashing), the wind in yacht riggings, seagulls). The Pier
Kiosk had a strong maritime ambience.
3.5
STATEMENT OF AESTHETIC SIGNIFICANCE
The St Kilda Pier Kiosk was of aesthetic significance at the national level as a rare
surviving example of Federation period seaside architecture.
Architecturally it was an elaborately detailed predominantly timber structure that
fused a late nineteenth century form and classical details with giant arches that are
now described as characteristically Edwardian, but which were originally described
as ‘Oriental’. These may have derived from Chinese ‘moon’ gates and windows, as
interpreted in eighteenth century European chinoiserie pavilions.
Its unity of scale, form and materials was of a very high order. Its small human scale
was enhanced by a curved roofed lantern crowned with decorative cast-iron
balustrading and a weather vane. Its timber cladding added lightness and warmth,
10
The Burra Charter 1999, Guidelines, 2.2; Kerr, op cit, p.16
Australian Heritage Commission, More Than Meets the Eye: Identifying and Assessing Aesthetic
Value, (Australian Government Publishing Services, Canberra, 1994)
11
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
66
and enabled colours and distinctive decoration - including scalloped weatherboards, a
balustrade with rounded end slots, and herringbone patterns - that were less
commonly associated with classically styled buildings.
While the Kiosk’s architecture was novel in Australia, it was also a characteristic
‘pavilion’ structure in form and setting: freestanding in a grand landscape, small,
vertically oriented, of an overall symmetrical composition (but employing a subtle
asymmetry), and intended to be of ornament and refreshment to promenaders
enjoying the festive resort. While there were many garden pavilions, rotundas,
temples, bandstands etc in Australia, pavilions associated with grand natural settings
were much rarer. It became a favourite image of photographers and artists, many of
whom pictured it isolated under Melbourne’s big south-western sky.
Its informal aesthetic was exceptional, inspiring powerful and affectionate response in
the public who used words such as a modest, elegant, enchanting, soft, noble and
casual to describe it. Its setting within the natural environment also inspired strong
responses in many people who described its lightness of touch on the landscape, and
its ‘perfect’ fit to the pier. It also had strong non-visual aesthetics and maritime
ambience: it was associated with the touch of the elements (sun, wind, salt spray), the
sounds of lapping water and wind in the riggings, and all the smells of the sea. It was
also significant as the primary visual focus of a remarkable early twentieth century,
Riviera inspired, foreshore design based on promenading. Its slightly exotic
architecture contributed to and reflected the festive and oriental themes in St Kilda
architecture.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
CHAPTER FOUR:
4.1
67
THE SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE KIOSK
THE SURVEY
Assessing Social Values
Australian Heritage Commission Criterion G for the assessment of the
cultural heritage significance of a place is: ‘Its strong or special associations
with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual
reasons.’
The Australian Heritage Commission goes on to state criteria for determining
whether a place is of social significance:
•
A place should be important to a community as a landmark, marker or
signature.
•
A place should be important as a reference point in a community's
identity or sense of itself.
•
A place should have strong or special community attachment developed
from use and/or association.
Chris Johnston in ‘What is Social Value’ elaborates on socially significant
places. They include:•
Places that are ‘distinctive’, with ‘features that lift a place above the
crowd’, making it likely that special meanings have been attached to that
place.
•
Places where people gather and act as community (including informal
gathering places such as piers).
•
Places that are accessible to the public and offer the possibility of
repeated use to build up associations and value to the community.
•
Places that provide a traditional connection between past and present.
•
Places that tie the past affectionately to the present.
The general and predominant criterion for determining whether a place is of
social significance is the ‘deep sense of attachment to a place’ (often charged
with emotion), or, the ‘connectedness of people and place’. They are places
that generate public outcry at threats to them, or a deep sense of loss at their
destruction.
An aspect of this can be a place’s association with important moments in
individuals’ lives. Johnston notes that, while some places are ‘symbolic of
highly personalised life passages … many experiences are common to us all,
and we share and collectively shape many of our public places and their
social meanings.’1
This sharing of personal memories and the development of cultural and social
identities can also occur across time, between as well as within generations.2
As Johnston notes: 'The endurance of social value may lead to its recognition
1
Johnston, C, What is Social Value? A Discussion Paper, (Australian Government Publishing Service,
Canberra, 1994), pp. 4, 7, 8, 12, & passim
2
Brayshaw, B; Byrne, D; Ireland, T, Social Significance: A Discussion Paper, (NSW National Parks
and Wildlife Services, Hurtsville, 2001), p.62.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
68
as a place of historical (for its social value to a past community or group), as
well as continuing contemporary social value’.3
Assessing the Social Values of the Pier Kiosk
The illustration of the text in ‘What is Social Value’ includes a large
photograph of ‘Melbourne’s popular St Kilda pier’, including the kiosk.
Thus, long before the recent fire, it is identified in heritage literature as an
exemplar of social significance. This results of this study confirm that St
Kilda Pier Kiosk satisfies all of the criteria for social significance identified
above, consummately in some cases, and is indeed an exemplar of social
significance.
The St Kilda pier kiosk was a rare building whose landmark and social value
was undisputed. This chapter contains summaries of the public responses to
the fire as contained in media reports (eg feature articles, ‘vox pops’,
editorials), and views expressed in internet chatrooms of groups such as the
heritage profession. These all testify to the strength of affection for the kiosk,
and, despite the public debate on the subject, a sweeping support for its
reconstruction.
However, while media reports were able to strongly confirm the
iconographical significance of the place to Melbourne, they could provide
only a very broad appreciation of the ‘nature’ (as distinct from the ‘extent’)
of its significance. In order to understand more closely the social
significance of the place, interviews were undertaken with a ‘focus group’.
This enabled more detailed understanding of questions such as whether or
why the kiosk was thought to be significant; and the (relative) significance
people attributed to the kiosk’s function or use, its setting, its exterior, its
main façade, its interior, its landmark status, the outside timber deck, its
colours, and its other accretions. The focus group chosen was people who
might be particularly interested in the place, and likely to be able to articulate
their views:- writers, artists, musicians with strong St Kilda associations,
local campaigners and prominent members of cultural groups. The initial list
of interviewees was compiled with the assistance of the City of Port Phillip
arts officers. This survey comprised informal, often long, conversations, of
which written notes were kept, and which are included in an appendix
together with the other summaries of available public opinion.
In summary, the ‘community of interest’ for the kiosk has been taken to be
those who used the place, lived close by, and those in the wider community
for whom it had special symbolic, personal or professional meanings. The
‘communities’ assessed for a special connection with the place were:- the
Melbourne community (through analysis of media reports); the St Kilda
community (through analysis of local media, and interviews); the heritage
community (through analysis of the ‘HeritageChat’ website); to a much lesser
extent, the Australian community (through interstate media reports); and
communities interested in the built environment (through monitoring website
chatrooms). Representations of the place (in art and literature) before the fire
have also been gathered.
It is hoped that this information will help to explain the basis of the ‘affection
for the place’ and the associations that have invested the place with meaning. 4
3
Johnston, op cit, p.13.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
69
It will also contribute to an understanding of the ‘sense of place’ associated
with the kiosk - primarily the ‘degree to which the place provides a sense of
continuity, identity and belonging for its residents.’5
The chapter also provides a quantitative analysis of available sources of
public opinion regarding the question of whether the kiosk should be
reconstructed.
While none of the samples of opinion for these communities was obtained
scientifically, all possible views were recorded as comprehensively as
possible, and the overall consistency and conformity of views was persuasive.
Every one of the communities considered was strongly of the opinion that the
kiosk had had very high historical, aesthetic, and social values. The strength
of this view was notable, often passionate. With regard to the question of
reconstruction, there was a strong majority, in each community, in favour.
However a respectable minority of people were uncomfortable with this
approach, with some passionate in their opposition.
A decision to carefully reconstruct the kiosk would certainly confer a new
social significance on the place, as was found to have occurred at Tasmania’s
Waldheim Chalet (chapter 6). It would be a rare and significant historical
event, providing evidence of the strength of the community’s attachment to
the place in 2004. It might be appropriate to note this in a plaque. It would
add a new element and depth to its social significance.
Statement of Social Significance
The former St Kilda Pier Kiosk was of national social significance as
arguably St Kilda’s most prominent landmark (comparable with Luna Park),
a major Melbourne icon (comparable with W-Class Trams and Flinders Street
Station), and a tourist destination known throughout Australia and popular
with overseas visitors. It was widely represented in postcards, tourism
information, photographs, artworks, posters and heritage literature. It has also
been a distinguishing emblem in many images of the city’s bay and dramatic
south-western sky.
In addition, it was a ‘part of Melbourne’, generally regarded as having been
visited and enjoyed by the great majority of its citizens, and identified by
many as a place for which they had special personal associations, and deep
attachment. Its destruction caused widespread public grief, with most people
supporting calls by editors and governments for its reconstruction. It was
valued as an informal and widely accessible ‘people’s place’ for casual
refreshment, a special meeting place, and, in quieter times, a place of
reflection or intimacy. It was a loved ornament to the simple pleasure of a
walk along the pier whose form and decorative detail were described as
enchanting, whimsical and modest on the one hand, and, at the same time,
gracious and noble. Its non-dominating, complementary relationship with its
seascape setting was widely appreciated, many noting its lightness of touch,
and its ‘perfect’ fit of the pier. For locals it had also fixed and marked the
western boundary of St Kilda.
4
Kerr, James Semple, The Conservation Plan (Fifth Edition), National Trust of Australia (NSW),
2000, p.30
5
ibid, p.48
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
70
Its significance as a symbol of St Kilda’s seaside resort history, and as a
focus of its important foreshore heritage was appreciated by many, especially
locals. Many recognised it as a symbol of Melbourne’s historical connection
to the bay. For a smaller number it was significant as a unique illustration of
Edwardian resort architecture in Australia.
While the function of the kiosk was popular and regarded as significant, its
design, or appearance, was valued more highly still. The great majority of
people consider that a good quality (although not exact) reconstruction of the
kiosk would recover most of the visual, historical and social values of the
former kiosk that were important to them. There was also strong support to
reinstate the informal, accessible kiosk function as an integral part of the
place’s social value.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
4.2
71
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF OPINION REGARDING RECONSTRUCTION
Summary
•
The samples of the different ‘communities’ which provide the data for this analysis was
not obtained scientifically. However, the overall consistency of the results is notable, and
likely to be indicative.
•
Both levels of government strongly favour reconstruction over rebuilding in a
contemporary style.
•
The evidence of public support for reconstruction of the original kiosk over a building in
a contemporary style is overwhelming, in regard to both degree, and consistency over the
range of forums (which includes both ‘popular’, and ‘elite’ communities).
•
In none of the forums examined was there a majority in favour of constructing a
contemporary kiosk over reconstructing the original kiosk.
•
Apart from one small architectural forum, which was equally divided between the two
options, there was a large margin in favour of reconstructing the kiosk.
•
Apart from the huge margins in favour of reconstruction in the MX survey (taken the day
of the fire; the number of respondents not provided) and the Leader newspaper ‘vox pop’,
all other forums returned a majority of between 4 and 6 in favour of reconstruction to one
in favour of a contemporary building.
•
These included forums of those interested in urban development and skyscrapers, who
might have been expected to have had leanings towards modern buildings.
•
•
•
The forums of the heritage profession and the local ‘cultural elite’ returned margins in
favour of reconstruction at the lower end of this scale, although still in the order of 4:1.
Both Melbourne daily newspapers strongly support reconstruction.
The views of interested ‘communities’ such as architects and historians are not included
in this quantitative assessment. The architectural profession would appear to be the only
forum (or ‘community’) to favour a contemporary building over reconstruction.
However, this is only an estimate made on media reports, most of which were solicited,
and which also indicate support for reconstruction amongst architects. There appears to
have been an equal number of unsolicited opinions expressed by architects in favour of
reconstruction (Phillip Schemnitz, David Brand) as opposed to it (Dimity Reed, Michael
Peck). A spokesman for the Institute of Architects was in favour of a contemporary
building, and most (but not all, Norman Day being a notable exception) academic
architects supported examining new concepts for the site. Not surprisingly the practicing
architects whose opinions or designs were specifically canvassed by newspapers all
favoured a contemporary structure. Similarly, the two local historians who were
canvassed on the subject both supported reconstruction.
Scores
Government
•
The State Government: Premier and Deputy Premier pledge reconstruction.
•
The City of Port Phillip: Council (unanimously) supports reconstruction.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
Newspaper Editorials:
•
The Herald Sun:
•
The Age:
•
The Sunday Age:
•
The Emerald Hill Times:
72
strongly supports reconstruction
strongly supports reconstruction
strongly supports reconstruction
favours a contemporary building
Public Opinion in the Media
These figures do not include interested parties (such as the Mayor of Port Phillip, or
architects, local historians, former owners etc solicited for opinions), but the views of
those who rang talk-back radio, and whose letters were published. While many other
people are reported as having been deeply grieved at the loss, and might have been
expected to favour reconstruction, the figures below only include those whose views on
reconstruction were specifically stated.
•
•
Reconstruct kiosk:
Contemporary building:
14
3
(82%)
(18%)
‘Vox Pop’ Surveys.
•
•
•
MX (12/9/03): ‘Should the St Kilda Pier Kiosk be Rebuilt?”
•
Yes:
98%
•
No:
2%
Herald-Sun (16/9/03)
•
Reconstruct kiosk:
•
Contemporary building:
4
1
The Port Phillip Leader (22/9/03)
•
Reconstruct kiosk:
5
•
Contemporary building:
0
(80%)
(20%)
(100%)
(0%)
The Opinions of Talk-Back Hosts
Their views were not always fully disclosed; the following is an estimate based on their
comments.
•
•
•
Reconstruct kiosk:
Unknown, probably favour
reconstruction
Contemporary building:
Red Symons, Jon Faine, Lyn Haultain, Doug Aiton
Neil Mitchell, Sam Kekovich, Greg Evans, Bernie
Finn, Derek Guille
None
The Opinions of Heritage Professionals (per HeritageChat website forum)
•
•
•
Reconstruct kiosk:
Contemporary building:
Unstated:
11
3
6
(55%)
(15%)
(30%)
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
73
Other Communities Interested in the Built Environment (per website forums)
Butterpaper: Architecture Downunder (Australia and New Zealand Architecture and
Design Resources)
•
Poll: 'The St Kilda kiosk should be replaced with …
•
identical building
•
new building taking into account heritage requirements
•
new building via a competition, with no style constraints:
•
no building’
2 (50%)
0
2 (50%)
0
Walking Melbourne: Australian Architecture Discussion (‘A Place to Talk about
Australian Architecture, Heritage, and Planning Issues’)
•
•
Poll: ‘Should they Rebuild the St Kilda Pier Kiosk or Start Anew?’
•
Reconstruct it from the original plans or photographs
•
Hold an architecture competition and pick the best design
•
Just build something new there
Written comments
•
Reconstruct kiosk:
•
Contemporary building:
•
Unstated:
4
1
1
6 (85%)
1 (14%)
0 ( 0%)
(67%)
(17%)
(17%)
Skyscraper City (An international site for aficionados of modern skyscrapers).
•
•
•
Reconstruct kiosk:
Contemporary building:
Unstated:
6
1
2
(67%)
(11%)
(22%)
Survey of Local Writers, Artists, Musicians, Campaigners
(Note: the selection of people was neither ‘scientific’, nor intentionally biased. It started from
names given to me by the City of Port Phillip, and people I knew within these categories;
these people in turn provided names of others. I contacted every name given to me within the
time-frame of the survey; the majority were happy to oblige with their views.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reconstruct kiosk:
Reconstruct kiosk (qualified support)
Contemporary building:
Contemporary building (qualified support)
Undecided:
No building
14
2
2
3
1
1
(61%)
(9%)
(9%)
(13%)
(4%)
(4%)
Miscellaneous: Private Straw-Poll
(These were comments of other people informally interviewed regarding the topic. They
included ‘other’ locals met in the course of researching the issue.)
•
•
•
•
•
Reconstruct kiosk:
Reconstruct kiosk (qualified):
Contemporary building:
Contemporary building (qualified support):
Undecided:
12
1
2
1
3
(63%)
(5%)
(11%)
(5%)
(16%)
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
4.3
74
EXPLORING THE MEANINGS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE KIOSK
The kiosk had many different meanings. For some people it was primarily a physical
landmark of St Kilda, for others a social landmark, or a focus of the locality’s defining
foreshore history. It was also a Melbourne place, an ‘icon’ of the city prominent in postcards
and tourist information. Importantly, in addition to this iconographical value, it had also been
prominent in the lives and memories of Melbourne people.
Naturally there were also differences in peoples’ strength of feelings about the significance of
the kiosk. Almost everyone felt great sadness at its destruction, and some were moved to
tears. It was clearly a building for which the ‘extent’ of social significance was of an
unusually high order.
Exploration of the ‘nature’ of this significance also produced an interesting range of results.
While nearly everyone valued the external appearance of the kiosk, as viewed when
promenading along the pier, for some this was its primary significance. While most loved its
quirky, historical design and detailing, others also noted its unique setting and the vantage
point it provided to ruminate on sea, sky and city. Many recognised the kiosk as a major
focus of the uniquely historical St Kilda foreshore cultural landscape. For most it was
significant as a place to rest and savour an occasional excursion to the end of the pier - to
have a seat, a coffee, or a light meal with family or friends, or just an ice cream. Many
disclosed that it had been a part of special moments in their private lives, as a place of quiet
respite, inspiration, or intimacy. While there were many particular and inspired impressions
of the kiosk, the comment that it was ‘graceful, casual, and fitted the pier’ seems to
encapsulate much of the public’s opinion of the place. It had been an enchanting place for
Melburnians.
A St Kilda Place
A St Kilda Icon, Symbol, Landmark
The most common word used to describe the kiosk is ‘icon’, both of St Kilda and Melbourne.
An appreciation of the kiosk as having been ‘iconic’, a ‘marker’ and a ‘landmark’ of St Kilda
is extremely strong in the local community. Indeed, it was put explicitly in a number of
interviews that it ‘represented St Kilda’.
•
‘An icon of St Kilda - on all the postcards - who knows how many people have
painted it’.
•
‘The iconic Victorian-era kiosk on St Kilda pier burnt down … wrecking St Kilda’s
picture postcard views…’
•
‘St Kilda’s famous old kiosk is to be rebuilt in keeping with its historic
architecture…’
•
‘The kiosk was a landmark’.
•
‘It was part of St Kilda … one of our loved landmarks … something we were very
proud of.’
•
I was so proud of our famous icon, and it was first on my list to show overseas
visitors.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
75
Would always take overseas or interstate visitors there. ‘They are ‘stunned/shocked
to see an uncompromised, beautiful historic building there’.
•
For an artist living in Sydney for four years, it was a cherished ‘St Kilda icon’.
•
Local female: ‘says it signified St Kilda.’
•
Resident Toby Richards ‘says for him the kiosk was St Kilda.’
•
‘It stood out as quite a proud beacon and important part of St Kilda.’
•
‘the kiosk symbolised the old St Kilda. It’s up to the next generation to build a classy
replacement now…’
Local historians believe that it was the most important of St Kilda’s icons.
•
The ‘postcard factor’. St Kilda a place from which people send postcards home.
Other St Kilda postcard views have included Luna Park, the Palais, and St Moritz
(demolished). But the pier (kiosk) is ‘the ultimate one, because it is on the sea.’
•
The kiosk has been in St Kilda for so long, and is so prominent, that it is ‘the St Kilda
site’, even more so than Luna Park.
Local Affection for the Kiosk
The kiosk was personally precious to many locals, who had a deep sense of attachment to
it:
•
It is ‘part of our emotional landscape’. We relate to it ‘as St Kilda.’
•
‘There is something amiss with the view … St Kilda has lost part of its soul.’
•
‘Our community is mourning its loss. Residents are literally in tears.’
•
‘St Kilda residents have been devastated by the destruction of the St Kilda Pier Kiosk
by fire overnight.’
•
‘Some local residents were in tears.’
•
‘…locals were in disbelief … the connections they had with it ….’
•
‘The devastation is already setting in…without doubt every one of them [locals] is
stopping and looking quite sadly out to the end of St Kilda Pier”.
•
Unidentified local male: ‘says he is devastated by the fire’
•
St Kilda resident Brenda Richards: ‘I never thought you could grieve over a building
but that’s what we’re doing.’
•
St Kilda resident Linda Gibbs ‘Its quite emotional. I didn’t think you could mourn for
a building but I feel really sad. I’m an artist and I’ve painted about 40 paintings that
include the kiosk.’
•
‘Lots of locals have called offering money to get the kiosk rebuilt as quickly as
possible. People really loved that building’.
•
Colin Kerby …will never to return to the kiosk site … ‘it would just kill me…’ the
fire ‘took a piece of it with me.’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
76
St Kilda resident: Each day she would take her dog for a walk along the pier …today
… she walks in the opposite direction. ‘I can’t do it anymore. I know one day I will,
but it is just too soon. I’m too upset.’
A Physical and Social Marker of St Kilda:
The kiosk was not seen only in isolation, but was regarded as an important part of St
Kilda’s physical and social landscapes.
•
A ‘place marker’ of St Kilda.
•
‘Can be seen from much of St Kilda’
•
‘Always saw it - on a tram, or driving the Upper or Lower Esplanade.’
•
a ‘marker’ of St Kilda from the Upper Esplanade tram.
•
‘… loved looking at it - the shape of it - as (she) walked along the pier’ (to go sailing)
•
Now there is ‘nothing to mark’ - ‘it could be a pier anywhere’.
•
It created a sense of St Kilda continuing into the sea; it was ‘what was ahead of you’.
Behind you - ‘ travelling up the hill’ - were several more iconic buildings; you had a
sense of being ‘surrounded in St Kilda’. Now one of the St Kilda ‘gates’ is gone. Its
demise ‘takes the sense of place away’. There is an emptiness in space - a big hole in
St Kilda.
•
It was the extension of St Kilda into the sea.
•
It was part of a ‘flow’ of the St Kilda experience to (and through) many
‘destinations’, from a beach tram, to the Upper Esplanade, to the beach, the kiosk,
and finally to the breakwater. And there are corresponding worlds of inhabitants of
these leisure destinations, eg, tourists, the Espy drinkers, beachgoers, fishermen, the
leather-skinned ‘pier-people’.
A Part of St Kilda’s History and Heritage
The kiosk was strongly identified as part of St Kilda’s heritage. While its age, and
historical architectural features and references were acknowledged (or presumed), much
emphasis was given it its having been a key part of an historic cultural landscape shaped
in the early twentieth century. It was seen as a focus of St Kilda’s defining cultural
landscape - the foreshore - and the history of promenading and leisure in Victoria’s first
seaside resort. Its long association with the Kerby family was also recognised.
•
‘The kiosk was a symbol of St Kilda … and St Kilda was the “carnival and
amusement centre of Melbourne”. May its replacement rise soon.’ (Age editorial)
•
‘the spirit of St Kilda was alive in the kiosk’
•
‘the kiosk symbolised the history that St Kilda had as Melbourne’s playground.’
•
‘it symbolised the fantastic history of St Kilda’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
77
‘… a glorious institution. It’s a hallmark of St Kilda’s heyday as the holiday
destination for Marvellous Melbourne, and it’s a very sad thing to look down the pier
and not see it…’
•
It was a strong link with the past; [and] created a sense of continuity with St Kilda’s
past.
•
He originally didn’t want it reconstructed, but now sees it as ‘part of an historic
landscape’ (created by the St Kilda Foreshore Committee).
•
Part of remarkably intact and distinctive St Kilda history, in particular, the early
twentieth century foreshore.
•
It is part of the history of the foreshore as an early twentieth century leisure precinct.
Despite the changes, an extraordinary amount of this historic context is unchanged.
The key monuments are included on an axis - ‘the sweep’ - from the astonishingly
intact Luna Park to the Esplanade Hotel, the shore and pier/kiosk.
•
It’s ‘dome-ish’ roofline, and Moorish features, link it to numerous of St Kilda’s other
landmark buildings, such as Luna Park, Sea Baths, Palais, the Catani Clock Tower.
•
Architectural references to Riviera, Hollywood, of the foreshore precinct.
•
Its architecture was also consistent with a local style - ‘sort of half-moon shape’
(semi-circles). (Including art deco places, such as units on Grey Street). An appealing
‘quirk’ of local architecture.
•
Premier Bracks states that it was an historic structure ‘built for people to enjoy a
kiosk and to promenade which was the feature of the time, which has been a feature
of St Kilda’.
•
Deputy Premier Thwaites: ‘the kiosk had an important place in history and in
people’s hearts.’ ‘It is a symbol of St Kilda, along with Luna Park, and its vital that
we do restore that heritage…’ ‘For people all over Melbourne this has been a place to
come to, to enjoy the sun, but also to appreciate its incredible heritage value’.
•
‘… a landmark … known for years as Kerby’s … ‘
•
‘People remember it fondly as Kerby’s...’
•
‘Most referred to the historic kiosk as ‘Kerby’s’ after the family that lived in and sold
ice-cream from it for 50 years until 1988.
A Melbourne Place
A Melbourne Icon, Landmark, and Tourist Attraction:
The kiosk was a ‘postcard icon’ for tourists, and an ‘icon’ for Melburnians. Icon was the
main word used to describe the place in the electronic media when the story of the fire
broke, and was also used heavily in printed news. It was also widely referred to as a
tourist attraction. Its iconic status is also evident in the number of representations of the
place in photography, and art, at all levels.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
78
•
‘Melbourne has lost one of its iconic tourist attractions …’
•
‘One of Melbourne’s main tourist attractions …’
•
‘A Melbourne landmark destroyed by fire …’
•
‘Residents are mourning the loss of one of Melbourne’s landmarks’.
•
‘Even to call this elegant pavilion a kiosk was to downgrade its essential beauty and
pride of position as a local landmark. It was a symbol of a city, but also of
Melbourne’s connection with the sea.’ (Sunday Age editorial)
•
‘The modest St Kilda pavilion was a landmark (along with Flinders Street Station and
W-Class Trams) in a city where landmarks are hard to find.’ (Age editorial)
•
‘Melbourne’s landmarks may be smaller and plainer than Sydney’s, but it loves them
nonetheless. Yesterday it lost one of its sentimental favourites …’
•
Neil Mitchell: ‘the Myer Christmas Window, the Royal Children’s Hospital, and the
St Kilda Pier are Melbourne icons’.
•
‘Its on Tourism Victoria’s marketing brochures, Qantas Magazines, and everyone
who comes down here takes a photo of it. For 100 years its been a real symbol.’
•
Colin Kerby referred to the building as an icon. ‘Very very sad … I used to say
people came to Melbourne to see the Shrine of Remembrance and the St Kilda Pier
kiosk - I don’t know if that was quite correct but it sounds good.’
•
The kiosk was a rare building - ‘a place whose landmark value was undisputed’.
Significant not only to the locals who used it most, but to the whole of Melbourne,
and its international tourists.
•
‘No shortage of local, even international interest; as always [the pier] a mecca of
international interest; he’s heard German accents, Japanese tour groups, Africans…’
A Part of Melbourne
•
‘St Kilda is such a distinctive place, with its own community, but the pier is also a
place for the whole of Melbourne (not just ‘insiders’). It has been part of an allMelbourne experience (…there are six tram routes that terminate in St Kilda).’
•
Deputy Premier Thwaites: ‘… all over Melbourne a place to come to enjoy the sun
but also appreciate the incredible heritage value’.
•
‘Fire has destroyed a part of Melbourne’s heritage, with the historic St Kilda pier
kiosk being severely damaged …’
•
‘a great loss to Melbourne heritage.’
Writers and artists note how representations and images made the kiosk a part of the
Melbourne milieu:-
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
79
•
‘The more something is represented the more real it becomes…’
•
‘For an artist, places not only have visual attributes, but they can become landmarks
in their “invented narratives”: this is “how a place becomes a place”.’
Another person put it simply:•
‘It is part of Melbourne.’
Wide Affection for the Kiosk
In addition to the affection in which it was held by the majority of locals, the kiosk was
also dear to people throughout Melbourne and beyond.
•
‘I loved that building and believe the iconic status is worth preserving - under glass if
necessary.’
•
‘The pier is in so many people’s hearts…’
•
Premier Bracks: ‘a tragedy … a great icon for Melbourne, for Victoria’.
•
Deputy Premier Thwaites: ‘…this has been a place for all Victorian’s …’
•
A postie friend rang him that morning, offering his condolences - ‘apparently the
whole mail sorting room was shaken, talking about the excursions they had made
there with family and friends.’
•
Derek Guille: ‘A sad thing … its been part of the Melbourne landscape’.
•
‘…an image that’s central to the memories of many many Melburnians.’
•
‘Shame to see it go. This was big news here in Queensland … I guess this is
Victoria’s equivalent of the pier/ballroom Britain lost to the sea at Brighton not all
that long ago’.
•
‘…the “outpouring of grief” at the loss of the St Kilda Pier Kiosk to fire recently.’
•
The kiosk was a rare building - ‘a place whose landmark value was undisputed’.
Visual Impressions of the Kiosk
While many people used and had a particular attachment to the kiosk as a consequence, it is
likely that for the majority, as one informant said, it was not a ‘facility that people specifically
rushed out to use’, but was more ‘something they looked out on’. They liked its architectural
features, and its situation on the end of the pier. But the combination of its architecture and
setting had a powerful impact on the emotions and imagination of many people.
The most remarked feature of its formal architectural characteristics was its overall
‘architectural lines’: its shape, roofline, silhouette. Even its formal architectural qualities were
not viewed in isolation however, but rather as part of cultural - essentially historical landscapes. Most images of the pier are expressed in terms of its various settings and
comparative contexts: of the pier, of St Kilda, and of Melbourne.
Over and above its more formal architectural features, the kiosk inspired powerful reactions in
people that could best be summed by the word ‘enchanting’. Words and phrases frequently
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
80
used were ‘modest’, ‘light’, and ‘fits the pier’. Other prominent words included: casual,
graceful, pretty, perfect, beautiful, gentle, delicate and welcoming. Complementary
sentiments were expressed with words such as timeless, fantasy, soft, folly, uplifting, fairytale quality, timeless, quaint, magical, float, hover, and surreal.
All this evokes the ‘ornament’ to the simple, timeless, pleasure of a walk on a pier that an
Edwardian ornamental pier kiosk was designed to be. Many of its descriptive words would
support the several explicit characterisations of its form as ‘feminine’. It also seems to
suggest an other-worldliness. The much observed ‘lightness’ of the place in its seascape
intimates a transcendence befitting its frontier location, on the boundary between nature and
civilisation. Taking a walk out on that long pier really is going out on a limb, entering
another world. The image of a link to another realm is suggested in many heavily
atmospheric photographs of the place, which became a distinguishing emblem below dramatic
skies in Melbourne’s inimitable ‘weather’ quarter.
Its Architectural Form
•
Architecturally ‘well married’ to the ‘experience of a pier’.
•
Its ‘roundness’, that is, its ‘dome’ shaped roof. This ‘very Melbourne’, eg Flinders
Street Station, Exhibition Buildings, City Baths.
•
Its rounded slightly ‘domed’ roof, its rounded windows, its ‘feminine’ shape. There
is enough ‘hard edged’ architecture about. But relatively few major domed buildings
remaining (Exhibition Buildings, State Library, Flinders Street Station, City Baths).
•
The cast-iron balustrading atop the mansard roof was noted as a feature of Melbourne
that is being lost (eg at Willsmere).
•
Architecture very Edwardian - Brighton Pavilion style.
•
Retain the ‘line of it’, especially the distinctive rooftop.
•
The ‘rounded windows’ of the ‘fabulous upstairs room.’
•
‘A memorable building to look at … loved its form’.
•
‘…architectural lines very beautiful.’
•
‘Such a symmetrical building’.
•
‘A square wooden building with a balloon-shaped arch over the front door, topped by
a clerestory and cast iron balcony.’
•
A number of informants had a strong aversion to its ‘baby-poo’ heritage colours,
preferring the former light (white?) colour.
Images of the Building
•
‘The pavilion … was not grand. It did not look important … It did not look
substantial, which accounted for much of its charm … not … a trend-setter.’ (Age
editorial)
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
81
‘The pavilion was a frivolous structure, and that is why it will be missed. Its purpose,
all of its life, was to give pleasure and it succeeded admirably in doing so.’ (Age
editorial)
•
‘… a fine and noble building …’ (Sunday Age editorial)
•
The kiosk was ‘graceful, casual, and fitted the pier’.
•
It had ‘kept a casual look - not too grand - suited the pier’.
•
Its ‘modesty’, relatively unassuming shape, timber.
•
Its ‘homely, human proportions’.
•
It ‘fits in so well’.
•
‘A soft place … no neon lights … ’
•
‘… little timber building - basically single storey, with an upstairs room…’
•
‘feels light upon the water…’
•
‘A nice, welcoming place at the end of the pier.’
•
‘That greeting at the end of the pier.’
•
It is ‘such a great shape’ - ‘not grand’, ‘quaint’, ‘beautiful’, ‘almost child-like’.
•
Its ‘slightly fairy-tale quality’.
•
‘A little ice-cream cake at the end of the pier’.
•
Like an architectural ‘folly’: not a style of architecture like anything else.
•
Visually ‘such a lovely building’ ……light-hearted, timeless … it uplifted the spirits’.
•
‘funny, bumpy, dumpy, but delicate … So small, but still able to be so mysterious
(like a grown-up’s cubby house).’
•
‘Its shape and site are both so deeply affecting and symbolic’.
•
‘Such a tragedy’ to have lost ‘its magic’. ‘You could sense its history and function
years ago’.
•
‘light feeling’
•
‘a touch of fairyland’
•
‘slightly crazy, fantasy’;
•
‘none of the façade that graced the end of the pier for more than 100 years is left’
•
It was elegant, charming, gentle design.
•
‘all the timber shingles, and gorgeous detailing on the roof, and lovely arched
windows. It was such a familiar landscape…’
•
Gaps between the pier decking one of the charms of the place.
•
‘It is timeless… has a little magnetism all of its own… enhances the pier …’
•
‘People were enchanted by it.’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
82
Its Immediate (Pier) Setting
•
Having a coffee at the kiosk ‘was very nautical - like being on a moored boat - safe,
but very much sea-going’.
•
‘…the spirit’ of the former building was ‘weatherboard, light, sea-shanty like’.
•
Elements to which the kiosk exposed its customers, especially on the ‘key deck area:•
bobbing boats
•
smell of sea air
•
view of the sky
•
wind
•
the view of the sea between the pier deck
•
gulls
•
fishers
•
‘a seaside pier kiosk is so rare’.
•
‘inside / outside’ at the same time.
•
‘It was a quirky little building surrounded by water.’ (Age editorial)
•
‘… kiosk the only building truly surrounded by sea’.
•
‘But for the 99 years that it withstood the weather on Port Phillip Bay … did have its
own claim to uniqueness … it was the only place of its kind to be encircled by the
sea.’
•
‘A period temple to passive recreation, beautifully scaled to terminate the vista of the
pier promenade.’
•
‘I believe the area was perfect, and an ultra-modern, federation square style structure
will look wrong and out-of-place on the end of the pier’.
•
Chrisaus: ‘Could this trigger a major rebuild of the area?’ Clem: ‘An upgrade isn’t
needed. The area was already perfect…’.
Its Setting in the Landscape
•
‘ unobtrusive - modest - doesn’t dominate - the sea takes first place.’
•
‘ memorable for its grace, but also low-key, and not intrusive.’
•
It is set on ‘the edge of the wilderness’ - ‘one of the few places where there is a view
of the horizon’.
•
The view from the shore, looking over the bay, beyond the kiosk, is the view of
Melbourne’s ‘beautiful light and ever changing atmosphere’. This view is of the sky of Melbourne’s famous weather changes coming in regularly from the south-west,
and sunsets - and of particular importance to the artist. But on canvass this could be
any sky and bay in the world if not for the distinctive, famous, kiosk. That is, the
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
83
kiosk is the part that identifies the big view of this sky as being in Melbourne. It is
also a sheltered homely place to linger on these epic views.
•
‘The ‘big skies, and the little silhouette of Kerby’s’
•
‘the elements - air, sea - are integral to the experience of the place’.
•
Its ‘silhouette, with sun going down behind it’.
•
‘floating - not solid’
•
‘The sheer beauty of the pavilion, its Victorian curves and delicacy always giving the
impression that it hovered above the water rather than merely sat on the pier ... ‘
•
It appears ‘almost surreal in its isolation’.
•
The view from the foreshore is ‘so bleak and industrial’ without the friendly presence
of the kiosk.
•
It provided a ‘memorable’ view to the city.
Its Historical Character
In addition to its particular St Kilda historical associations (see previous ‘St Kilda’s History
and Heritage’), the kiosk was seen as a rich place in terms of Melbourne’s history, and
Australia’s heritage. Almost all of the initial media reports of the fire referred to the kiosk as
‘historic’, or ‘heritage listed’. The tone was lamentation: ‘it is sad to see a historic site suffer
such a fate.’
Over the following days its historical credentials were chronicled in newspaper articles.
Its distinctive architecture was thought to be a rare testimony to era and style of the British
Edwardian seaside resort, perhaps with references to the Mediterranean Riviera. Its rarity,
indeed uniqueness, as a pier pavilion was critically important for a number of people. One
commentator interpreted this more deeply, believing that its uniqueness made an irreplaceable
contribution to our understanding of ourselves as a layered, migrant city.
Whereas its contribution to a foreshore cultural landscape of rare integrity has been noted in a
previous section, one commentator remarked on an important additional aspect of its
integrity: its undeveloped seascape context.
The kiosk has also acquired much social history over its 99 year life. Glimpses of these
personal associations surfaced in the media coverage - memories and stories that have yet to
be fully recorded.
•
‘The first European style pier pavilion in Australia.’
•
The only building of this type - pier pavilion - that remained in Australia.
•
The past layers of the world’s great cities remain clearly visible. They are the sum of
what immigrants have remembered of and brought in from their homelands. (This is
a major theme of his writings, including Café Scheherazade). The kiosk was a unique
representation of one of these historical layers: the Edwardian seaside resort. It was a
‘unique aspect of our cultural diversity’.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
84
The kiosk had a rare integrity: its landscape context remained intact. It had no
skyscrapers next to it, or any buildings to interfere with views to it. ‘You don’t have
to imagine what it might have looked like 100 years ago - you can see it.’
•
The 1904 kiosk ‘resembled a grand palace rather than a sandwich shop at the beach,
partly because St Kilda was once the landing point for visiting royalty.’
•
‘The pier is the gateway to [sic] which royalty came to Melbourne. Dozens of royal
personages … walked up the pier between 1890 to [sic] 1940 along a specially laid
red carpet.’
•
‘… a proud past … the pier a gateway for royalty arriving by yacht’ (between 1880
and 1930).
•
Its distinctive Edwardian architecture, especially the exotic flourishes associated with
a ‘fun seaside resort’: hybrid of British, French, Moorish styles.
•
It is a ‘terrific rendition’ of Edwardian seaside resort architecture, with its fantasy and
promenading.
•
‘A rather unique bit of seaside Edwardian architecture…’
•
‘…once a weather bureau.’
•
She liked its ‘old world’ character ‘up top’, where she sat.
•
Its ‘significance as a heritage building … awesome’. People felt that it was a last
bastion - link - to the past. People enjoyed ‘the historical sense of the building
juxtaposed to the city’ (that you see from there).
The secret life of the kiosk: fragments of memories and untapped stories:
•
‘People went up to the widows walk; [in former times] the women used to go up there
to wave off the servicemen as they went out to sea and off to war’.
•
‘a dance venue for American soldiers during World War 2’.
•
‘Just having great nostalgia trips’: c.1945, she and girlfriends caught tram from
eastern suburbs to St Kilda on Sunday. They were jealous of the older girls who used
to jitterbug at the kiosk. ‘…. Men in zoot-suits and two-toed shoes - I think mainly
American soldiers; girls used to wear their hair up at the front and smoothed down at
the back.’
•
Talkback caller talks about the ‘hilarious stories that Colin Kerby used to tell ‘… of
the changing history of St Kilda, and pier; Kerby should write a book about the
American Servicemen during the war.’
•
(Recalling Melbourne 1937-45) ‘St Kilda was a wonderful place for entertainment.
Very few people had cars, and those who had them could hardly get any petrol for
them …. People in those days for entertainment went to picture theatres or Saturday
night dances, or the beach. That’s about all they had. It was a wonderful spot; on a
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
85
hot day you couldn’t move on St Kilda ….’ He used to fish on the pier, and the kiosk
was a part of that memory.
•
‘Kerby used to brew his own - seemed to do what he liked on the end of the pier. The
authorities used to come and tip his beer over the side into the sea there - but he’d
have another batch knocked up before …He used to have a bit of a dance floor on the
side where the tables are now. You’d have to go through the kiosk to buy something,
to get on the dance floor. But there was such a lot of geeks like looking on, that he
electrified the fence …. It used to keep them off.’
•
‘I used to wander over to the pier to chat to the fishermen or whatever I did, and I
remember going in there and they were terribly friendly and sweet people…. (the
Kerbys). And for a long time there I used to sleep behind the light green Tarax soft
drink crates…Sarsparalla (‘tasted like old runner’) … the ‘inedible’ whiting, potato
cakes, and a ‘lovely sort of fish cake - Chico Fish Cakes … People on hot nights used
to hang around there. It was so incredibly friendly; I wasn’t the “bore in residence”’.
•
Memories as ‘a child on his bike along Beaconsfield Parade, and then ice-cream from
kiosk. As a youth with a drivers licence and little clue what to do he and his friends
would go to Johnny’s Green Room (Carlton), and then perhaps for a souvlaki (an allnighter in Richmond), on to Fitzroy Street, and finally the St Kilda Pier.’
