Today I had the pleasure of visiting the famous “Stick Shed” in Murtoa, a small town north-east of Horsham in Victoria’s ‘western district’.

Wool and wheat form the basis of the economy in this region of Victoria, and so it has been for generations. In ordinary years, wheat grain is harvested and stored in a silo before being sold for either domestic consumption or export .

But in 1941, things were a little different.

^{Inside the “Stick Shed”. The numerous wooden support poles give it its name.}

World War II was underway and Australia’s finest had been sent off to fight for the Empire. War didn’t just deplete the number of available hands to assist with the harvest, it also closed off most of Australia’s export options. When combined with an exceptionally-good season, the farmers of Murtoa had a real problem on their hands because suddenly there was an oversupply of wheat grain and no-where to store it.

Enter the “Stick Shed”, officially the Marmalake/Murtoa Grain Store No.1 Murtoa Shed. In 1941, building supplies (and labour) were in short supply so the shed’s builders had to use the few building materials available. To support the roof when steel rafters were unavailable, the builders embedded 600 unmilled hardwood poles into a concrete floor, then strengthened it with iron tie rods before attaching a corrugated iron roof . The ‘Stick Shed’ measures a massive 280 metres in lenth, 60 metres in width and 19 metres in height at the ridge. That’s enormous!

As can be guessed, it is the 600 poles that give the “Stick Shed” its name.

When construction was complted in 1942, the “Stick Shed” was used by the Victorian Grain Elevators Board (now GrainCorp) until 1989 when the condition of the shed and improved handling regulations rendered the “Stick Shed” economically unviable.

Numerous versions of the “Stick Shed” were constructed around Victoria in the 1940′s but all have since been demolished. A second shed, which had been built next to the “Stick Shed”  in Murtoa, was demolished in 1975.

When the “Stick Shed” closed, there were plans made for its demolition but an Interim Preservation Order was served by Historic Buildings Council (HBC) in December 1989 and by December 1990 the shed had been added to the Victorian Heritage Register.  In August 1991 the Grain Elevators Board applied for a demolition permit on the grounds that maintenance was beyond their resources but the permit was refused.  In 1995 the shed fell back into the hands of the Department of Treasury & Finance but GrainCorp continue to operate an elevator that is integral to the west end of the shed.

Despite all this, there are still people calling for