•
She remembers being taken there as a child, and took here own son there when he
was just a baby.
•
As a youth the pier/pavilion was just the background to a hectic lifestyle that focussed
on the local music scene and pubs. After moving to St Kilda as an adult, it was a
place to walk for exercise, the scene of a party for her three-year-old (upstairs in the
kiosk), and general family life with its ice-creams and penguins.
•
‘Much history of the kiosk remains to be explored, eg the Olympics period.’
Its Functions
The word ‘destination’ was regularly used by commentators. It was a focus for trips,
especially neighbourhood walks by locals; it terminated the vista of a promenade on the pier;
it was a key place in the landscape, the ‘flow’ or ‘sweep’ of the St Kilda foreshore; and it was
a destination or marker where families and friends gathered. It was also a part of the world of
the fishers, yachties, ‘leathermen’, fishing-boat hire operators, and others who gathered on the
pier.
The kiosk enhanced (or ‘ornamented’) a promenade on the pier. It was a place to meet family
or friends, and share a drink and light meal while savouring the views. And it could be an
intimate place in which to be alone, or to share friendship, or romance.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
86
Promenading (or just walking) the Pier
The kiosk and pier were intertwined, they had a symbiotic relationship. The pier looks
bleak without it.
The kiosk was a ‘pretty’ place that enticed and welcomed people along the long pier. It
ornamented the simple pleasure of a pier promenade on a fair day. But once there, the
stroller also entered a vastly different, primal world of the elements: a royal sea, a fresh
wind and salt spray, the big ever-changing south-western sky, inky clouds coloured by a
sunset, a starry night, penguins and native rats, smells and textures of a nautical world of
fishbait, boats, gulls, seaweed, weathered wood.
While the pier stroller might not have entered the kiosk, it was casually there,
comfortably-scaled, gracious, adding its bit of elegance and joy to our small adventure.
This function - of focus and backdrop at the same time - is also powerfully evident in the
many photographs in which the kiosk is a foreground marker to a big, often dramatic, sky.
•
A ‘visual anchoring point’: first the ‘beautiful perspectival view down the pier, then
came to the building.’
•
‘Its overall length is one of the things that makes it [the pier] special’ … to ‘take a
walk, and enjoy the water…’
•
‘Walking on the pier … a timeless pleasure’
•
Its impact is enhanced by its position at the end of an unusually long pier.
•
‘Even those who didn’t go to the kiosk just liked having it there’.
•
‘…a kind of destination - people liked walking there’.
•
‘…a place of very pleasant memories of Sundays gone by.’
•
He and wife walked to pier each day.
•
‘I’ve always taken walks out on the pier and the kiosk is great in summer.’
•
‘…always someone on the pier - day or night.’
•
Unidentified local male: ‘says the kiosk was great place to visit during summer’
•
‘… deprived visitors of the pleasure of sharing in the summer ritual of strolling along
the pier for an ice-cream.’
•
‘The thing to do was to go to the St Kilda kiosk. It was the only kiosk on a pier in
Australia.’
•
She would ‘always take overseas or interstate visitors there.’
•
The kiosk provided a unique experience in that it was a place that people could only
reach by foot, approaching slowly along its main vista.
•
‘…a backdrop for water views, sunsets, wedding pictures…’
•
‘It’s not unusual to get 20,000 people on the pier on a nice day- it’s one of the main
promenade areas of Melbourne’.
•
‘For the 2.5 million people who walk along St Kilda pier every year, the kiosk was
either a destination - a purveyor of hot food and shelter when a southerly was blowing
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
87
- or a reassuring visual punctuation mark’. (Also physically divided the anglers and
the ‘leathermen’.) (Age editorial)
A Place to Sit and Enjoy
Although, as previously noted, most might not have gone to the pier because of the kiosk,
some did. It was a place to be alone, a meeting place, or a place for a special event such
as wedding photographs.
For many it was an integral part of a pier outing. They chose to enjoy their exposure to
the natural world from the relative comfort of the kiosk, enjoying its morsels of
civilisation - sheltered seat, coffee, or a light meal - gazing out on the elements, listening
to the bobbing boats, wondering at the city skyline and the lights tracing the shore.
For a few locals it was not a favourite place. Others again noted its limitations in terms of
functionality: weather, space, and quality and prices of the fare.
•
‘A nice place to sit.’ Nice view back to St Kilda, and good having the penguins there
too.
•
Loved the simplicity of the experience - sitting quietly for hours.
•
In those days [early 1980s] it was old fashioned: it retained a little bit of ‘the past’.
Although that has changed a bit, and the kiosk now ‘a bit smarter’, a little of the oldworld remains: people fishing in the early morning; and ‘as the day opens, it is still an
easy place.’ ‘It is still a low-key sort of place’. (But natural that it changed a bit to
meet today’s more up-market St Kilda demographic.)
•
‘… part of Melbourne’s heritage … since 1904, successive generations have brought
their ice-creams and sipped their beverages while gazing out across the breakwater
and into the bay.’ (Sunday Age editorial)
•
‘along with many Melburnians, I have had a pleasant afternoon, having fish and chips
or café latte on the end of St Kilda Pier.’
•
‘Its devastating. We come for a walk every Friday and have a coffee at the kiosk.’
•
‘A people’s place - people came down for weddings, in all weather.’
•
His group of retired friends have been cycling there each Wednesday for many years.
They took a photograph of themselves there the day before it was destroyed by the
fire (see attachments).
•
He, ‘like most Melburnians [had] memories of going down there for a hot chocolate
or whatever even on a wintry Sunday afternoon.’
•
At the end of the week she would sit and relax at the kiosk. An icon in her life.
•
‘It was such an icon of St Kilda and it was the one place you could walk out over
water and comfortably sit in a café’.
•
‘Sentimentally, I think thousands of people will recall how the clean fresh air
expanded the aromas of good food.’.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
88
‘Fish and chips on the St Kilda pier will continue for generations after a promise from
the Victorian Premier Steve Bracks to rebuild …’
•
‘Generations of Victorians and hundreds of thousands of tourists have promenaded to
the kiosk, buying coffee, slurping ice-cream and scoffing fish and chips’.
•
‘We quite often have coffee at the kiosk and we’ve had many family functions
upstairs. It’s been a very significant part of our lives.’
•
He would occasionally go there with grandchildren and buy an ice-cream.
•
‘No-one could feel out of place’.
•
It was more functional and hospitable after its restoration.
•
‘Former kiosk not very practical in terms of exposure to elements ….a southerly
breeze would blow the froth off your cappucino…’
•
Kiosk ‘simply wasn’t big enough for the population of the destination’.
•
He didn’t find it a pleasurable place to sit and eat; he went there sometimes, usually
with his family, and thought it was over-priced.
•
He simply wanted to ‘look out on the horizon’. ‘Everyone can walk onto the pier and
find a spot, and rest - don’t need a cappuccino to do this’. ‘Don’t need to rebuild
anything - simply the ‘pleasure of a walk along the pier, and the smell of the sea’
•
She had never had coffee or food in the kiosk.
•
(She) walked straight past it on her walks to the end of the pier. Could get better
coffee and food elsewhere.
•
(For her) its ‘meaning was limited’: it was a ‘nice-looking, fairly simple historical
building’. …‘the most important thing about it [for her] was that people cared’.
•
a place of relaxation, and slowness. It was ‘quiet, alone with the waves’.
•
A colleague told her she had done all her university assignments upstairs in the
Kiosk. It was a quiet place.
•
It was her ‘wishing point’, looking at Melbourne.
A Place of our ‘Inner Landscapes’
At times it seemed that half of Melbourne and a broad sample of the international
community was enjoying time-out on the pier. But the kiosk was also described as
having been a marker in many ‘inner landscapes’. In quiet times the kiosk could be a
place of retreat and refuge. Many people enjoyed the unintimidating, easy, almost
reclusive experience of the place, and used it as a place to reflect or relax. For artists it
provided a perpetual subject; for authors a place of inspiration (three of those interviewed
had used it to write parts of books); actors and students found it a peaceful place to read
scripts or study. For ordinary people too it had been a very intimate place: of private
reflection, a talk with a friend, or romance. For some the kiosk had become a place of
important family gatherings. It had been a part of the special moments in many lives.
Most people who had known the kiosk in this way (there were many) were amongst the
most articulate and/or passionate proponents for its reconstruction.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
89
‘…but most of all for the kind of musing that is unloosed wherever there is a rail to
lean on and waves to look upon.’ (Age editorial)
•
Would sit for hours, undisturbed - writing, thinking, having a cup of tea; ‘never felt
harassed by well-heeled clientelle, or a rapid pace of service’ (as in some other
places)
•
‘Quiet moments very special there’. Wonderful memories of being up there by
herself: staring out to sea. Once she saw school of dolphins. (She wrote some of The
Republic of Women there.)
•
Her book contains a scene in which a character retreats to the kiosk after a personal
crisis, to ‘calm herself down’.
•
He wrote a good deal of Café Sheherazade in the kiosk.
•
‘It is a special place, where on many occasions I go to read scripts’.
•
‘serene … boats bobbing’
•
He often walked to the end of the pier, usually by himself - ‘away from it all’. Onto
the breakwater rocks. Sometimes fishing. Sometimes he practiced his scales in the
isolation of the end of the breakwater. But he could be heard, and he became known
as ‘the singer out there on the rocks’. He would stop at the kiosk for a drink, upstairs.
•
‘I hope you get some callers in who’ll tell you about that long lonely walk that it is in
winter (as well) …’
•
We don’t need to go out to the end of the pier to have this conversation [exploring the
‘language of architecture today’]. ‘We might just like to enjoy an ice-cream in
silence.’
•
The kiosk is a ‘site in the inner landscape of many people …’ The pier/kiosk
sometimes a place of profound personal ‘beginnings’ (of romances, including her
own), or ‘endings’.
•
He and his wife had their first date there.
•
‘it is terribly sad because I proposed to my wife on the pier there’
•
‘lots of memories of individual lives…’
•
‘Mum grew up in St Kilda - when she dies she wants her ashes thrown off the end of
the pier’.
•
‘memories of romance at the end of the pier on a balmy summer night, and windy
winter days that brought tears to the eyes.’
•
‘I’ve walked out there with my girlfriend, its quite a romantic spot. Its terrible that a
building that old has been burnt down’.
•
‘…many couples who walked the pier eventually got married’.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
90
‘Though you don’t go there [the pier] because of it [the kiosk]…it is right for
whatever mood you are in - wild, quiet … it wraps around you …’
•
He met his wife when they had both gone there to photograph a beautiful sunset. It
was a place for romance.
•
There were always actors employed as waiters. It was a place that had ‘nothing to do
with the real world’.
Fabricated Meanings
Searching for the meanings of the kiosk has also touched on broader and more arcane issues.
It is not within the scope of this report to explore urban semiotics, but it is perhaps notable
that theories about the fabrication of the ‘new world’ urban landscape have been set in St
Kilda, and revived by the question of whether the kiosk should be rebuilt.
•
Fooke (Film ‘Pleasure Domes’): the landscape of St Kilda foreshore, once an indigenous
metaphor, has been reshaped by seductive metaphors of glamour from the Riviera and
Hollywood. It is ‘any landscape’, that is foreign, that originates elsewhere.
•
Zable (Café Sheherazade): the urban landscape represents the layers of immigrants whose
nostalgia for home has shaped it at different times. As well as physically shaping the
landscape, immigrants also reinterpret the existing landscape in terms of their memories
of home.
•
Cattapan: the contemporary milieu will always paint its authentic patina, and new
meanings, on our historical landscape/buildings.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
4.4
91
OPINIONS ON RECONSTRUCTION
The quantitative survey of opinion (section 4.2) showed overwhelming support for
reconstruction. This section is a qualitative survey of the views and arguments for and against
reconstruction. It also includes responses to a proposal for a reconstructed kiosk with
additions.
It is intended that this will contribute a more nuanced if not full picture of what the public
values about and would like to see happen at the end of the pier. It also includes the author’s
summaries and comments on the quotes at the beginning of each subheading.
The section is structured as follows: ‘Arguments in Favour of Reconstruction’; ‘Arguments in
Favour of a Contemporary Design’; and ‘Additional Comments and Qualifications Regarding
a Reconstructed or Contemporary Kiosk.’ The public opinions have been divided into sub
headings within these sections.
Some points which emerge from this section include:•
The distinctive architecture of the former kiosk was so well loved, and the exceptional
quality of the site is so widely appreciated, that there is a fear (even among in-principle
supporters of a contemporary building) that a new design might not be as wonderful, or as
worthy of the site.
•
The need for a reconstruction to be a very good quality, as authentic as possible
(apparently approaching but not quite ‘purism’); if not, better that it’s not reconstructed at
all. The question of ‘authentic to what period’ was also raised by one commentator.
•
The majority of commentators thought that some form of extension to the kiosk would be
appropriate in order to incorporate more ‘functional’ elements. The extension of the
previous kiosk were a model in terms of size and design; an extension should be low-key,
and not dominate a reconstructed kiosk, the landscape, or the promenading experience.
•
The use and look of any future kiosk should be accessible, casual, subordinate (incidental
and complementary) to promenading. The objective would be to keep the same pavilionlike modesty and human-scale of the original, and retain the successful and subtle
relationship between the pier and the kiosk.
•
While there were a few suggestions (not from locals) that the fire presented an
opportunity for new pier attractions or restaurant facilities, many locals did express the
view that a sympathetic extension (to a reconstructed kiosk) would be appropriate and
reasonable in order to improve the functionality. However, in line with its identification
as a ‘peoples’ place’ there was overwhelming, and almost adamant, support in the local
community for keeping it ‘accessible’ to a wide range of people (including families)
through maintaining its casual style and moderate fare and prices. A ‘big departure’, such
as a large building or change of use from kiosk to restaurant ‘dining’, was thought to be
entirely inappropriate.
•
•
Many commentators took issue with the assertion that reconstruction is a ‘fraud’.
This rare proposal for a professional accurate reconstruction does not represent ‘heritage
gone mad’, but is rather an acknowledgement that we all have a memory of a very special
place which we want to continue in some form. Our need to assert confidence in our
current designers need not fuel a backlash against the enjoyment and respect for heritage.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
92
Arguments in Favour of Reconstruction:
The main protagonists of the case for reconstruction have been the Herald Sun, the Age, and
the Sunday Age newspapers, and the City of Port Phillip, widely represented by its Mayor Cr
Liz Johnstone. The reasons given for reconstruction have been gathered into general
headings:
Part of Melbourne
•
‘Reconstruct. It’s part of Melbourne’
•
Fire ‘robbed Melbourne of one of its postcard views’.
•
‘We think to put a modern building on that site would be a crime. It was a place that
was a big part of Melbourne. It had a feeling about it that you didn’t get from the
modern buildings.’
•
‘There has been a wave of emotion among Melburnians. People are ringing up [the
Council] and wanting to send money [to reconstruct].’
A Unique and Wonderful Building that ‘Worked’
Its iconic status, uniqueness, and sheer beauty are regarded as justification for its
reconstruction. Its transparent success as a building was not something that we should
take for granted now, as we contemplate what should replace it.
•
‘People say let’s try something new and we could end up with a building as beautiful
as the opera house … but I think we already had that’.
•
‘It worked.’
•
The view of the Historical Society members is more practical than sentimental:-‘if its
not broke don’t fix it’. ‘It works’.
•
Very few buildings have a ‘wow’ factor, and ‘achieve iconic status’. Don’t know if
an alternative would achieve these things.
•
The kiosk ‘…happened to work: the right scale; the right impression’ (‘whimsy’
rather than ‘grandeur’)
•
‘an icon’ … that … ‘could not be recreated’
•
‘… there is a call for change for changes sake …’
•
‘an icon’ … that … ‘could not be recreated by a postmodern pastiche ….’
•
‘Tears have been shed for the loss of this significant St Kilda landmark. The little
kiosk was so well-loved by Melburnians that people cried … There is no guarantee
that the winning entry of any competition will engender such feelings, and so it
shouldn’t be simply regarded as a bit of terra incognita begging for an idea to bring it
to life. I would think differently if the original building had not been such a
resounding success across generations ….’.
•
The only building of this type - pier pavilion - remaining in Australia.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
93
It is a ‘unique aspect of our cultural diversity’. If there were others surviving, the
case for retaining it might not be so strong.
•
‘unique in Melbourne.’
•
‘unique in Australia.’
•
‘Replace the building as close as possible to its original form because it was iconic.’
•
‘…it was a beautiful example of its era, and we should try and recapture some of that
and reflect the glorious past of St Kilda in doing so…’.
•
‘Rebuilt. It’s a St Kilda icon’.
•
‘But … how could any other structure be contemplated? The sheer beauty of the
pavilion….. should not be sacrificed ... In this case, it must be a case of aesthetics as
usual.’ (Sunday Age editorial)
•
‘off shore, on the waves….’ (in glorious isolation)
•
‘…this place is an icon and a absolute piece of Victorian heritage lost
forever…Heritage Victoria should have architects re-create the plans on buildings
like this for posterity’ ‘RIP St Kilda Pier Kiosk 2003 - you were loved by many - we
eagerly await your return’.6
Its Heritage Value
With little apparent knowledge of or concern for formal architectural justification, the
kiosk was popularly identified as a part of Melbourne’s and St Kilda’s heritage. While its
enchanting, whimsical character has been previously noted, the emphasis of arguments
for its reconstruction also identified its evocation of the gracious era of promenading, and
its value as a key part of heritage precincts: an extraordinarily intact seascape and
foreshore cultural landscape. It was also recognised as a unique ‘layer’ of the city’s
history. There was a very strong feeling that too much of St Kilda’s, and Melbourne’s,
heritage has been lost already.
•
The kiosk has a rare integrity: its landscape context remains intact. It is without
skyscrapers next to it, or any buildings to interfere with views to it. You don’t have
to imagine what it might have looked like 100 years ago - you can see it.
•
‘The old kiosk reflected a gracious era when a stroll on the pier was a way of life. In
this high-pressure age, it still can be.’ (Herald Sun editorial)
•
The kiosk ‘is only a small component of a much larger structure or cultural landscape,
which could be defined as the Edwardian and interwar beach promenade including
6
This language of death and life invokes themes of resurrection or reincarnation, or simply (as with
Jim Holdsworth) sheer human determination not to be thwarted by one man’s ‘moment of madness’.
The metaphysical dimension is viewed differently by others in the debate, who say ‘its gone’, or, ‘its
spirit’s gone’, and see reconstruction as futile as well as destructive of something new. The death of a
loved one was also a metaphor employed by Chris Johnston in HeritageChat. In thinking about an
appropriate response to the fire she pondered that a lost person/place does live on in our memory, and
that we ‘move on’ once the grieving is done.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
94
everything from the north end of Catani Gardens at the Beaconsfield Hotel - to Luna
Park.’
•
It was part of the larger history of the promenading era and St Kilda’s foreshore
history: the Edwardian era was the high point in seaside promenading. The
development of the Upper Esplanade, Catani Gardens, and palm plantings express
this, modelled specifically on nineteenth century Riviera resorts. By contrast, the
latter twentieth century saw few piers, mostly private marinas, built. Promenading
has now made a revival, and foreshores revived as a consequence, but the modern era
has not earned the right to usurp the Edwardian era. Certainly in St Kilda it makes
sense to reconstruct a building which has been an icon not only of St Kilda, but of an
era. St Kilda foreshore is a place shaped by that era.
•
Kiosk is a symbol of Melbourne’s ‘connection with the sea’. (Sunday Age editorial)
•
He now accepts that the kiosk is a component of an historic foreshore landscape, and
should be reconstructed. By about 1910 the Foreshore Committee radically changed
the area, and most of the buildings date from about that time; so the kiosk should be
reconstructed.
•
‘…the silhouette of the original tea pavilion … is complementary to Luna Park and
the Palais, and to what the Sea Baths should have been.’
•
‘Melbourne has lost much of its unique architectural past to development and
exhibitionist architecture. Even our W-Class Trams face opposition to their return to
the tracks.’ (Herald Sun editorial)
•
‘We have already lost half of Luna Park, St Moritz (which has been replaced with a
terrible building of no architectural merit whatsoever) … and we are all the poorer for
it. The kiosk was an important part of St Kilda and an accurate reconstruction is the
most appropriate response to the loss we have suffered.’
•
‘a lot of St Kilda’s history has been lost, eg, with flats in 1960s, St Moritz… This is
‘still one of the remaining historic sites’. ‘it just reminds you of earlier times - this
could still be achieved again with reconstruction’…
•
‘St Kilda has lost a lot to development’
•
St Kilda lost much of its historical architecture already.
•
‘St Kilda has many modern buildings … it is important to keep our heritage.’
•
Hope that Premier’s promise to rebuild ‘under heritage guidelines’ means that ‘a
replica of the original building will be erected on the pier.’ (Age editorial)
•
‘We don’t realise how precious some things are until they’re gone; and the
memories, I don’t think they’ll be enough - we’ll chase the Council or Parks Victoria
or whoever else is responsible and find out if they’re going to rebuild…’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
95
‘If a structure of historical significance is destroyed, it has to be rebuilt … to the way
it originally was, using the latest technology.’ ‘In a fair sense you are preserving your
city’s heritage by rebuilding and allowing great structures of the past to exist for
future generations’.
•
‘I’m a bit nostalgic and sentimental and close to the fire - I just want to look out at the
pier and see it there again…’
•
‘It should be rebuilt. It’s nice to retain the old style and structure, which is
characteristic of the area.’
•
‘It should be rebuilt. The heritage style is really good.’
Local Precedents
Similar works to ‘recreate’ or continue the early twentieth century character of the
foreshore precinct are evidence of it being a (key) part of a larger heritage ‘place’, and
provide a precedent for reconstruction.
•
Palm trees on the Esplanade, and ‘less successfully’, ‘period’ lighting on the pier and
the shelter at the foot of the pier, are evidence that this foreshore ‘cultural landscape’
remains valued by the local community.
•
‘There is already a reconstruction there. The pavilion at the start of the pier is a
reproduction of the long-lost original, though that was actually on the pier…’
•
‘Such replica structures point to the cultural landscape being the significant element
that people are trying to retain, rather than the fabric. The arguments over the St.Kilda
Sea Baths suggest this also.’
Many Other Places and Opportunities for Contemporary Architecture
This was a widespread and strongly put point of view.
•
There are opportunities everywhere (else) for ‘dazzlingly new’ architecture.
•
‘Why is a nineteenth century pier a good place to build a twenty-first century modern
marvel? Let the piers stand in their own right from east to west around the bay and
let twenty-first century development create its own infrastructure.’
•
There are enough new things on the foreshore (especially Port Melbourne). ‘Let there
be one statement from another era’.
•
There are ‘plenty of glitzy modern buildings in St Kilda’. But a contemporary
building would be ‘a little out of place’ on the historic foreshore area. It is a matter of
‘balance’.
•
If there is such a need for amazing sites with opportunity for the expression of our
contemporary design prowess why is there no interest in reviewing the proposed
drastic shortening of Princes Pier. This will have a substantial impact on its heritage
significance … ‘if there is any screaming opportunity, and need, for a balancing of
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
96
heritage and contemporary design interests’ it is there rather than St Kilda pier.
While designers are understandably very keen to make their mark there are other
opportunities, and it seems that the current debate is more opportunistic than
balanced.
•
‘… but there are plenty of other sites around Melbourne where buildings can and will,
and in fact have spoken the language of architectural thinking today.’
A ‘People’s Place’; ‘The People Want It.’
If it can be established (and the previous quantitative analysis backs this up) that the
public wants reconstruction, then Kate Shaw’s comment is key: ‘if people care that much’
to want it reconstructed, ‘then it should be reconstructed’.
•
The Premier’s restoration pledge ‘will be welcomed by Melburnians mourning the
loss of a landmark’. (Herald Sun editorial)
•
‘Council was unanimous in its support for a replica of the old kiosk …’
•
‘This is one where the ‘peoples’ choice’ must win; most people want the kiosk to be
rebuilt’.
•
‘Everyone she knows feels like this’.
•
Everyone at work feels the same.
•
‘All the people [in the St Kilda Historical Society] want it restored’.
•
‘Everyone’s in favour of it being restored’.
•
‘Locals would be pretty upset if it wasn’t reconstructed’.
•
‘I would consider myself as a successful architect if people fought to protect one of
my designs or openly wept if it was burned down.’
•
‘A pier is for the people’. ‘Streams of ordinary people visit it’. ‘Feel it [the kiosk]
was for everyone’.
•
‘Walking on the pier … a timeless pleasure, for young, old, rich, poor, everyone…’
•
She thinks that there would be hardly anyone in Melbourne who hasn’t walked the
pier.
•
‘Perhaps we should recognise that this is no longer a Heritage Place under our
definition and let the professionals butt out. Leave it to the people to do with as they
will.’
•
Heritage professionals should support 'social significance', and the Port Phillip
Council, ‘which is the democratically elected voice of the large population. Why
should the population’s voice be less important than heritage professionals when its a
matter of cultural significance to the locals?’
•
But ‘if people care that much’ to want the kiosk reconstructed, then it should be
reconstructed’.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
97
Don’t Trust Unknown New Design; and/or, Modern Architecture Is Inappropriate for this
Site.
The site is regarded as so exceptional, and the previous kiosk was considered so
appropriate to the site, that there is a real apprehension that a new design would not
deliver as good a design. (Even some who favoured the principle of a contemporary
building expressed hesitancy for this reason.)
Phillip Schmenitz’s further point, that part of the attraction of the former design was its
evocation of another period - something that could not be achieved with a contemporary
building - seems to reinforce similar references by others to the gracious period and
simple pleasures of promenading. His corollary that the architectural language ‘of our
times’ (largely derivative anyway) is inappropriate for the pier is echoed by others. Some
of these appear to have a much less sophisticated view, simply disliking modern
architecture per se.
•
‘This is not a site to get wrong.’ (Mayor Liz Johnstone)
•
Usually keen to see new architecture, but fear that it could go wrong on this site.
•
‘I still say reconstruction as I haven't seen much lately that I like better than the kiosk.
And please nothing with shards or blades.’ (Wendy Jacobs)
•
(Age editorial): ‘The pavilion was a satisfying structure and it would be a shame to
see it replaced by a glass and steel building that might provide better views of the sea
but would not, by itself, replace the view that we have lost’.
•
Phillip Schmenitz (in response to argument for ‘a building that spoke of the
architectural thinking of today’): ‘The kiosk was not simply a building, but an icon of
great whimsy and elegance and these are not the times when architects design in this
mode…’ ‘Federation Square, the new museum, Jeff’s shed are buildings that
architects perceive reflect the spirit of our times and the aesthetic embraced by all
these buildings is inappropriate one for the end of the pier’. ‘This is because the old
kiosk represented a bygone era, when simple pleasures were embraced, that people
found it so charming …’ (Further, these designs are derivative, from eg Russian
Constructivism, which would seem to have nothing to do with Melbourne.)
•
‘None of us look forward to the idea of some steel and glass structure there.’
•
‘I’m inclined to agree - the one thing that does sort of fill me with horror is the notion
that they will build something ‘tres moderne’ there.’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
98
I think you’re probably right; I think they’ll probably replace it with something
hideous and modern, which is a shame.’ (Red Symons): ‘Well if we get all up in
arms about it they might not…’
•
‘I struggle to conceive a building that would do the end of St Kilda Pier the same
“justice”.’ (Jon Faine): ‘I think that’s what most people would feel, but its going to
be interesting…’
•
Kiosk was ‘unique in Melbourne … A period temple to passive recreation, beautifully
scaled to terminate the vista of the pier promenade. A hard act for the postmodernist
to follow I would say. More interesting than most modern architecture.’
•
Modern architecture would be no substitute. Eg, Sea Baths (‘absolutely no
character’), Docklands (‘nothing outstanding’), Southbank (‘mishmash’), Casino
(unremarkable). St Kilda’s Luna Park and Pier Kiosk contrast sharply with these.
•
‘Architects arguing that the new building should reflect 21st Century designs “have a
point”, although he disagrees with their point of view “overall”. He (Doug Aiton)
says he is not a supporter of the architecture used at Federation Square.’
•
‘Why not just saw off a bit from Federation Square and bung it on St Kilda pier? It
would look horrible but would be in fashion. Go for a historic-style replica please.’
•
‘It is heartening to know that it will not be replaced by some vulgar, ugly, concrete
monstrosity.’
•
‘… I’d rather see the St Kilda pier with a replica of the 1904 kiosk, than another
Federation Square.’
•
But ‘a replica might be better than something second-rate’.
•
Something new and ‘fantastic’ would be great, but this would be hard to achieve.
Architectural Competition No Guarantee of a Good Design
•
‘The trouble is we may get something worse. Architectural competitions are not
always recipes for success. Look at the City Square and the Federation Arch to name
but two compromises.’
•
‘… an architectural competition on the other hand could end up a disaster (not to
mention a waste of money) and more likely to produce something “tacky”’.
•
An architectural competition would lead to ‘desperate argument about what it could
be’ - ‘a can of worms’ .. ‘impossible’.
•
Rebuild, because: ‘I don’t trust the City of Port Phillip’, who would make a hash of
any new development, as with the Sea Baths.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
99
‘I vote for rebuilding more or less to the same plan, for reasons of economy if nothing
else.’
•
‘The sheer beauty of the pavilion … should not be sacrificed for some architectural
compromise that disrupts the original balance between harmony and invention.’
(Sunday Age editorial)
•
Trust’s proposal re debate sounds good, but she fears that ‘the debate will rage in the
usual shambolic fashion with no debate 'monitors' but loud cries from architects
(sorry but you know who I mean) needing to win design competitions ...’
•
‘further debate would be fruitless and divisive.’ (City of Port Phillip)
Reconstruction Is Legitimate Conservation Practice
The Burra Charter is considered by heritage practitioners to provide strong support for the
view that reconstruction is theoretically valid. Consideration of the kiosk in its ‘setting’ the cultural landscape of St Kilda foreshore - further supports this, in that a kiosk
reconstruction becomes only a (physically) minor work to a larger heritage ‘place’.
Further, it is stated that the common understanding of heritage practitioners is that
reconstruction is legitimate for ‘iconic’ structures, places of outstanding social
significance; heritage places can be so loved, or important, that their communities are
happy to have them even in facsimile form. These ideas are backed up by precedents:
reconstruction is widely practiced in both Europe and Asia (numerous examples cited).
The proposed reconstruction of the Brighton West Pier is particularly pertinent.
One commentator noted that these reconstructions are not regarded as being fake ‘as long
as reconstruction is as exact as possible’. Another commentator found that when people
were assured that reconstruction (on the kiosk) could be done properly, they were more
likely to support it. Such observations indicate that it is the public as well as heritage
professionals who are also interested in and must be convinced that reconstruction is
legitimate or authentic. Part of the public judgement about whether any reconstruction of
the kiosk is ‘authentic’ or ‘fake’ will depend on the care and seriousness that is exercised
in trying to make it exact. There is evidence that a good portion, although probably not a
majority, of the public will want to know that any reconstruction has been ‘as exact as
possible’ using skilled professionals and artisans, and want to know of any compromises
that have been necessary. Public information about any kiosk reconstruction process
would be an important part of a general process of educating the public about heritage, in
particular, concerning the distinction between ‘mock historicism’ and ‘reconstruction’ (of
the same building).
It was also observed that there can be a very fine line between restoration and
reconstruction (eg, even a coat of paint constitutes new material, and changes the
appearance of a place). In this case, one observer noted that much of the material had
already been replaced. The consideration of ‘fine lines’ is also part of the ‘sliding scale of
appropriateness’ analysis of one commentator who (correctly) noted that the validity of
reconstruction is dependent on a place’s statement of significance. The legitimacy of
reconstruction depends then on how closely or absolutely this significance is related to the
original ‘fabric’, or alternatively to other values such as (in this case) its ‘design’.
•
John Briggs: It is ‘a distortion to suggest that because of the fire the significance is
obliterated. The Japanese experience has been raised…If people want a groovy new
building that's fine but to suggest that heritage policy is against reconstruction is
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
100
disingenuous … There may be problems with reproduction, or even more problematic
mock-period development, but professional reconstruction is not contrary to the Burra
Charter or local heritage policy.’ He cites Article 20. He also notes that it meets
Chris Johnston’s the AHC criteria for social significance. (That is, it has strong or
special social, cultural or spiritual associations with a particular community by reason
of its importance as a landmark, marker or signature; as a reference point in a
community's identity or sense of itself; and for strong attachments developed from
use and/or association with the place.)
•
Lorraine Huddle: The option ‘to reconstruct the St Kilda Pier exactly’ is entirely
appropriate and consistent with the Burra Charter. Cites Article 1 (definitions),
noting, inter alia, that ‘seeing original physical fabric up close is not necessarily the
most important cultural value’ that the kiosk had; that there is plenty of evidence to
enable return to its known earlier architectural design, form, materials and colours;
reconstruction would restore the important setting of which the kiosk was a part; and
it would restore important associations (the special connections that exist between
people and a place). She says that sections on Principles, Processes and Practices also
support reconstruction.
•
Gary Vines: As the kiosk is a small but crucial component of a much larger and
generally cohesive cultural place (St Kilda’s Edwardian and interwar foreshore
promenade precinct), its reconstruction would be appropriate and consistent with the
Burra Charter.
•
Jane Lennon:
•
‘I would have thought reconstruction would have been an option to conserve
social value - long practised in Europe!’
•
•
Also agrees with Briggs and Huddle interpretations of Burra Charter.
Norman Day: ‘There are many examples in the world where famous buildings have
been rebuilt. The Japanese rebuild their temples in Nara … every seven years; its like
painting the Sydney Harbour Bridge. It is not fake … as long as it is exact and
properly controlled by expert historians and architects.’
•
Jim Holdsworth on his Walhalla experience: ‘several replicas based on old photos …
It’s not a mock place, like Sovereign Hill … it is a successful example of
reconnecting with an accurate recording of the past. …
•
Phillip Schemnitz: ‘Today, replica has become a dirty word … There were many
castles and significant buildings in Germany that have been reconstructed very
successfully.”
•
Caller to Jon Faine: German cities reconstructed after WW2 bombing: ‘you do get
that same ambience and atmosphere’.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
101
1866 West Pier in Brighton proposed to be restored to its 1920 state, after fire and
partial collapse.
•
‘the restored Dysert O'Dea castle (Norman keep style architecture) in County Clare,
Ireland, reconstructed from a semi ruin about 20 years ago’.
•
Gillian Upton: ‘reconstruction can be authentic’: the documentary evidence, and the
professional (historical, architectural, craft) skills are available; it will have ‘the
spirit’ of the original, and will provide the same look from a distance and up-close; it
doesn’t matter if it’s ‘not the same wood’ - as with Japanese shrines it’s ‘the
exactness of the architecture and the construction that’s the issue’; like ‘George
Washington’s axe’, it will be related to the original; amazing architectural
experiments are not appropriate for this site, which is part of a wonderful intact
Edwardian seaside concept, wonderfully expressed by the kiosk’s fantasy-style
architecture. 7
•
David Brand:
•
Has found the great majority of people want it reconstructed. But there is a ‘huge
mistrust of mock, ersatz historical architecture in town’ (eg, horrific ‘Federation’
housing - the moment people see it they know it is fake) which has made some
skeptical about whether the kiosk can or would be properly reconstructed. When
asked whether they would support reconstruction if it could be done
successfully/authentically, most of these say they would.
•
In terms of heritage philosophy, he believes there are four preconditions for
reconstruction, all of which are met in this case:•
The question of reconstruction is not simply a case of absolute right or
wrong. Rather, there is a ‘sliding scale’ of appropriateness depending on
whether it is the ‘design’, or the ‘precious fabric’ (eg the ‘first’ building of its
type) that makes a building significant. In this case the significance of the
place is towards the ‘design’ end of the scale, and a copy is fine.
•
Is the place sufficiently documented to enable reconstruction?
•
Do the skills survive to enable the reconstruction (historical, trades/crafts,
materials)? He believes that it is possible to reconstruct the detail (eg,
Australia’s successful makers of 17th Century musical instruments).
•
7
Is it financially feasible to reconstruct?
Gill Upton article ‘St Kilda Landmark’ in the Professional Historians Association newsletter Pharos,
December 2003, p.5
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
102
Phillip Schemnitz: ‘there is a very fine line between the real and the replica. If you
give something a coat of paint for example, you are not looking at the original.’
•
Jon Faine: ‘With something as historic as that, and as unique, can you rebuild a
replica?’ Rohan Storey: ‘Yes you can, but whether you should or not is another
question - there’s always debate on that point. If there’s something that’s so iconic
and so loved and wonderful, a lot of people would like to see it come back even if it’s
a complete replica’. JF: ‘And why wouldn’t you want to do that?’ RS: ‘… in
heritage-land we don’t like to confuse original and new, so if it’s a replica it becomes
a kind of fake heritage.’ JF: ‘Well, isn’t that the same as … if it hadn’t been quite as
destroyed as it has it would be a restoration; what’s the problem with having to do a
little more than restore, but actually replace…?’ RS: ‘I’ve just explained; it’s a
complete reconstruction; it’s a kind of fake heritage. But sometimes that is
appropriate if … something is so wonderful and fantastic; it does depend on how
much is left and usually the rule is 50%. So I’m sure debate will be had.’
•
Chris (caller to Jon Faine): ‘I think this business about a 50% trigger to rebuild is a lot
of cods, because it is an icon, and its so often painted and photographed. There could
be a sympathetic rebuild which allows the iconic structure …A bit of common sense
should prevail.’
•
Liz Johnstone: ‘An authentic reconstruction … is an appropriate response to an iconic
site…’
•
Meyer Eidelson: Believes that the arguments regarding loss of authenticity of
materials is a ‘furphy’ because much of the materials on the building had already
been replaced.
•
Jon Cattapan: In response to concerns expressed by some that a reconstruction would
not be authentic, he believes it would become a 21st century place ‘of our times’:•
While it would be ‘phoney’ and ‘hyper-real’ at first, ‘ultimately the patina of our
times will superimpose itself’.
•
‘it will take on the tenor of our times, without meaning to…’
•
as with the Sea Baths, whose eventual compromised design was a deep
disappointment to many people, ‘now everyone … has grown into the fabric of
the place.’
•
the ‘experience bogus at first, but grows into a real one’. Buildings absorb the
‘reality of our times’.
Reconstruction is a Legitimate Choice for Society to Make
It is legitimate, and not a sign of timidity, for society to make a deliberate exception to
usual ideas about reconstruction and architectural competitions on the merits of a
particular case. This is a case when architects should transcend narrow professional
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
103
agendas and biases. Numerous people, including architects, have overcome their usual
dislike of reconstruction because this building is of exceptional significance.
In its way, the kiosk was valued in the same way as are the Sydney Opera House and
Eiffel Tower. It is legitmate for society to value something of the past to the extent that it
decides to reconstruct it.
•
‘Doesn’t normally think that facsimiles are a solution, but the uniqueness of the
building, and the integrity of the site’ is such that she would be ‘more comfortable
with reconstructing this building than any other’.
•
‘Usually I don’t like to dwell on the past, but the decision to rebuild the kiosk is a
good one. It was one of Melbourne’s most beautiful buildings, and my personal
favourite’.
•
‘I usually am against rebuilding of structures, but this is an exception.’
•
Phillip Schemnitz: ‘Although I support …competitions to canvass innovative
solutions for public sites, I am opposed to …an architectural competition for this
site…. The kiosk was a significant component of the built environment in St Kilda - a
little gem that contributed to the genius loci, or sense of place, that makes St Kilda
different from Middle Park or Albert Park or Brighton. We have lost many significant
buildings in St Kilda over the years, and are the poorer for it.
•
Phillip Schemnitz: ‘Architects have an obligation to the community that goes beyond
their agenda. Sometimes we have to accept that some old things are beautiful, and
that they should be forever …. What people are looking for on the pier is a building
we love, not something that challenges us. There are plenty of other sites where we
can be challenged with a contemporary design’.
•
John Briggs: Suggests that contemporary designers over-react against heritage
buildings (especially reconstruction) because of their struggle for general acceptance
of new designs, and the popularity of mock-heritage buildings. The ‘Victorians’ were
confident, and today we seem to lack architectural confidence (itself a worthwhile
debate) … ‘however the need to reassert or reclaim that confidence should not eclipse
the confidence we need to properly interpret significance and heritage value. And to
balance those with other values.’ ‘To reconstruct a treasure is not of necessity to
refuse the present but to respect what has been, and would be, appreciated’. Our past
can properly remain a part of our present. ‘Our need to assert confidence in our
current designers need not fuel a backlash against the enjoyment and respect for
heritage.’ There are other opportunities for the modern (eg Princes Pier).
•
‘Rebuilding is not ‘heritage gone mad’ - it’s acknowledging we all have a memory of
the place - what it was, and that, like Luna Park - we want it to continue in some
form’.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
104
Gillian Upton: rather than an immaturity, reconstruction might represent a confidence
in our ability to choose the elements of our past that we want to be a part of our
future.
•
Nostalgia, or emotional memory, is part of life and ‘nothing to be too afraid of.’
•
While designers are understandably very keen to make their mark there are other
opportunities, and it seems that the current debate is more opportunistic than
balanced.
•
‘What would happen to the Eiffel Tower or Sydney Opera House if (partly or wholly)
destroyed by fire?’
•
‘Would Ms Reed advocate another competition to design a replacement for the
Sydney Opera House if it burned down? I doubt it.’
•
Phillip Schmenitz (in response to Dimity Reed): ‘the kiosk was just as joyous as the
Sydney Opera House’
•
‘Why not reconstruct? If you rebuild it now, in a hundred years the ‘new’ version
will be old and historic.’ He provides photographs of the Fortress of Louisburg, a
French fort in Nova Scotia, destroyed by war in the late 1700s, and rebuilt by the
Canadian government in the 1960s. Instead of just ‘foundations’, most people are
happy to see the structure ‘reborn’.
•
(David Brand): ‘doesn’t see any harm in harking back to the past’ in the design of the
new building.
Reconstruction is Possible
•
‘It is a well documented building and there is no practical reason why we could not
replicate. A replica is possible and I think appropriate’. (Liz Johnstone)
•
Finding the original plans of the pavilion will ‘save lot of angst’ … ‘when the kiosk
is rebuilt it won’t be an interpretation, it will be exactly the same.’
•
We have the technology, we can rebuild it.
•
Fairly simple materials, and should not be too difficult or costly to reproduce.
•
Reconstruction from photographs is possible (technically)
•
‘A replica can be realistically produced’.
•
‘I don’t know this site, but see no reason why it should not be returned. Looks great.’
Other Comment
•
‘There’s no space for a grand architectural statement there.’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
105
Arguments in Favour of a Contemporary Design:
The former kiosk was valued because it was a confident, eloquent statement of its time,
and we should bequeath the same legacy to future generations. We should be proud of
who we are now - we don’t have parasols and we don’t ride horses any more.
In response to this argument we do not know that future generations will prefer 2004
architecture more than 1904 architecture; in fact the latter would be rarer and possibly
more valued for this reason alone. So the values of ‘future generations’ cannot be known
or appropriated by either side of the debate. The only values that we can know are
today’s, which are in favour of reconstructing the kiosk. There is no imperative to create
a ‘building of our time’ (most western architecture is recycled in one form or another, and
many other societies continue with traditional, highly stylised art forms). It does not
seem justified to accuse a society that wants to professionally reconstruct a building something it rarely if ever does - of lacking in confidence and being regressive. Most
modern architecture is ‘of its time’, but in this case the clear majority of people, including
the local cultural elite, value the former kiosk more highly than they do a possible ‘great’
contemporary one.
‘Who we are now’ is a people which still likes to walk on piers, and which values the past
buildings that ‘worked’, as well as modern architecture. But there are clearly strong
doubts about entrusting a special place to typically hard-edged modern architecture, or
even to the possibility of a touch of genius that might be thrown up by an architectural
competition. While heritage architects disagree, believing that a building with the same
essential character could be created in a contemporary idiom, there is some public
concern about a highly individualist, and perhaps radical, controversial and challenging
(in the words of some of its advocates) building that might eventuate from an
architectural competition.
Similarly, the architects who advocate a review of the whole use of the pier for the sake
of ‘doing something more contemporary’ may not appreciate the continuing success of
the pier in doing what it has always done. And that the kiosk still symbolises this use.
Architecture Should Express its Time.
•
Michael Peck: ‘The original building was an eloquent statement of its time. It
confidently expressed the culture, aesthetics, values and construction techniques of its
era. Surely, for future generations, we should do as our forebears did and make a
building of and for our time.’
•
Dimity Reed: ‘There is no point pretending we still live in Dicken’s time … we no
longer put little boys up chimneys. It’s hugely sad that the kiosk’s gone, but I don’t
think it’s a good idea to go back.’
•
‘History and time move on’ - ‘need to document the present for the future’.
Be Confident, and Create a Heritage for the Future
•
‘Lets not be nostalgic, lets be loud, lets have a brave new building.’
•
Are we fearful of what might be created? Probably yes!
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
106
In 99 years people should see examples of design from 2003, not 1904. If we keep
repeating olde worlde designs, as happens with a lot of housing, there will be no
heritage worth preserving of our own era.
•
‘It would say very little about nineteenth century Melbourne but would be an
uncomfortable indictment of us as a society. It would say of us that we didn't have the
confidence, the imagination or the vision to live in our own time. Victoria has such a
rich architectural heritage because people before us expressed themselves and their
aspirations in the built form.’
•
‘Why are we so fixated on the past? Why not look to the future and build something
more imaginative? … The debate reflects a city that is slowly, almost agonisingly,
becoming less inward looking and nostalgic.’ (Emerald Hill Times editorial)
•
Recent proposals for an architectural competition ‘to design a challenging, showcase
contemporary replacement to last the next 100 years’ is very good.
Reconstruction is Forgery
A significant minority of people express a concern that a reconstruction would be
something of a unsatisfying fake. It would not be the same thing - the ‘spirit’, or ‘magic’
of the loved original would disappear. Reconstruction means becoming bogged down in
nostalgia.
•
Reconstruction is always ‘faux’, inauthentic, unsatisfying.
•
‘Can’t repeat history.’ Need to be ‘authentic’, so build something new.
•
Although ‘possible to build a kiosk that looked similar, it would not have the
weathered look or spirit of its 99 year-old predecessor.’
•
‘Replicas never work, the spirit has gone.’
•
Historic significance nice, but reconstruction would be ‘a little too nostalgic and
manufactured’. She is strongly anti ‘nostalgia.’
•
Jim Gard’ner:
•
‘In my (personal) opinion we have lost sight of the fact that the old kiosk is no
more and that there is no point in pretending otherwise. What ever is built there
will be a new building whether it looks like it was designed in 1904 or 2004.’
•
•
‘… if you recreate it, it’s not the same thing.’
Dimity Reed: An exact copy of the kiosk would be “a fake little building … a
forgery. Look, everyone loved that kiosk … It was a pretty little thing at the end of
the pier. But now it is gone and it is a very sad thing, but it happened….Why on earth
would we even contemplate replicating something that was built a century ago? You
just can’t do it … its phoney. It indicates to me that society has lost confidence in
itself.’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
107
‘While there is a huge argument in preserving the past … you can also get bogged
down in it. (Today) it’s retention at any cost, regardless of intrinsic architectural
value, and if lost, then replication. A replica … is valueless and lazy.”
•
‘Once history is gone it’s gone … just clear the site and allow a Mr Whippy to go
down there in summer.’
•
It would be just a copy, not original and authentic.
•
‘Rebuilding the old thing will not be able to bring back the magic’.
•
Not sure about reconstruction. ‘Is it silly to pretend?’
St Kilda Should Look Forwards, Not Backwards.
Some have seen the debate partly as a contest between St Kilda as a place of heritage and
a place of avant-garde tradition. The comment that ‘St Kilda is not Disneyland’ might
indicate however that this is not as much as a contest as might be supposed. The opposite
might be argued, that St Kilda has been Melbourne’s Disneyland; a place of fantasies,
carnivals, amusement parks - for the sole purpose of pleasure - ‘Just For Fun’. As part of
this fun has been to ‘copy’ bits of fashionable architectural exotica (Moorish and Indian
domes and arches for example), a copy of one of its own former, now even more exotic,
buildings would also be appropriate, and perhaps just as authentic as a local adaptation of
the current international architecture.
•
We should look to the future rather than the past. St Kilda, in particular, has an avantgarde tradition.
•
Building should reflect the recent changes in St Kilda.
•
‘the kiosk symbolised the old St Kilda. It’s up to the next generation to build a classy
replacement now…’
•
‘Replaced. I think it should move with the times, and everything down there is
getting new and funky.’
•
St Kilda - heritage or avant-garde (a bit of both)?
•
Like to see ‘great architecture’, with ‘its own character’. An end-of-pier ‘destination’
still. Built for local use, and reflect the lifestyle of ‘the new St Kilda’.
•
‘I agree with Michael Peck: why built a fake of the St Kilda kiosk when you can build
the real thing - a building that is expressive of the 21st Century? St Kilda is not
Disneyland.’
An Architectural Competition would produce an Internationally Significant Architectural
Statement
We have an opportunity to create ‘a new social and cultural icon’ even better than existed
beforehand. An architectural competition is seen as the best way to achieve this (although
there are different opinions on whether this should be an international or local
competition).
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
108
We should draw on Victoria’s wealth of architectural design talent by holding an
architectural design competition. ‘The winning design would undoubtedly delight
future generations just as the original delighted past generations.’
•
‘a national competition for architects to design a restaurant and a kiosk….get
something absolutely exhilarating, mind-blowing, something you could put on a
postage stamp in Iceland and they would know that was the little café in St Kilda …
St Kilda a place that should confront the future rather than hang on to its past.’
•
A competition, with guidelines on size and use, will produce ‘the most stunning piece
of architecture possible.’
•
‘Competition would mean the best scheme would win, as opposed to the historic
image, ‘which would have very little relationship to how the pier is used nowadays’.
•
Exciting and unique opportunity to showcase the best contemporary architecture.
•
Wants ‘something radically new and wonderful, truly 21st century, and still a
destination.’
•
… be ‘memorable’ internationally.
•
‘…Melbourne has been given a great chance to create a new social and cultural icon
“as good if not better than the old one. I think we should be proud of who we are
now. We don’t have parasols and we are not riding horses any more”.
•
‘just imagine if you could get something as joyful as the Sydney Opera House sitting
at the end of the pier.’
•
‘… if people want the existing style that’s fine, but [she] would like to explore other
options too’.
New Architecture could also address the Place, and the Public’s Values
A really good architect would respond to the site, and to the reasons for which the original
kiosk was loved, and incorporate them into a new building. Part of the value of the
original kiosk was as a social place, which would be met by a new design. People are
adaptable, and would soon appreciate the values of a contemporary building.
•
‘…a contemporary design of high popular appeal could also fulfil the landmark
qualities of the former kiosk.’
•
A really good architect would come up with something good, that reflected the
enormous changes that St Kilda has undergone in recent decades. These include:gentrification; fire.
•
‘Unfortunately, the general view of ‘modern’ is cheap, slick box-type things. But the
reality is that they represent the cultural and social attitude of the day, and modern
can be very decorative, very rich … yes, contemporary can be beautiful’.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
109
The real heritage value of the Kerby kiosk is not just the building that was, but what it
offered as a social place. This heritage value can be met and should be met in the
absolute best contemporary building representing 2003.
•
A new design will attract criticism (eg her Pamela Anderson house), but ‘people are
very adaptable’. After initial controversy, the house is now accepted, and won an
award.
•
‘The Sydney Opera House was [originally] a divisive contentious building.’
•
‘Rebuilt. But it will attract people whatever the style of the building.’
•
‘It was an icon of St Kilda but unfortunately once that icon has gone, there is an
argument for rebuilding something the way it was or building something new … It
was a fairly closed-in Victorian building that did not look towards the sea.’
Reconstruction Could Lead to Compromise and Pastiche
There is a strong concern, mostly by heritage professionals, that with this opportunity for
increased functionality, and the demands of current building regulations, a reconstruction
might end up something of a parody of the loved original. The early 1990s shed at the
foot of the pier might also be cited as evidence of this fear: its details (such as visible steel
footings), design (the original had a single gable roof), purpose (the original was a shelter
shed with seats) and even location, are all non-original. But even comparatively minor
changes to overall design, details and use of a reconstructed kiosk could risk the integrity
of the original. This concern could be addressed by making the plans of any
reconstruction available for public comment.
•
Jim Gard’ner: ‘Our fear is that neither approach will be taken and we will end up with
a hybrid monster, that 'improves', enlarges and replans the 1904 design and ends up
some dire pastiche of Edwardian architecture. There will be inevitable pressure from
building control and the users of the kiosk for it to be replanned in compliance with
current regulations and the needs of the operator in mind.’
•
‘The last thing we need is a hideous pastiche like the St Kilda Sea Baths which is
neither historical nor contemporary’.
•
If you rebuild it ‘it won’t be the same - it will end up like the woeful, kitsch, cheaplooking (though very expensive) tacky St Kilda Sea Baths’
•
After reading the Parks Victoria Expressions of Interest paper…. ‘Expect a mangled
Caroline Springs version of what was there before. Should keep the Premier happy I
guess, but what a waste of an opportunity’.
•
‘presumably a complete replica would not be allowed by regulations or wanted by its
tenants.’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
110
Need for Public Debate
•
Jim Gard’ner:
•
Kiosk ‘was part of our collective memory and an important link with our past.
But there is a debate to be had about whether it is appropriate to reconstruct it’.
•
debate … ‘should include an option of replacing the kiosk with a contemporary
structure “that spoke of architectural thinking today”’.
•
‘There isn’t a right or a wrong answer… can either recreate the kiosk exactly as it
was, or we can build a new interpretation with a current modern structure…’
•
‘but the community and key stakeholders must decide - hence the call for a
debate on the subject.’
•
Debate hindered by ‘sense of loss’ and government’s ‘knee-jerk reaction’.
•
RAIA Victorian president Eli Giannini called the reversion to heritage values a ‘kneejerk reaction’.
Reconstruction Not Legitimate, or Successful, Conservation Practice
Reconstruction usually appear ersatz. By contrast, contemporary buildings in the
place of bombed European cathedrals for example, have been successful.
Gard’ner interprets heritage declarations to mean that reconstruction is an exceptional
case which should be limited to places of the very highest social significance such as
the historic quarters of bombed cities (eg, to repair a community’s identity). While
the kiosk was ‘part’ of our collective memories, it was not of the same level of
importance as the type of places damaged by war. Others feel, perhaps similarly, that
reconstruction should be limited to formal/institutional places such as Melbourne’s
Shrine of Remembrance or Parliament House. On the other hand it could be argued
that the only people qualified to judge its level of social significance are ‘the people’;
these do rank the kiosk highly. There is evidence that it was regarded as one of only
a few recognisable, and loved, icons of Melbourne, on a par with W-Class Trams.
How the great institutional buildings mentioned would be judged by people is
unknown, but it is clear that they are not the only places to which high social
significance might apply.
•
Jim Gard’ner:
•
‘I don't believe that the kiosk fire falls into the categories laid down in the
ICOMOS Declaration of Dresden on the reconstruction of monuments destroyed
by war … in Europe the devastation of two World Wars … the need to rebuild
the cultural identity of whole cities from the rubble.’
•
Some very fine buildings have arisen from the ruins of war or fire with Sir Basil
Spence's Coventry Cathedral being a notable example.
•
‘…rebuild or complete buildings if it’s an institutional structure of great importance
and scale (eg if Parliament House burnt down, or incomplete structures of high
importance like Parliament House or the GPO). But in this case, the knee-jerk
reaction to rebuild it will be a big mistake for a very prominent site…’ If we rebuild,
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
111
‘what would it be like? … the 1970 wing of the Melb Uni Law Quad, with its precast
gargoyles? Or worse - the St Kilda Sea Baths?’ … ‘Is rebuilding worse than
facadism (which is only retention of the original façade)?’ ‘Does it matter that we’re
dealing with a kiosk, and not a grand institutional structure on a monumental scale?
•
Dimity Reed: ‘… always a poor option to rebuild something exactly as it had been.’
Even the reconstruction of Warsaw after World War II had been ersatz.
•
How can ‘something that no longer exists can be preserved and what status can be
attributed to it where there is no icon to attach it to.’
•
‘It shouldn’t be rebuilt, because there’s nothing left’.
•
‘doesn’t believe in facsimiles in principle [so] suppose [he would] oppose a
reconstruction.’
The Kiosk was Functionally Limited
Quite a number of people thought the functionality of the place could be improved.
It might also be noted however that this survey shows that, functionally, it still serves
many of the same purposes that one commentator presumes are outdated. Although
there may be some slight variations (it is probably now used by nearly as many
writers as readers, and men as women), these same functions are still highly valued
by quite a number of people.
•
‘original designed to provide tea for women while they read their novels and took in
the sea air’. ‘It didn’t really function very well … build a state-of-the-art facility for
the next 100 years…’
•
‘…now time to start fresh .. a design competition to design something that will serve
the purposes of what we want today, not what was built 100 years ago. We ought to
go for broke …’
Other Reasons
•
There are enough records and photographs of the original that it would not be
forgotten .
Additional Comments and Qualifications
•
The City of Port Phillip wants ‘an accurate reconstruction that [is] low-key,
accessible and affordable.’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
112
A Reconstruction Must be Authentic
This is a strongly, and quite widely, held opinion. One way of addressing it might be to
ensure that architectural details are available as part of any public exhibition of a
reconstruction proposal.
•
‘Reconstruction is not something that we are very familiar with - it would be
something very special … done with skill, care’.
•
Should adopt a purist approach in a reconstruction of the kiosk.
•
(He) wants it reconstructed. But only it is rebuilt properly, authentically. If not, he
will say that we shouldn’t have done it. There is “no point” in rebuilding the original
design if it is not carried out “authentically”’…
•
The kiosk should be rebuilt if, and only if, they can match the original structure
perfectly without cutting corners.’
•
‘…if it is done tastefully, and this is a big if, then rebuilding is the way to go’.
•
So, either ‘completely re-invent’, or ‘respectfully reconstruct’.
•
‘… reconstruction presents ‘question marks everywhere’, and while it would ‘not
have to be perfect’ it is crucial that it be ‘totally convincing … achieve the sense of
authenticity … up close’. Eg:
•
•
timber sizes are ‘crucial in contributing to a sense of close-up authenticity’
•
important to have ‘carpenters keen on doing it right’ [ie heritage tradespeople]
decisions about which construction details should be ‘authentic’ and which could be
modern would generally be based on what people can see, but also need to be made
‘intuitively’.
•
Important that it use ‘legitimate and real materials’ - as would have been used when it
was constructed.
•
The object of a reconstruction should be ‘authenticity’, eg of light feeling, as well as
its detailed texture.
•
‘kiosk should be built by retired trades people, in collaboration with apprentices so
that old skills can be respected.’
•
It is critical that a reconstruction be a ‘quality’ building, utilising traditional crafts and
arts. It should be regarded as an opportunity for apprentices to learn traditional
construction methods.
•
‘if it can be rebuilt well - ok’
•
Fears just facadism.
•
If it is to be reconstructed ‘have to do it properly’, including:- not just a façade;
reconstruct it exactly to 1904 period; and clearly mark / interpret it as a
reconstruction. But doesn’t warrant ‘exact reconstruction’ - it is not of such extreme
architectural/building significance (as the Endeavour for example).
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
113
The period to which it should be restored should be considered. Important character
and sense of history is not necessarily present in its ‘first moment’, but in the
subsequent layers which can provide a deeper sense of age and interest. Hence, while
the Kerby’s building accretions were ‘crappy’, it had a ‘slightly dilapidated romantic
beach feel’ about it in the period from the 1950s which was lost when taken back to
‘prim Victoriana’ in 1988 …
•
Leave some remnant of the burnt structure.
•
Whatever is erected must be interpreted to ensure that the history of the site is
understood.
•
‘This is very grim news indeed. No doubt the structure will be rebuilt back to how it
was, but it will never be the same.’ ‘The historic Como Hotel built 1882 was
Sutherland Shire’s oldest structure and was burnt to the ground in 1996 … but
fortunately it was built back to new, but it doesn’t look as good (or old like a 120 year
old building should look) but better than nothing’.
Constraints on a Contemporary Building
Suggestions include a contemporary design retaining the human scale of the original, and
also, if possible, ambient features such as the timber deck. It should not compete with the
setting for attention, but be subordinate (or ‘ornamental’) to the principal function of the
place - promenading.
•
‘If they rebuild, build something like it’ … he fears what they might put there. He
would ‘loathe a big restaurant - a big departure’.
•
‘A timber construction fundamental’, including the timber pier and its deck.
•
(enough that it) should be respectful of the modest scale of the kiosk - no taller or
wider that what was there, no more space. (Melbourne doesn’t need another ‘mass
catered’ place.)
•
Would like some architectural reference to the former one, and retention of sense of
‘connection with water underneath and pylons [piers]’ but ‘dangerous to put limits on
imagination of really fine architects’.
•
If a contemporary design was decided, it would need to at least preserve the broad
silhouette of the kiosk.
•
The design of any new (non-reconstruction) kiosk should not be constrained by a
particular style (eg, the former style) - ‘architectural / artistic quality’, and how well it
‘fits the site’, should be the determinants.
•
If something needs to be built there, it should be similar in ‘size and concept’. Not
the hubris of an ‘architectural statement’ or ‘wonderful landmark’.
•
‘Even if the new design takes on more of an historical feel … as long as the materials
have a contemporary resonance, I am happy. If it was rebuilt in its own form, but
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
114
perhaps made with tiny glass dewdrops, for example, that could work. I don’t
necessarily think it needs to be completely different, just as long as it somehow
addresses our present time and place.’
•
But a new building ‘shouldn’t look like City Link’.
•
He would prefer something ‘similar to the old, not exactly the same: the exterior
should be reminiscent, the interior revamped’.
Constraints on Additions to a Reconstructed Kiosk
Similarly, there is concern that any addition (similar to the previous one) be unobtrusive
and sympathetic in scale, and possibly materials.
•
It should be respectful of the modest scale of the kiosk - no taller or wider that what
was there, no more space. Melbourne doesn’t need another ‘mass catered’ place.
•
A new extension should retain ‘modesty’ of former extension, and something of its
‘makeshiftness’
•
‘Can’t see the point of a modern extension, in new materials, which would diminish
the integrity’ of the reconstructed place.
•
(She) has no firm personal view as to whether the kiosk should be reconstructed, or
whether it should be a contemporary building. However, it should be one or the
other. The option of a reconstruction combined with a new extension would lead to
an unsuccessful outcome. If the kiosk is reconstructed its integrity must be respected,
and it should not become ‘facadism’.
•
She had hardly been conscious of the rear addition on the former kiosk - it seemed
‘very unobtrusive and pleasantly casual’; single storey, and timber material probably
contributed to this. A modern restaurant addition would be ‘excessive, out of scale,
and destroy the symmetry and integrity of the original building’.
•
If something needs to be built there, it should be similar in ‘size and concept’. Not
the hubris of an ‘architectural statement’ or ‘wonderful landmark’.
•
Former extension was ‘makeshift’ but ok. A new extension could perhaps be a little
more ‘solid’.
•
Should keep the timber pier if this possible to do with safety.
•
Liked the ‘verandah’, the deck around it, which is ‘very Australian’.
•
‘Contact with the elements’ very important for him
•
Visitors get ‘…contact with the elements on the pier walk, so not that important that
kiosk retains this contact.’
•
Suggests a design that ‘combines the image of the original, and adds something
contemporary as well’.
•
The main part of the building for her is ‘the façade’.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
115
It would be ridiculous to have a larger building behind a reconstructed kiosk. A
single storey extension on deck behind it would be ok. The rear view was not
significant to her. An extension here could be modern material, as long as not
overwhelming or affecting the original structure.
Regarding Future Use
There was very strong support, including by advocates of a contemporary building, for
preserving the current wide ‘accessibility’ of the place. It should remain a casual ‘icecream, coffee, and fish & chip - focaccia’ type place that was incidental and
complementary to the principal promenading function of the pier, rather than a place to go
for a ‘dining experience’.
It is likely that a restaurant would be more exclusive (as with the Stokehouse), and also
alter the subtle casual relationship with the pier promenade which has been integral to the
kiosk’s social significance.
•
Should remain ‘accessible’ to all, inexpensive.
•
But … whatever the shape of the new kiosk, it must be accessible and affordable. A
bad result would be something ugly. But the worst result would be an expensive
restaurant for the caffe latte set. The pier has been a gathering place for generations
of Melburnians. We can help keep it that way by ensuring that the new kiosk
welcomes everyone.’ (Emerald Hill Times editorial)
•
Anything [rebuilt there] should be kept ‘small-scale’, and remain affordable for
families and ordinary people who use the pier.
•
Retaining its ‘accessibility and affordability extremely important … a pier is a public
space’.
•
A keynote to this is its function - the food it will serve. It should remain ‘fish & chip
/ focaccia’ focussed, rather than becoming a ‘dining experience’.
•
If people want the ‘dining thing’, there are c.600 restaurants in St Kilda.
•
‘Dining is not the primary significance of the place … a restaurant should only be
allowed to be added if it doesn’t detract from the significance of the place.’
•
‘But also let’s have some public space there, so you can take your own picnics; you
don’t have to go down there and buy something…’ LH: ‘a few benches and tables
maybe?’
•
‘It may perhaps be reasonable to modify the plans to make the building more
functional as a restaurant/café…’ [though she was not overly fond of the food, prices,
and ‘the noisy private functions’ which ‘disturbed many a stroll down to the breakwater (heck, I was even told by the security guard [at] a function one night a few
years back that I was not allowed to go on to the break water…)]
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
116
He simply wanted to ‘look out on the horizon’. ‘Everyone can walk onto the pier and
find a spot, and rest - don’t need a cappuccino to do this’. ‘Don’t need to rebuild
anything - simply the ‘pleasure of a walk along the pier, and the smell of the sea.’
‘We have enough eating places’ and don’t need another restaurant/café.’
•
‘It was accessible to almost anyone’. If a restaurant was put there it would only
accommodate the tourists and wealthier people.
•
‘We have enough eating places’ and don’t need another restaurant/café.’
•
‘Pretty well what was there was ok - low-key café, ice-creams, snacks’.
•
He would ‘loathe a big restaurant - a big departure’.
•
It should be respectful of the modest scale of the kiosk - no taller or wider that what
was there, no more space. Melbourne doesn’t need another ‘mass catered’ place.
•
Believes that there should be live music at the kiosk. (But foresees some difficulties
in transporting gear along the pier.)
Other Views of Future Uses
While the main thread of opinion is for redevelopment of the site be kept simple, a few
feel that the fire presents an opportunity to review the use of the pier, and to consider
additional uses & attractions.
Additional pier attractions might impact on the visual and functional relationship between
the pier and the kiosk, and are unlikely to be appropriate. Any proposal for such should
be assessed in terms of its respect for the historical aesthetic and use of the pier and kiosk,
particularly in relation to the dominant function of promenading.
The architects who advocate a review of the whole use of the pier for the sake of ‘doing
something more contemporary’ may not appreciate the continuing success of the pier in
doing what it has always done. And that the kiosk symbolises this use.
(Cassandra Fahey’s proposal for a ‘lantern of God’ kiosk might reflect the ‘lantern-ish’
look of the original pavilion, and the slightly transcendental feel of the site in its setting
on the boundary of nature and civilisation.)
•
Fears ‘ideas about a grand opportunity’.
•
‘I’d like to … keep it simple - replace the building … We have enough, we’ve got
Southbank, we’ve got an aquarium, we’ve got all those other things, let’s just keep it
simple.’
•
Lyn Haultain’s studio guest Paul Tombesi (academic architect): At St Kilda we might
decide that ‘the memory of the burnt building is more important than its perfect
reproduction, in which case the very function of the pier might have to change
laterally as well’…‘it all depends on what we want to do with the pier - emphasis on
kiosk or pier?’ Talks about new uses of piers in Genoa, New Jersey, Los Angeles,
which now sport galleries, a greenhouse, amusements, and restaurants.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
117
Donald Bates: ‘a unique opportunity to not just build a new building but to rethink the
whole purpose of the pier, to do something more contemporary’.
•
Sue Parrington, Port Melbourne. ‘… could present an opportunity … for an
extremely modern gallery, performance venue, glass-clad restaurant, coffee house and
shops. Melbourne is just beginning to address its bayside advantage.’
•
‘a range of attractions were needed to attract more activity and a greater variety of
people to the pier…Something to do with maritime history or heritage, modern and
old combined, anything to force people to look at a museum or a piece of heritage at
the same time as engaging in something modern like drinking coffee or mooring their
boats’.
•
Perhaps, with a future underwater extension to view the underwater frolics of the
penguins near the end of the breakwater?’
•
Neil Mitchell: ‘…this is sad, but could be seen as an opportunity to make the place
better.’
•
Sam Kekovich says there is premier real estate along the St Kilda foreshore, and Greg
Evans says that it has more potential and should have a ‘decent marina, boardwalks,
and more restaurants and shops’.
•
Callers to Lyn Haultain suggest:•
windmills on the pier to generate power and create surf, as a tourist attraction.
LH suggests that the windmills might look like daisies, with each blade painted a
different colour.
•
an opportunity to make cruciform additions to the pier, either side of the kiosk ….
He suggests an art gallery, and penguin observation on the proposed new wings
… this would attract more people, and reinforce the viability of the kiosk
business which is possibly marginal now.
•
improvements to the pier, in the way of elaboration of existing features, such as
changing the gray colour of the pathway, adding pinpoint lighting, better railing,
arches, removal of the constraining fence on the breakwater.
•
In response to the The Emerald Hill Times request, architects presented ideas for
contemporary proposals for the pier. These included underground restaurants with
viewing windows, a ferry terminal, non-commercial pier seating, and a ‘lantern of
God.’
Regarding Functionality
Many people feel consider that functionality could be improved as part of a
reconstruction.
•
Inside can be different - more contemporary and functional (Liz Johnstone)
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
118
Need to find some way of making it ‘a little more functional’ for our times:
•
it was always a summer place, so it would be fun to make it attractive in winter
(perhaps a band/music to entice people to make the long walk? Though he
acknowledges that this may not be practicable.)
•
•
make more family friendly and child secure?
Not particularly functional previously. A new restaurant at rear would be appropriate.
Could be in modern materials and style (a ‘glass box’ ok), but should be detached and
not impinge on reconstructed kiosk.
•
‘Former kiosk not very practical in terms of exposure to elements ….a southerly
breeze would blow the froth off your cappucino…’
The Plastic Awning
The consensus is that, while not ideal, the removable canvass awning was reasonably
successful functionally, and its makeshift nature did not impact on the integrity of the
kiosk as much as other options would have.
(It might be said that the awning resembled a rather tent-like ‘skirt’, which resonates with
the historical origins of a ‘pavilion’ structure.)
•
The north deck area is probably the most difficult design question. The area needs to
be sheltered somehow. But the previous plastic/canvass awnings were ‘reasonably
ugly’, and the clear plastic windows unsuccessful. Yet it was ‘really important that it
looked like a temporary structure’. A ‘permanent building or glassed-in area’ would
‘add a huge volume to the kiosk building’, and ‘come between the diners and the sea’.
The detachable awning provided a ‘casualness’ that is important and appropriate to
the site. It would be preferable to ‘put up with the limited functionalism of the
awning to retain the integrity of the (kiosk) building’. Better to have ‘something
attached to a building’ rather than a ‘bigger building’.
•
The plastic sheeting ‘worked wonderfully’, and ‘fitted the modesty of the structure’
(v.v. a glassed-in deck)
•
Keep the canvass sides. She doesn’t think it was always up in any case. It would be
better than glassing it in.
•
Clear canvass/plastic - ‘kinda nice’ as an indoor/outdoor place. But perhaps a little
more hardy against the elements?
•
Flapping plastic ‘canvass’ at side is apt for its situation. (And it keeps the seagulls at
bay.)
•
Keep the pier deck, and ‘put up with the plastic’ [awning]. (‘Otherwise, why not have
it on-shore?’)
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
•
119
‘perhaps they could get rid of that canvass awning that used to face out to the north,
which was a kind of tack-on because the permit didn’t allow for a larger structure’.
•
Awning was ok. Glassed-in ‘open’ deck area would diminish the experience of the
pier. Don’t know that even the strongest glass would be strong enough for such an
exposed position.
•
Replace the plastic sheeting with a light/temporary awning with ‘a bit of design’
(rather than just plastic sheets).
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
CHAPTER FIVE:
3.1
120
SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE
DISCUSSION
The kiosk was clearly built extremely well, its survival for so long being a
considerable achievement. It survived what was then described as ‘the worst gale in
Australia’s history’, which in 1934 changed the Port Phillip coastline, destroyed
bluestone sea walls, and turned the deck of St Kilda pier into matchwood. 1 Pier kiosks
elsewhere in Australia, notably at Glenelg in Adelaide and Coogee in Sydney, have
long since been destroyed by storms.
The kiosk was built on its own piles in the outer corner of the first ‘L’ of the pier
(there was a second one further out to sea). Newspaper reports of the construction
describe approximately 60 piles being driven. On these the decking, of 66 feet by 48
feet (20.1m x 14.6m), was constructed. The superstructure was bolted onto this,
using 2 x ¾ inch iron corner angle plates.
The quality of the components of the structure, and its strength were of note at the
time of its construction. The large circular window were glazed with the ‘best
Muranese glass’. The ‘best plain and fancy weatherboards, with embellishments of
fancy scalloped scrolls and woodwork’, were used. The ‘necessity for great strength
has not been lost sight of’, as exemplified in the use of ‘4 x 4 best oregon struts and 3
x 4 intermediates’, while joists were 3 x 4 x 9 inches. Inside the concert room the
roof promenade was shored up with iron pillars.2
Its fabric would have had potential to provide information about former methods and
standards of building construction. However, apart from the quality of components,
this was not known to have been notable in any way, and the Muranese glass and
many weatherboards had been replaced. The use of iron piers and beams was a
feature of interest; but not innovative building technology, and there is no record that
there had been anything remarkable about its span lengths, construction, or maker.
The evidence of its craftsmanship has presumably been totally destroyed, however its
remarkably successful substructure is substantially intact. Strengthening of the piers
was undertaken at the time of the bicentennial restoration, but there has been no
replacement of the original piles underneath the kiosk, so this would be one of the
oldest surviving (albeit altered) piers on Port Phillip. Partly charred timber skirting
(or platform), with timber front step, survived the fire, and may retain information
about the construction method, or have potential for interpretation (of the fire).
3.2
STATEMENT OF SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE
The former kiosk and its pier were of scientific significance at the local level as an
unusually successful example of an early timber structure built to survive extreme
weather conditions. Surviving original pier substructure has limited local scientific
interest for its potential to educate present and future generations about early pier
construction materials and techniques, and may also retain information regarding
construction of the Kiosk base. Salvaged structural components, and charred timbers,
have potential to provide evidence for any rebuilding and interpretation of the Kiosk.
1
Screensound, ‘Bayside Reflections: Port Phillip Bay on Film. Part 2: The Top End’
St Kilda Advertiser, 24/9/1904, in C Kellaway, ‘Research into St Kilda Pier Kiosk’ National Trust FN
5471
2
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
121
CHAPTER SIX.
HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
6.1.
INTRODUCTION
The site of the former St Kilda Pier Kiosk is suitable for a number of different
redevelopment options, ranging from accurate reconstruction of the whole complex as
it was in 2003, to a contemporary pavilion design without reference to the original
structure.
These options, and the degree to which they would preserve or recover the heritage
significance of the place, and satisfy other functional objectives and resource
limitations, are considered in chapter seven: ‘Conservation Policy’.
To enable an assessment of the options in terms of the heritage significance of the
place, this chapter provides a Statement of Cultural Significance for the former Kiosk.
This is in terms of the Burra Charter criteria (historical, aesthetic, social and scientific
significance) as considered in chapters two to five.
As this statement of cultural significance relates to a place that has been largely
destroyed, a brief survey of how much physical fabric actually remains is provided.
In addition to assessing the extent to which each of the redevelopment options would
recover or reveal the significance of the original Kiosk, there is an additional question
over the options that would reconstruct or partly reconstruct the original. This is the
question of the ‘authenticity’ of reconstruction, in general, and in this case. It is
therefore necessary to consider heritage theory and practice relating to this major
issue at some length. The conclusion reached is that options involving reconstruction
would be legitimate from a heritage perspective, subject to certain guidelines.
6.2.
STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE
The former St Kilda Pier Kiosk was of national cultural heritage significance.
The St Kilda Pier Kiosk was of historical significance at the national level as an
emblem of Melbourne’s premier early seaside resort, and as a defining part of a
unique and outstanding Australian historical seaside resort. Built in 1904 as an
observatory and refreshment kiosk it was the first ‘continental style’ pier pavilion in
Australia. It remained the only example of this type of building in Victoria, and was
the only such pier pavilion known to remain in Australia at the time of its destruction
by fire in 2003.
As the major structure on St Kilda Pier, it was a prominent part of Melbourne’s
gateway to dignitaries, particularly royalty, in the early decades of the twentieth
century when the city was the seat of government in Australia. Improvements to the
pier and its environment at this time were important to the self-image of the city, and
considered to be of national significance.
Francis Parer, who conceived the design of the kiosk, and operated it at least until the
1920s, was a member of a Spanish-Australian family famous in Melbourne’s
hospitality history, and later accomplished at an international level in other spheres.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
122
James Morrell, the Public Works Department architect to whom the design is
attributed, became a leading member of Australia’s early town planning movement.
Never intended to be a scaled-down English ‘amusement pier’ pavilion, the kiosk was
instead an accessory and ornament to the primary function of the pier as a place of
promenade and passive recreation. Occupying the most prominent site on the
foreshore, the focus of St Kilda’s Edwardian promenading culture, and ‘continental’
in style, the pavilion fitted perfectly Carlo Catani’s bold early twentieth century
vision of St Kilda as a cosmopolitan open-air resort in the Mediterranean style, with
open lawns, stately palms, garden promenades, statuary and cafés. Most promotional
photographs of the Catani plan being implemented included the pier and kiosk, with
the new plantings and pathways in the foreground.
The kiosk was thus a unique and prominent part of the St Kilda foreshore heritage
precinct, a remarkably intact and distinctively Australian late nineteenth and early
twentieth century seaside resort. As well as Catani’s vision of a fashionable Riviera
resort, this outstanding cultural landscape represents many other important historical
strands, including:- the old patrician and European idea of a resort as a genteel,
exclusive place for health and promenading (the pier, the kiosk itself, The Esplanade,
the remnant grand hotels and villas, and the rebuilt Sea Baths); the Coney Island
model of an enclosed theme amusement park (the early and architecturally fabulous
Luna Park); the more informal and vigorous pursuit of swimming that set Australian
seaside resorts apart from their English counterparts, and which became an important
part of Australia’s culture and identity (the reconstructed Sea Baths, and the Open Sea
Bathing Pavilions); the general resort amusements and facilities (the Palais Theatre,
the former Municipal Tea Pavilion and adjacent lawns); and the influence of the great
era of English pier pavilions evident in the exotic/Oriental tinges to the architecture of
many of these on-shore buildings (and the kiosk).
The kiosk’s Classical and Second Empire style, its graceful ornamentation, and
slightly Oriental motifs encapsulated much of the long history of pavilion design.
Future research might establish a more direct link to the architecture of the pavilions
of European spa and seaside resorts, in particular late nineteenth century English
piers, or Riviera resorts. Its other associations with the history of pavilions were also
important: its isolated siting in a grand natural landscape; its function as a place of
retreat, contemplation and intimacy; and its simultaneous role as a place of
refreshment, social gathering, and banqueting. An appreciation of the setting of the
place, at the boundary between the elements and the metropolis, over the sea and
under Melbourne’s dramatic western sky, appears to have been instrumental in the
founding of the place by Parer, a weather and astronomy enthusiast, and in its
continued allure, as captured by writers, artists and photographers.
The kiosk was also significant for its association with two generations of the Kerby
family, whose adaptability kept the kiosk going through approximately 50 years of
dramatic social change, and St Kilda decline. During the 1980s the Kerbys’ colourful
lifestyle attracted national interest. In 1984 Colin Kerby was awarded the Order of
Australia for saving many people from drowning during his long occupancy of the
kiosk.
The former St Kilda Pier Kiosk was of social significance at the national level as
arguably St Kilda’s most prominent landmark (comparable with Luna Park), a major
Melbourne icon (comparable with W-Class Trams and Flinders Street Station), and a
tourist destination known throughout Australia and popular with overseas visitors. It
was widely represented in postcards, tourism information, photographs, artworks,
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
123
posters and heritage literature. It has also been a distinguishing emblem in many
images of the city’s bay and dramatic south-western sky.
In addition, it was a ‘part of Melbourne’, generally regarded as having been visited
and enjoyed by the great majority of its citizens, and identified by many as a place for
which they had special personal associations, and deep attachment. Its destruction
caused widespread public grief, with most people supporting calls by editors and
governments for its reconstruction. It was valued as an informal and widely
accessible ‘people’s place’ for casual refreshment, a special meeting place, and, in
quieter times, a place of reflection or intimacy. It was a loved ornament to the simple
pleasure of a walk along the pier whose form and decorative detail were described as
enchanting, whimsical and modest on the one hand, and, at the same time, gracious
and noble. Its non-dominating, complementary relationship with its seascape setting
was widely appreciated, many noting its lightness of touch, and its ‘perfect’ fit of the
pier. For locals it had also fixed and marked the western boundary of St Kilda.
Its significance as a symbol of St Kilda’s seaside resort history, and as a focus of its
important foreshore heritage was appreciated by many, especially locals. Many
recognised it as a symbol of Melbourne’s historical connection to the bay. For a
smaller number it was significant as a unique illustration of Edwardian resort
architecture in Australia.
While the function of the kiosk was popular and regarded as significant, its design, or
appearance, was valued more highly still. The great majority of people consider that a
good quality (although not exact) reconstruction of the kiosk would recover most of
the visual, historical and social values of the former kiosk that were important to
them. There was also strong support to reinstate the informal, accessible kiosk
function as an integral part of the place’s social value.
The St Kilda Pier Kiosk was of aesthetic significance at the national level as a rare
surviving example of Federation period seaside architecture.
Architecturally it was an elaborately detailed predominantly timber structure that
fused a late nineteenth century form and classical details with giant arches that are
now described as characteristically Edwardian, but which were originally described
as ‘Oriental’. These may have derived from Chinese ‘moon’ gates and windows, as
interpreted in eighteenth century European chinoiserie pavilions.
Its unity of scale, form and materials was of a very high order. Its small human scale
was enhanced by a curved roofed lantern crowned with decorative cast-iron
balustrading and a weather vane. Its timber cladding added lightness and warmth,
and enabled colours and distinctive decoration - including scalloped weatherboards, a
balustrade with rounded end slots, and herringbone patterns - that were less
commonly associated with classically styled buildings.
While the Kiosk’s architecture was novel in Australia, it was also a characteristic
‘pavilion’ structure in form and setting: freestanding in a grand landscape, small,
vertically oriented, of an overall symmetrical composition (but employing a subtle
asymmetry), and intended to be of ornament and refreshment to promenaders
enjoying the festive resort. While there were many garden pavilions, rotundas,
temples, bandstands etc in Australia, pavilions associated with grand natural settings
were much rarer. It became a favourite image of photographers and artists, many of
whom pictured it isolated under Melbourne’s big south-western sky.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
124
Its informal aesthetic was exceptional, inspiring powerful and affectionate response in
the public who used words such as a modest, elegant, enchanting, soft, noble and
casual to describe it. Its setting within the natural environment also inspired strong
responses in many people who described its lightness of touch on the landscape, and
its ‘perfect’ fit to the pier. It also had strong non-visual aesthetics and maritime
ambience: it was associated with the touch of the elements (sun, wind, salt spray), the
sounds of lapping water and wind in the riggings, and all the smells of the sea. It was
also significant as the primary visual focus of a remarkable early twentieth century,
Riviera inspired, foreshore design based on promenading. Its slightly exotic
architecture contributed to and reflected the festive and oriental themes in St Kilda
architecture.
The former kiosk and its pier were of scientific significance at the local level as an
unusually successful example of an early timber structure built to survive extreme
weather conditions. Surviving original pier substructure has limited local scientific
interest for its potential to educate present and future generations about early pier
construction materials and techniques, and may also retain information regarding
construction of the Kiosk base. Salvaged structural components, and charred timbers,
have potential to provide evidence for any rebuilding and interpretation of the Kiosk.
6.3.
REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR THE SITE
Five types of redevelopment are considered to be valid for the site. The options are:1. Accurate reconstruction of the whole place in its entirety (including the 1987
additions).
2. Reconstruction of 1904 building in its entirety (as close as possible to the
original); and replacement of the 1987 component of the building with an
improved layout.
3. Reconstruction of the exterior and interior of the 1904 building to the extent
possible (subject to compliance with all heritage, building and safety guidelines
and codes, and functional criteria), and replacement of the 1987 component with
an improved layout that integrates the various spaces.
4. Modern interpretation of the historic 1904 building (a new building with
architectural references to the original).
5. Contemporary design, without reference to the original building.
6.4.
SURVIVING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
Original Kiosk Pier
While the kiosk building was totally destroyed, firefighters saved its pier and
substructure. This retains most of the original fabric of the 1904 pier, since
strengthened as far as possible.
The survival of the pier is important for a number of reasons:- it preserves the original
footprint and scale of the kiosk; it was a substantial part of the structure; it was a
critical part of the structure, responsible for its survival in an exposed environment
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
125
over a long period; and its use of timber contributes to the historical ambience of the
kiosk and surrounding pier.
This pier would need to be strengthened, and much of it replaced, as part of any
redevelopment of the site. Replacement of timber members, on a ‘like with like’
basis as far as possible, is a normal process in relation to structures such as timber
piers and bridges, and acceptable in heritage terms.
The portion of the timber pier underneath the former residence/kitchen extensions
was not original.
Base of the Kiosk
Apart from the pier, some relics of the original place remain. These include the
skirting board of the kiosk building, the timber front step, and timber decking. Some
of this material is charred from the fire, and has potential for interpretation.
Relics
It is understood that fabric, such as remnants of decorative timber and ironwork, was
salvaged after the fire. This would have value if it is decided to undertake and
authentic reconstruction. It might also have potential for interpretation.
Immediate Setting
The only parts of the original St Kilda pier to survive are situated around the kiosk,
which was built at the junction of the branch, or ‘L’, that they make. The kiosk’s
outside dining areas overlooked the timber deck of these piers, contributing to the
historical ambience of the kiosk experience.
The timber pier on the south side of the kiosk, between the replaced concrete pier and
the earth and rock breakwater, is the only remnant of the original St Kilda Pier. It
pre-dates the kiosk and is therefore of historical significance in its own right. While
many or most of its timbers are likely to have been replaced, it might retain original
fabric.
The timber pier that forms the front apron of the kiosk, and which branches northwest to the Yacht Club jetty, is also original, and pre-dates the kiosk.
The present concrete pier, completed 1988, was built immediately adjacent to the
original timber one (on the north side). Whereas the kiosk was offset from the
original pier, it now aligns perfectly with the new pier. The kiosk thus terminated the
pier promenade vista, attaining a new prominence.
The earth and rock breakwater, built for the 1956 Olympic Games sailing
competition, remains. It roughly replicates the L-shaped extension of the original
timber pier in this location that was built c.1899 to accommodate the bay excursion
paddle steamers, and also to provide a breakwater.
6.5.
RECONSTRUCTION: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE
Some of the options for the site involve reconstruction to different degrees. While
this option is preferred by the overwhelming majority of the public, not everyone
believes that it is desirable.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
126
Similarly, although most heritage professionals appear to favour reconstruction of the
Pier Kiosk, the issue of reconstruction remains a question within the heritage
profession. This section therefore examines whether reconstruction might be a valid
option in terms of heritage theory and practice.
Background: Reconstruction in Heritage Theory
Although many heritage places around the world have been and continue to be
reconstructed, European heritage theory and practice, greatly influenced by the
nineteenth century English heritage movement (dominated by John Ruskin, William
Morris and the Society for the Protection for Ancient Monuments), has embodied a
presumption against reconstruction. Although this presumption endures in
international heritage declarations,1 it is not absolute, and is diminishing with
growing appreciation of concepts such as ‘community’, ‘authenticity’, ‘intangible
values’ and ‘attachment’. It has also been influenced by the successful claims of
indigenous cultures to ‘ownership’ of heritage places, and recognition of heritage
principles and practices in Asia. There is a growing appreciation of the significance,
or ‘meaning’, of a place, over its ‘fabric’, within the heritage profession.
But the heritage profession has a strong tradition of ‘authenticity’ residing essentially
if not wholly in ‘fabric’, and the question of reconstruction is not yet resolved. These
misgivings are also more widely shared, as is evident in the appearance in the media
of words such as ‘fraud’ and ‘forgery’ (terms used by the SPAM2) in response to
proposals to reconstruct the St Kilda Pier Kiosk. Authenticity is the subject of an
increasing number of international conferences, documents and declarations, notably,
the 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity. The Riga Charter (2000) is one of the more
recent attempts to provide guides as to whether, and if so how, reconstruction should
be undertaken.
The following therefore attempts to background some of the developments in ideas
regarding reconstruction.
Early Heritage: National and International Charters and Documents
Heritage pioneers Ruskin and Morris were partly motivated by a distaste for
nineteenth century industrialism, and represented an elite aesthetic. With SPAM,
they set the scene for ‘a heritage system which would privilege the scientific and
antiquarian value of ‘relics’ and built heritage.’3
Their philosophy dominated the most influential international declaration, associated
with the foundation of the UNESCO sponsored International Committee for
Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS): the 1964 Venice Charter for the Conservation and
Restoration of Monuments and Sites. This regarded heritage places as ‘evidence’ of
history: ‘living witnesses of … age old traditions’. It was ‘our duty to hand them on
in the full richness of their authenticity’. It endorsed other SPAM principles; for
example, restoration should respect ‘original material and authentic documents’, ‘stop
at the point where conjecture begins’, and indispensable extra work should be
‘distinct’ and ‘bear a contemporary stamp.’ (Article 9) The Venice Charter, and the
1
The Riga Charter on Authenticity and Historical Reconstruction in Relationship to Cultural Heritage,
2000.
2
Morrice, R, ‘A Report into Practice Following Catastrophic Damage at Historic Places, with
Particular Reference to Brighton’s West Pier’ (English Heritage, December 2003), p.4. (SPAM later
became Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings).
3
Byrne, D, Brayshaw, H, Ireland, T, Social Significance: A Discussion Paper (NSW Parks and
Wildlife Service, June 2001), pp.26, 28
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
127
beginnings of the European heritage profession, was grounded in the primacy of
fabric. While it acknowledged the importance of site context, it ignored the notion of
‘attachment of the people’ that had been invoked as integral to successful
conservation in the earlier Athens ‘Charter for the Restoration of Historic
Monuments’ (1931).
The realities of heritage practice, in the meantime, were much bigger than
architectural processes that were the concern of the Venice Charter. Europe had been
reconstructing churches, town halls and indeed whole historic precincts of cities such
as Dresden and Warsaw destroyed or devastated in the Second World War. The
ICOMOS National Committee of the German Democratic Republic addressed this
‘going beyond conservation’ (Article 11), in its Declaration of Dresden (1982) on the
‘Reconstruction of Monuments Destroyed by War’.
The Dresden Declaration invokes notions such as the ‘spiritual value,’ and ‘symbolic
value’ of monuments, the ‘character’ of towns and villages, and ‘the bond’ these
places create between people and their native land. While monuments were still
‘evidence of history’, there was ‘fresh emphasis’ on the need to preserve their
‘original substance’, meaning ‘all those components which make it worthy of being
recognised as a monument’. (Article 4) There was a new wish ‘to restore a
monument by reason of its meaning and impact, in addition to mere preservation’.
Clearly, authenticity was not confined to fabric in this document. In a liberal new
approach to conservation, ‘meaning’, or ‘significance’, was now a major issue in
deciding the ‘type and scope of restoration’. (Article 6) The Declaration stated a
limitation: ‘complete reconstruction’ must be regarded as ‘an exceptional
circumstance’, justified only in the case of the destruction of a monument ‘of great
significance by war’. It is not clear however exactly what is meant by ‘great
significance’, as reconstruction includes residential buildings, and legitimate reasons
for reconstruction are many: ‘spiritual’, ‘intellectual’, ‘political’, national identity,
and simply getting on with life and previous uses (Articles 1, 2, 9). The Declaration
also suggested that the act of reconstruction, of ‘going beyond conservation’ had
‘attained a high professional level and thereby a new cultural dimension as well’.
(Article 11)
The Declaration of Dresden limited its consideration to the specific German issue of
war damage, and sought to confine its justification of reconstruction to that
circumstance, but the concepts it introduced were not specific to damage by war.
They were similar to those that were emerging around the Western world since the
time of the Venice Charter, in a period of considerable social change and discovery of
new ‘meanings’.
Changes: Modern Society
Influential Marxist social theory sanctioned an ‘anti-consensus’ view of society, and
history. Meanings were ‘social constructs’,4 and there could be a multiplicity of
values, and meanings, of monuments and heritage5 (and completely new types of
heritage places). Existentialism underpinned an understanding that the meaning of
things is fundamentally what we give them: ‘people …. are not so much inheritors as
passive recipients of culture but as active owners and modifiers of culture. … Each
generation to some extent reinterprets the historical space of the preceding
generation(s) rather than taking it as given.’6 Some of these ideas contributed to more
4
ibid, p.52
ibid, pp.33, 56.
6
ibid, p. 61
5
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
128
recent ‘post modernist’ cultural relativism, with its tenets that no one value (eg
‘fabric’ in the heritage realm) holds ‘privilege’ over others, that everything is ‘value
based’ and changeable, and that there is no intrinsic or inherited meanings of things,
or places. 7
Events, and everyday experience, reinforced these philosophies. In an era of street
marches and political activism, ‘community protest’ spread to heritage: ordinary
people - the community - claimed ‘ownership’ of heritage, and used ‘Green Bans’ to
defend Sydney’s ‘Rocks’ and other areas.8 (Significantly, The Rocks was a place
associated with working people rather than the elite social and aesthetic values
traditionally associated with the heritage movement.) Indigenous people were able to
establish their special association with places: Aboriginal Australian’s were
‘recognised as the primary custodians and interpreters of their cultural heritage.’9 In
many less contentious ways, the ‘counter-culture’ and ‘cultural revival’, appreciation
of the value of ‘story’ and ‘discourse’, and ‘community participation’ (in planning
first, and gradually, in heritage) challenged and changed conservation practice. 10
Modern National and International Heritage Charters and Documents
The 1979 Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, and the 1984 ‘Cultural Significance’
Guidelines to the Burra Charter, adapted the Venice Charter to local conditions. The
Burra Charter identified ‘cultural significance’, and established ‘aesthetic, historical,
scientific and social’ criteria to help establish this in each particular case. This
represented a framework with which to appreciate and legitimise meanings of a
heritage site apart from (or rather, as well as) its fabric.11 It was a landmark if not a
watershed in the heritage movement, becoming a model for heritage practice and
other ‘local’ ICOMOS charters around the world.
The Charter defined social significance as ‘the qualities for which a place has become
a focus of spiritual, political, national and other cultural sentiment to a majority or
minority group’, and suggested that information should be sought from the people
‘who used or have used the place, or descendents of such people’. While ‘social
significance’ was now named as a dimension and criterion of heritage significance,
understanding of what it was developed slowly, and methodologies for assessment
more slowly again, to the extent that social value was still reported to be neglected in
practice in 1999.12 Chris Johnston’s 1992 What is Social Value provided the first
detailed discussion of the social significance concept, and identified methodologies
for investigating social value. The document opens with the words: ‘Our
surroundings are more than their physical form and their history. Places can also be
the embodiment of our ideas and ideals.’13 Exploring phrases such as ‘deep sense of
attachment to place’, and ‘the connectedness of people and place’ she raised the need
for ‘community participation’, and introduced ideas such as heritage being ‘a
dynamic concept’.14 She cited the Mexico ICOMOS Declaration of Oaxaca’s
statement that heritage specialisations ‘should never be established as an activity
lying outside the values, aspirations and practices of communities’. 15
7
ibid, pp.58-59, 78
ibid, pp.34,70
9
ibid, pp.11, 28
10
ibid, pp. 65, 69, 112
11
‘Significance’ was still embedded in fabric and place however (ibid, p.109)
12
ibid, pp.130-135
13
Johnston, C, What is Social Value: A Discussion Paper, AHC Technical Publications Series Number
3 (AGPS, Canberra, 1994), Foreword.
14
ibid, pp.19, 26
15
ibid, p.5.
8
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
129
The Lausanne Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological
Heritage (1990) considered reconstruction in an archaeological context (Article 17).
It declared that: ‘Reconstructions serve two important functions: experimental
research and interpretation.’ The second of these functions also applies to heritage
buildings, along with statements regarding the need to ‘take account of evidence from
all sources in order to achieve authenticity’, and the need for reconstruction to be
‘identifiable as such’.
Until the 1990s the tendency in UNESCO declarations had been to universalise the
northern European conservation ethic. 16 However in parts of Asia it had been the
practice for many centuries to continually disassemble and rebuild important timber
buildings, such as Japan’s Ise Shrines, and the Vietnamese Van-Mieu in Hanoi. This
was undertaken because of the nature of timber buildings, which require extensive
renovation, and as part of a culture of maintaining traditional building techniques.
Elsewhere in Asia timber buildings destroyed in war have been reconstructed as a
matter of course, and national identity. In Beijing, reconstruction of the Summer
Palace (including Garden Pavilions), burnt down by Britain and France in 1860, was
undertaken very soon afterwards, in 1885-1895. Similarly in Korea many of the
buildings in large complexes on the World Heritage List (such as Bulguksa Temple,
and Changdeokgung Palace) have been completely reconstructed after destruction by
invaders, sometimes many years after the event. 17 Clearly, Asian cultures have a very
different understanding of where the ‘authenticity’ of a place resides.
The World Heritage Convention’s Nara (Japan) Document on Authenticity (1994)
began to address this issue. It developed the Declaration of Oaxaca’s support for the
principle of cultural diversity and identity, and the rights of indigenous peoples, by
declaring that: ‘Responsibility for cultural heritage and the management of it belongs,
in the first place, to the cultural community that generated it, and subsequently to that
which cares for it.’ (Article 8) Communities would need to ‘balance’ their own
requirements with those of other (including global) cultural communities. Nara was a
landmark in the shift to pluralism, and the prioritisation of social value over
specialised and professionalised values such as archaeology, architecture, and history.
Papers talked about community ‘emotional attachment’ being a sufficient basis for
heritage, and the need to include ‘immaterial, intangible forms set in peoples’ minds
and hearts’. The Document itself recognised social meanings and associations with
place. Cultural heritage was seen as more encompassing, and landscape-based rather
than site-based.18
The Nara Document declared that ‘authenticity judgements may be linked to a great
variety of sources of information’, including:
‘form and design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions and
techniques, location and setting, and spirit and feeling, and other internal
and external factors. The use of these sources permits elaboration of the
specific artistic, historic, social, and scientific dimensions of the cultural
heritage being examined.’ (Article 13)
Fabric was no longer the sole, or necessarily the primary, dimension of authenticity.
The Inter-American Symposium on Authenticity in the Conservation and
Management of the Cultural Heritage was a response to the call of the Secretary
General of ICOMOS for regional participation in the international debate on the
16
17
18
Byrne et al, op cit, p.78
Suh Jae-sik, op cit, pp.37-47, 101-124
ibid, pp.78-79
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
130
subject. Consequently the Declaration of San Antonio (1996) reasserted the
legitimacy of fabric in the terms of the Venice Charter. Perhaps it was in response to
sentiments such as those expressed in the USA position paper, that ‘the value of a
living culture which surrounds and uses cultural properties … is fundamentally more
important than the properties themselves’,19 that the Declaration felt the need to assert
that: ‘The material fabric of a cultural site can be a principal component of its
authenticity’. In a similar vein, while acknowledging different approaches to
restoration/reconstruction, it stated that: ‘Nevertheless, we emphasize that only the
historic fabric is authentic, and interpretations achieved through restoration are not;
they can only authentically represent the meaning of a site as understood in a given
moment. Furthermore, we universally reject the reliance on conjecture or hypotheses
for restoration’. At the same time however it appears to allow wide exceptions for
places built of ‘perishable materials that require periodic replacement’; and all places
‘subject to damage caused by periodic natural catastrophes such as earthquakes floods
and hurricanes’. And, while re-validating ‘fabric’, it also recognised that
‘authenticity is a concept much larger than material integrity and the two concepts
must not be assumed to be equivalent’. (Article 3) ‘Cultural value’ could only be
understood through ‘history’, ‘material elements’ and ‘a deep understanding of the
intangible traditions associated with the tangible patrimony’. 20
A key objective of the 1999 revisions of the Burra Charter was to:
‘broaden the understanding of what is cultural significance by recognising
that significance may lie in more than just the fabric of the place. Thus
significance is “embodied in the place itself, its setting, use, associations,
meanings, records, related places and related objects”(Article 1.2)’ 21
This was now similar to the Nara Document’s Article 13, except that no direct
equivalent to ‘form and design’ is specifically identified. (However Kerr’s guide to
contemporary Australian practice does identify ‘design and layout of the place’ as a
potential component of a place’s authenticity.22)
Another change was to recognise the importance of interpretation, and also that:
‘restoration and reconstruction are acts of interpretation’. ‘Interpretation’ (Article 25)
should ‘explain’ the cultural significance of a place where this was not readily
apparent, and ‘should enhance understanding and enjoyment, and be culturally
appropriate.’
The revised Charter included some very significant changes in relation to
‘reconstruction’, particularly the deletion of Article 18, which had stated that:
‘Reconstruction is limited to the completion of a depleted entity and should not
constitute the majority of the fabric of the place.’23 To the original Article 19 that
stated that reconstruction should be ‘identifiable on close inspection’ was added the
phrase ‘or through additional interpretation’. (Article 20.2)
Other changes in the revised Charter relevant to considering the St Kilda Pier Kiosk
was the broadening the definition of a place to include ‘landscapes’, ‘spaces and
views’ (Article 1.1); and clarification of the need to involve the ‘people for whom the
19
Byrne et al, op cit, p.79
ibid
21
The Burra Charter (1999): The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance
(Australia ICOMOS Inc., 2000), pp.2, 22. Article 3.1 defines ‘Conservation’ in terms of ‘existing
fabric, use, associations and meanings’.
22
James Semple Kerr, The Conservation Plan (fifth edition), National Trust of Australia (NSW, 2000),
p.32.
23
Note that Kerr, op cit, p.46 does retain reference to this traditional axiom, though in a qualified form:
‘Reconstruction … does not ordinarily involve more than half the fabric of a place.’
20
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
131
place has special associations or meanings’ in the heritage process. (Articles 12 and
26.3)
In 2000 the International Centre for the Study of the Restoration and Preservation of
Cultural Property (ICCROM) convened a conference in Riga, Latvia on ‘Authenticity
and Historical Reconstruction in Relation to Cultural Heritage’. The conference was
convened in response to a boom in ‘brand new historic buildings’ in the Baltics,
Belarus and Ukraine, in apparent contravention of the Operational Guidelines of the
World Heritage Convention since the early 1980s that ‘reconstruction is only
acceptable if it is carried out on the basis of complete and accurate documentation on
the original, and to no extent on conjecture’.24 In the euphoria of recovered
nationhood, post-Soviet North East Europe states had decided, in some cases ‘at the
level of official conservation strategy’, to reconstruct lost symbols of former
statehood. So plans to reconstruct palaces on later historic sites concerned heritage
practitioners, and other reconstruction plans (eg for the Jewish ghetto in Vilnius)
caused fierce public and political debate about their efficacy. In Kiev and elsewhere
churches were being reconstructed in a huge wave of post-Soviet emotion.
While the conference expressed ‘the conservation world’s reverence for authenticity’,
it also acknowledged the ‘emotional’ responses and ‘symbolic’ values that had
resulted in the reconstruction of churches in Kiev in the post-Soviet era, and the
inscription of the post WW2 reconstruction of the historic centre of Warsaw on the
World Heritage List. Its main objectives were:- ‘to develop a framework for analysis
of reconstruction proposals which could be used to guide local debates’; ‘to ensure
that reconstruction, when and if it occurred, would reflect widely held consensus
about its appropriateness’; and ‘to increase awareness of decision-makers and
politicians concerning the related issues of reconstruction and authenticity’. 25
In response to these regional circumstances the Charter was a cautious document,
essentially underscoring ‘the essentially conservative nature of attitudes to
reconstruction prevalent in the conservation world.’ And so, while endorsing the
Nara Document and similar international statements, it reiterated the value of cultural
heritage as evidence and the need to keep intervention of any kind to the minimum,
noting that ‘replication of cultural heritage is in general a misrepresentation of
evidence of the past, and that each architectural work should reflect the time of its
own creation, in the belief that sympathetic new buildings can maintain the
environmental context’. 26 In its guidelines regarding when and how reconstruction
may be appropriate, the Charter first reiterated the presumption against
‘reconstruction’ (which included ‘restoration’), and then noted that the ‘exceptional
circumstances’ in which cultural heritage may be acceptable is loss ‘through disaster,
whether of natural or human origin’.
However, the ‘key contribution made by the Riga meeting and its charter to the
reconstruction debate’ was said to be its recognition that reconstruction must ‘reflect
consensus among all citizens at all levels’: ‘providing always that the need for
reconstruction has been established through full and open consultations among
national and local authorities and the community concerned’.27
24
Herb Stovel, ICCROM Director, Heritage Settlements Programme, ‘Comments on the Conference
and the Riga Charter’ (ICCROM website). Mr Stovel provided the opening addresses to the
conference.
25
ibid
26
Riga Charter (its article are not numbered)
27
ibid; and Riga Charter; and Herb Stovel, personal communication.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
132
Two additional pre-conditions for legitimate reconstruction are provided. The second
of these generally restates well-established constraints regarding the availability of
sufficient documentation, the need not to damage significant historic fabric, and
avoiding ‘falsify the overall urban or landscape context’. The first pre-condition is
new:‘When the monument concerned has outstanding artistic, symbolic or
environmental (whether urban or regional) significance for regional history
and cultures’.28
The 2002 China ICOMOS ‘Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in
China’, based to a large extent on the Burra Charter and developed in consultation
with heritage professionals from the USA and Australia, represents some of the most
recent thinking regarding reconstruction. After the universal introductory statement
that ‘a building that no longer survives should not be reconstructed’, it makes the
usual allowance for ‘rare’ exemptions, subject to the ‘strict controls’ regarding
sufficiency of documentary evidence and need for reconstructions to be clearly
marked as such.29 It also includes some new ideas of relevance to the St Kilda Pier
Kiosk:
•
One of the circumstances in which reconstruction may be considered includes:
‘When a structure has been destroyed in recent years and the public still has a
strong memory and connection with it…’;
•
Another such circumstance is: ‘When a small number of buildings existed in
gardens or cultural landscapes and were intimately associated with the setting’;
•
Reconstruction is not appropriate when (amongst other things): ‘No footings of
buildings exist’.30
Continuing Debate: Other Commentaries
The issue remains topical. The Council of Europe has now launched an initiative
intended to lead to an intergovernmental agreement regarding the need for fully
consultative processes in regard to reconstruction proposals.31 Agendas of recent and
forthcoming heritage conferences and assemblies in Zimbabwe, Budapest and
Myanmar include ‘intangible values in monuments and sites’, and re-evaluating the
Venice Charter on its 40th anniversary.
The introductory paper to the 2004 review of the 2000-2005 Victorian Heritage
Strategy notes the ‘dramatic shift’ that has taken place in what has been recognised as
heritage:
‘In a way, heritage has become a broader concept, less fixed to fabric and
more responsive to community values, and one that appears likely to continue
to evolve in a new direction’32
The philosophical underpinnings for these changes are considered in a long critique
by Byrne and others for the NSW Parks and Wildlife Service:- Social Significance: A
Discussion Paper. It argues that whereas places’ ‘aesthetic, historical, and scientific’
criteria are in practice generally well documented by their respective professionals,
these same practitioners view social significance as a separate type of significance
28
Riga Charter.
China ICOMOS, ‘Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China’ (English version, J Paul
Getty Trust, 2002), Article 25.
30
China ICOMOS, ‘Commentary on the Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China’
(English version, J Paul Getty Trust, 2002), Article 13.
31
Herb Stovel, personal communication
32
Context Pty Ltd, ‘Heritage Places’, Victoria’s Heritage 2010, p.10
29
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
133
associated with the ‘community’, and it is rarely included in heritage assessments.33
This disassociates or at least marginalises the community from heritage, whereas in
fact the community has been shown to be most interested in the more specialised
criteria. Instead of being the least of the Burra Charter’s criteria, social significance
is in fact the primary criteria which encapsulates the other three.
Cultural significance is therefore ‘culturally constructed’, deriving from the
community rather than from the place itself as heritage charters assume. While at
present heritage professionals ‘read’ the meanings of places, places are in fact ‘value
neutral’, their meanings being conferred on them by the community. The heritage
profession has ‘substantialised’ culture by its focus on physical substance to a degree
‘often resembling fetishism’. 34 The traditional approach of ‘intrinsic significance’ has
been largely antiquarian and static, whereas the restitution of ‘intangible’ social
significance would better appreciate the notion of ‘attachment’, and identify places’
‘meaning[s] in the “lived world” of ordinary people’.35 So the need, according to this
school, becomes to ‘…break down the naïve/scientistic characterisation of heritage as
“things” separate from the cultural intangibles which constitute them…’36 The
implications of this critique for the reconstruction debate are clear.
The major weakness of the argument would seem to be the unresolved issue of how
to viably identify social significance. It is difficult to identify a place’s social
significance fully. Even if known ‘communities’ are fully canvassed, there are likely
to be other undiscovered communities (including past or future communities) or
individuals for whom the place might have other values. Therefore the retention of
the fabric is of value in enabling other interpretations, by a less limited community
(than ourselves), who have or will interrogate and appreciate it from new
perspectives. While there may be a need to address the ‘fabric bias’37, fabric and
meanings are both important, and fully appreciating the significance of meaning need
not undermine the significance of the fabric, the place itself. In terms of the San
Antonio Declaration, fabric can have ‘documentary’ as well as ‘testimonial’ value.
The English Heritage
Buildings(2003)
Opinion
on
Reconstructing
Brighton’s
West
Pier
Following extensive damage to both the Pavilion and Concert Hall on Brighton’s
West Pier in disastrous fires in April and again in May 2003, English Heritage
prepared a report addressing the question of whether reconstruction of the severely
damaged buildings was still legitimate. The paper by Dr Richard Morrice examined
heritage practice in relation to catastrophic damage at historic places, and as a result
English Heritage concluded that reconstruction of the West Pier would be consistent
with internationally accepted conservation principles.38
The Morrice paper is salient to this report not only in that it relates to structures of
similar type and date as the St Kilda Pier Kiosk, but also in that it was written with
the international debate on conservation practices in mind. Its overview of the history
of heritage theory and recent practice covers many of the questions that arise in
33
‘The tendency has been for professionals either to ignore local social values or to make ad hoc
judgements as to what these values are’; Most Conservation Management Plan assessments ‘give
relatively little attention to social significance’; and, while there is an acknowledgement of association,
there is little analysis of that attachment. Byrne et al, op cit, eg, pp.11, 14.
34
ibid, p.47
35
ibid, pp.49, 55-60, 117, 143
36
ibid, p.115
37
ibid, p.112
38
Morrice, op cit., pp.1-3, 18
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
134
considering the validity of reconstructing the St Kilda Pier Kiosk. Its discussion of
Australian heritage philosophy (the Burra Charter and JS Kerr) add to its usefulness
as a background document.
West Pier, Brighton UK, showing the surviving fabric (essentially metal frames) of the burnt
out Pavilion and Concert Hall (which is also partially collapsed). Photograph taken 11th May
2003 (‘Westpier Trust’ website)
Morrice begins by reviewing the history of the heritage movement in relation to
reconstruction. He notes that the heritage profession in England (we might add
Australia) has historically been dominated by the ‘very English Ruskinian-Morrisian
tradition of conservative repair’, subsequently broadcast by the Society for the
Preservation of Ancient Buildings. Many of the precepts of these heritage pioneers
became axioms of ‘international’ (European) heritage charters and practice, for
example:- ‘the marks of age are guarantees of authenticity’; additions should be ‘as
unobtrusive as possible and frankly modern’; ‘every manner of building belonged to
its own day only’. 39 Heritage to this group was a means for England to stay in touch
with its antiquity, the values of its past and its identity; fabric and craftsmanship
provided the evidence of this antiquity.
But even in the early years there were other philosophies. The great nineteenth
century French heritage architect Viollet-le-Duc was much more interested in
buildings as designs, as works of art, than as ancient monuments that could not be
changed or adapted for modern purposes. While in England his extensive restorations
were thought intrusive, he regarded the Ruskin-Morris school as dogmatic, noting
that ‘absolute principles may lead to absurdities’. He had his own convictions and
rigorous practices regarding the evidential value of fabric. Morrice notes that there
was also in England another, ‘visual/aesthetic’, heritage tradition, which lead to the
development of conservation area policies including ‘enhancement’ and ‘facadism’
(which conflicted with the ‘conservative repair’ doctrine, and was opposed by
SPAB).
Morrice notes that the emergence of the concept of ‘cultural significance’ in the Burra
Charter has provided a new perspective on these debates. Heritage is defined as those
places that ‘help an understanding of the past’ or ‘enrich the present’. The concept of
cultural significance helps to identify and assess these values. The idea that a place
can have different types of significance (aesthetic, historical, social, scientific), means
that no one dimension of an historic place is automatically ‘privileged’ over another.
39
ibid, pp.3-5. Morrice quotes extensively from WR Lathaby’s biography of Philip Webb.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
135
So, the ‘fabric’ emphasis of Ruskin/Morris is considered equally, on a case by case
basis, with the ‘design’ emphasis of Viollet-le-Duc, and other types of significance.
Assessing cultural significance (which is ‘essentially an intangible matter’) requires
‘discussion and consensus as to where cultural significance lies in a particular case’
(Burra Charter). The appropriate conservation approach derives from the type of
significance of a place, and is therefore somewhere on a ‘sliding scale’ for each place.
So, if the significance of a building derives from its ‘complex accretion’ (eg in a
Mediaeval church) then authenticity of fabric would be a major consideration,
whereas if ‘homogeneity’ (ie an original architectural concept) is of greater cultural
significance, it may not.
Irrespective of the new ‘cultural significance’ approach, Morrice’s survey of heritage
practice in England establishes that the dogmatic principles of ‘conservative repair’
have been compromised if not put aside in every case examined, due simply to
practicalities (including the use of a place, the desires of an owner, or available
budget) and the dictates of ‘reasonableness.’ Viollet-le-Duc’s belief that it is
impossible to be absolute has been proven by experience.
Amongst these cases however Windsor Castle is a milestone of English conservation
in that reconstruction was approved purely on heritage grounds. After exhaustive
consideration of alternatives, including contemporary redesign, the original surface
decor of rooms completely consumed in the fire was reconstructed because of the
importance of their designs, especially in the context of matching room furnishings.
It was ‘their importance as setting and backdrop which overrode concerns about
authenticity’; ‘architectural design was regarded as at least as important as
authenticity of fabric.’40
Morrice concludes that while the dominant paradigm for English Heritage’s response
to disasters at historic buildings has been ‘conservative repair’ in the Ruskin-Morris
tradition, solutions in every case examined had not been dogmatic. ‘Authenticity of
fabric has evidently not been the prevailing factor that common conception would
lead us to believe.’41
From these case studies Morrice finds some criteria and principles regarding
reconstruction that may be useful elsewhere. In cases such as Windsor Castle, and
(he proposes) West Pier, where ‘surface’ design is most important he proffers
‘visibility’ as a test: ‘if a thing to be replicated is hidden, it may not be unreasonable
to replace it in a different form, perhaps cheaper, perhaps more functionally useful’.
In another potential model ‘faithful historical reconstruction’ (as distinct from ‘a
pastiche’) was endorsed for a building missing from a former ‘group’ of buildings.
Another major type of place for which there is actually a long tradition of
reconstruction in England is garden buildings. Morrice’s principal suggestion as to
why this might be so is that, as contributory parts to groups of buildings within
designed landscapes (perhaps didactic in nature), it has been thought that the ‘whole’
is impaired by the loss of these elements. Also that the customary replacement of
landscape features such as trees provides a precedent which seems to demand similar
treatment for the built elements of the same garden. It is clear, he concludes, that ‘the
philosophical tradition of designed landscapes is closer to the camp of Viollet-le-Duc
than to Ruskin/Morris traditions, with design being privileged over fabric.’42
40
41
42
ibid, p.10
ibid, p.13
ibid, p.12
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
136
Some of the discussion regarding the particular case of Brighton’s West Pier is also
relevant:
•
The ‘materials from which piers are made are essentially fugitive and in normal
circumstances are replaced as times goes by’;
•
Original materials that still perform should be kept due to their direct association
with the genius of Birch (the architect), and for their role as ‘guarantor of
exactitude’ (as per Viollet-le-Duc);
•
The significance of the buildings on the pier is ‘largely visual’, for the ‘festive air
they gave the skyline of the pier as part of the seafront’;
•
The architecture of the buildings is not ‘serious’, because ‘it was intended to be
splendid and lavish rather than earnest’. He then argues that, because ‘sheer,
spectacular’ effect rather than craftsmanship was paramount, ‘slavish adherence
to the materials used to create effect would be superfluous’; and similarly that,
the emphasis on ‘decorated surfaces’ - external surfaces rather than interior ones means that external repairs of the shells only might be appropriate. (Similar
arguments might not apply directly to the St Kilda Kiosk. Even if it is accepted,
as it always has been in relation to pleasure pavilions, that designing buildings for
pleasure or fun was somehow less ‘serious’ or skilful than other architecture, the
St Kilda kiosk was essentially in a more ‘serious’ traditional style, without
spectacular affectation, its light relief being relatively subtle. Secondly, it was
designed as a kiosk for the serious promenading set rather than an amusement
hall, and the interior dining room expressed this association.)
However the main thrust of Morrice’s discussion regarding the West Pier is to
ascertain whether it complies with the guidelines of the Riga Charter (2000) on
‘Authenticity and Historical Reconstruction in Relationship to Cultural Heritage’ (see
previous). He concludes that it does, in that it is of ‘outstanding’ significance’, as
required, being the most significant such pier constructed, and the ‘acme of pleasure
piers’. He is also satisfied that it meets the three tests specified in the Charter:•
There is ‘appropriate survey and historical documentation’ available despite
some gaps.
•
The reconstruction does not falsify the overall urban or landscape context.
•
Existing historical fabric will not be damaged. (Rather intrusive accretions will
be removed.)
(Presumably - this is not discussed - ‘the need for reconstruction’ of West Pier is
deemed to have been ‘established through full and open consultations among national
and local authorities and the community concerned’).
This English Heritage recommendation, which contravenes its published policy on
reconstruction, was made on the basis that international opinion ‘supported the
reconstruction of important structures after disasters of natural or human origin.’
Reconstruction of the pier buildings is recommended as their ‘significance lies not in
the materials and techniques but in the overall effect. Nevertheless, high standards of
accuracy in the reconstruction of the exteriors should be demanded.’ 43
Western Practice, and Other Precedents
While the existence of precedents does not necessarily justify reconstruction, it has a
long tradition in Europe as an option to conserve social value. 44
43
44
ibid, p.18
Jane Lennon, HeritageChat discussion of reconstruction of the Kiosk (30/9/03)
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
137
In parts of Asia timber buildings are routinely reconstructed using traditional
techniques. In North Eastern Europe, where timber has also been a major building
material, palaces, churches and other buildings are being reconstructed as former
Soviet states look to re-assert their heritage of independent statehood, and their
spiritual beliefs. Churches, town halls, residences, the English House of Commons,
and even whole urban precincts (including a Jewish ghetto) were reconstructed all
over Europe after World War Two, most notably in Germany. (In contrast England’s
Coventry Cathedral provides a famous model for the traditional philosophy of
‘conservative repair’ in its commemoration of a tragic historic event by juxtaposing a
contemporary construction with the bombed ruins of the original; but it is a
comparatively rare case.) The tradition of reconstructing historic buildings after war as symbols of new life, or the restoration of a pre-war ideal or sentiment - continues,
most dramatically with the careful rebuilding (using as many retrieved original blocks
of stone as possible) of the ancient and beautiful Mostar bridge in Bosnia.
Aside from war, there is a tradition in Europe of major restoration or reconstruction
of castles, cathedrals and other historic buildings. Westminster Abbey is said to have
no mediaeval stone remaining on its exterior. Similar to Windsor Castle, the English
National Trust reconstructed the most significant interiors of Uppark, and extensive
reconstructions have also been undertaken on properties such as Prior Park, and Hill
Hall in Essex.45 Recently, Venice’s La Fenice Opera House, where La Traviata and
Rigoletto were first performed, was reconstructed after being reduced to a roofless
shell by a 1996 fire (the original 1836 building had itself replaced an earlier 1792
building, also destroyed by fire). The US$20 million raised through fundraising by
1999 was insufficient for the cost of reconstruction. 46 As previously discussed, the
Brighton West Pier has been cleared for reconstruction by English Heritage; if it does
not proceed it will be due to the estimated huge expense.
In Australia buildings constructed of fugitive materials, such as timber bridges and
piers, routinely have individual members or structural components (eg decks or piers)
reconstructed to the same or similar designs, and Victoria’s oldest timber bridges
generally have little if any original surviving material remaining. Even for some on
heritage registers (eg Condidorios Bridge at Koondrook) major or total reconstruction
on a (very approximately) ‘like with like’ replacement basis has been deemed to
retain significance. Geelong’s Eastern Beach pier, with a high public profile and
distinctive design and therefore one of the more celebrated of this category of
utilitarian structures, was completely reconstructed in recent years. In all of these
cases the primacy of design over fabric has been recognised.
Other than the often controversial issue of complete ‘reconstruction’, the limitations
of the ideology of fabric are raised by ‘restorations’ regularly undertaken by
traditional heritage architects. It is often difficult to identify which fabric is original
after restorations (La Trobes Cottage, the Gothic Bank, or the Regent and Plaza
Theatres have been cited 47). Before it was destroyed much of the external cladding of
the former St Kilda Pier Kiosk had been replaced in two major restorations, including
substantial parts of the roof, windows, and weatherboards. Even a coat of paint will
significantly change the appearance of a place (in fact this was a major complaint
after the 1988 restoration of the Kiosk).
One of the most celebrated reconstructions in Australia is the replica of Captain
Cook’s Endeavour. This was based on good documentary evidence, and its original
45
46
47
ibid, pp.8-9
BBC News Online: 2/4/1999; 30/3/2001.
Richard Peterson, personal conversation.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
138
design altered only to the extent required to provide modern navigation and safety
standards. While it is clear that the New Endeavour is not the original, it provides
powerful and useful (although undoubtedly not completely accurate) interpretation
regarding eighteenth century shipping and the discovery of Australia. At the other
end of the difficulty spectrum, a St Kilda Road Tram Shed demolished in a traffic
accident was reconstructed (using some original material) presumably because it was
a distinctive and rare type of heritage structure and small enough to make
reconstruction easy.
Australia also has a reconstructed heritage precinct (other than the numerous heritage
parks). Chris Johnston relates how the local community wanted to reconstruct
‘missing’ buildings (known from historical photographs) in the streetscape of
Walhalla township, contrary to the government’s ICOMOS based principles. As with
churches in post-Soviet Kiev, and historic city quarters in post-war Europe,
community attachments ‘won the day’, and social value was achieved through the
reconstruction. 48
Another Australian case in which the public succeeded in its desire for a
reconstruction was Waldheim, originally built 1912-early 1920s by Tasmanian
bushwalkers Gustav and Kate Weindorfer as the pioneering Cradle Mountain tourist
chalet. Its demolition by National Parks and Wildlife Service in 1976 generated a
public outcry, and the Service consequently reconstructed it, using some materials
salvaged from the original, photographs, historical research, and what was known of
building techniques used in its construction, but without the additions it had acquired
in the last 50 years of its life. Some time after its reconstruction a Conservation Plan
was prepared to guide future management. This considered the reconstructed chalet to
have inherited the cultural significance of the original. In addition, it had acquired
cultural significance in its new role as a museum, and in expressing the vision of the
people who had opposed its demolition and forced its reconstruction. ‘Despite the
loss of the original chalet, there [was] meaning to be found in the story of its
evolution, in the change in community attitudes towards natural and cultural heritage,
and in the development of tourism itself’. At the same time it was recognised that
there could be ‘no absolute authenticity in interpretation’.49
The Waldheim Conservation Plan (1990) had been undertaken in accordance with the
Burra Charter processes. It prepared a Statement of Significance for the original
Chalet, and deduced that the reconstructed Chalet had retained the key elements of
this significance, including: its location (aesthetics); the nature of its construction; and
is connection with Weindorfer (said to have been enhanced as accretions after his
death had not be reconstructed). This after-the-event CMP provides a rare opportunity
to actually assess (rather than predict) the success of a reconstruction. The answer
was affirmative: its cultural significance was judged to have been authentically
recovered, despite the loss of the vast majority of its original fabric. The new Chalet
was even judged to have ‘been successful in reproducing the form and ambience of
the original place.’50
It would seem that the English tradition of accepting reconstruction of gardens and
designed landscapes also applies to Australia. In his introductory discussion relating
to these types of structures JS Kerr cites Inigo Jones’ early seventeenth century
48
Johnston, C, What is Social Value, op cit, p.24
Saunders, R, ‘Waldheim: Linking Tasmania’s Natural and Cultural Heritage’, in C. Michael Hall &
S McArthur (eds), Heritage Management in Australia and New Zealand: The Human Dimension
(OUP, 1996).
50
Bannear, D, ‘Conservation Plan for Walheim Chalet Area, Cradle Mountain - Lake St Clair National
Park’ (Department of Parks, Wildlife and Heritage, December 1990), pp.22-23
49
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
139
Banqueting House in Whitehall Palace as a useful analogy for garden conservation.
Architecturally it ‘stood out from its outlandish neighbours by the refined elegance of
its form’, which was subsequently entirely refaced in Portland Stone, and subject to
partial reconstructions. However, its conservators understood that, externally, ‘it was
the form and texture that was significant, not the actual fabric’. Kerr compares this to
gardens which similarly require ‘progressive renewal’ as they ‘grow and die and must
be replanted’. 51
Richard Aitken’s report on reconstruction of the Camperdown Rotunda may provide
evidence of a more sympathetic local attitude towards reconstructing garden
buildings, as in England. Despite the report having been undertaken in 1985, prior to
the Revised Burra Charter deleting the requirements that the ‘majority’ of a place not
be reconstructed, and that reconstruction must be necessary for the ‘survival’ of the
place, reconstruction was still considered to be legitimate. Similar to experience in
England, this conclusion was arrived at by regarding it to be part of a larger ‘place’ the Camperdown Botanical Gardens - whose cultural significance it would help
recover. (The requirement that the reconstruction be ‘identifiable as new work on
close inspection’ would be satisfied by the new structural elements such as bolts,
welded steel and such.) 52
Maybe we somehow regard light and pleasurable garden pavilions, or tram shelters,
as closer to moveable artefacts than to buildings. Moveable historical artefacts period furniture, engines, musical instruments - are reconstructed all the time. We
know that they are reconstructions (even by their patina), but if done with skill and
care for accuracy they obviously have value.
6.6.
WOULD RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ST KILDA PIER KIOSK
EFFECTIVE IN RECOVERING SIGNIFICANCE?
BE
VALID,
AND
There are two questions that remain to be answered. Firstly, is reconstruction of the
St Kilda Pier Kiosk legitimate in terms of the heritage charters and declarations?
Secondly, would reconstruction recover or reveal the cultural significance of the
former Kiosk?
It is concluded that an ‘authentic’ reconstruction of the St Kilda Pier Kiosk, as close
as possible to the state of the place at the time of its destruction, would satisfy the
heritage charters, and substantially recover the significance of the Kiosk.
Is Reconstruction of the St Kilda Pier Kiosk Valid?
While some heritage charters maintain a general presumption against reconstruction,
all acknowledge and allow the validity of exceptions. Some of these pre-conditions
for reconstruction are universal and uncontentious, relating to agreed heritage
principles and procedures. But there are some differences regarding the more
primary justifications of reconstruction.
The validity of a possible reconstruction of the St Kilda Pier is assessed in terms of
the pre-conditions of modern heritage charters.
51
Kerr, op cit, pp.40-41
Aitken, R, ‘Camperdown Rotunda: Proposal for Reconstruction’, Report prepared for the Town of
Camperdown and the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands, 1985, pp.9-10
52
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
140
The Burra Charter (1999)
Professional reconstruction is legitimate according to the Burra Charter, and
reconstruction of the St Kilda Pier Kiosk would satisfy all relevant guidelines.
•
(Article 1.8): ‘Reconstruction means returning a place to a known earlier state
and is distinguished from restoration by the introduction of new material into the
fabric’.
According to the Burra Charter, reconstruction is a legitimate conservation
practice.
•
The Explanatory Notes to Article 1.17 state that: ‘Interpretation may … [include]
… the treatment of the fabric (eg, maintenance, restoration, reconstruction)…’.
Also the ‘Notes on the 1999 revisions to the Burra Charter’ (p.25) state that both
‘both restoration and reconstruction are acts of interpretation’.
These notes explain the nature of the legitimacy of reconstruction in the Burra
Charter. A reconstruction is not the original place, but an interpretation of it.
•
Article 18: ‘Restoration and reconstruction should reveal culturally significant
aspects of the place’.
A reconstruction would reveal the most significant cultural values of the original
Kiosk: its form and design; its use and function; its location and setting; and its
spirit and feeling.
•
Article 20.1: ‘Reconstruction is appropriate only where a place is incomplete
through damage or alteration, and only where there is sufficient evidence to
reproduce an earlier state of the fabric’.
This article might be taken to imply that it is not appropriate to completely
reconstruct a place. However its history is relevant: it represents a change from
the original Burra Charter, which stated (Article 18) that reconstruction should
‘not constitute the majority of the fabric of the place’. The deletion of this ‘50%
rule’ means that there is no longer an arbitrary threshold and any amount of
surviving original material now qualifies a place for reconstruction.
Reconstruction of the Kiosk would satisfy this Article in several ways. Firstly, as
discussed in 6.4 above, a substantial part of the place remains: the pier which was
an integral part of the original project; the charred platform and stairs of the
Kiosk (with potential for interpretation); and damaged relics from the fire. The
Charter does not require the surviving fabric to be of primary or high cultural
significance in itself. (It is also of relevance that the 2002 China Principles
specifically require the retention of ‘footings’ - as at the St Kilda Kiosk - as a precondition to reconstruction.)
Secondly, the Charter definition of a ‘place’ includes its ‘site’, ‘area’,
‘landscape’, ‘group of buildings or other works’, and may include ‘spaces and
views’. All of these survive intact, and if they are significant, the loss of the
Kiosk would represent ‘a place ... incomplete through damage or alteration’. The
Statement of Significance for the former kiosk confirms that the kiosk was a
major component of a cultural landscape of very high significance. The St Kilda
foreshore was identified as an historical cultural landscape of national
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
141
significance, and its intact pier and ‘seascape’ setting (including views to and
from it) were integral to the kiosks’ social, aesthetic and historical significance.
This is also the same principle by which reconstruction of garden structures,
including bandstands and pavilions, is regularly justified. A difference is that
garden structures are (to varying degrees) parts of ‘created’ or ‘designed’
landscapes. But, there is no formal requirement of such a limitation. And the
same logic, of retaining a component of a ‘cultural landscape’, is indeed implied
by the expanded 1999 definition of a ‘place’ to include ‘landscape’. A cultural
landscape expresses a unifying historical theme (or themes) in the same way as
does a designed landscape, despite the fact that not all its elements are the product
of a single designer.
The ‘sufficient evidence’ available to reproduce an earlier state of the fabric
includes the original architectual drawings, historical
photographs,
comprehensive recent photographs, extensive documentation associated with
several major restoration projects undertaken since 1987, and remnant fabric.
•
Article 20.2: ‘Reconstruction should be identifiable on close inspection or
through additional interpretation’.
There is no reason why both of these requirements could and should not be met in
a reconstructed St Kilda Kiosk. The first requirement could be met through use
of modern structural methods, such as recommended by Aitken for the
Camperdown rotunda. Distinguishing ‘secondary materials’ (eg nails), discrete
markings, or slightly different decoration might also be employed.
It is generally accepted that additional on-site interpretation would be necessary.
This would include a clear and prominent articulation that this building is a 20042005 reconstruction, and interpretation, of the original 1904 kiosk. It would
explain the reconstruction philosophy and process, and the degree of authenticity
against the original. Ideally it would also relate the history and significance of
the former kiosk, including some contextual history. It might note that an
authentic reconstruction is an exceptional occurrence in Victoria, and that this
reconstruction expresses the special affection in which it was held by
Melburnians. A wider interpretation plan of the cultural significance of the pier
might also be prepared in conjunction with the City of Port Phillip.
The San Antonio Declaration
Other than its emphasis on the importance of ‘fabric’, it appears that this Declaration
does not contribute much to the question of the validity of reconstruction.
•
Article 3: ‘Some national policies indicate that what is lost can only be a part of
our memory and not our heritage. Elsewhere, policies encourage the
replacement of fully documented elements in facsimile form in order to reestablish the site’s full significance. Nevertheless, we emphasize that only the
historic fabric is authentic, and interpretations achieved through restoration are
not; they can only authentically represent the meaning of a site as understood in
a given moment. Furthermore, we universally reject the reliance on conjecture
or hypotheses for restoration’.
Essentially, this would appear to be expressing the same sentiments as the Burra
Charter; that is, that both ‘restoration’ and ‘reconstruction’ are methods of
interpretation.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
142
The rejection of conjecture simply re-iterates what was laid down about
restoration in the Venice Charter, and has since been universally accepted; that is,
that ‘It must stop at the point where conjecture begins…’
•
Article 3: ‘Apart from the above, there are important sectors of our patrimony
that are built of perishable materials that require periodic replacement in
accordance with the traditional crafts to ensure continued use. Similarly there
are heritage sites built of durable materials but that are subject to damage
caused by periodic natural catastrophes, such as earthquakes, floods and
hurricanes. In these cases, we assert the validity of using traditional techniques
for their repair…’.
It is not certain whether this is allowing exceptions in relation to all timber
structures, or just those that are ‘traditional’ (indigenous?); and similarly whether
it is exempting all structures destroyed by catastrophes, or only those that are
regularly subject to ‘natural’ (only) catastrophes (which would presumably also
include ‘fire’ if adapted to Australia).
The Riga Charter
The Charter asserts a ‘presumption against reconstruction of the cultural heritage’,
and sets out to provide definition and parameters to the exceptions. A reconstruction
of the St Kilda Pier Kiosk would appear to comply fully with this relatively
conservative ICCROM statement on reconstruction. (Note: there are no Article
numbers provided in this Charter.)
•
‘Excepting circumstances’ include any of the following: ‘where reconstruction is
necessary for the survival of the place; where a ‘place’ is incomplete through
damage or alteration; ….. or in response to tragic loss through disasters whether
of natural or human origin.’
Reconstruction of the St Kilda Pier Kiosk might be justified by all of these
criteria. As a critical part of the foreshore cultural landscape it could be argued to
be ‘necessary for the survival of the place’ (although this is probably too strong).
The same ‘place’ however is certainly significantly incomplete now as a result of
the fire. The public response was very strongly of the view that the loss was
‘tragic’, and a ‘disaster’, apparently of ‘human origin’.
•
‘Providing always’ that: ‘reconstruction can be carried out without conjecture or
compromising in situ remains, and that any reconstruction is legible, reversible,
and the least necessary for the conservation and presentation of the site’.
Reconstruction could be carried out without conjecture. It would compromise the
remains of the pier, but these are not identified as being of individual
significance, and are of perishable material whose replacement on a ‘like with
like’ basis is generally accepted conservation practice. Restoration could be made
legible and reversible. The provision regarding ‘the least necessary for the
conservation and presentation of the site’ is achievable and would be the
objective of a reconstruction, although functional and statutory requirements
objectives would necessitate some marginal further alterations.
•
•
‘Believe that:
‘replication of cultural heritage is in general a misrepresentation of evidence
of the past, and that each architectural work should reflect the time of its own
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
143
creation, in the belief that sympathetic new buildings can maintain the
environmental context,
•
but that, in exceptional circumstances, reconstruction of cultural
heritage, lost through disaster, whether of natural or human origin, may
be acceptable
•
when the monument concerned has outstanding artistic, symbolic or
environmental (whether urban or rural) significance for regional
history and cultures’
The St Kilda Pier Kiosk was lost through disaster, of apparently
human origin. It would appear to have been of ‘outstanding’
significance in terms of regional (Victorian and Australian) cultures:
historically it was nationally significant, in terms of its age, style and
rarity, and as key part of a nationally significant heritage precinct.
Socially and symbolically, the level of public grief and media
attention over the loss of this single heritage building was at a rare,
perhaps unique, level in the history of the Melbourne’s heritage
movement. Its landmark value was undisputed.
•
‘Provided that appropriate survey and historical documentation is
available…; reconstruction does not falsify the overall urban or
landscape context; and existing significant historic fabric will not be
damaged’.
The necessary documentation is available. The fire was not an event
of significance in its own right, or one that affected the landscape
context, which would therefore not be falsified by reconstruction.
The remaining fabric that would be repaired is not of significance in
its own right, except for possible interpretation purposes.
•
‘Providing always that the need for reconstruction has been
established through full and open consultations among national and
local authorities and the community concerned.’
Reconstruction has the full support of both the State Government and
the City of Port Phillip. The community views, as expressed in the
media and other forums, and obtained through interviews, are also
overwhelmingly in support of reconstruction. The Australian
Heritage Committee, and Australia ICOMOS have not been formally
consulted, but members have expressed, or been able to express, their
views in other forums.
Would Reconstruction Recover the Cultural Significance of the St Kilda Pier
Kiosk?
The Burra Charter’s concept of ‘cultural significance’ (which does not automatically
privilege one dimension of significance over another), in combination with the Nara
Document’s identification of types of authenticity, establish the primacy of ‘form and
design’ in relation to the Kiosk’s significance, and therefore the efficacy of
reconstruction in recovering the cultural significance of the place.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
144
In this case the form and design are more important than the fabric. Its fabric is not
precious ‘evidence’ of a period, or association with an historic event (as is the Burke
and Wills expedition Dig Tree for example) or any more amorphous accretions of
history.
Reconstruction of the kiosk, as authentically as possible, to the well documented
earlier state, could reveal the cultural significance of the Kiosk, and the St Kilda
Foreshore Cultural Landscape to a significant extent. It would be antithetical to and
stand out from the mock historicist reconstructions of kiosks, shelter pavilions, and
lamp standards elsewhere in this precinct, and also the ‘reconstructed’ Sea Baths.
The Nara Document on Authenticity
The Nara Document was important in its declaration that ‘authenticity
judgements may be linked to a great variety of sources of information’,
including:
‘form and design, materials and substance, use and function,
traditions and techniques, location and setting, and spirit and feeling,
and other internal and external factors. The use of these sources
permits elaboration of the specific artistic, historic, social, and
scientific dimensions of the cultural heritage being examined.’
(Article 13)
Fabric is therefore not the sole, or necessarily the primary, dimension of
authenticity. As the appropriate conservation approach derives from the type
of significance of a place, this means (as Morrice observes) that the
appropriate conservation approach is therefore somewhere on a ‘sliding
scale’ for each place.
The significance of each of the Nara Document types of authenticity in the
case of the St Kilda Pier Kiosk are discussed in Chapter 7 (Conservation
Policy). Briefly, in this case the ‘form and design’, ‘location and setting’,
‘spirit and feeling’, and ‘use and function’ are of far greater significance than
‘materials and substance’, and ‘traditions and techniques’. Therefore, ‘the
sliding scale of appropriateness’ greatly favours the ‘design’ over the ‘fabric’
in this case, and reconstruction is appropriate.53
English Heritage
This view is adopted by the English Heritage (Morrice) paper on
reconstruction of West Pier Brighton, which explains that where a place’s
‘homogeneity’ (of, for example, design) is more important than its ‘complex
accretion’, authenticity of fabric would be a relatively minor consideration.54
JS Kerr: The Conservation Plan
Kerr also specifically endorses this as a legitimate approach. In his
discussion of authenticity he states:‘Authenticity may reside in the fabric itself, with its evidence of
workmanship and age, or in the design and layout of the place (the
53
The same concepts were suggested in relation to the kiosk by David Brand (architect, co-author of St
Kilda Twentieth Century Buildings heritage study, and City of Port Phillip St Kilda Ward Councillor),
personal conversation.
54
Morrice, op cit, pp.4-7
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
145
latter can make a decision on the reconstruction of fabric of minor
importance). It can also reside in the setting, or a combination of all
three.’55
It is clear that in this case all three are significant. The only one that has been
lost - the fabic - is the least significant of the three.
The Burra Charter:
It was argued by Huddle and others that according to the Burra Charter key
aspects of the significance of the Kiosk would be recovered by
reconstruction. 56
A reconstructed Kiosk:
•
‘can be returned to its known earlier architectural design, form, materials
and colours, as there is plenty of evidence available’;
•
‘would be built of new materials added to the existing fabric of the St
Kilda pier’;
•
‘would restore the important setting (Article 1.12 which means the area
around a place, which may include the visual catchment) of which it was
a part such as the view from the beach, pier, boats and road.’
•
‘would restore the contribution it makes to related places (Article 1.13,
meaning places that contributes to the cultural significance of another
place.)’
•
‘would restore the use (Article 1.10, meaning the function of a place, as
well as the activities and practices that may occur at the place.)’
•
‘would restore important associations (Article 1.15, meaning the special
connections that exist between people and a place.) A great part of the
cultural significance of the kiosk is the social significance associated with
walking along the pier to the kiosk, viewing its historical style, and
visiting and using the kiosk.’
Huddle also notes that ‘seeing original physical fabric up close is not
necessarily the most important cultural value that the kiosk had.’
There are more articles in the Charter's sections on Principles, Processes and
Practices which also support reconstruction.
The revised Charter’s broader definition of a place to include ‘landscapes’,
‘spaces and views’ (Article 1.1) also implies that reconstruction of the kiosk
might be justified on the basis of its key part in a wider ‘place’ (cultural
landscape) of high importance.
55
Kerr, op cit, p.32
Lorraine Huddle, contribution to HeritageChat discussion, 30/9/03. These views were supported by
Jane Lennon in the same forum, 30/9/03.
56
St Kilda Pier Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
146
CONSERVATION POLICY - ST. KILDA PIER KIOSK REPLACEMENT
7.1
Introduction
The St. Kilda Pier Kiosk was of social, aesthetic and historical significance at a state and national level prior
to its total destruction by fire in 2003. The 1904 building and its site are listed on the Victorian Heritage
Register. The building was also designated as a significant building under the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.
This Policy has been developed through careful consideration of the various aspects and elements of the
former building and facility, and the nature and degree of contribution each of these made to its heritage
significance. The assessment of its heritage significance included broad public consultation.
Analysis of cultural significance, along with consideration of contemporary requirements including
regulatory, functional and operational parameters has led to the identification of 12 criteria which must be
addressed in designing a new facility (refer to Criteria for Assessing Options).
The principle that the significance of the previous building can at least in part be recovered through a
reconstruction process is widely accepted in professional, academic and public domains. The most
appropriate nature of a reconstruction is less clear, with valid but differing options emerging from
deliberations.
Accurate reconstruction of the 1904 kiosk is a feasible and legitimate option, with better results if the 1987
component is replaced with an improved layout. In order to meet all 12 criteria, internal spaces of the
building components need to be better integrated than in the previous building, with improvements made to
functionality, achieving comfort in poor weather and gaining views. Any changes considered necessary to
achieve these functional requirements would be limited and subject to the normal Australia ICOMOS Burra
Charter guidelines regarding the management of change in heritage places, as if the original place was still in
existence.
In addition to the accurate reconstruction option, it is recognised that a contemporary interpretation of the
historic building, with architectural references to the original, is also a feasible and legitimate option with
potential to address all criteria to some degree. A rigorous assessment of such a proposal would only be
possible once a conceptual design had been prepared for consideration. It is acknowledged that reclaiming
the cultural significance of the place to the same degree would be more difficult under this approach. To be
acceptable, a contemporary interpretation design option would need to demonstrate its merits in relation to
the 12 criteria.
St Kilda Pier Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
7.2
147
POLICY
FABRIC AND SETTING
• That the site of the former St Kilda Pier Kiosk be recognised as a place of outstanding
cultural heritage significance, and that Parks Victoria seek to recover that significance as
far as practicable through a replacement building / facility.
• That the kiosk be recognised as part of, and for its contribution to, the broader natural
setting, as well as the cultural setting of the St Kilda foreshore fabric and its early 20th
Century origins, with its tradition of leisure and promenading.
• That the replacement building be designed to recover the iconic visual status of the
previous kiosk. Its elevations shall retain the external expression of the 1904 building
and remain the dominant visual feature of the place. All supplementary built
components shall be of a built form that does not break the profile of the historic element
when viewed from key vantage points.
• That the open and isolated maritime setting of the replacement facility be
uncompromised by additional accretions or activities.
• That the replacement building remains within the footprint of the previous building
complex.
• That the replacement building incorporate principles and practices of energy
conservation and sustainable design wherever practicable within acceptable financial and
visual constraints, and without compromising relevant policies above.
USE
• That the replacement building respond to community expectations of the facility as an
informal contemporary café of a casual egalitarian character in a unique setting, catering
to current quality standards. Improvement to layout functionality, user comfort,
separation of groups and availability of views from the facility is encouraged within the
context of retaining a sense of connection with the natural environment.
• That any other uses of the replacement facility be limited to those which help recover or
enhance the spirit and feeling associated with the pier and kiosk prior to its destruction.
• That the new facility incorporate public toilets available to general pier users.
INTERPRETATION
• That reuse of any serviceable salvaged original materials or components from the
destroyed 1904 building or the pier be encouraged where practicable for their
interpretive value.
• That the revival of traditional practices and memorabilia associated with the kiosk be
encouraged.
• That the history and tradition of the kiosk and its broader setting be interpreted at or near
the new facility, including the identification of the new building as a replacement.
MANAGEMENT
• That the facility remain in public custodianship with Parks Victoria, and be leased to an
operator highly experienced in the commercial management of similar businesses.
• That the facility be designed to facilitate the provision of quality customer service, longterm commercial viability and all seasons operation, whilst retaining the scale and
character of the previous facility.
St Kilda Pier Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
7.3
148
Criteria For Assessing Options
Having established the significance of the place (in accordance with the four primary criteria of the Burra
Charter), the Conservation Policy must then identify the impact of different development options on this
significance. The usual way to do this has been for the Conservation Policy to identify the fabric which is
most important to the significance of the place and that which is of secondary significance and might be
altered. This then provides the guide for future development. While virtually all of the original fabric of the
previous building has been destroyed, as was discussed in Chapter 6, heritage places are now recognised as
being much more than their fabric, and a Conservation Policy ought now also consider potential detrimental
impacts on other aspects of a place’s significance, such as its original concept, its design, the skills used in
creating it, its use, subsequent community associations with it, and its settings.
Therefore it is necessary firstly to identify the aspects of the place’s authenticity that might be relevant to the
former Kiosk, and then to identify the relative contribution of each of these to its cultural significance.
Development options are then identified, and finally the extent to which each of these would retain, or
retrieve, the different dimensions of the place’s authenticity is assessed.
The other major objective of a Conservation Policy is to identify the owner’s and user’s objectives and
resources, and other external constraints. The different development options are also assessed in terms of
these objectives.
Heritage Criteria
Six criteria have been identified under the general heading of ‘Requirements for retention of significance’,
based on Article 13 of the 1994 ‘Nara Document on Authenticity’. These criteria are:
1. Form and Design.
This includes: the long distance ‘iconic’ view of the shape and proportions of the place; its detailed
architectural features; and the historical significance of the place as a ‘type’ (its originality in terms of
purpose and design, the degree to which it was seminal, and its rarity).
The historical, aesthetic, and social criteria established that the Kiosk’s Form and Design is of very high
significance: it is the most significant aspect of the place.
Kerr (‘The Conservation Plan’ 2000, p 32) states that where significance resides in the ‘design and
layout of a place’, this ‘can make a decision on the reconstruction of fabric of minor importance’. As
such, reconstruction has been determined to be a legitimate option for the kiosk. It is also the one most
certain to restore or retrieve this most significant criteria.
2. Materials and Substance.
This is the actual fabric of the original building.
With the exception of the original pier substructure (which is important in retaining the footprint of the
place), some charred weatherboards remaining on the plinth and salvaged pieces of metal (which are of
potential importance for interpretation), the fire destroyed the fabric of the place.
The loss of the original fabric is regrettable, and the reason for the public grief. The instincts of both the
heritage profession and the public are always to retain as much original fabric of a heritage place as
possible. However, apart from its ambience and patina of age, the specific fabric that is now lost had no
particular importance. It was not associated with any outstandingly important single event or person,
and did not bear any particular marks of historical interest. Indeed, a large percentage of its external
fabric (eg, weatherboard cladding, windows, balustrades, and roofing) had been renewed in the course of
necessary maintenance, and was not original.
St Kilda Pier Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
149
As such, even before the fire the contribution of this criteria to the significance of the place would have
been medium to high. It is now minimal.
3. Use and Function.
This is its role as an ornament to the pier promenade, and its purposes as an informal refreshment kiosk,
and as an observatory.
Historically, and socially, these have been identified as being of high significance. These uses of the
Kiosk have been constant over its history (with the possible exception of the observatory function, which
was downgraded in the past few decades). They were also highly valued by the public prior to the fire,
particularly the accessibility of the refreshment kiosk to a broad cross-section of the population, and its
perception as a ‘peoples’ place’.
4. Traditions and Techniques.
This is its original building techniques and skills.
The contribution of this criterion to the significance of the place has been assessed as low to medium.
Apart from (reputedly) having been built with the best quality materials, and obviously having been very
strongly built, the construction of the building was not exceptional in its time.
On the other hand, the authenticity of any reconstruction was a critical issue for many people in
determining their preference for the development of the site, and the work specifications and
construction methods used in any reconstruction would have a major impact on authenticity, and
perceptions of authenticity. The skills survive today to enable it to be reproduced to a high degree of
accuracy.
5. Location and Setting.
This includes its immediate location, and its setting in both the natural landscape, and the cultural
landscape. Its position in the natural landscape is of extremely high social and aesthetic significance. It
is also of extremely high significance in terms of the international history of pleasure pavilions, and in
terms of the seminal, rare, and (at the time of its destruction) unique status of the kiosk as an Australian
pier pavilion. Its cultural landscape includes the early twentieth century St Kilda foreshore resort
landscape, as well as its immediate pier and breakwater context.
This was identified as being of very high significance in terms of the historical, aesthetic, and social
significance of the place.
6. Spirit and Feeling.
This is its social value, including the ‘associations’ and ‘meanings’ of the place (in the terms of the Burra
Charter). As well as its present iconic status, its larger historical meanings, and its close associations
with the community over successive generations, this criteria also includes its immediate ambience, and
any particular features that contributed to this (such as its informality, its patina, its colour, and former
traditions of use, such as the pin-board with international currency attached to it, and the viewing
telescope).
This was identified as being of high significance in terms of the social, historical, and aesthetic
significance of the place.
St Kilda Pier Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
150
Other Development Objectives, and Constraints.
Targeted community consultation through Focus Groups, and consideration of Parks Victoria’s requirements
for the future functioning of the facility, has identified three criteria under the general heading of ‘Client’s
requirements or feasible uses’:
7. Capacity to provide improved user comfort, separation of groups and availability of views from the
facility, within the context of retaining an ambience with a sense of connection to the natural
environment. This is different to Criterion 3 in that it is forward looking and customer oriented.
8. Capacity to provide a sustainable, informal contemporary café of a casual egalitarian character in a
unique setting, catering to current quality standards. This is different to Criterion 3 in the sense that it is
forward looking and business oriented. In particular there is a need for rationalisation and improvement
of layout in service areas to ensure cost efficient service, and business viability is important in ensuring
sustainability and quality service.
9. Ability to deliver within reasonable/available budget
In addition, there are three ‘External requirements’ with which every development option must conform.
10. Ability of to meet mandatory building code requirements;
11. Compliance with relevant planning and heritage permits; and
12. Compatibility with the St Kilda Foreshore Urban Design Framework
7.4
Options and assessment
For completeness, five redevelopment options have been considered, and assessed against the criteria above.
A) Accurate reconstruction of the whole place in its entirety (including the 1987 additions).
Assessment:
This option addresses all of the significant heritage criteria, and would retrieve its heritage significance
to a high degree, but falls down on the basis of poor use of space and functionality (Criteria 7 and 8).
B) Reconstruction of 1904 building in its entirety (as close as possible to the original); and replacement of
the 1987 component of the building with an improved layout.
Assessment:
This option also addresses all of the significant heritage criteria, and would retrieve its heritage
significance to a high degree. However, it might unnecessarily constrict changes to the interior of the
1904 building which are functionally desirable or necessary, and which would not have a major impact
on the cultural significance of the place.
C) Reconstruction of the exterior and interior of the 1904 building to the extent possible (subject to
compliance with all heritage, building and safety guidelines and codes, and functional criteria), and
replacement of the 1987 component with an improved layout that integrates the various spaces.
Assessment:
This option is capable of addressing all of the significant heritage criteria, and is capable of retrieving
the heritage of the former Kiosk to a high degree. It also addresses all of the functional criteria (the
St Kilda Pier Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
151
other development objectives, and external constraints), and is capable of achieving them to a high
degree.
D) Modern interpretation of the historic 1904 building (a new building with architectural references to the
original).
Assessment:
This option has the potential to address all of the heritage and functional criteria. However, it is
unlikely to address the heritage criteria to the same extent as the previous option.
In particular, the highly significant Form and Design (elevations and detailing) and Location and
Setting (including its reference to the highly significant period foreshore cultural landscape) are unlikely
to be achieved to the same degree. The important Criterion 6, Spirit and Feeling (including the quirky
and enchanting qualities identified) is also less likely to be able to be achieved to a high degree.
A design based on this option would specifically need to demonstrate how the heritage values (in
particular criteria 1, 3, 4, 5, 6) are addressed.
E) Contemporary design within the pavilion genre, without reference to the original building.
Assessment:
While this is also a legitimate option for the site, it is the most difficult option for the design of a
replacement facility. It would be based almost solely on the design criterion and would not address the
heritage criteria to any substantial degree. As such it is almost certain not to recover the heritage
significance of the place. Measured against all the criteria, success under this option is unlikely unless
the proposal is exceptional and capable of occupying this special place and inspiring the public as to its
appropriateness.
St Kilda Pier Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
146
CONSERVATION POLICY - ST. KILDA PIER KIOSK REPLACEMENT
7.1
Introduction
The St. Kilda Pier Kiosk was of social, aesthetic and historical significance at a state and national level prior
to its total destruction by fire in 2003. The 1904 building and its site are listed on the Victorian Heritage
Register. The building was also designated as a significant building under the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.
This Policy has been developed through careful consideration of the various aspects and elements of the
former building and facility, and the nature and degree of contribution each of these made to its heritage
significance. The assessment of its heritage significance included broad public consultation.
Analysis of cultural significance, along with consideration of contemporary requirements including
regulatory, functional and operational parameters has led to the identification of 12 criteria which must be
addressed in designing a new facility (refer to Criteria for Assessing Options).
The principle that the significance of the previous building can at least in part be recovered through a
reconstruction process is widely accepted in professional, academic and public domains. The most
appropriate nature of a reconstruction is less clear, with valid but differing options emerging from
deliberations.
Accurate reconstruction of the 1904 kiosk is a feasible and legitimate option, with better results if the 1987
component is replaced with an improved layout. In order to meet all 12 criteria, internal spaces of the
building components need to be better integrated than in the previous building, with improvements made to
functionality, achieving comfort in poor weather and gaining views. Any changes considered necessary to
achieve these functional requirements would be limited and subject to the normal Australia ICOMOS Burra
Charter guidelines regarding the management of change in heritage places, as if the original place was still in
existence.
In addition to the accurate reconstruction option, it is recognised that a contemporary interpretation of the
historic building, with architectural references to the original, is also a feasible and legitimate option with
potential to address all criteria to some degree. A rigorous assessment of such a proposal would only be
possible once a conceptual design had been prepared for consideration. It is acknowledged that reclaiming
the cultural significance of the place to the same degree would be more difficult under this approach. To be
acceptable, a contemporary interpretation design option would need to demonstrate its merits in relation to
the 12 criteria.
St Kilda Pier Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
7.2
147
POLICY
FABRIC AND SETTING
• That the site of the former St Kilda Pier Kiosk be recognised as a place of outstanding
cultural heritage significance, and that Parks Victoria seek to recover that significance as
far as practicable through a replacement building / facility.
• That the kiosk be recognised as part of, and for its contribution to, the broader natural
setting, as well as the cultural setting of the St Kilda foreshore fabric and its early 20th
Century origins, with its tradition of leisure and promenading.
• That the replacement building be designed to recover the iconic visual status of the
previous kiosk. Its elevations shall retain the external expression of the 1904 building
and remain the dominant visual feature of the place. All supplementary built
components shall be of a built form that does not break the profile of the historic element
when viewed from key vantage points.
• That the open and isolated maritime setting of the replacement facility be
uncompromised by additional accretions or activities.
• That the replacement building remains within the footprint of the previous building
complex.
• That the replacement building incorporate principles and practices of energy
conservation and sustainable design wherever practicable within acceptable financial and
visual constraints, and without compromising relevant policies above.
USE
• That the replacement building respond to community expectations of the facility as an
informal contemporary café of a casual egalitarian character in a unique setting, catering
to current quality standards. Improvement to layout functionality, user comfort,
separation of groups and availability of views from the facility is encouraged within the
context of retaining a sense of connection with the natural environment.
• That any other uses of the replacement facility be limited to those which help recover or
enhance the spirit and feeling associated with the pier and kiosk prior to its destruction.
• That the new facility incorporate public toilets available to general pier users.
INTERPRETATION
• That reuse of any serviceable salvaged original materials or components from the
destroyed 1904 building or the pier be encouraged where practicable for their
interpretive value.
• That the revival of traditional practices and memorabilia associated with the kiosk be
encouraged.
• That the history and tradition of the kiosk and its broader setting be interpreted at or near
the new facility, including the identification of the new building as a replacement.
MANAGEMENT
• That the facility remain in public custodianship with Parks Victoria, and be leased to an
operator highly experienced in the commercial management of similar businesses.
• That the facility be designed to facilitate the provision of quality customer service, longterm commercial viability and all seasons operation, whilst retaining the scale and
character of the previous facility.
St Kilda Pier Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
7.3
148
Criteria For Assessing Options
Having established the significance of the place (in accordance with the four primary criteria of the Burra
Charter), the Conservation Policy must then identify the impact of different development options on this
significance. The usual way to do this has been for the Conservation Policy to identify the fabric which is
most important to the significance of the place and that which is of secondary significance and might be
altered. This then provides the guide for future development. While virtually all of the original fabric of the
previous building has been destroyed, as was discussed in Chapter 6, heritage places are now recognised as
being much more than their fabric, and a Conservation Policy ought now also consider potential detrimental
impacts on other aspects of a place’s significance, such as its original concept, its design, the skills used in
creating it, its use, subsequent community associations with it, and its settings.
Therefore it is necessary firstly to identify the aspects of the place’s authenticity that might be relevant to the
former Kiosk, and then to identify the relative contribution of each of these to its cultural significance.
Development options are then identified, and finally the extent to which each of these would retain, or
retrieve, the different dimensions of the place’s authenticity is assessed.
The other major objective of a Conservation Policy is to identify the owner’s and user’s objectives and
resources, and other external constraints. The different development options are also assessed in terms of
these objectives.
Heritage Criteria
Six criteria have been identified under the general heading of ‘Requirements for retention of significance’,
based on Article 13 of the 1994 ‘Nara Document on Authenticity’. These criteria are:
1. Form and Design.
This includes: the long distance ‘iconic’ view of the shape and proportions of the place; its detailed
architectural features; and the historical significance of the place as a ‘type’ (its originality in terms of
purpose and design, the degree to which it was seminal, and its rarity).
The historical, aesthetic, and social criteria established that the Kiosk’s Form and Design is of very high
significance: it is the most significant aspect of the place.
Kerr (‘The Conservation Plan’ 2000, p 32) states that where significance resides in the ‘design and
layout of a place’, this ‘can make a decision on the reconstruction of fabric of minor importance’. As
such, reconstruction has been determined to be a legitimate option for the kiosk. It is also the one most
certain to restore or retrieve this most significant criteria.
2. Materials and Substance.
This is the actual fabric of the original building.
With the exception of the original pier substructure (which is important in retaining the footprint of the
place), some charred weatherboards remaining on the plinth and salvaged pieces of metal (which are of
potential importance for interpretation), the fire destroyed the fabric of the place.
The loss of the original fabric is regrettable, and the reason for the public grief. The instincts of both the
heritage profession and the public are always to retain as much original fabric of a heritage place as
possible. However, apart from its ambience and patina of age, the specific fabric that is now lost had no
particular importance. It was not associated with any outstandingly important single event or person,
and did not bear any particular marks of historical interest. Indeed, a large percentage of its external
fabric (eg, weatherboard cladding, windows, balustrades, and roofing) had been renewed in the course of
necessary maintenance, and was not original.
St Kilda Pier Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
149
As such, even before the fire the contribution of this criteria to the significance of the place would have
been medium to high. It is now minimal.
3. Use and Function.
This is its role as an ornament to the pier promenade, and its purposes as an informal refreshment kiosk,
and as an observatory.
Historically, and socially, these have been identified as being of high significance. These uses of the
Kiosk have been constant over its history (with the possible exception of the observatory function, which
was downgraded in the past few decades). They were also highly valued by the public prior to the fire,
particularly the accessibility of the refreshment kiosk to a broad cross-section of the population, and its
perception as a ‘peoples’ place’.
4. Traditions and Techniques.
This is its original building techniques and skills.
The contribution of this criterion to the significance of the place has been assessed as low to medium.
Apart from (reputedly) having been built with the best quality materials, and obviously having been very
strongly built, the construction of the building was not exceptional in its time.
On the other hand, the authenticity of any reconstruction was a critical issue for many people in
determining their preference for the development of the site, and the work specifications and
construction methods used in any reconstruction would have a major impact on authenticity, and
perceptions of authenticity. The skills survive today to enable it to be reproduced to a high degree of
accuracy.
5. Location and Setting.
This includes its immediate location, and its setting in both the natural landscape, and the cultural
landscape. Its position in the natural landscape is of extremely high social and aesthetic significance. It
is also of extremely high significance in terms of the international history of pleasure pavilions, and in
terms of the seminal, rare, and (at the time of its destruction) unique status of the kiosk as an Australian
pier pavilion. Its cultural landscape includes the early twentieth century St Kilda foreshore resort
landscape, as well as its immediate pier and breakwater context.
This was identified as being of very high significance in terms of the historical, aesthetic, and social
significance of the place.
6. Spirit and Feeling.
This is its social value, including the ‘associations’ and ‘meanings’ of the place (in the terms of the Burra
Charter). As well as its present iconic status, its larger historical meanings, and its close associations
with the community over successive generations, this criteria also includes its immediate ambience, and
any particular features that contributed to this (such as its informality, its patina, its colour, and former
traditions of use, such as the pin-board with international currency attached to it, and the viewing
telescope).
This was identified as being of high significance in terms of the social, historical, and aesthetic
significance of the place.
St Kilda Pier Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
150
Other Development Objectives, and Constraints.
Targeted community consultation through Focus Groups, and consideration of Parks Victoria’s requirements
for the future functioning of the facility, has identified three criteria under the general heading of ‘Client’s
requirements or feasible uses’:
7. Capacity to provide improved user comfort, separation of groups and availability of views from the
facility, within the context of retaining an ambience with a sense of connection to the natural
environment. This is different to Criterion 3 in that it is forward looking and customer oriented.
8. Capacity to provide a sustainable, informal contemporary café of a casual egalitarian character in a
unique setting, catering to current quality standards. This is different to Criterion 3 in the sense that it is
forward looking and business oriented. In particular there is a need for rationalisation and improvement
of layout in service areas to ensure cost efficient service, and business viability is important in ensuring
sustainability and quality service.
9. Ability to deliver within reasonable/available budget
In addition, there are three ‘External requirements’ with which every development option must conform.
10. Ability of to meet mandatory building code requirements;
11. Compliance with relevant planning and heritage permits; and
12. Compatibility with the St Kilda Foreshore Urban Design Framework
7.4
Options and assessment
For completeness, five redevelopment options have been considered, and assessed against the criteria above.
A) Accurate reconstruction of the whole place in its entirety (including the 1987 additions).
Assessment:
This option addresses all of the significant heritage criteria, and would retrieve its heritage significance
to a high degree, but falls down on the basis of poor use of space and functionality (Criteria 7 and 8).
B) Reconstruction of 1904 building in its entirety (as close as possible to the original); and replacement of
the 1987 component of the building with an improved layout.
Assessment:
This option also addresses all of the significant heritage criteria, and would retrieve its heritage
significance to a high degree. However, it might unnecessarily constrict changes to the interior of the
1904 building which are functionally desirable or necessary, and which would not have a major impact
on the cultural significance of the place.
C) Reconstruction of the exterior and interior of the 1904 building to the extent possible (subject to
compliance with all heritage, building and safety guidelines and codes, and functional criteria), and
replacement of the 1987 component with an improved layout that integrates the various spaces.
Assessment:
This option is capable of addressing all of the significant heritage criteria, and is capable of retrieving
the heritage of the former Kiosk to a high degree. It also addresses all of the functional criteria (the
St Kilda Pier Conservation Management Plan, April 2004
151
other development objectives, and external constraints), and is capable of achieving them to a high
degree.
D) Modern interpretation of the historic 1904 building (a new building with architectural references to the
original).
Assessment:
This option has the potential to address all of the heritage and functional criteria. However, it is
unlikely to address the heritage criteria to the same extent as the previous option.
In particular, the highly significant Form and Design (elevations and detailing) and Location and
Setting (including its reference to the highly significant period foreshore cultural landscape) are unlikely
to be achieved to the same degree. The important Criterion 6, Spirit and Feeling (including the quirky
and enchanting qualities identified) is also less likely to be able to be achieved to a high degree.
A design based on this option would specifically need to demonstrate how the heritage values (in
particular criteria 1, 3, 4, 5, 6) are addressed.
E) Contemporary design within the pavilion genre, without reference to the original building.
Assessment:
While this is also a legitimate option for the site, it is the most difficult option for the design of a
replacement facility. It would be based almost solely on the design criterion and would not address the
heritage criteria to any substantial degree. As such it is almost certain not to recover the heritage
significance of the place. Measured against all the criteria, success under this option is unlikely unless
the proposal is exceptional and capable of occupying this special place and inspiring the public as to its
appropriateness.
ST KILDA PIER KIOSK
CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDICES
Prepared for
PARKS VICTORIA
by
DAVID MOLONEY
April 2004
Appendix No.1
1
CONSULTANT BRIEF
HERITAGE ACTION PLAN FOR THE ST. KILDA PIER KIOSK SITE
1. Introduction
Parks Victoria manages over 4 million hectares of the State's national and regional environmental,
recreational and tourism assets, as well as Melbourne's bays and waterways.
The estate managed by Parks Victoria includes:
•35 National Parks •3 Wilderness Parks •32 State Parks •6 Marine and Coastal Parks and
Reserves •87 Regional Parks •3,000 Crown Reserves •Key Heritage Properties and over 200
historic places •Sanctuaries •Gardens •Port Phillip Bay, Western Port and Corio Bays •Yarra,
Maribyrnong and Patterson Rivers
These assets total approximately 16% of the total land area of Victoria. Together they attract over
25 million visits per annum, not including the millions of visitors to our bayside beaches each
summer.
2. Background
The St. Kilda Pier Kiosk, known originally as Parer’s Pavilion, was built in 1904 at the seaward end
of the pier as a small pavilion serving tea and light refreshments to the promenading public. The
light timber framed building was of a design popular in Europe at the time, though it was a unique
example of this building type in Victoria. Over subsequent years minor alterations and additions
were made to the building, the most extensive being the addition of a residence and public toilets
to the rear (west) and a permanent marquee restaurant area to the north. These additions
however were designed to have minimal visual impact on the original building’s appearance from
the pier approach.
The Kiosk functioned more or less to its original intent as a casual refreshments / teahouse
throughout its long life. It was many things to many people:- holidays, summer nights, a leisure
pedestrian destination at the end of the pier, a backdrop for photographers, and often the venue of
significant occasions in the lives of ordinary people. Over the 99 years of its existence it became a
well known and loved landmark to many generations of Melburnians, due largely to its uniqueness,
familiarity, its picturesque qualities and its romantic associations as a key element of the
fashionable seaside life of St. Kilda.
In September 2003, the entire original building and most of the additions were completely
destroyed by fire, with little or nothing being salvageable. The fire was greeted by widespread
public dismay, and calls for its urgent resurrection, to which a firm commitment was made by the
State government. However, vigorous public debate as to the physical nature of its replacement
has ensued.
It is vital that any replacement structure should respond to the sense of loss felt by the community.
Defining that loss in order to articulate the most appropriate approach to its replacement is
considered the essential first step. In order to progress this, Parks Victoria proposes to
commission a suitably qualified consultant to prepare a Heritage Action Plan (Conservation
Management Plan) comprising a Statement of Cultural Significance and arising Conservation
Policy, to guide the future development of the site. Given that the significant physical fabric of the
structure no longer survives, this process will present unique challenges in capturing the nature of
that significance and the management implications in attempting its recovery.
Form: C-0007B
Version: 1.2
Page: 1/7
Printed copies of this form are uncontrolled. Current version located at:C:\Tom_Work\3_Mar\NPWork\New Folder\b HAP
App1. BRIEF.doc
2
CONSULTANT BRIEF
As well as the implications for the recovery of significance, the Conservation Policy must consider
Parks Victoria’s management and user requirements, and applicable regulatory constraints.
3. Aims
The aim of the project is to prepare a Heritage Action Plan which:
• Establishes a clear understanding of the history of the development and use of the St. Kilda
Pier Kiosk
• Assesses the role and significance of the former structures, setting, and any portable
artefacts which reflect this history.
• Assesses in particular any residual significance remaining following the loss of all the
significant fabric of the place.
• Understands Parks Victoria’s, local community and visitor requirements for the site.
• Outlines objectives (or conservation policies) for the future management of the site.
• Clearly describes any potential ability to salvage, recover or continue that significance
through a replacement structure, and if so, the most effective and appropriate design
approach.
4. Study Area
The site of the former St. Kilda Pier Kiosk is at the L -junction of St. Kilda Pier, Melways Ref. 57 H10
5. Scope of the Project
The Heritage Action Plan should be prepared in the following stages:
Stage
Stage
1
Background
research
Description/Product
-
•
•
•
•
Stage
2
– • Establish the nature of the European heritage values
Assessment of
and the level of significance for the place:- the role and
Form: C-0007B
Timeline
The project will be initiated at a meeting between the Within three
consultant and the project team where agreement will weeks of project
be reached on:
commencement
•
The scope of the work.
•
Management of the project.
•
Realistic, but firm milestones for each stage of the
project.
•
Any requirements for sub consultants.
•
Requirements for stakeholder consultation
•
Other requirements specific to the project.
Review existing documentation as appropriate and
undertake additional historical research required to
develop a comprehensive physical and social history of
the kiosk and any associated facilities.
Define a process to evaluate social value, and use it to
investigate and document current community attitudes
to the place, both pre and post fire.
Present a report on stage one to the project team for
comment and endorsement before proceeding to stage
2.
Version: 1.2
Within a
maximum of
Page: 2/7
Printed copies of this form are uncontrolled. Current version located at:C:\Tom_Work\3_Mar\NPWork\New Folder\b HAP
App1. BRIEF.doc
3
CONSULTANT BRIEF
significance
•
•
•
Stage 3 –
User
requirements &
management
constraints
Stage 4 –
Conservation
Policy
preparation
significance of the former structures, setting, and any
portable artefacts which reflect this history, and in
particular, any residual significance remaining
following the loss of all the significant fabric of the
place. These values should be presented under the
headings of: historic, social, scientific, spiritual and
aesthetic. Values under each of these headings should
be rated as either none, low, medium, high or very high.
The assessment should be clear, concise and
justifiable, and shall include a comparative analysis with
similar places sufficient to establish the cultural
significance of the place and its component parts.
Investigate and discuss comparative examples of
historic structures where recovery of significance has
been attempted through reconstruction following
catastrophic loss, and assess the success of the
outcome.
Prepare a concise Statement of Cultural Significance
which clearly articulates the nature and extent of the
significance of place prior to the kiosk’s destruction,
and the subsequent impact of the destruction of the
building on that significance..
Present the draft Statement of Cultural Significance to
the project team for comment and endorsement before
proceeding to stage 3.
•
•
•
•
three weeks of
approval to
proceed with
stage 2.
Investigate and document legislative, policy and
management requirements and opportunities.
In consultation with Parks Victoria staff determine
aspirations of local groups, users and Heritage
Victoria.
Within two
weeks of
approval of
Stage 2
Prepare Conservation Policies to guide the
redevelopment of the site. The Policies shall state how
Parks Victoria will seek to maintain the significance of
the site whilst providing for current and future user
needs, management requirements and available
resources, and regulatory compliance. The Policies
shall be developed in close consultation with the
project team and other stakeholders as agreed.
Following approval by the Project Team, prepare the
Final Draft of the Heritage Action Plan.
Within two
weeks of
approval of
Stage 3.
6. Project Outputs
Consultation with the Project Team, other Parks Victoria staff, local and community interest groups,
relevant individuals, government agencies and experts in relevant fields as agreed with the Project
Team.
Form: C-0007B
Version: 1.2
Page: 3/7
Printed copies of this form are uncontrolled. Current version located at:C:\Tom_Work\3_Mar\NPWork\New Folder\b HAP
App1. BRIEF.doc
4
CONSULTANT BRIEF
Five hard copies of the reports as detailed above with any photographs/copies of illustrations
provided at original or near original quality.
The Report shall also be supplied on Disk or CD compatible with Microsoft products (eg. Word and
Excel), or as otherwise agreed.
All work, material reports and plans (including photographic material) produced throughout this
project remain the property of Parks Victoria and cannot be reproduced without the consent of
Parks Victoria.
7. Existing Information
The following documents are currently available from Parks Victoria. It does not represent the
available documentation from other sources.
1. Pavilion, St. Kilda Pier - Original Plans, elevations and sections, 1/8th scale - 1904.
2. Tender Number 6372 St Kilda Pier Kiosk Upgrade, Tender Documents, Parks Victoria, 2002,
Parks Victoria
3. Draft, St Kilda Pier Kiosk Investigation Stage 4, Conservation Works Documentation, David
Bick and David Hogg, 2002, David Bick, Architectural Historian, Conservation Architect
4. St Kilda Pier Kiosk, Structural and Architectural Assessment, Sinclair Knight Merz, 2001,
8. Key Issues
• The assessment of significance of the place is to be undertaken in accordance with procedures
and methodology described in the current edition (1999) of the Australia ICOMOS Charter for
the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (‘Burra Charter’) and its Guidelines.
Reference should be made to the publication by Kerr, J.S. The Conservation Plan: A guide to
the preparation of Conservation Plans for places of European cultural significance, 5th. Ed.
National Trust of Australia (NSW).
• Should the consultant believe that the services of any sub consultants are required this shall be
stated in their submission together with their fees.
• Sources:(a) In all cases, sources of information shall be fully documented.
(b) All sources of information, both documentary and oral, consulted during the task should be
listed, whether or not they proved fruitful.
(c) In respect to source material privately held, the name and address of the owner should be
given, but only with the owners consent.
• Drawings shall conform to accepted standards of drafting practice and shall be capable of
reduction to A4 size.
• The Heritage Action Plan is to be a Parks Victoria document, prepared with the assistance of
the contractor. As such, the Policy statements contained therein will be as approved by Parks
Victoria following development by the contractor in consultation with the project team.
• Historic themes are being used by Parks Victoria as a basis for strategic planning of its
management activity. Hence the historical analysis within the HAP should be presented
thematically using the framework provided by the AHC’s, Australian Historic Themes framework.
Form: C-0007B
Version: 1.2
Page: 4/7
Printed copies of this form are uncontrolled. Current version located at:C:\Tom_Work\3_Mar\NPWork\New Folder\b HAP
App1. BRIEF.doc
5
CONSULTANT BRIEF
9. Consultation
Stakeholders to be consulted include:
• The steering committee / project team as outlined in section 11.
• Heritage Victoria
• Port Phillip Council
• Community
10. Timeline
Given government commitments already made, the replacement of the facility is of urgent priority.
Accordingly, it is necessary that this first critical component be completed without delay, and in
accordance with the timelines indicated above for each stage.
11. Project Management
The project will be overseen by a steering committee / project team consisting of:
• John Grinpukel, Team Leader Heritage Programs, phone no. 86274837
• Rob Saunders, St. Kilda Kiosk Reinstatement Project Manager, Parks Victoria
The Project Manager will be John Grinpukel, Team Leader Heritage Programs, phone no.
86274837. The consultant shall liaise directly with the appropriate personnel as initially authorised
by the Project Manager. The project manager will be responsible for
• liaising with the consultant,
• ensuring that the project runs to time and on budget,
• arranging approval and sign-off of the plan within Parks Victoria.
12. Project Cost
Prospective contractors shall submit a fees proposal which shall include any and all supplementary
expenses such as sub contractors, disbursements &c.
13. Conditions of Engagement
The Consultant will be required to enter into a standard Parks Victoria Consultancy Agreement the
conditions of which will include the following provisions:
Termination/variation of contract
The contract may be terminated anytime by either the Consultant or Parks Victoria giving one
month’s notice in writing to the other. On termination, payment shall be made for any work
completed under the consultancy to the satisfaction of Parks Victoria on a pro-rata basis (as
determined by Parks Victoria). Parks Victoria may terminate the engagement immediately, without
notice, if the Consultant is in breach of any of their obligations.
Indemnity
The Consultant will perform all work under the consultancy at their own risk and shall indemnify
and hold harmless Parks Victoria against all liabilities, losses, damages costs and expenses
arising out of or in connection with the services provided by the Consultant and any act or
omissions by the Consultant or his officers, employees or agents. The Consultant must hold a
professional indemnity insurance to the value of $1,000,000 and maintain the insurance for a
period of 7 years. The Consultant must also hold a current public liability insurance of $10,000,000.
Form: C-0007B
Version: 1.2
Page: 5/7
Printed copies of this form are uncontrolled. Current version located at:C:\Tom_Work\3_Mar\NPWork\New Folder\b HAP
App1. BRIEF.doc
6
CONSULTANT BRIEF
Invoicing & GST
Invoices shall comply with the requirements of the GST Law (as a Tax Invoice) and shall, unless
inconsistent with the GST Law, specify –
(a)
Parks Victoria reference number;
(b)
the Fee due to the Contractor and the basis for its calculation;
(c)
the amount of any GST paid or payable by the Contractor with respect to the Fee;
(d)
the date of delivery of the Services to which the invoice relates;
(e)
a description (including quantity) of the Services delivered; and
(f)
the Contractor’s address for payment
(g)
the Contractor’s Australian Business Number (ABN)
14. Lodging of Submission
All submissions shall be received at the Parks Victoria Office, 535 Bourke St. Melbourne, by 5.00
pm on Monday 20th October 2003.
All submissions must be enclosed in an envelope which is marked:
CONFIDENTIAL
“Quote for St. Kilda Pier Kiosk Heritage Action Plan”
and sent to:
Parks Victoria
Level 10, 535 Bourke St.
MELBOURNE 3000
Attention: John Grinpukel
Whilst proposals should be in accordance with the provisions of the project brief, prospective
consultants will not be discouraged from making alternative suggestions in their proposals, either in
terms of the technical content of the work, or in terms of arrangements for consultancy. Any such
variations from the brief must be clearly presented.
Submissions should address the brief and include:
• An interpretation of the consultant’s understanding of the requirements of the project
• A description of the approaches and methodologies that will be used
• Timeline for each project component
• Full detail of fees including a break down for each stage as outlined, and the time and cost of
each consultant involved.
• Details of the proposed project team members
• List similar projects undertaken in the last five years.
• Qualifications and previous experience
15. Criteria for Consultant Selection
Parks Victoria will select, after careful appraisal of the proposals submitted, a Firm to carry out the
project. Selection of the successful consultant will be based on, but not necessarily limited to the
following:
• Evaluation using Parks Victoria Policy for Selection of Suppliers for Planning and Capital Works
Projects.
• Understanding the aims of the project.
Form: C-0007B
Version: 1.2
Page: 6/7
Printed copies of this form are uncontrolled. Current version located at:C:\Tom_Work\3_Mar\NPWork\New Folder\b HAP
App1. BRIEF.doc
7
CONSULTANT BRIEF
• Demonstrated expertise and experience in the use and application of the Burra Charter
• Organised and well thought out approach to the project
• Having an Australian Business Number (ABN) and being registered for GST.
• Knowledge and demonstrable experience in dealing with similar places as well as heritage
research, planning and management.
• Demonstrating capability of applying his/her practical knowledge, skills and ideas to ensure the
project is an outstanding success.
• Experience in the specialist fields required for this project.
• Knowledge of the historical context and importance of the place.
• Ability to engender enthusiasm and support in order to work effectively and productively with a
diverse range of interest groups.
• Knowledge of government heritage management and protection policies and legislation.
• Ability to complete a project on time and fulfil the terms of the Brief.
• Level of organisational, communication and interpersonal skills.
16. Further Information
Please contact John Grinpukel, Team Leader Heritage Programs Ph. (03) 8627 4837.
jgrinpukel@parks.vic.gov.au
Form: C-0007B
Version: 1.2
Page: 7/7
Printed copies of this form are uncontrolled. Current version located at:C:\Tom_Work\3_Mar\NPWork\New Folder\b HAP
App1. BRIEF.doc
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
APPENDIX NO. 2
Gill Upton Article, Pharos, December 2003
8
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
9
APPENDIX NO. 3
RADIO ABC 774 (5.30 AM TO 10 PM, 11TH SEPTEMBER 2003)
Red Symons Program. (5.30 am to 7.45 am)
News, 5.30 am: ‘Melbourne has lost one of its iconic tourist attractions…’
RS discusses the fire and the difficulties fighting it with Trevor Woodward, MFB. TW says
that barricades have already been put up, as there ‘will be quite a few sightseers down there, if
for no other reason than to take a last look at what might have been a place of very pleasant
memories of Sundays gone by…’
RS: ‘I suppose you could call it an icon of Melbourne - yesteryear. I wonder what they’ll put
in its place? It will be a toss-up won’t it? A facsimile of the original, or a whole new
entertainment complex? Could be horrific.’
Caller Maureen (in St Kilda apartment, looking at the pier)
•
Can only see flashing lights and smoke [still dark]
•
First time in 13 years that haven’t seen anyone on the pier: ‘always someone on the pier day or night’.
•
‘Mum grew up in St Kilda - when she dies she wants her ashes thrown off the end of the
pier’.
•
She remembers being taken there as a child, and took here own son there when he was
just a baby.
•
‘They’ll have to replace it exactly the way it was, because think of the postcards that are
now ruined’.
•
RS: ‘I’m inclined to agree - the one thing that does sort of fill me with horror is the notion
that they will build something ‘tres moderne’ there.’
•
Maureen: ‘ … the same as it was originally …’
•
RS: ‘…I want the world to stay exactly as it used to be. I don’t want any more progress’.
News, 6.30 am: ‘… one of Melbourne’s main tourist attractions’
Chat with regular interviewee (on other topics)
•
‘Someone who will be enormously disappointed to hear [about the loss of the kiosk] is
Shirley Hardiwix [?], in Crete…’
•
SH: ‘Speaking about history, Crete is full of old things that haven’t changed, unlike St
Kilda Pier. I think you’re probably right; I think they’ll probably replace it with
something hideous and modern, which is a shame.’
•
RS: ‘Well if we get all up in arms about it they might not…’
Plays Paul Kelly song: ‘From St Kilda to Kings Cross’.
On-site reporter Glen Bartholomew:
•
‘St Kilda pier destroyed. Many people around Melbourne, let alone St Kilda, have
enjoyed…’
•
Port Phillip Mayor Liz Johnstone ‘more than a little devastated’.
News, 7 am: ‘A Melbourne landmark destroyed by fire’
RS: ‘oh come on, cheer up, the sun is shining’ [This an oblique reference to the sadness of
the morning news]
Interviews Mayor Liz Johnstone [sounding devastated]:
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
10
RS: ‘Perhaps I should say ‘morning’, not ‘good morning’
LJ: ‘Absolutely, absolutely … an absolutely beautiful morning and look down the pier
and there’s a plume of smoke … none of the façade that graced the end of the pier for
more than 100 years is left’.
RS: ‘What will be done with the site?’ LJ: will work out with Parks Victoria and State
Government; the Burra Charter would say that you cannot replicate a heritage structure,
but I think that the only option left to us is to put one back as close as possible to the
original’.
RS: ‘I think that most people would probably agree with you there. None of us look
forward to the idea of some steel and glass structure there. It was a weatherboard
building?’
LJ: ‘It was. It was like a tinder box …. all the timber shingles, and gorgeous detailing on
the roof, and lovely arched windows. It was such a familiar landscape…’
LJ: doesn’t know age; it was refurbished recently, and 15 years before that, and 50 years
before that. Fire two weeks ago.
LJ: ‘People remember it fondly as Kerby’s...’
Interview with Colin Kerby
•
He lived there c.50 years [live ashore for a while]. His family moved in just before the
war. His father joined army, so his mother and he ran it during the war. His father died
1957, then he and his wife Judy ran it until 1988 (‘the big alteration’).
•
The original piles put down in 1884; kiosk opened 1904.
•
‘Very very sad’. “I used to say people came to Melbourne to see the Shrine of
Remembrance and the St Kilda Pier kiosk - I don’t know if that was quite correct but it
sounds good”. [RS: ‘There probably was a time when that was most of what you could
see in Melbourne.’]
•
RS: ‘Why did you leave?’ CK: Our lease went from $40 to $800 per week. Selling icecreams for $800 per week in winter is not viable. A new group of young men moved in.
He and Judy now have a house in Newcastle; but we live on our boat - ‘Ooroo’ - that we
built in St Kilda. So they are still on the water.
Jon Faine Program (8.30 am to midday)
JF: ‘Overnight fire at the kiosk at the end of St Kilda Pier destroys an image that’s central to
the memories of many many Melburnians’. He will cross to the scene and ‘try to find out
whether or not the historic timber kiosk can be rebuilt…’
Glen Bartholomeuz (on site reporter): ‘all the people that are walking past, saying it is a bit of
a tragedy’.
Liz Johnstone (Mayor of Port Phillip): reflects on it being ‘part of Marvellous Melbourne, and
St Kilda being Melbourne’s playground for many a year’.
JF Interviews Rohan Storey ‘a heritage architect’. I’m sure you along with many
Melburnians have had a pleasant afternoon, having fish and chips or café latte on the end of St
Kilda Pier, but what’s its history?’.
•
‘Yes a lovely place, a great place for a kiosk’ … ‘dating from about 1901’ … ‘it was a
rather unique bit of seaside Edwardian architecture’.
•
On recent restoration jobs: ‘Yes, it hadn’t changed all that much … just used to sell
icecream … a major refit … brought it back to activity it used to have 100 years ago.’
•
JF: ‘Something as historic as that, and as unique, can you rebuild a replica?’ RS: ‘Yes
you can, but whether you should or not is another question - there’s always debate on that
point. If there’s something that’s so iconic and so loved and wonderful, a lot of people
would like to see it come back even if it’s a complete replica’.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
•
•
11
JF: ‘And why wouldn’t you want to do that?’ RS: ‘And why wouldn’t you? But in
heritage-land we don’t like to confuse original and new, so if it’s a replica it becomes a
kind of fake heritage.’
JF: ‘Well, isn’t that the same as … if it hadn’t been quite as destroyed as it has it would
be a restoration; what’s the problem with having to do a little more than restore, but
actually replace…?’ RS: ‘I’ve just explained; it’s a complete reconstruction; its kind of
fake heritage. But sometimes that is appropriate if … something is so wonderful and
fantastic; it does depend on how much is left and usually the rule is 50%. So I’m sure
debate will be had.’
JF: ‘Thank you Rohan, I’m sure we’ll get lots of memories of individual lives, not just the
life of the kiosk, on St Kilda pier, in the talkback that’s about to come’.
News 9 am: ‘Residents are mourning the loss of one of Melbourne’s landmarks’. Reporter:
‘Most referred to the historic kiosk as “Kerby’s” after the family that lived in and sold icecream from it for 50 years until 1988. Colin Kerby referred to the building as an icon; (tells
his story of the Shrine and kiosk being Melbourne’s tourist attractions). Mayor of Port Phillip
Liz Johnstone says the devastation is already setting in: “Around the pier people are waking
up and doing their early morning rituals and without doubt every one of them is stopping and
looking quite sadly out to the end of St Kilda Pier”. The blaze broke out at about 4 o’clock
this morning and took less than 2 hours to gut the building. The arson squad is investigating.’
Caller John (surveying the scene from the Upper Esplanade, St Kilda):
•
‘…it is terribly sad because I proposed to my wife on the pier there….’
•
‘Its virtually just bare bones and rubble…’ ‘When you get used to something for such a
long time, when its not there suddenly people in the first instance are sort of wondering
“what the hell happened”…’
•
JF: ‘We don’t realise how precious some things are until they’re gone; and the
memories, I don’t think they’ll be enough - we’ll chase the Council or Parks Victoria
or whoever else is responsible and find out if they’re going to rebuild…’
Caller Chris (the City)
•
‘Like a lot of people devastated about Kerby’s’ … in the 1980s he became friends of
Colin Kerby, ‘a Melbourne icon’.
•
The building was born into the Edwardian boom times in Melbourne, and St Kilda was a
very glamorous place with Consulates … Fitzroy Street..’
•
JF: ‘Do you want it rebuilt Chris?’ Chris: ‘Yes, I think this business about a 50% trigger
to rebuild is a lot of cods, because it is an icon, and its so often painted and photographed.
There could be a sympathetic rebuild which allows the iconic structure … to go back, and
perhaps they could get rid of that canvass awning that used to face out to the north, which
was a kind of tack-on because the permit didn’t allow for a larger structure. A bit of
common sense should prevail.’
•
Talks about the hilarious stories that Colin Kerby used to tell of the changing history of St
Kilda, and pier; Kerby should write a book about the American Servicemen during the
war.
Caller Henry (Frankston)
•
‘Regards the pier, sentimentally, I think thousands of people will recall how the clean
fresh air expanded the aromas of good food and excited the appetite.’
•
JF tells that his memories of the food - when he was growing up - was ‘really
dreadful’ (it was much better in recent times).
•
Asks how much effort architects, Council, and MFB put into fire protection, eg sprinklers
fitted (and operating), high pressure lines for drinking water, pumper tankers/fire tankers,
sea pumps fitted near the structure? ‘It’s something John that should not happen.’
Caller, Barry Dickens (Melbourne playwright, poet, author)
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
•
•
•
•
12
In conversation with JF, explains that in 1969 he lived in the kiosk, ‘because it was free’.
JF: ‘What was it like?’ BD: ‘It was cold, and inclement weather there. I lived at Liebbers
Court, some of your listeners may remember that Liebbers Court was next to St Moritz
Ice Skating Rink …’ JF: ‘Which has also burnt down…’ BD: ‘… and I used to wander
over to the pier to chat to the fishermen or whatever I did, and I remember going in there
and they were terribly friendly and sweet people…. (the Kerbys). And for a long time
there I used to sleep behind the light green Tarax soft drink crates.’
JF & BD talk about Tarax, Palato (Schweppes), Sarsparalla (‘tasted like old runner’),
Passionfruit Gaytimes, crumpets and honey (‘were 1/6d’), the ‘inedible’ whiting, potato
cakes, and a ‘lovely sort of fish cake - Chico Fish Cakes’.
‘I stayed there. People on hot nights used to hang around there. It was so incredibly
friendly; I wasn’t the “bore in residence”’. ‘I remember sleeping there and waking up to
various tides; and how friendly those people were; that’s the basic shock for me - how
friendly they were.’
JF: ‘Do you want it rebuilt?’ BD: ‘Only if I can design it’. [The only elaboration the
enigmatic BD provides re his design is that ‘he would put Lindsay Tanner there - its his
turn, he deserves to live there…’]
JF and regular Financial Markets commentator John Curtin chat about the kiosk:
•
JC: ‘It was a bit sad when I heard this. I liked walking up and down and eating icecreams.’ As a child on his bike along Beaconsfield Parade, and then ice-cream from
kiosk. As a youth with a drivers licence and little clue what to do he and his friends
would go to Johnny’s Green Room (Carlton), and then perhaps for a souvlaki (an allnighter in Richmond), on to Fitzroy Street, and finally the St Kilda Pier. [JF and JC
discuss some other youthful haunts and adventures.]
Caller John (Caulfield)
•
Reports that a Christmas Party at the kiosk last year was cancelled about 10 pm when five
MFB units arrived to deal with the smoke that had completely filled the restaurant.
Apparently it was caused when ‘a cigarette or something’ had fallen onto the pier through
the gaps and was slowly smouldering away and about to catch fire. In response to JF
question, he advised that no sprinklers had come on.
Caller Russell (Geelong)
•
(Recalling Melbourne 1937-45) ‘St Kilda was a wonderful place for entertainment. Very
few people had cars, and those who had them could hardly get any petrol for them ….
People in those days for entertainment went to picture theatres or Saturday night dances,
or the beach. That’s about all they had. It was a wonderful spot; on a hot day you
couldn’t move on St Kilda beach - you had about 2 feet to the next person.’
•
He used to fish on the pier, and the kiosk was a part of that memory.
Interview with Liz Johnstone, Mayor of City of Port Phillip.
•
‘Its terribly sad, terribly terribly sad.’
•
JF: ‘Do you want it rebuilt as it used to be, or something new?’ LJ: ‘I’m a bit nostalgic
and sentimental and close to the fire - I just want to look out at the pier and see it there
again…it’s terribly noticeable by its absence.’ Council is talking with Parks Victoria. ‘I
personally would love to see it restored, but its beyond that point - it needs to be
completely rebuilt, and as I understand you’ve spoken to the National Trust this morning,
and people do understand the Burra Charter, which does say that replication/duplication is
not an appropriate response to heritage and indeed there’s pretty much no heritage left out
there; but in terms of design, I think that Kerby’s kiosk got it pretty right, and I struggle to
conceive a building that would do the end of St Kilda Pier the same “justice”.’
•
JF: ‘You’d like to see something in keeping with what used to be there?’ LJ:
‘Absolutely’.
•
JF: ‘I think that’s what most people would feel, but its going to be interesting…’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
•
•
•
13
LJ: ‘Yes, well there’s a crowd of locals down there on the beach and they’re saying “Put
it back”, so we’ll wait and see. Obviously whatever goes back there has to contribute as
much if not more to the wonderful kiosk building we’ve lost’.
JF: ‘Hey [surprise in his voice], you could build something even bigger, and better?’. LJ:
‘Sometimes bigger isn’t better John, you know that.’
JF: ‘Well, there’s a great demand for that sort of thing. Look at how Melbourne’s turned
its face to the water instead of its back to the water over the last decade: Southbank and
Southgate, now Docklands…’
LJ: ‘I have to go to another call, but I hope you get some callers in who’ll tell you about
that long lonely walk that it is in winter (as well) …’
Caller Mary (Mornington)
•
‘Just having great nostalgia trips’ re c.1945, she and others old enough to ‘take tram down
to St Kilda’ (or Port Melbourne) from the other side of the city, on Sunday afternoon.
Older girls used to dance with the American soldiers and sailors [she thinks], who used to
jitterbug at the kiosk. ‘But the kiosk must have been enlarged, because it was to the cityside of the kiosk - they used to have a small dance floor’. ‘I could never jitterbug but
used to sit there thinking “oh, I wish I was old enough to do that”…. Men in zoot-suits
and two-toed shoes - I think mainly American soldiers; girls used to wear their hair up at
the front and smoothed down at the back.’
Reporter Glen Bartholomew
•
‘No shortage of local, even international interest; as always [the pier] a mecca of
international interest; he’s heard German accents, Japanese tour groups, Africans…’
•
Interviews 92 year old Charlie Palfry, St Kilda fishing and tourist cruise operator, who
began on the pier with his father as a 6 year old. He worked with his father, and obtained
a chartered boat operators licence in 1935; his father went blind. Operated thousands of
fishing and pleasure boat trips from the pier.
•
CP: ‘Kerby used to brew his own - seemed to do what he liked on the end of the pier.
The authorities used to come and tip his beer over the side into the sea there - but he’d
have another batch knocked up before …’
•
CP: ‘US Servicemen. During the war - before the war - he used to have a bit of a
dance floor on the side where the tables are now. You’d have to go through the kiosk
to buy something, to get on the dance floor. But there was such a lot of geeks like
looking on, that he electrified the fence …. It used to keep them off.’
•
The future? CP: ‘I suppose I’ll still come here, but no cups of tea.’
•
Reports on interview with Carmel Sillitoe, who ran the kiosk 1991-97, but too upset to
talk on air. She said it had been:•
‘A people’s place - people came down for weddings, in all weather.’
•
‘People went up to the widows walk; [in former times] the women used to go up there
to wave off the servicemen as they went out to sea and off to war’.
Caller Sarah (Toorak)
•
‘When 10 years old, her mother took her to the kiosk on a beautiful day, bought her cake,
and then told her that her father was moving out. She didn’t eat her cake. ‘A beautiful
memory for her’ she says, and doesn’t demur with JF comment on her black humour.
News 10 am: ‘St Kilda’s famous old kiosk is to be rebuilt in keeping with its historic
architecture…’
•
Premier Bracks: ‘…we will replicate the structure here already…’
•
Deputy Premier Thwaites: ‘…this has been a place for all Victorian’s …’
News, 1 pm: Debate begins on what should replace the historic Kerby’s kiosk. National Trust
and Heritage Victoria say there will be debate on whether to duplicate the original design.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
14
Lyn Haultain Program (1pm - 4 pm)
LH: ‘a splendid building …. a very fine example of that style of architecture … brilliant
location, splendid view, beautiful walk.’
Studio Guest: Paul Tombesi, Senior Lecturer, Architecture and Design, University of
Melbourne.
•
Reconstruct? ‘I don’t know, it all depends on what we want to do with the pier - emphasis
on kiosk or pier?’
•
At St Kilda we might decide that ‘the memory of the burnt building is more important
than its perfect reproduction, in which case the very function of the pier might have to
change laterally as well’. Leave some remnant of the burnt structure.
•
Contemporary International Examples, include:•
Renzo Piano’s [?] 2002 small exquisite ‘greenhouse’ building on four concrete piers.
It is situated in middle of Genoa port area (not on a promenading pier), and is part of
a new vision/use for the port area (a new gateway/’revitalise’ the port).
•
LH: our pier’s use has been ‘fairly mundane until now - walking, roller blading,
fishing…’. PT ‘Yes … I suppose that could be important to some people’.
•
Some piers around the world are now working very differently. Eg, a Chicago pier
organises a sculpture exhibition each year - the pier has become an extension of
parkland. Similar things occurring in New Jersey, and California.
•
Los Angeles, new uses for piers includes ‘commercial’ (eg amusement parks,
restaurants), while others (eg at Venice beach) have been used similarly to St Kilda
pier before the fire. He makes a distinction between ‘individual use’ for private
enjoyment, rather than use for the ‘community’ as a ‘group’.
•
LH: she would like to keep it for private use, ‘because if [it’s to] to eat and drink
then it’s not there because of sheer enjoyment’
•
‘Its overall length is one of the things that makes it [the pier] special’. Christchurch’s
New Brighton Pier was rebuilt recently (c.300 m.) in order to ‘take a walk, and enjoy
the water…’
Caller Indra:
•
‘would like to see a similar building, even if its function is different.’
•
‘it was such an icon.’
•
‘the pier is in so many people’s hearts…’
•
‘a lot of St Kilda’s history has been lost, eg, with flats in 1960s, St Moritz… This is ‘still
one of the remaining historic sites’.
•
‘it just reminds you of earlier times - this could still be achieved again with
reconstruction’… German cities reconstructed after WW2 bombing: ‘you do get that
same ambience and atmosphere’.
•
LH ‘… it was a very attractive Edwardian construction…’
Caller John:
•
Would ‘like to see a similar building’.
•
Suggests some improvements to the pier, in the way of elaboration of existing features,
such as changing the grey of the pathway, pinpoint lighting, better railing, arches,
removal of the constraining fence on the breakwater.
Caller Joseph (Armadale)
•
Suggests windmills on the pier to generate power and create surf, as a tourist attraction.
LH suggests that the windmills might look like daisies, with each blade painted a different
colour. [NB, he doesn’t comment about whether the kiosk should be reconstructed.]
Caller Bill:
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
•
•
15
‘…very very important to replace … as close as possible, in its original position …
recreate it in as close as possible, form and function…’
‘Melbourne is famous in protecting its heritage buildings, which are one of our major
tourist features’.
But also suggests that this is the opportunity to make cruciform additions to the pier,
either side of the kiosk, that couldn’t do before ‘when it was an historic building’. He
suggests an art gallery, and penguin observation on the proposed new wings. He thinks
that this would attract more people, and reinforce the viability of the kiosk business which
is possibly marginal now.
•
LH: “I think you’re absolutely right about the replacement of it, it was a beautiful
example of its era, and we should try and recapture some of that and reflect the
glorious past of St Kilda in doing so…’. She asks however whether additional
attractions on the pier might also be marginally viable.
Caller Simon (Templestoe):
•
‘Replace the building as close as possible to its original form because it was iconic.”
•
‘He, like most Melburnians has memories of going down there for a hot chocolate, or
whatever even on a wintry Sunday afternoon.’
•
‘I’d like to … keep it simple - replace the building … We have enough, we’ve got
Southbank, we’ve got an aquarium, we’ve got all those other things, let’s just keep it
simple.’
•
‘But also let’s have some public space there, so you can take your own picnics; you don’t
have to go down there and buy something…’
•
LH: ‘a few benches and tables maybe?’ Bill ‘Exactly, keep it simple’.
News 2 pm: Premier Bracks announces that the kiosk will be rebuilt, in accordance with the
heritage requirements ‘of the pier, of the … structure, [and] of the precinct’, after consultation
with local community and National Trust.
News 3 pm: Premier Bracks: ‘a tragedy … a great icon for Melbourne, for Victoria; most
people would know not only the pier but also the kiosk which has been a … feature here since
the early 1900s’.
Tonia Roberts Program (4 pm - 6 pm)
News 4 pm: Deputy Premier Thwaites “ … all over Melbourne a place to come to enjoy the
sun but also appreciate the incredible heritage value’. The government has ruled out a
modern construction on the site.
News 5 pm: Premier Bracks states that it was an historic structure “built for people to enjoy a
kiosk and to promenade which was the feature of the time, which has been a feature of St
Kilda’.
Derek Guille Program (7 pm to 10 pm)
DG and Newsreader (Jim Graham) chatting about the loss of the kiosk:
•
DG: ‘A sad thing … its been part of the Melbourne landscape’.
•
JG: ‘But it is really good to hear that something’s going to be done to rebuild it, or put
something in its place…’
•
DG: ‘…a heritage building in its place …’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
16
APPENDIX NO. 4:
‘NEWS
SERVICES’
SUMMARY
REPORTS
OF
RADIO/TELEVISION
BROADCASTS.
Note:- 774 ABC Radio for 11/9/03 is chronicled separately.
- Reports relating to arson and alleged arsonist are not included.
- This is a representative sample: repeated reports are not included.
11/9/03
•
Sydney 2RN Radio News 5 am, 11/9/03: ‘Victorian fire fighters are having difficulty
controlling a blaze in a kiosk on the historic St Kilda Pier’.
•
ABC State Radio, NSW, 5 am, 11/9/03: ‘…blaze in a kiosk on the historic St Kilda Pier’.
•
ABC, 3RN Radio News
•
5 am, 11/9/03: ‘… … struggled to fight a fire a historic kiosk on St Kilda pier.’
•
6.30 am, 11/9/03: ‘ … one of Melbourne’s main tourist attractions’.
•
3MMM Radio News, 6.30 am, 11/9/03: ‘A historic kiosk on St Kilda Pier has been
burned’.
•
3AW, 11/9/03:
•
Radio News, 5 am, ‘..fight a fire at a historic kiosk on St Kilda pier’.
•
5.45 am, Panel of presenters comment that ‘there are penguins living in hutches
adjacent to the marina at St Kilda’. On site reporter…
•
News, 7.30 am: ‘ … the Heritage listed kiosk at St Kilda pier’
•
Magic 693 Radio News, 11/9/03
•
5.30 am: ‘… fire on the St Kilda pier …’ Grab of Trevor Woodward, MFB who says
‘it is sad to see a historic site suffer such a fate’.
•
6 am: ‘… fire destroyed a restaurant at the end of St Kilda pier…’
•
8 am: Interview Mayor Liz Johnstone, who describes it as ‘a tragedy’
•
8.30: ‘A historic kiosk on St Kilda pier’
•
3MP Radio News
•
5.30 am, 11/9/03: ‘… fire at the historic kiosk on St Kilda pier’
•
6.30 am, 11/9/03: ‘ ‘Fire has destroyed a part of Melbourne’s heritage, with the
historic St Kilda pier kiosk being severely damaged …’
•
Adelaide 5RN Radio New, 6 am, 11/9/03: ‘Melbourne has lost one of its tourist
attractions…’
•
Fox FM Radio News:
•
6 am, 11/9/03: firefighters ‘ … have saved the actual pier.’
•
6.30 am, 11/9/03: ‘The St Kilda Pier kiosk has been destroyed by fire …’
•
3AK:
•
Sam Kekovich and Greg Evans, 5.48 am: ‘Evans comments that the fire at St Kilda
Pier’s kiosk is a great loss to Melbourne heritage.’ Interview Victoria Police…
•
Radio News, 6 am, 11/9/03: ‘… the historic St Kilda pier kiosk…’
•
Gold 104, News Report, 6 am, 11/9/03: ‘… the kiosk at St Kilda pier …’
•
Nova-FM 100.3, Radio News:
•
7.30 am: ‘… the historic kiosk on St Kilda Pier’.
•
8 am: ‘The century old kiosk…’
•
8.30 am: Grab of Mayor Liz Johnstone who says ‘the spirit of St Kilda was alive in
the kiosk’
•
9 am: ‘Port Phillip Council is already calling for the destroyed St Kilda pier kiosk to
be rebuilt.’
•
Geelong K Rock Radio News, 11/9/03
•
7 am: ‘ … a restaurant on the St Kilda Pier went up in flames’
•
9 am: ‘The Piers historic kiosk has been completely destroyeed.’
•
Geelong Bay FM Radio News, 7 am, 11/9/03: ‘The pier’s historic kiosk … destroyed’
•
National Seven Network Television, ‘Sunrise, 7 am, 11/9/03: ‘…kiosk at the historic St
Kilda pier in Melbourne..’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
17
National Nine Network Television, 11/0/03:
•
‘Today’, 7.30 am: ‘Fire has destroyed a popular Melbourne tourist attraction’.
•
News, 11 am: ‘One of Melbourne’s most popular tourist attractions …’. Grabs:
•
Unidentified local male: ‘says he is devastated by the fire’
•
Unidentified local male: ‘says the kiosk was great place to visit during summer’
•
Unidentified local female: ‘says it signified St Kilda’
•
Mayor Liz Johnstone: ‘says the kiosk symbolised the history that St Kilda had as
Melbourne’s playground.’
3AK, Radio News, 11/9/03
•
7.30 am: ‘A historic kiosk on St Kilda Pier has been destroyed by fire’
•
8.30 am: ‘Fire has destroyed the St Kilda Pier kiosk this morning’.
Melbourne Sport 927,News, 8 am, 11/9/03: ‘The St Kilda Pier Kiosk…’
Launceston 7 LA Radio News, 9 am, 11/9/03: ‘…destroyed the St Kilda Pier Kiosk’
Brisbane 4 BH Radio News, 9 am, 11/9/03: ‘The St Kilda Pier Kiosk in Melbourne has
been destroyed by fire’.
Sydney, 702 ABC Radio News, 9.30 am 11/9/03:: ‘The Melbourne St Kilda Pier kiosk
has been destroyed from a fire early this morning’
3AW, Neil Mitchell, 9.55 am, 11/9/03: Interviews mayor Liz Johnstone, who says she is
‘devastated’, and the building was over ‘100 years old’. ‘Mitchell says this is sad, but
could be seen as an opportunity to make the place better.’
3AK, Phil Cleary, 10 am, 11/9/03: Interviews mayor Liz Johnstone, who says the cause of
the fire is unknown, but that there was a small fire there a few weeks ago, and that Parks
Victoria is responsible for security at the pier.
Sky News Australia, 9.15 am, 11/9/03: Wilkinson interviews on-site reporter Paul
Bentley (3AW). Says the fire ‘almost a surreal sight, with the blaze almost looking like it
was out to sea’
National Ten Network Television News, 11 am, 11/9/03: ‘Melbourne’s historic St Kilda
Pier Kiosk ‘. Grabs include:
•
Mayor Liz Johnstone says it is ‘a tragedy for the locals’
•
Resident Toby Richards ‘who says for him the kiosk was St Kilda’
Melbourne Mix 101.1 Radio News, midday, 11/9/03: ‘a historic kiosk …’
3AK News, 1 pm, 11/9/03: ‘the historic kiosk’… grabs of Mayor Liz Johnstone.
3AW Radio News, 4 pm, 11/9/03: Mr Thwaites says ‘it is a very important heritage site’
Melbourne Fox Radio News, 4 pm, 11/9/03: ‘St Kilda residents have been devastated by
the destruction of the St Kilda Pier Kiosk by fire overnight’
Gold 104 Radio News, 11/9/03:
•
4 pm: ‘The historic St Kilda pier kiosk will be returned to its former glory after being
burned down …’
•
5 pm: ‘Fish and chips on the St Kilda pier will continue for generations after a
promise from the Victorian Premier Steve Bracks to rebuild …’
•
3MMM Radio News, 5 pm, 11/9/03: Premier Bracks ‘says an exact replica of the
building will be constructed’ Jim Gardn’er says the National Trust supports the
rebuilding.
3AK News, 6 pm, 11/9/03: ‘the historic St Kilda Pier Kiosk’
3AW News, 6 pm, 11/9/03: ‘St Kilda Pier kiosk’ to be restored.
Sky News Australia:
•
Midday, 11/9/03: ‘The historic, heritage listed St Kilda Pier kiosk has burnt ...’
•
4.45 pm, 11/9/03: ‘fire has destroyed a popular tourist attraction’
•
7 pm, 11/9/03: ‘St Kilda’s famous century old kiosk is to be rebuilt in keeping with
its historic architecture…’
•
Carmel Grant (operator): ‘such a beautiful scene every day’
•
Liz Johnstone (Mayor): ‘it symbolised the fantastic history of St Kilda’
•
8 pm, 11/9/03: ‘historic St Kilda Pier kiosk…’
•
Vox pop: ‘various locals, who say it’s a big loss’
Melbourne Mix 101.1 Radio News 6 pm, 11/9/03: ‘the St Kilda pier kiosk’ will be rebuilt
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
•
•
•
•
18
Melbourne Nova-FM 100.3 Radio News 6 pm, 11/9/03: ‘St Kilda Pier kiosk’
GTV9 State Television News, 6 pm: ‘The historic St Kilda pier kiosk has been destroyed
by fire overnight:•
Male vox pop: says he is ‘devastated’
•
Male vox pop: says the kiosk was ‘great’
•
Female vox pop: says the kiosk ‘represents St Kilda’
•
Carmel Grant, operator: has put a lot of work into building, and is ‘devastated’
•
Liz Johnstone, Mayor of Port Phillip: says ‘the kiosk symbolised St Kilda’s history’
•
Closing vision of kiosk fire
HSV7 State Television News, 6 pm, 11/9/03: ‘Premier Bracks plans to rebuild historic St
Kilda Pier kiosk after it burnt down
•
Vox pops: (various locals): ‘who say it’s a big loss.’
•
Lou Mele, MFB
•
Liz Johnstone, Mayor of Port Phillip
ABV2 State Television News, 7 pm 11/9/03: ‘the historic St Kilda kiosk’
•
Colin Kerby, former operator/resident: says he is ‘very distressed’ by the fire
•
Hilda Dunstan, former operator: ‘says the kiosk was a landmark’
•
Carmel Grant, operator: says she ‘feels terrible’
•
Female vox pop: [comments unreported]
•
Male vox pop: [comments unreported]
•
Liz Johnstone, Mayor: says the kiosk cannot be ‘restored’
•
Steve Bracks, Premier: says the kiosk will be built in accordance with heritage
concerns
•
Closing vision of fire at St Kilda Pier Kiosk.
3AW, 11/9/03, Mansfield and Brady, notes that with the kiosk burning down he’d like to
hear stories about [other] ‘focal points’ of Melbourne. Brady notes that the kiosk had
survived a number of storms over the years.
12/9/03
•
National Seven Network, Sunrise, 7.30 am, 12/9/03: grabs of Premier Bracks promising
the public that the St Kilda Pier Kiosk will be reconstructed.
•
3AW, Broadcaster Ross James, 6 am, 12/9/03: James says that the plan to rebuild the
kiosk is ‘good news’ for locals.
•
3AK, Sam Kekovich & Greg Evans, 5.30/8 am, 12/9/03: Kekovich notes that Premier has
pledged that the kiosk will be rebuilt. Kekovich says that there is premier real estate
along the St Kilda foreshore, and Evans says that it has more potential and should have a
‘decent marina, boardwalks, and more restaurants and shops’. Later interview Mayor Liz
Johnstone, who says she is ‘delighted’ that Premier Bracks has promised to restore the
building.
•
Sky News Australia:
•
News, 10.30 am, 12/9/03: Premier has ‘promised to rebuild a ‘an historic landmark
destroyed by fire’
•
(WA) www.sundaytimes.com.au 4.30 am, 12/9/03: Premier ‘…announced the historic St
Kilda Pier kiosk will be rebuilt in accord with heritage requirements…’
•
ABC 774, Jon Faine, 11 am, 12/9/03:
•
Caller Lee gives her memories of the St Kilda Pier kiosk.
•
Caller Angie says she went to the pier for the first time on Father’s Day and is glad
she didn’t miss the kiosk before it burnt down.
•
3AK, Bernie Finn, 4 pm, 12/9/03: Interviews Meyer Eidelson, President St Kilda
Historical Society, on kiosk fire. ‘Eidelson says the kiosk has been an icon for 100 years
and will hopefully be restored to its original condition.’
•
3AK, News 5 pm, 12/9/03: debate is underway as to what will replace the St Kilda Pier
Kiosk which was destroyed by fire recently.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
19
3AK, Doug Aiton, 6 pm, 12/9/03: ‘Caller Pauline suggests that the St Kilda Pier Kiosk
should be built by retired trades people, in collaboration with apprentices so that old skills
can be respected.’
15/9/03
•
Melbourne Fox FM Radio News, 7.30 am, 15/9/03: original kiosk plans ‘have been
rescued from a rubbish dump to be used for the rebuilding’.
•
Melbourne 3MMM Radio News, 8 am, 15/9/03: ‘The original plans of the St Kilda Pier
Kiosk were rescued so the new developers can use them’
16/9/03
•
Melbourne Nova-FM 100.3, News, 6.30 am, 16/9/03: ‘The fate of the St Kilda Pier Kiosk
is beign debated after the fire last week. Refers to National Trust, and Premier Bracks.
18/9/03
•
3AK, Doug Aiton, 6 pm, 18/9/03: ‘…says that architects arguing that the new building
should reflect 21st Century designs “have a point”, although he disagrees with their point
of view “overall”. He says he is not a supporter of the architecture used at Federation
Square.’
•
Guest, Cr David Brand of Port Phillip (architect): ‘says he “doesn’t see any harm in
harking back to the past” in the design of the new building’. Says there is “no point”
in rebuilding the original design if it is not carried out “authentically”’…
29/9/03
•
ATV10 Television, News, 5.30 pm, 29/9/03: ‘…radical plans for St Kilda Pier kiosk…’.
‘Architects are pushing for a new landmark to be built at the site of the St Kilda Pier
kiosk …’ Grabs of architect Cassandra Fahey, Brad Hooper (‘building a replica will be
“going back in time”’), Professor Dimity Reed, RMIT (‘there is an opportunity to
building something more exciting’). Mayor Liz Johnstone says ‘St Kilda has lost a lot to
development’.
6/10/03
•
3AW, Neil Mitchell, 11.45, 6/10/03: ‘Mitchell says that the Myer Christmas Window, the
Royal Children’s Hospital, and the St Kilda Pier are Melbourne icons’.
9/10/03
•
3AK, Bernie Finn, 3.30, 9/10/03: Interviews Dr Celestina Sagazio, National Trust, on fire
risk to historic buildings. ‘Sagazio says there could be hundreds of buildings at risk and
the Victorian Government needs to review .. standards, especially following the
“outpouring of grief” at the loss of the St Kilda Pier Kiosk to fire recently’.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
20
APPENDIX NO. 5
PRINT MEDIA
(Newspaper articles, ‘vox pop’ surveys, letters to the editor, editorials)
The Age, 11/9/03
•
‘A popular tourist attraction went up in smoke today …’
The Herald Sun, 11/9/03
•
‘…a blaze which today destroyed a Melbourne icon, the St Kilda Pier Kiosk.’
The Herald Sun, 11/9/03
•
Premier Bracks says that the kiosk will be ‘restored to its former glory’. This to be done
in accord with the heritage requirements of ‘the pier, the existing [sic] structure, and the
precinct as well’.
•
He said the structure was ‘part of Melbourne’s cultural history’.
•
‘I’ve been here myself on many occasions with my family. I know that many generations
of Victorians have been here and seen this … to be able to be out here with your family
and friends and enjoy what is great in Melbourne.’
ABC On-Line, 11/9/03
•
‘The debate has begun over what will replace the … kiosk’
•
MFB: ‘There’s not too much of it left … I guess the bottom line is that Melbourne has
lost one of its historical and heritage-classified buildings’.
•
‘The National Trust says their will be debate over whether it is appropriate to try and
duplicate the original …Jim Gardner [sic] says anything is possible. It may still be
appropriate to recreate the original form, equally, it may be appropriate to recreate [sic] a
modern kiosk there’.
•
The Council is hopeful a similar business [sic] will be rebuilt.
MX, 11/9/03
•
Lead story: ‘Kiosk Gutted: Fire destroys St Kilda icon’
•
Liz Johnstone, Port Phillip Mayor, quotes:
•
‘Melbourne doesn’t have a lot of old stuff and it was one of the best.’
•
‘Its on Tourism Victoria’s marketing brochures, Qantas Magazines, and everyone
who comes down here takes a photo of it. For 100 years its been a real symbol. It
makes me sick to my stomach. It’s awful, just awful.’
•
‘We’re gonna rebuilt it, I reckon we’ll give it a go. I don’t know what hoops we’ll
have to go through to do that, but we’ll give it a go.’
•
A ‘local’, John Appleton:
•
‘It was such an icon of St Kilda and it was the one place you could walk out over
water and comfortably sit in a café’.
•
‘It stood out as quite a proud beacon and important part of St Kilda.’
•
MX announces the topic of its regular ‘Have Your Say’ email / SMS poll: ‘Should the
kiosk be rebuilt?’ [Results announced next day.]
MX, 12/9/03
•
Announces the results of its poll on ‘Should the St Kilda Pier kiosk be rebuilt?’
•
‘Yes’
98 %
•
‘No’
2%
The Herald Sun, 12/9/03
•
Aerial photograph of kiosk site, with caption announcing that it ‘will be restored to its
former glory’.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
21
The Age, 12/9/03.
Feature article. Suzanne Carbone: ‘Gone. St Kilda kiosk after 99 years on the sea’. With four
‘before and after’ photographs.
•
‘There is something amiss with the view … St Kilda has lost part of its soul.’
•
‘… a landmark … known for years as Kerby’s … deprived visitors of the pleasure of
sharing in the summer ritual of strolling along the pier for an ice-cream.’
•
‘…locals were in disbelief … the connections they had with it ….
•
memories of romance at the end of the pier on a balmy summer night and windy
winter days that brought tears to the eyes.’
•
‘Even those who didn’t go to the kiosk just liked having it there’.
•
It was ‘the first European style pavilion in Australia.’ Known as Parer’s Pavilion in 1913,
but best known as Kerby’s from 1938 to 1987 , with Colin Kerby a well-known St Kilda
personality …’
•
Colin Kerby … ‘quite distressed’. ‘The thing to do was to go to the St Kilda kiosk. It
was the only kiosk on a pier in Australia.’ Kerby’s great achievements in life-saving
from the pier, and other exploits including selling homemade beer, and keeping a sheep in
the garage.
•
‘It has saddened history buffs
•
‘… a proud past … the pier a gateway for royalty arriving by yacht’ (between 1880
and 1930)
•
‘once a weather bureau’
•
‘a dance venue for American soldiers during World War 11’.
•
Recent kiosk operators been staunch protectors of the nearby penguin colony.
•
St Kilda Historical Society President Meyer Eidelson:•
‘… kiosk the only building truly surrounded by sea’.
•
‘… a symbol of St Kilda, and St Kilda is a symbol of the carnival and amusement
centre of Melbourne’.
Sydney Morning Herald, 12/9/03.
•
[An abbreviated version of the Age article by Carbonne. Different opening sentence
reads: ‘Melbourne’s landmarks may be smaller and plainer than Sydney’s, but it loves
them nonetheless. Yesterday it lost one of its sentimental favourites …’
The Australian, 12/9/03
•
Carmel Grant - 13 years ‘such a beautiful scene every day when you arrived for work …
The people who worked for me were wonderful young people and the customers were
beautiful’.
•
Premier ‘pledged to rebuilt the structure in accordance with heritage requirements’.
The Australian Financial Review, 12/9/03
•
‘The iconic Victorian-era kiosk on St Kilda pier burnt down … wrecking St Kilda’s
picture postcard views and raising the spectre of architectural change on Port Phillip
Bay.’
•
Not everyone agrees with Premier’s promise to rebuild with ‘heritage values’. RAIA
Victorian president Eli Giannini called the reversion to heritage values a “knee-jerk
reaction”. “It was an icon of St Kilda but unfortunately once that icon has gone, there is
an argument for rebuilding something the way it was or building something new”,
MsGiannini said.’ “It was a fairly closed-in Victorian building that did not look towards
the sea. The last thing we need is a hideous pastiche like the St Kilda Sea Baths which is
neither historical nor contemporary”. ‘
•
The 1904 kiosk ‘occupied the corner of an L-shaped nineteenth century pier and
resembled a grand palace rather than a sandwich shop at the beach, partly because St
Kilda was once the landing point for visiting royalty.’
•
‘Generations of Victorians and hundreds of thousands of tourists have promenaded to the
kiosk, buying coffee, slurping ice-cream and scoffing fish and chips’.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
22
Meyer Eidelson said ‘a Victorian-style building should replace the kiosk but drew the line
at an historical replica’.
The Herald Sun, 12/9/03
Feature article: ‘Historic kiosk to rise from the ashes’.
•
‘Some local residents were in tears.’
•
Thwaites:
•
‘the kiosk had an important place in history and in people’s hearts.’
•
‘It is a symbol of St Kilda, along with Luna Park, and its vital that we do restore that
heritage…’
•
‘For people all over Melbourne this has been a place to come to, to enjoy the sun, but
also to appreciate its incredible heritage value’.
•
Dave Hughes (comedian, local resident): “I’ve walked out there with my girlfriend, its
quite a romantic spot. Its terrible that a building that old has been burnt down’.
•
Peter Phelps (Stingers star, local resident): ‘It is a special place, where on many occasions
I go to read scripts’.
•
Ron Barassi (‘football legend’, local resident): ‘… often walks past the pier, said the
kiosk symbolised the old St Kilda. It’s up to the next generation to build a classy
replacement now…’
•
Colin Kerby: ‘saddened’; won Order of the Medal of Australia for saving swimmers off
the pier; ‘…used to say people came to Melbourne to see …. and the St Kilda pier kiosk,
although I don’t know if it was quite true ...’
•
Premier Bracks: ‘I know that many generations of Victorians have been here … to be able
to be out here with your family and friends and enjoy what is great in Melbourne…’
•
Liz Johnstone: kiosk ‘a glorious institution. It’s a hallmark of St Kilda’s heyday as the
holiday destination for Marvellous Melbourne, and it’s a very sad thing to look down the
pier and not see it…’
•
Heritage Victoria: originally Parer’s Pavilion. ‘The design was popular in Europe at the
time’.
•
Meyer Eidelson (SKHS president):
•
‘…many couples who walked the pier eventually got married’.
•
‘The pier is the gateway to [sic] which royalty came to Melbourne. Dozens of royal
personages … walked up the pier between 1890 to [sic] 1940 along a specially laid
red carpet.’
•
‘St Kilda resident Brenda Richards and grandson Toby were among the ‘onlookers who
flocked to the pier to assess the damage. “I never thought you could grieve over a
building but that’s what we’re doing”, she said.’
The Herald Sun, Saturday 13/9/03
Editorial:
•
Premier’s restoration pledge ‘will be welcomed by Melburnians mourning the loss of a
landmark’.
•
Quotes Local MP Thwaites ‘ … a symbol of St Kilda … vital that we restore that
heritage’.
•
National Trust ‘nervous that there will be some who will put pressure on the Government
for a modern structure to replace the heritage-listed kiosk. This must not happen’.
•
‘Melbourne has lost much of its unique architectural past to development and
exhibitionist architecture. Even our W-Class Trams face opposition to their return to the
tracks.’
•
‘The old kiosk reflected a gracious era when a stroll on the pier was a way of life. In this
high-pressure age, it still can be.’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
23
The Age, Saturday 13/9/03
Editorial:
•
‘It was a quirky little building surrounded by water.’
•
‘The pavilion … was not grand. It did not look important … It did not look substantial,
which accounted for much of its charm … , not ..a trend-setter.’
•
‘But for the 99 years that it withstood the weather on Port Phillip Bay … did have its
own claim to uniqueness … it was the only place of its kind to be encircled by the sea.’
•
‘A square wooden building with a balloon-shaped arch over the front door, topped by a
clerestory and cast iron balcony.’
•
Fire ‘robbed Melbourne of one of its postcard views’.
•
Hope that Premier’s promise to rebuild ‘under heritage guidelines’ means that ‘a replica
of the original building will be erected on the pier.’
•
‘The pavilion was a satisfying structure and it would be a shame to see it replaced by a
glass and steel building that might provide better views of the sea but would not, by
itself, replace the view that we have lost’.
•
‘The modest St Kilda pavilion was a landmark (along with Flinders Street Station and
W-Class Trams) in a city where landmarks are hard to find.’
•
‘For the 2.5 million people who walk along St Kilda pier every year, the kiosk was either
a destination - a purveyor of hot food and shelter when a southerly was blowing - or a
reassuring visual punctuation mark’. (Also physically divided the anglers and the
‘leathermen’.)
•
‘…a backdrop for water views, sunsets, wedding pictures, but most of all for the kind of
musing that is unloosed wherever there is a rail to lean on and waves to look upon.’
•
‘The pavilion was a frivolous structure, and that is why it will be missed. Its purpose, all
of its life, was to give pleasure and it succeeded admirably in doing so.’
•
Cites Eidelson: ‘The kiosk was a symbol of St Kilda … and St Kilda was the “carnival
and amusement centre of Melbourne”. May its replacement rise soon.’
The Sunday Age, 14/9/03
Editorial:
•
‘ … part of Melbourne’s heritage … since 1904, successive generations have brought
their ice-creams and sipped their beverages while gazing out across the breakwater and
into the bay.’
•
‘… a fine and noble building …’
•
‘Even to call this elegant pavilion a kiosk was to downgrade its essential beauty and pride
of position as a local landmark. It was a symbol of a city, but also of Melbourne’s
connection with the sea.’
•
The National Trust foresees a debate, but ‘But how could any other structure be
contemplated? The sheer beauty of the pavilion, its Victorian curves and delicacy always
giving the impression that it hovered above the water rather than merely sat on the pier,
should not be sacrificed for some architectural compromise that disrupts the original
balance between harmony and invention. In this case, it must be a case of aesthetics as
usual.’
The Age, 15/9/03
And Another Thing …
Sue Rawson, Elwood
•
‘… sincerest thanks and congratulations’ to the government and Mayor of St Kilda for
quickly announcing that kiosk would rise from the ashes ‘and be reconstructed exactly as
the original …’
•
“I, like many locals, was devastated when I heard … I was so proud of our famous icon,
and it was first on my list to show overseas visitors.’
•
‘It is heartening to know that it will not be replaced by some vulgar, ugly, concrete
monstrosity.’
Michael Peck, South Yarra
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
•
24
‘The original building was an eloquent statement of its time. It confidently expressed the
culture, aesthetics, values and construction techniques of its era. Surely, for future
generations, we should do as our forebears did and make a building of and for our time.’
We should draw on Victoria’s wealth of architectural design talent by holding an
architectural design competition. ‘The winning design would undoubtedly delight future
generations just as the original delighted past generations.’
Port Phillip Leader, 15/9/03
Feature article: ‘Pier kiosk to rise from the ashes’; subsidiary article ‘Depressing outcome for
an icon’; and two photos.
•
Cr Johnstone:
•
‘During World War 11, American Gis taught Melbourne women how to jitterbug on
its highly-polished wooden floor’
•
‘Our community is mourning its loss. Residents are literally in tears.’
•
Colin Kerby: ‘very depressed’.
•
Meyer Eidelson: ‘It’s not unusual to get 20,000 people on the pier on a nice day- it’s one
of the main promenade areas of Melbourne’.
Herald Sun, 15/9/03
•
Queenscliffe Maritime Museum have original plans of the pavilion, dated 22/1/1904; had
been saved by bulldozer driver.
•
Will save a ‘lot of angst’ … ‘when the kiosk is rebuilt it won’t be an interpretation, it will
be exactly the same.’
•
Parks Victoria: It will take some time to track down all the information and to go through
the redesign process due to the insurance aspect … public consultation will also have to
take place before a final decision is made.’
•
Four photos, including a group of young adults on the pier, hamming it up, in front of the
kiosk.
The Age, 16/9/03
Article: ‘What now for kiosk site? Debate rages over options’, Misha Ketchell.
•
Reconstruction ‘under attack’ from National Trust and architects.
•
Jim Gard’ner (NT):
•
Kiosk ‘was part of our collective memory and an important link with our past. But
there is a debate to be had about whether it is appropriate to reconstruct it’.
•
debate … should include an option of replacing the kiosk with a contemporary
structure “that spoke of architectural thinking today”’.
•
Dimity Reed (‘a professor in urban design at RMIT University): ‘“always a poor option to
rebuild something exactly as it had been.” She said even the reconstruction of Warsaw
after World War II had been ersatz. There is no point pretending we still live in Dicken’s
time … we no longer put little boys up chimneys. It’s hugely sad that the kiosk’s gone,
but I don’t think it’s a good idea to go back. That may be an unpopular view, but just
imagine if you could get something as joyful as the Sydney Opera House sitting at the end
of the pier.”’
•
Peter Johnstone (St Kilda architect): ‘original designed to provide tea for women while
they read their novels and took in the sea air’. ‘It didn’t really function very well … a
build a state-of-the-art facility for the next 100 years…’
•
Liz Johnstone:
•
‘Council was unanimous in its support for a replica of there old kiosk …’
•
‘”Often your first gut reaction is right”, she said. This is not a site to get wrong.
There has been a wave of emotion among Melburnians. People are ringing up and
wanting to send money. A replica is possible and I think appropriate’.
•
Jim Holdsworth (CoPP Urban Design Manager): ‘further debate would be fruitless and
divisive.’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
25
Herald Sun, 16/9/03
Vox Pop:
•
Manfred Williams, 40, Thornbury: ‘It should be rebuilt. It’s nice to retain the old style
and structure, which is characteristic of the area.’
•
Jessica Pell, 17, Essendon: ‘It should be rebuilt. The heritage style is really good.’
•
Emma Davis, 16, Essendon: ‘Replaced. I think it should move with the times, and
everything down there is getting new and funky.’
•
Alana Pirrone, 17, Strathmore: ‘Rebuilt. It’s a St Kilda icon’.
•
Kate Burke, 17, Moonee Ponds: ‘Rebuilt. But it will attract people whatever the style of
the building.’
The Emerald Hill Times, 17/9/03
Article: ‘First the disaster - now come the hard decisions’, by Daniella Miletic
•
‘ … the big question is what should replace it.’
•
Deputy Premier John Thwaites: ‘…restoring the kiosk as close to its traditional heritage
as possible … it is such an iconic sight that most people believe we should be retaining its
original form.’
•
Norman Day, Professor RMIT Architecture: ‘It should be rebuilt. There are many
examples in the world where famous buildings have been rebuilt. The Japanese rebuild
their temples in Nara … every seven years; its like painting the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
It is not fake … as long as it is exact and properly controlled by expert historians and
architects.’
•
Judy & Colin Kerby: ‘We think to put a modern building on that site would be a crime. It
was a place that was a big part of Melbourne. It had a feeling about it that you didn’t get
from the modern buildings.’
•
Jim Gard’ner, National Trust Conservation Manager: ‘There isn’t a right or a wrong
answer… can either recreate the kiosk exactly as it was, or we can build a new
interpretation with a current modern structure… if you recreate it, it’s not the same thing.’
•
Liz Johnstone, CoPP Mayor: ‘We all want a replica of the old kiosk … to rebuild it as
close as possible to the old one…’
•
Peter Johnson, local architect: ‘…now time to start fresh .. a design competition to design
something that will serve the purposes of what we want today, not what was built 100
years ago. We ought to go for broke …’
•
Adrian Jackson, local: ‘Once history is gone it’s gone … community consultation … just
clear the site and allow a Mr Whippy to go down there in summer.’
The Emerald Hill Times, 17/9/03
Photo of destroyed kiosk: whole of front page.
Editorial:
•
‘Why are we so fixated on the past? Why not look to the future and build something more
imaginative?
•
‘The debate reflects a city that is slowly, almost agonisingly, becoming less inward
looking and nostalgic.
•
But … whatever the shape of the new kiosk, it must be accessible and affordable. A bad
result would be something ugly. But the worst result would be an expensive restaurant
for the caffe latte set. The pier has been a gathering place for generations of Melburnians.
We can help keep it that way by ensuring that the new kiosk welcomes everyone.’
The Age, 17/9/03
‘Letter’ to the Editor:
•
Ray Nolan, Hoppers Crossing. ‘Michael Peck (15/9/03), I’d rather see the St Kilda pier
with a replica of the 1904 kiosk, than another Federation Square.’
The Age, 18/9/03
‘Letters’ to the Editor:
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
•
•
•
26
Phillip Schemnitz, St Kilda. Supports replica. ‘Although I support …competitions to
canvass innovative solutions for public sites, I am opposed to …an architectural
competition for this site…. The kiosk was a significant component of the built
environment in St Kilda - a little gem that contributed to the genius loci, or sense of place,
that makes St Kilda different from Middle Park or Albert Park or Brighton. We have lost
many significant buildings in St Kilda over the years, and are the poorer for it.
Tears have been shed for the loss of this significant St Kilda landmark. The little kiosk
was so well-loved by Melburnians that people cried … There is no guarantee that the
winning entry of any competition will engender such feelings, and so it shouldn’t be
simply regarded as a bit of terra incognita begging for an idea to bring it to life. I would
think differently if the original building had not been such a resounding success across
generations - but there are plenty of other sites around Melbourne where buildings can
and will, and in fact have spoken the language of architectural thinking today. We don’t
need to go out to the end of the pier to have this conversation. We might just like to enjoy
an ice-cream in silence.’
And Another Thing
Sue Parrington, Port Melbourne. ‘… could present an opportunity … for an extremely
modern gallery, performance venue, glass-clad restaurant, coffee house and shops.
Melbourne is just beginning to address its bayside advantage.’
Angela Smith, Clifton Hill. ‘I agree with Michael Peck (15/9): why built a fake of the St
Kilda kiosk when you can build the real thing - a building that is expressive of the 21st
Century? St Kilda is not Disneyland.’
Patrick Hutchings, North Fitzroy. ‘Why not just saw off a bit from Federation Square
and bung it on St Kilda pier? It would look horrible but would be in fashion. Go for a
historic-style replica please.’
The Sunday Age, 21/9/03
Feature Article: ‘Peer at pier raises ire’, Liz Gooch.
•
Liz Johnstone wants ‘an accurate reconstruction that was low-key, accessible and
affordable.’
•
Parks Victoria: will consider a range of options.
•
Thwaites spokesman: ‘we believe most people will want to see a building on the site that
closely resembles the one that was there before the fire.’
•
dva (local architectural firm): ‘a giant lily pad with an undercover ferry terminal, a marine
learning centre, eatery and public deck on top.’
•
Six Degrees (local architectural firm): ‘a submerged building, sunk to the waterline,
housing a bar and fish and chips shop.’
•
Peter Lovell (Melbourne architect): centrepiece design of the 2002 Swiss national expo:
the “blur pavilion” - ‘a suspended platform shrouded in a perpetual cloud of man-made
fog … can accommodate up to 400 visitors …’
•
National Trust (Jim Gard’ner): ‘a replica or a new design were equally valid options but
the people of Melbourne must make the final decision.’
•
Dimity Reed, a (former professor in urban design at RMIT’) is ‘calling for a national
competition for architects to design a restaurant and a kiosk….get something absolutely
exhilerating, mind-blowing, something you could put on a postage stamp in Iceland and
they would know that was the little café in St Kilda … St Kilda a place that should
confront the future rather than hang on to its past.’
•
Christian Gutjahr, Melbourne University’s head of urban planning: ‘a range of attractions
were needed to attract more activity and a greater variety of people to the
pier…Something to do with maritime history or heritage, modern and old combined,
anything to force people to look at a museum or a piece of heritage at the same time as
engaging in something modern like drinking coffee or mooring their boats’.
•
Krystna Kynst (Esplanade Alliance): ‘a public forum to discuss the possibilities …
leaving the site vacant could also be an option.’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
27
Lois Appleby, head of Tourism Victoria: urgency to rebuild ‘whatever’ there quickly, ‘so
that tourists can re-establish that pattern’.
The Port Phillip Leader, 22/9/03
Feature Article ‘Shapely debate on an icon’, by Kate Hagan, with subsidiary article and a vox
pop.
•
‘left a gap in St Kilda’s view of Port Phillip bay’.
•
CoPP councillors reportedly (mayor) ‘unanimous’
•
Dr Celestina Sagazion, National Trust;
•
‘some debate in heritage circles about the value of trying to replicate old
buildings…possible to build a kiosk that looked similar, it would not have the
weathered look or spirit of its 99 year-old predecessor.
•
‘We recognise that popular sentiment calls for a reconstruction … but a contemporary
design of high popular appeal could also fulfil the landmark qualities of the former
kiosk’. NT wants to ‘facilitate debate’
•
Liz Johnstone: no need for further debate. ‘We want an authentic reconstruction. That is
an appropriate response to an iconic site… It is a well documented building and there is
no practical reason why we could not replicate.’ Inside can be different - more
contemporary and functional.
Article: ‘Family fished plenty patrons out of the bay’:
•
the ubiquitous:
•
first European style pier pavilion in Australia’
•
dance venue for American soldiers during WW2
•
best known as Kerby’s Kiosk (1939-1987).
•
Colin Kerby, lived upstairs for 50 years:
•
‘My father and I ran the only lifesaving boat on this side of the bay, and when the
boats went missing the police rang us to go looking.’ When police got own boat
after war, they rang police when a boat went missing.
•
Rescued 500 people over the years earning him an Order of Australia et al.
•
Unable to continue after rent went from $40 to $1500 per week in 1987.
•
Kiosk reopened under new management in 1989.
Vox Pop:
Linda Gibbs, St Kilda:
•
Should ‘definitely be rebuilt’
•
‘Its quite emotional. I didn’t think you could mourn for a building but I feel really sad.
I’m an artist and I’ve painted about 40 paintings that include the kiosk.’
Peter Solly, Windsor;
•
‘It should be rebuilt’
•
‘…it was quite a shock. I’ve always taken walks out on the pier and the kiosk is great in
summer.’
Jim Ross, St Kilda:
•
‘It should be rebuilt’
•
‘We quite often have coffee at the kiosk and we’ve had many family functions upstairs.
It’s been a very significant part of our lives.’
Marian Portalej, St Kilda:
•
‘I definitely want to see the kiosk rebuilt.’
•
‘I come down to the kiosk all the time’
•
Lived in St Kilda 36 years, came at 4.30 when heard it on fire …‘it was unbelievable’.
Jenny Mackenzie, Cheltenham
•
‘I want to see it rebuilt to its former glory, but you can’t replace all the old memorabilia.’
•
‘Its devastating. We come for a walk every Friday and have a coffee at the kiosk.’
•
‘It looks totally different now as you come around the corner.’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
28
The Emerald Hill Times, 24/9/03
Whole of Front Page: ‘The Vision Thing’. A photomontage of pier with combination of
Federation Square and Sydney Opera House on end.
News Feature: ‘The Great Debate: St Kilda’s iconic pier kiosk has gone. But the difficult
decision about how to rebuild it has only just begun’, by Daniella Milatic. Two pages of
photos, illustrations of proposals, and pier chronology. Also article: ‘Think beyond the kiosk,
says Fed Square architect’.
•
‘Many locals want a replica of the old kiosk built on the site’:
•
Colin Kerby … never to return to the kiosk site …’it would just kill me…’ the fire
‘… took a piece of it with me.’ Many locals are feeling the same way.
•
Rosi Tovey (local): ‘Each day she would take her dog for a walk along the pier,
before turning for home once she reached the European style pavilion. Today … she
walks in the opposite direction. “I can’t do it anymore. I know one day I will, but it
is just too soon. I’m too upset.’
•
But, National Trust ‘wants debate to canvass the possibility of … a contemporary design’;
and ‘Some architects have dismissed the idea of a replica as a fake.’
•
Dimity Reed: RMIT’s professor of urban design. Debate hindered by ‘sense of loss’
and government’s ‘knee-jerk reaction’. An exact copy of the kiosk would be “a fake
little building … a forgery. Look, everyone loved that kiosk … It was a pretty little
thing at the end of the pier. But now it is gone and it is a very sad thing, but it
happened….Why on earth would we even contemplate replicating something that was
built a century ago? You just can’t do it … its phoney. It indicates to me that society
has lost confidence in itself.’ A competition, with guidelines on size and use,
‘“would produce the most stunning piece of architecture possible to sit at the end of
that pier”.’
•
Brad Hooper (local architect): ‘”While there is a huge argument in preserving the past
… you can also get bogged down in it. (Today) it’s retention at any cost, regardless
of intrinsic architectural value, and if lost, then replication. The real heritage value of
the Kerby kiosk is not just the building that was, but what it offered as a social place.
This heritage value can be met and should be met in the absolute best contemporary
building representing 2003. A replica … is valueless and lazy.” Hooper … expects
any new design to be controversial “… the Sydney Opera House was a divisive
contentious building … it replaced a burnt-down tram shed … if you tried the same
argument then … no Opera House.”
•
Donald Bates (co-architect of Federation Square): calls for open competition.
‘Unfortunate loss … “but it’s a unique opportunity to not just build a new building
but to rethink the whole purpose of the pier, to do something more contemporary”’.
Competition would mean “the best scheme would win, as opposed to the historic
image, which would have very little relationship to how the pier is used nowadays”.
•
Some architects responded to requests from Emerald Hill Times for concept plans:•
Cassandra Fahey (architect of Newman’s Pamela Anderson house): ‘…Melbourne
has been given a great chance to create a new social and cultural icon “as good if not
better than the old one. I think we should be proud of who we are now. We don’t
have parasols and we are not riding horses any more”. A new design will attract
criticism; eg her Pamela Anderson house, but now neighbours accepted it, and she
won an award for it. “It’s an example of how people are very adaptable”.’ Her vision
‘ … the kiosk lying inside a giant jewel “like a lantern of God at the end of the pier”
she says. The jewel is supported by robust sea-anenome legs that form seating spaces
for the public. “The public can use the end of the pier and be shaded and sheltered
without necessarily being patrons of the kiosk” she says. In her design, God sprinkles
fairy dust and hundreds of thousands on top of the jewel. “Unfortunately, the general
view of ‘modern’ is cheap, slick box-type things. But the reality is that they represent
the cultural and social attitude of the day, and modern can be very decorative, very
rich … yes, contemporary can be beautiful”’.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
•
•
29
Peter Johnson (local architect, and SKHS heritage officer): ‘the old kiosk design
won’t cater for the changing use of the site. “It was basically functioning as a
restaurant for a long time, but the building didn’t really cater for that … [instead
addressed by] patch-up methods .. adding all the plastic to the north terrace … the
new design … look at the whole thing, a building that could cater for functions other
than just a kiosk”’.
Phillip Schemnitz (local architect): “Today, replica has become a dirty word …
rather, I think we should reconstruct the kiosk. There were many castles and
significant buildings in Germany that have been reconstructed very successfully.”
[DM: cf Irish castle on Heritage Chat] “Besides … there is a very fine line between
the real and the replica. [DM: each coat of paint slides a particular place up and down
Brand’s scale?] If you give something a coat of paint for example, you are not
looking at the original. Architects have an obligation to the community that goes
beyond their agenda. Sometimes we have to accept that some old things are
beautiful, and that they should be forever”. …. “What people are looking for on the
pier is a building we love, not something that challenges us. There are plenty of other
sites where we can be challenged with a contemporary design”.
Jim Holdsworth (architect, CoPP officer for urban design): ‘… “rebuilding … as
accurately as possible”. Walhalla: “several replicas based on old photos … It’s not a
mock place, like Sovereign Hill … it is a successful example of reconnecting with an
accurate recording of the past. … People say let’s try something new and we could
end up with a building as beautiful as the opera house … but I think we already had
that”’ Competition would lead to ‘desperate argument about what it could be’ - ‘a
can of worms’ .. ‘impossible’.
Emerald Hill Times, 1/10/03
Article: ‘Fire fears for historic buildings’, Daniella Miletic.
•
Historians (SKHS, National Trust) call for emergency plans to respond to fires in Port
Phillip’s most valuable historic buildings, eg the Esplanade Hotel, Luna Park, the
Stokehouse.
•
Colin Kerby: the building was vulnerable to fires. “In the time I was there I put out
heaps of fires, but because I lived there I could stop them from doing too much
damage … People have known for decades that the building is prone to fires. Why
did it take so long to put out?”
•
MFB explain that fire fighters unable to reach the hydrant until the fire had died
down. In the meantime they pumped seawater, and used hoses running from Jacka
Boulevard, about 600 metres away.
Emerald Hill Times, 8/10/03
Article: ‘Cash comes in for kiosk reincarnation’, Daniella Miletic
•
Large Australian property developer Becton has donated $10,000 towards rebuilding the
kiosk.
•
Hamish McDonald, managing director: ‘“ … kiosk was iconic …” While … he would
like to see the kiosk rebuilt as it was, he said Port Phillip Council could choose how the
money was best spent - ‘no strings attached”’.
•
Liz Johnstone, Mayor CoPP: “Lots of locals have called offering money to get the kiosk
rebuilt as quickly as possible. People really loved that building”.
Port Phillip Leader, 13/10/03
Article: ‘Plans for kiosk exhibition’
•
CoPP considering staging an exhibition to celebrate the historic kiosk. Would showcase
paintings, photographs, film footage and memorabilia.
•
‘residents had come forward offering to loan Port Phillip Council artworks depicting the
99 year-old kiosk … between public and private collections we have a wealth of
contemporary and historic material…’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
•
•
•
30
Consider employing a professional historian to record interviews, and inviting public to
contribute to a memory book in the lead-up to the exhibition.
‘The Council voted last Monday night “to work with the State Government to achieve a
quick and effective reconstruction of the St Kilda pier kiosk before the end of 2004”.
Liz Johnstone: need to keep the kiosk ‘alive’ in the meantime. ‘We need to make sure the
building stays in people’s minds and memories’
Esplanade Hotel owner Becton offered $10,000 to rebuild the kiosk; Council hopes it will
be spent on an exhibition.
Emerald Hill Times, 15/10/03
Article: ‘Falling in love again with the new pier plan’
•
For many the empty kiosk site ‘is a depressing picture’
•
Owner of Spiegeltent (build by Belgian craftsmen in 1920) is considering the possibility
of moving it to the site for a time: “Could you just imagine it? It would look great, a real
spectacular picture.”
•
Difficulties include: existing contracts with Victorian Arts Centre; due to return to Europe
before Christmas; a ‘very big project’ that ‘would need an enormous amount of support’
for it to happen.
‘Diver City’, (The Official Newsletter of the City of Port Phillip):
•
destruction has ‘saddened people throughout Victoria and across the nation’
•
Liz Johnstone:
•
“was overwhelmed by the outpouring of grief for such a humble building.”
•
“Most people think the kiosk sat perfectly and proudly at the end of the pier. With its
modest and whimsical structure topped by a wrought iron balcony, it crowned the
vista of the bay from St Kilda for almost 100 years. Countless photographs and a
sizeable number of original artworks attest to its iconic charm and role in popular
memory.
It was one of Australia’s most visited and well-known seaside destinations. There are
few Victorians - or Australians it seems - who haven’t strolled along the pier to buy
an ice cream or fish and chips from the kiosk. Overseas visitors from the royal family
to Jerry Seinfield have patronised it”, she said.’
•
Praised Premier and local member for their quick action in committing to “authentic
reconstruction”
•
“Since then, there’s been some debate in the media, primarily led by architects, about
whether the kiosk should be an accurate reconstruction or not. After careful
consideration and some reflection, the council believes that reconstruction is still the
only course of action. And it should happen soon - in time for its 100th birthday next
year” she said.
•
Quotes the editorials of the Age, Herald Sun, and Sunday Age in favour of
reconstruction.
Emerald Hill Times, 26/11/03
Article: ‘New kiosk process kicks off’.
•
Parks Victoria invites expressions of interest. Not an open competition, and no strict
guidelines ‘at present’
•
Design ‘would need to acknowledge the character of the original building. He hoped a
conservation management plan that would determine the heritage basis for any design
decisions would be completed in January’.
•
Federation Square architect Bates says Parks Victoria was ‘shopping for historians, not
architects’. Not interested if it is just a reproduction.
•
Architect Cassandra Fahey (Cassandra Complex) interested in initial discussions: “Even
if the new design takes on more of an historical feel … as long as the materials have a
contemporary resonance, I am happy. If it was rebuilt in its own form, but perhaps made
with tiny glass dewdrops, for example, that could work. I don’t necessarily think it needs
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
31
to be completely different, just as long as it somehow addresses our present time and
place.”
Port Phillip Leader, 1/12/003
News story: ‘Debate is raging over pier plans’
•
Rob Saunders, Parks Victoria: ‘The building will need to appropriately acknowledge the
character of the original building, while satisfying the current building standards’.
•
EoI closes 10/12, with the chosen architect to produce several designs for public
exhibition.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
32
APPENDIX NO.6:
VIEWS OF SPECIFIC COMMUNITIES: WEB CHAT ROOMS
The Heritage Victoria ‘HeritageChat’ line.
(www.groups.yahoo.com/group/heritagechat/)
Wendy Jacobs, 30/9/03:
•
‘I give my vote to reconstruct it exactly. Sod the Burra Charter. I loved that building and
believe the iconic status is worth preserving - under glass if necessary.’
Graeme Butler, 1/10/03
•
‘I’m with you Wendy - let the people have their kiosk back there (PS no more St Kilda
Baths debacles please)’
Paul Roser, 30/9/03
•
‘…selective use of the Burra Charter undermines its authority. Replicas never work, the
spirit has gone….my own recollection of that building is being half frozen to death at
night and watching the local rat population … It’s gone, now there is an opportunity to
build something that will be the next icon and … regarded as being of cultural
significance in another 50 years. Bring on a design competition.’
Jane Lennon, 30/9/03
•
‘I would have thought reconstruction would have been an option to conserve social value
- long practised in Europe! What does Chris Johnston have to say as the expert on social
value?’
Chris Johnston, 30/9/03
•
Social value is a value and sense of attachment expressed by a community, so who are we
talking about and what do they value? I haven’t heard a great outcry about the need to
reconstruct from the St Kilda community, so I am not sure if they want it ‘back’ (ie a
replica built). I don’t read the St Kilda paper so not sure what is being talked about. It
would be a good question to pose locally.
•
Places defended by community campaigns (Esplanade hotel) provide clear evidence of
social significance.
•
Community needs definition as part of the assessment - a local community, a community
that shares cultural values, ethnicity, experiences etc. And which other "communities"
might have a strong sense of attachment to this place - perhaps the "Melbourne
community" or perhaps even the "heritage community" (given where this chat has come
from)?
•
The 3 criterion and sub-criterion used by AHC for social significance are:
RNE - Criterion G: Its strong or special associations with a particular community or
cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.
1 Important to a community as a landmark, marker or signature
2 Important as a reference point in a community's identity or sense of itself
3 Strong or special community attachment developed from use and/or association
Social value assessment methods are therefore designed to explore:
• the nature and extent of their association
• whether any significance arises from that association
• clarify which aspects of the place are of social significance (eg. which parts of the
site, or elements of the fabric or uses etc - some may be relatively intangible and
hard to"fit" into our usual Burra Charter approach), and
• the relative importance of that place compared to any others valued by that
community for similar reasons.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
33
If able to demonstrate a case for social significance and that it related to the fabric (rather
than its use for example which could be accommodated in a new structure in the same
location), we would then have to face the fact that its fabric no longer exists, and ask
whether a reconstruction would retain or reveal significance (ie use the Burra Charter). Its
getting tricky!
Bernadette De Corte, 30/9/03
•
‘I wholeheartedly agree with reconstruction …’
•
‘What would happen to the Eiffel Tower or Sydney Opera House if (partly or wholly)
destroyed by fire?’
•
Tongue in cheek references to "Archispeak", contemporary designs, and importing ‘a bit
of the Bilbao Guggenheim’ to put at the end of the St Kilda Pier’.
Ken McInnes, 30/9/03
•
Explains that Paul Roser’s rats are ‘our delightful native 'otter-like' creature Rakali
(hydromous
chrysogaster
latin
for
'watermouse
golden-tummied')
sometimes known as the 'Australian WaterRat', which live on the inside of the St.Kilda
Breakwater.
•
‘So, thinking of the future possibilities, perhaps an underwater observatory
inside the breakwater to view these wonderful aussie creatures. Perhaps, with a
future underwater extension to view the underwater frolics of the penguins near
the end of the breakwater?’
•
Picks up and adds to De Corte’s tongue-in-cheek suggestions for the site:- ‘a new iconic
building
perhaps
with
two
huge
useless
fingers
in
the
air
like the Bolte Bridge, and a more with-it 'Jeff Salute' roof, definitely with
blue neon lights around the top, so marking the last ultimate phase of that
specific Melbourne 'empire' architectural style.’
Jim Gard’ner, 30/9/03
•
‘The Trust's position is that both an archaeologically accurate recreation or a
contemporary new building of the C21st may be appropriate responses, but the
community and key stakeholders must decide - hence the call for a debate on the subject.
Whatever is erected must be interpreted to ensure that the history of the site is understood.
•
‘Our fear is that neither approach will be taken and we will end up with a hybrid monster,
that 'improves', enlarges and replans the 1904 design and ends up some dire pastiche of
Edwardian architecture. There will be inevitable pressure from building control and the
users of the kiosk for it to be replanned in compliance with current regulations and the
needs of the operator in mind.’
•
In my (personal) opinion we have lost sight of the fact that the old kiosk is no more and
that there is no point in pretending otherwise. What ever is built there will be a new
building whether it looks like it was designed in 1904 or 2004. I agree with Paul Roser,
the Burra Charter has been widely adopted and let's not devalue its currency through
selective use and sentimentality.
•
Jane Lennon mentions European examples, which it has to be remembered have come out
of the devastation of two World Wars and the need to rebuild the cultural identity of
whole cities from the rubble. Some very fine buildings have arisen from the ruins of war
or fire with Sir Basil Spence's Coventry Cathedral being a notable example. I don't
believe that the kiosk fire falls into the categories laid down in the ICOMOS Declaration
of Dresden on the reconstruction of monuments destroyed by war, and that we should
seek a contemporary architectural response of 2003 of such quality that it becomes a
heritage landmark of tomorrow.
Francine Gilfedder, 30/9/03
•
Trust’s proposal re debate sounds good, but she fears that ‘the debate will rage in the
usual shambolic fashion with no debate 'monitors' but loud cries from architects (sorry but
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
•
34
you know who I mean) needing to win design competitions. Who is game to draw a circle
around the "community and key stakeholders" in the St Kilda pier case?. Endless debate
potential.’
Asks how the debate about Port Arthur's semi-razed Broad Arrow café considered and
resolved social value, and what ‘heritage folk think of the outcome’. Might the argument
about it being too close in time to the Port Arthur incident to enable proper assessment of
social value apply to the St Kilda Pier?
Precedents are dangerous things in legal/VCAT quarters and those of us cognisant of the
recent fires in the Victorian alpine region are facing approval of up to 20 'heritage' huts
being 'reconstructed' in national parks. To what end? Does Jim Gard'ner's argument about
a destroyed building being ‘no more and that there is no point in pretending otherwise’
also apply to the alpine huts?.. ‘And should they be environmentally sustainable too &
have solar panels for heating & cooking!’
David Moloney, 30/9/03
•
For him the social value argument resolved after a phone call from a postie friend that
morning offering his condolences - ‘apparently the whole mail sorting room was shaken,
talking about the excursions they had made there with family and friends.’
•
The kiosk was a rare building - ‘a place whose landmark value was undisputed’.
Significant not only to the locals who used it most, but to the whole of Melbourne, and its
international tourists. Whenever the weather allowed, people streamed towards it along
that causeway. ‘It was so architectually distinctive, and well situated in terms of being
able to show off it charms.’ In glorious isolation off shore, on the waves.
•
Reconstruct it as accurately as possible he believes. He grieves each time he sees that
space.
•
But presumably a complete replica would not be allowed by regulations or wanted by its
tenants. 'Improvements' could end up creating a heritage and aesthetic disaster.
•
Is a fire that different from a war, in terms of destruction, or conservation management
principles and issues, and not clear how the Burra Charter would not allow such
reconstruction, but if there are such questions, perhaps this is an opportunity to address
them? Perhaps a 'St Kilda mini-declaration' to address any issues and ambiguities relating
to reconstruction in the case of complete loss (some practical guidelines for quick, and
more complete, assessment of social value; recommendations of circumstances in which
reconstruction is 'desirable'; desirable/permittable accuracy and variations to new
building; interpretation...)?
•
Was it actually built by the Parer family, famous in early aviation and cinematography?
(Wonders if a good reconstruction might even be regarding as re-establishing historical
association, as well as social connection, to any measurable degree?)
Martin Zweep, 30/9/03
•
I'm intrigued how something that no longer exists can be preserved and what status can be
attributed where there is no icon to attach it to.
•
Doesn’t believe that exact reconstruction would achieve anything other than saying ‘here
is a 21st century building that was built to look like 19th century one’. It would say very
little about nineteenth century Melbourne but would be an uncomfortable indictment of us
as a society. It would say of us that we didn't have the confidence, the imagination or the
vision to live in our own time. Victoria has such a rich architectural heritage because
people before us expressed themselves and their aspirations in the built form.
•
Heritage is about preserving and interpreting the fabric of our history not selectively
rebuilding a past.
•
Lets not be nostalgic, lets be loud, lets have a brave new building. The old kiosk is dead,
long live the new kiosk.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
35
Chris Johnston, 30/9/03
•
Moloney's evocative image of the "place" of this building in people's hearts and minds is
very powerful.
•
Iconic status is in our minds, isn't it? When a person dies, they do not lose their
importance or place in our lives - they still remain so strongly in our minds.
•
And when (or how) can we let something go? Acknowledge its passing and grieve, and
move on, not wanting to replicate what can't be replicated, but rather out of the ashes to
create anew. Are we fearful of what might be created? Probably yes!
•
Jane Lennon - what insights do you have on this from your experience at Port Arthur and
the Broad Arrow cafe, and the need to grieve and then to create a new memorial next to
the Broad Arrow (so the BA is the place of horror - the memorial is the newly created
place of peace)
Graeme Butler, 30/9/03
•
‘Perhaps we should recognise that this is no longer a Heritage Place under our definition
and let the professional butt out. Leave it to the people to do with as they will.’
John Briggs, 30/9/03
•
Doesn’t understand why "reconstruction" is such a ‘dirty word’.
•
There may be problems with reproduction, or even more problematic mock-period
development, but professional reconstruction is not contrary to the Burra Charter or local
heritage policy. “Article 20. Reconstruction (The Burra Charter):•
Article 20.1 Reconstruction is appropriate only where a place is incomplete through
damage or alteration, and only where there is sufficient evidence to reproduce and
earlier state of the fabric. In rare cases, reconstruction may also be appropriate as part
of a use or practice that retains the cultural significance of the place.
•
Article 20.2 Reconstruction should be identifiable on close inspection or through
additional interpretation.”
•
For a building of this significance (ref Chris Johnston’s criteria) the Burra Charter
supports reconstruction … it is highly irresponsible for heritage professionals to suggest
otherwise.
•
Two cultural cringes at work:•
Much of the public seems adverse to new development and the architect profession
struggles for relevance in the eyes of the general community.
•
In response to this cringe against much of the work of contemporary designers,
contemporary designer often seem to cringe against the popularity of heritage
buildings.
Where a buildings is clearly significant and valued it would be grossly irresponsible to
allow such a cringe to colour the debate regarding reconstruction or the alternatives.
•
It is ‘a distortion to suggest that because of the fire the significance is obliterated. The
Japanese experience has been raised.’
•
This is not to say that in these circumstances that the opening does not exist to explore
alternative designs for the replacement.
•
If there is such a need for amazing sites with opportunity for the expression of our
contemporary design prowess why is there no interest in reviewing the proposed drastic
shortening of Princes Pier. This will have a substantial impact on its heritage significance
… ‘if there is any screaming opportunity, and need, for a balancing of heritage and
contemporary design interests’ it is there rather than St Kilda pier.
•
While designers are understandably very keen to make their mark there are other
opportunities, and it seems that the current debate is more opportunistic than balanced.
•
If people want a groovy new building that's fine but to suggest that heritage policy is
against reconstruction is disingenuous … [instead?] … let there be debate regarding the
value of heritage significance, and the significance of various components of the place in
comparison with the potential value of the yet-to-be presented proposal.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
36
If there is doubt consult the public - but Johnny Howard style - then there will be no
republic/new building.
Lorraine Huddle, 30/9/03
•
The option "to reconstruct the St Kilda Pier exactly" is entirely appropriate and consistent
with the Burra Charter.
•
“Article 1, Definition 1.8: Reconstruction means returning a place to a known earlier
state and is distinguished from restoration by the introduction of new material into the
fabric." Seeing original physical fabric up close is not necessarily the most important
cultural value that the kiosk had.
•
In this case a reconstructed Kiosk:
•
can be returned to its known earlier architectural design, form, materials and colours,
as there is plenty of evidence available;
•
would be built of new materials added to the existing fabric of the St Kilda pier;
•
would restore the important setting [1.12 which means the area around a place, which
may include the visual catchment] of which it was a part such as the view from the
beach, pier, boats and road.
•
would restore the contribution it makes to related places [1.13 means places that
contributes to the cultural significance of another place.]
•
would restore the use [1.10 which means the function of a place, as well as the
activities and practices that may occur at the place.]
•
would restore important associations [1.15 mean the special connections that exist
between people and a place. ] A great part of the cultural significance of the kiosk is
the social significance associated walking along the pier to the kiosk, viewing its
historical style, and visiting and using the kiosk.
•
In addition, there are more articles in the Burra Charter's sections on Principles, Processes
and Practices which support reconstruction.
•
I strongly endorse a policy to reconstruct the Kiosk exactly, as it is a correct decision
according to the Burra Charter.
Jane Lennon, 30/9/03
•
Agree with Huddle’s and Briggs’ application the Burra Charter to kiosk.
•
(And) AHC social values methodology could be easily applied to get a good result for
both community and conservation.
•
My paper on the Broad Arrow Cafe case is in the next issue of Historic Environment. It
followed Johnston’s methodology and came up with surprising but convincing results (I
had judged it to be a demolition case with footing outlines left as the evidence before I
applied the methodology with defined community groups which resulted in a more
aesthetically pleasing and non-confusing result in terms of significance).
Brian Benson, 30/9/03
•
There may not be a correct answer. And one certainly won't be able to please everyone.
•
The place has been cremated on the site. Its ashes should be placed in an urn and kept on
site, perhaps buried six feet down with a headstone/plague. It could thus be said that as
much of the original fabric as possible has been retained on site! A wake should then be
held with much grog on hand to drown all our sorrows. Then rebuild the place to original
details.
•
No matter how good a new design is it will not be the St Kilda Kiosk of fame. You know
the story of the original axe? Sixth handle and third head, same axe! Then see how long
this building survives before it too is lost.
•
The issues are different from the Bow Truss building in terms of rebuilding. To rebuild
the Bow Truss building would be pointless as its significance was as a very early concrete
building which also had the 8m by 8m column grid. A new Bow Truss building would
now longer be an early concrete example.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
37
Wendy Jacobs, 1/10/03
•
She had also come to the realisation that a wake is needed. We have to grieve first and
then decide what to do. She loves the idea of burying the ashes.
•
‘I still say reconstruction as I haven't seen much lately that I like better than the kiosk.
And please nothing with shards or blades.’
Peter Barrett, 1/10/03
•
This will not be the last time that one of our much loved heritage buildings is destroyed
by fire. Therefore it is important that we use the loss of the kiosk to formulate specific
guidelines in how we approach conservation in this event. It is evident from the debate
that there is no clear approach guiding us; and the Charter as it now stands is open for a
tremendous amount of interpretation.
•
Once the present hysteria has abated over the kiosk's destruction, we need to as a
community - and I mean the whole community - determine what is acceptable to
Australians for rebuilding the kiosk and other destroyed heritage buildings. Don’t let
comparisons with approaches used in other parts of the world, ie, parts of war-torn
Europe, influence our community's decision.
Ian Wight, 1/10/03
•
Re Burra Charter, some of you may have been thinking of the old article 18:
‘Reconstruction is limited to the completion of a depleted entity and should not
constitute the majority of the fabric of the place’.
A powerful edict which has not been with us since the new version of the Charter in 1999.
Perhaps the reviewers wanted us to have wider options in dealing with just this type of
situation.
Bernadette De Corte, 2/10/03
•
I think that the Bilbao Guggenheim Museum is arguably one of the best buildings that I
have visited. In fact, a thrilling experience. An amazing location, contrast and
architecture.
•
Refers to ‘self-referencing’ within architecture, and their doubtful definitions and
distinctions between ‘style’ vis a vis ‘architecture’.
•
Although she believes it was suggested we need to ‘grieve and move on’, this doesn’t
square with her understanding of Lake Condah Mission reconstruction of a dormitory.
This was based on ‘pretty solid information’: the archaeological evidence, some
photographs and the memory of stakeholders. She understands that a second
reconstruction (of the same building) is being considered because the way the building is
remembered and reconstructed does not sit well with the stakeholders. Other buildings
(currently stabilized ruins) are also considered for reconstruction.
John Briggs, 2/10/03
•
Zweep has identified the key issue: ‘confidence; actual and perceived’.
•
The Victorians where confident. Today we seem to lack architectural confidence (itself a
worthwhile debate) ‘however the need to reassert or reclaim that confidence should not
eclipse the confidence we need to properly interpret significance and heritage value. And
to balance those with other values.’
•
‘To reconstruct a treasure is not of necessity to refuse the present but to respect what has
been, and would be, appreciated. Our past can properly remain a part of our present.
•
‘Our need to assert confidence in our current designers need not fuel a backlash against
the enjoyment and respect for heritage. There are other opportunities as he suggested in
his previous contribution on this issue.
•
We have the technology we can rebuild it.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
38
Chris Johnston, 3/10/03
•
I understand that the Lake Condah dormitory was done with great care and based on
research but that the problems was that it was reconstructed to a far earlier period than
living memory, so that those who slept there as children felt that it was 'not their
dormitory' - the reconstruction excluded them and removed their history.
•
The community associated with Lake Condah also wanted to reconstruct the church but
the dormitory experience made some wonder if it would turn out well (many still strongly
desire reconstruction of the church).
•
The buildings at Lake Condah were destroyed by the government of the time in an
attempt to close the mission. The destruction of the church and the school was deeply felt
by those who lived on the Mission and by many non-indigenous locals as these buildings
were everyone's school and church. Another situation full of unresolved grief and pain.
•
So reconstruction is not to be undertaken lightly (what an understatement!)
David Moloney, 3/10/03
•
The Lake Condah lessons might not apply so much to the pitfalls of reconstruction per se
as to a failure by the heritage profession to pay due regard to social (as distinct from
architectural or historical) values. Which is what we risk doing at St Kilda if its decided
that the kiosk's architectural/aesthetic values (which might be reinstated by modern
architecture), rather than its social value, are paramount.
•
Maybe reconstruction is not only a legitimate but the optimal conservation management
response to social value? The Premier’s gut reaction seemed to perfectly express and
alleviate public grief. While it has been great that the National Trust stimulated public
debate by letting it be known that there are also other legitimate responses, I think we
should be prepared to listen in these rare cases where social value is high, and the public
is actually very interested in a heritage place. What's the point of the heritage profession
assessing social value if we then dismiss what the public (the same public which
established that it has social significance!) believes is the best conservation outcome?
Why should the Burra Charter even bother to acknowledge the existence of social value if
it is so circumscribed - even demeaned - by the professionals when it comes to practical
outcomes?
•
Nostalgia, or emotional memory is part of life, and nothing to be too afraid of. It’s
probably a good part of social value. Modern architecture is sometimes exciting, but
nostalgia is often a more powerful motivation in the community (as modernist architects
learned). Heritage professionals especially might think twice about dismissing it when so
many of the buildings we say should be preserved are 'Classical', 'Queen Anne style', or
'neo Georgian'.
•
As far as architecture goes, the kiosk seemed moderately outstanding. Not necessarily in
terms of originality - that modern golden calf - but unique in Melbourne. A period temple
to passive recreation, beautifully scaled to terminate the vista of the pier promenade. A
hard act for the postmodernist to follow I would say. More interesting than most modern
architecture.
•
There’s also a good historical argument for reconstructing the kiosk: its historic context.
Wasn't the Edwardian era the high point in the development of festive seaside resorts? It
certainly was in St Kilda, until the electronic age began to kick in after WW1. Until the
gramophone, cinema, and radio began to impact, "promenading" and street life were huge
public entertainment. With cable trams providing cheap access for the masses, St Kilda
became the people's playground: Luna Park, dance halls, roller skating rinks, open air
vaudeville theatres (including the Pierrotland stadium), sea baths and, no doubt,
bandstands. Enter the St Kilda Foreshore Committee, led by renaissance man Carlo
Catani, to raise the tone a notch. Catani changed the plans for the Catani Gardens from
just another provincial sports oval and picnic grounds bordered by Monterey cypresses
(similar to those at the Bay Paddle Steamer ports down the bay), to one which recognised
St Kilda's cosmopolitan potential. Modelled on the Naples foreshore, its key purpose was
to create a network of paths on which the fashionable might promenade and mingle
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
•
•
•
•
•
39
amongst elevating statuary, under avenues of palms. The garden plan extended south past
the Catani arch bridge, and Teahouse, to O'Donnell Gardens beside Luna Park, and as far
as Point Ormond. The pier refreshment pavilion (kiosk) - built in the same period - is part
of the same historical movement and vision. In fact it became the focal point of this whole
vision of St Kilda. It survived when the Catani Gardens fell into disuse, and truly became
an icon of St Kilda (as evident in postcards and paintings), rivalled only by Luna Park
and, perhaps, Catani's palms.
There have been many losses (even the Espy had a close shave), but it is fortunate that St
Kilda retains much of the 'pre-electronic' era seaside recreation heritage mentioned above.
South Melbourne shows how the heritage and memory of a different era of recreation
might be lost. The bandstands, open air and beach theatres, sea baths, skating rinks and
hotels that congregated near Kerford Road are all gone. The pier itself was threatened
with demolition about 20 years ago, and the wonderful Victoria Hotel is presently being
turned into apartments.
By way of further comparison I would add that the Eastern Beach foreshore
beautification, inspired by the St Kilda achievement, while not that much later represents
I think a completely different world in which the era of promenading had passed.
Although designed to stun visually, I believe its emphasis is more on active recreation.
Although St Kilda pavilion was at the end of a rebuilt concrete pier, and nearly
surrounded by a mid twentieth century yacht marina and breakwater, its context is/was
the Edwardian seaside resort of St Kilda. It was the pivot of this vision. The vision is still
valued and pursued by the local Council, eg in its extensions of Canary Island palm
avenues along the Upper Esplanade and elsewhere, and (less successfully) by the
pavilion/rotunda at the foot of the pier, and the 'period' lamp standards on the pier itself.
Historically, promenading is a characteristic Edwardian phenomenon. Few piers were
built in the latter twentieth century (except those associated with marinas that are not
publicly accessible). Despite the modern foreshore promenading revival, the modern era
has not earned the right to usurp the Edwardian era.
Certainly in St Kilda it makes sense to reconstruct a building which has been an icon not
only of St Kilda, but of an era. St Kilda foreshore is a place shaped by that era.
And the remnant timber pier - the platform - should be retained if we are to build a timber
building.
Lorraine Huddle, 4/10/3
•
Agrees with Moloney’s analysis of the St Kilda Kiosk issues, and the way they relate to
more broader issues in the professional heritage field.
Brian Benson, 4/10/03
•
Excellent debate, but who is actually going to put it in action? The heritage professionals
could show leadership and do what is necessary to get the job done. Suggests a
reconstruction committee, to include the LGA, HV, NT and other interested parties.
Elizabeth Kraus, 4/10/03
•
I feel it should be reconstructed.
•
It brings to mind the restored Dysert O'Dea castle (Norman keep style architecture) in
County Clare, Ireland. This building was reconstructed from a semi ruin about 20 years
ago by an American O'Day family. It has become the focus for the triannual gathering of
O'Dea/O'Day families around the world since 1993.
•
Issues include materials used 20 years ago which are showing signs of age and the range
of materials now available to rectify this. I'm sure Brian could cite other examples.
Willys Keeble, 7/10/03
•
Supports a reconstruction. Lake Condah’s wrongly wrought reconstruction not an
argument for no reconstruction of kiosk.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
•
•
40
Would like heritage professionals to put their money on 'social significance', and support
Port Phillip Council. This Council is the democratically elected voice of the large
population. Why should the population’s voice be less important than heritage
professionals when its a matter of cultural significance to the locals?
The residents of Port Phillip would appear to be the cultural group that "own" the place,
so perhaps heritage professionals should support a referendum of these residents? Or
what about a metro-wide referendum of Melburnians, who also feel they 'own the place' ?
Anyway, why is a 19th century pier a good place to build a 21st century modern marvel?
Let the piers stand in their own right from east to west around the bay and let 21st century
development create its own infrastructure.
Gary Vines, 10/10/03
•
Another way of considering the issue is to look at the kiosk as only a small component of
a much larger structure or cultural landscape, which could be defined as the Edwardian
and interwar beach promenade including everything from the north end of Catani Gardens
at the Beaconsfield Hotel - to Luna Park.
•
In this context, the reconstruction of the kiosk, as a small but crucial component of a
much larger and generally cohesive historical landscape, would be a thoroughly
appropriate action and consistent with the Burra Charter.
Rohan Storey, 18/10/03
•
There is already a reconstruction there. The pavilion at the start of the pier is a
reproduction of the long-lost original, though that was actually on the pier, now shorter
due to beach creation.
Gary Vines, 20/10/03
•
I suspect there are also many other replica structures like this. If anything they point to the
cultural landscape being the significant element that people are trying to retain, rather
than the fabric. The arguments over the St.Kilda baths suggest this also.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
41
Butterpaper: Architecture Downunder (Australia and New Zealand Architecture and
Design Resources)
(www.butterpaper.com/talk/ )
•
Poll:
'The St Kilda kiosk should be replaced with …
•
an identical building
•
a new building taking into account heritage requirements
•
a new building sought via a competition, with no style constraints
•
no building’
2 (50%)
0
2 (50%)
0
Total Votes: 4
•
Comments (Summaries of salient contributions)
•
Peter (Site Administrator):
•
It was a unique building in Australia.
•
Many locals will be feeling ‘robbed’ of their history, and wanting an ‘instant
reconstruction’.
•
1866 West Pier in Brighton proposed to be restored to its 1920 state, after fire and
partial collapse.
•
But could be an ‘opportunity for a significant contemporary structure that says
more about St Kilda now than a Victorian replica ever could’.
•
Dharma bum
•
Votes for ‘rebuilding … exactly as it was before the fire’
•
Reason: ‘I don’t trust the City of Port Phillip’, who would make a hash of any
new development, as with the Sea Baths.
•
Rayk
•
Hold a competition for a new design
•
In 99 years people should see examples of design from 2003, not 1904. If we
keep repeating olde worlde designs, as happens with a lot of housing, there will
be no heritage worth preserving of our own era.
•
There are enough records and photographs of the original that it would not be
forgotten .
•
Peter (Site Administrator):
•
After reading the Parks Victoria Expressions of Interest paper…. ‘Expect a
mangled Caroline Springs version of what was there before. Should keep the
Premier happy I guess, but what a waste of an opportunity’.
Walking Melbourne: Australian Architecture Discussion: A Place to Talk about
Australian
Architecture,
Heritage,
and
Planning
Issues.
(www.walkingmelbourne.com/forum/)
(This site describes itself as a unique ‘hobby site’ filling a niche in architectural debate. It
receives about 450 unique visits per day.)
•
Poll
‘Should they Rebuild the St Kilda Pier Kiosk or Start Anew?’
•
Reconstruct it from the original plans or photographs
•
Hold an architecture competition and pick the best design
•
Just build something new there
85%
14%
0%
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
42
Total Votes: 7
•
Comments
•
William Pitt (Site Administrator)
Is the government’s decision to reconstruct it based on old photographs ‘a jerk
reaction or true cultural sensibility?’
•
Hun
•
‘What an absolute tragedy’
•
‘…this place is an icon and a absolute piece of Victorian heritage lost forever’
•
‘…Heritage Victoria should have architects re-create the plans on buildings like
this for posterity’
•
‘RIP St Kilda Pier Kiosk 2003 - you were loved by many - we eagerly await your
return’.
•
Clem
•
‘Usually I don’t like to dwell on the past, but the decision to rebuild the kiosk is a
good one. It was one of Melbourne’s most beautiful buildings, and my personal
favourite’.
•
HeritagePoliceman
•
‘But if you just reconstruct it, isn’t this ‘heritage gone mad’?
•
It would be just a copy, not original and authentic.
•
Fears just facadism
•
Suggests a design that ‘combines the image of the original, and adds something
contemporary as well’.
•
Reconstruction from photographs is possible (technically)
•
Blabbyboy
•
‘It shouldn’t be rebuilt, because there’s nothing left’.
•
Recent proposals for an archi competition ‘to design a challenging, showcase
contemporary replacement to last the next 100 years’ is very good.
•
If you rebuild it ‘it won’t be the same - it will end up like the woeful, kitsch,
cheap-looking (though very expensive) tacky St Kilda Sea Baths’
•
‘…rebuild or complete buildings if it’s an institutional structure of great
importance and scale (eg if Parliament House burnt down, or incomplete
structures of high importance like Parliament House or the GPO). But in this
case, the knee-jerk reaction to rebuild it will be a big mistake for a very
prominent site…’
•
William Pitt
•
‘…if it is done tastefully, and this is a big if, then rebuilding is the way to go’.
•
Fairly simple materials, and should not be too difficult or costly to reproduce.
•
‘… an architectural competition on the other hand could end up a disaster (not to
mention a waste of money) and more likely to produce something ‘tacky’.
•
Cindy Vogelsang (Esplanade Alliance Webmistress)
•
‘I vote for rebuilding more or less to the same plan, for reasons of economy if
nothing else.’
•
‘… there is a call for change for changes sake …’
•
‘…the silhouette of the original tea pavilion … is complementary to Luna Park
and the Palais, and to what the Sea Baths should have been.
•
‘It may perhaps be reasonable to modify the plans to make the building more
functional as a restaurant/café…’ [though she was not overly fond of the food,
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
43
prices, and ‘the noisy private functions’ which ‘disturbed many a stroll down to
the break-water (heck, I was even told by the security guard [at] a function one
night a few years back that I was not allowed to go on to the break water …)]
‘Rebuilding is not ‘heritage gone mad’ - it’s acknowledging we all have a
memory of the place - what it was, and that, like Luna Park - we want it to
continue in some form’.
Skyscraper City
(http://skyscrapercity.com/)
This is an international site that provides information about modern skyscrapers being built
around the world, and a forum for aficionados of high buildings.
•
Bearbrass
•
‘I hope they do build it back to something like the original and do an upgrade at
the same time’.
•
Mr MacPhisto
•
‘Shame to see it go. This was big news here in Queensland.’
•
‘I guess this is Victoria’s equivalent of the pier/ballroom Britain lost to the sea at
Brighton not all that long ago’.
•
Chrisaus
•
‘Could this trigger a major rebuild of the area?’
•
Clem
•
‘An upgrade isn’t needed. The area was already perfect. It will be rebuilt’.
•
Culwalla
•
‘This is very grim news indeed. No doubt the structure will be rebuilt back to
how it was, but it will never be the same.’
•
‘The historic Como Hotel built 1882 was Sutherland Shire’s oldest structure and
was burnt to the ground in 1996 … but fortunately it was built back to new, but it
doesn’t look as good (or old like a 120 year old building should look) but better
than nothing’. (Photos)
•
Blabbyboy
•
‘Rebuilding the old thing will not be able to bring back the magic’.
•
‘Does it matter that we’re dealing with a kiosk, and not a grand institutional
structure on a monumental scale? St Kilda - heritage or avante guarde (a bit of
both)?
•
If we rebuild, ‘what would it be like? … the 1970 wing of the Melb Uni Law
Quad, with its precast gargoyles? Or worse - the St Kilda Sea Baths?’ … ‘Is
rebuilding worse than facadism (which is only retention of the original façade)?’
•
Culwalla
•
‘I say rebuild! replace, return!!’
•
Fabian
•
‘If a structure of historical significance is destroyed, it has to be rebuilt … to the
way it originally was, using the latest technology’
•
‘In a fair sense you are preserving your city’s heritage by rebuilding and allowing
great structures of the past to exist for future generations’.
•
Trances
(Comments seem ambiguous, but this seems to be his view…)
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
44
‘I don’t know this site, but see no reason why it should not be returned. Looks
great.’
•
Clem
•
‘I usually am against rebuilding of structures, but this is an exception. The kiosk
should be rebuilt if, and only if, they can match the original structure perfectly
without cutting corners.’
•
‘I believe the area was perfect, and an ultra-modern, federation square style
structure will look wrong and out-of-place on the end of the pier’.
•
‘A replica can be realistically produced’.
•
Urban
•
‘Why not rebuild? If you rebuild it now, in a hundred years the ‘new’ version
will be old and historic.’
•
He provides photographs of the Fortress of Louisburg, a French fort in Nova
Scotia, destroyed by war in the late 1700s, and rebuilt by the Canadian
government in the 1960s. Instead of just ‘foundations’, most people are happy to
see the structure ‘reborn’.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
45
APPENDIX NO.8
MISCELLANEOUS: COMMENTS FROM PRIVATE STRAW-POLL DISCUSSIONS
Denis:
•
Reconstruct it.
•
Kiosk:
•
‘unique in Melbourne’
•
‘it worked.’
•
‘off shore, on the waves….’ (in glorious isolation)
•
‘an icon’ … that … ‘could not be recreated by a postmodern pastiche ….
contemporary kitsch … bad interpretation of 1930s Bauhaus … or something with
merely fleeting reference to the original.’
Tom:
•
‘Rebuild it exactly as it was.’
•
It was a beautiful building.
Dave:
•
‘Can’t repeat history.’ Need to be ‘authentic’, so build something new.
•
‘A timber construction ‘fundamental’, including the timber pier and its deck.
John
•
‘They should rebuild it as it was’.
•
‘Everyone at work feels the same.’
•
He and his wife had their first date there.
Jenny
•
‘Can’t repeat history’ (‘though … its early twentieth century historical context - Luna
Park, Palais … survive…!’)
•
Anything should be kept ‘small-scale’, and remain affordable for families and ordinary
people who use the pier.
Elizabeth
•
Reconstruct it.
•
Significance ?
•
‘… a soft place … no neon lights … ’
•
‘…though you don’t go there because of it …it is right for whatever mood you are in
- wild, quiet - … it wraps around you …
•
‘…timeless… has a little magnetism all of its own… enhances the pier …’
•
It ‘wasn’t fancy’, and should not put anything ‘glitzy’ there.
Julianna
•
‘Reconstruct - it’s part of Melbourne’
•
‘façade the most critical part’ of the place to her. But also necessary to retain a ‘sense of
the old’ inside, and throughout …
•
‘the elements - air, sea - are integral to the experience of the place’.
•
keep the pier deck, and ‘put up with the plastic’ [awning]. (‘Otherwise, why not have it
on-shore?’)
•
‘Dining is not the primary significance of the place … a restaurant should only be allowed
to be added if it doesn’t detract from the significance of the place.’
Sabina
•
Would ‘be lovely to have a replica’. Inside wouldn’t matter, but ‘…hate to think we
would lose its shape.’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
•
•
46
‘loved looking at it - the shape of it - as she walked along the pier’ (to her yacht)
‘an icon of St Kilda - on all the postcards - who knows how many people have painted it’
Views on a modern replacement:•
Would need a low, small place
•
Modern architecture would be no substitute. Eg, Sea Baths (‘absolutely no
character’), Docklands (‘nothing outstanding’), Southbank (‘mishmash’), Casino
(unremarkable). St Kilda’s Luna Park and Pier Kiosk contrast sharply with these.
Deahne
•
Went there often … liked the ‘old world’ character ‘up top’, where she sat.
•
‘serene … boats bobbing’
•
liked to go there on a cold day, when it was quiet.
Bernie:
•
Not decided re reconstruction.
•
‘Former kiosk not very practical in terms of exposure to elements ….a southerly breeze
would blow the froth off your cappucino…’
Giselle
•
Reconstruct … because it was ‘virtually unique’.
•
‘Such an icon, that represented St Kilda’.
•
‘Always saw it - on a tram, or driving the Upper or Lower Esplanade.’
•
‘Such a tragedy’ to have lost ‘its magic’. ‘You could sense its history and function years
ago’.
•
Now, there is ‘nothing to mark’ - ‘it could be a pier anywhere’.
Anne
•
Not sure about reconstruction. ‘Is it silly to pretend?’
•
‘a postcard icon’
•
‘important for tourists’
•
‘a kind of destination - people liked walking there’
•
‘The timber interior had an Edwardian look that complements the rest of the building’.
•
Modern extensions? ‘People are into comfort these days.’ So could be ok, ‘if done
sympathetically’.
•
Visitors get ‘…contact with the elements on the pier walk, so not that important that kiosk
retains this contact.’
•
Timber would be nice (and might be necessary due to weight) on any modern building.
But not the most durable material, and fire prone?
Marita:
•
‘… if people want existing style that’s fine, but [she] would like to explore other options
too’.
•
‘… invite 10-20 architects to design something, and include a reconstruction amongst the
options’. Then see what’s best, and what people want.
Chris
•
‘if it can be rebuilt well - ok’ [ie, qualified endorsement of reconstruction]
•
But not necessary to reconstruct: ‘…as long as what is put there is high quality’
Evelyn
•
‘It should be restored of course, in more or less the fashion it was before.’
•
‘All the people [in the St Kilda Historical Society] want it restored’.
Gerard
•
‘Reconstruct’
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
•
•
•
47
‘Contact with the elements’ very important for him
Liked the ‘verandah’, the deck around it, which is ‘very Australian’.
Retaining its ‘accessibility and affordability extremely important … a pier is a public
space’.
Mark
•
Reconstruct it.
•
Felt welcome there without being fashionable or even well-dressed, or having a lot of
money.
Ron
•
Should reconstruct it.
•
His group of retired friends have been cycling there each Wednesday
•
They took a photograph of themselves there the day before it was destroyed by the fire.
George
•
Should reconstruct it.
•
It was the extension of St Kilda.
•
It was a strong link with the past; created a sense of continuity with St Kilda’s past.
•
It provided a memorable view to the city.
Christiane
•
Should definitely reconstruct it.
•
In her native Germany (Berlin, Heidelberg) and elsewhere in Europe reconstructed places
are treasured by people.
•
She heard about it when in Taiwan; a friend she met there encouraged her to come to
Melbourne and visit it together.
•
It was her ‘wishing point’, looking at Melbourne.
•
There were always actors employed as waiters. It was a place that had nothing to do with
the real world.
•
People loved it: her personal memories of it are strong. She met her husband there when
they were photographing the sunset.
•
It was like a wake after the fire, with streams of people visiting it 2-3 days later.
•
A colleague told her she had done all her university assignments upstairs in the Kiosk. It
was a quiet place.
St Kilda Pier Kiosk Conservation Management Plan, April 2004: Appendices
APPENDIX NO.9
IMAGES OF THE PIER AND KIOSK
A sample of art, postcards, photographs, music, writing.
48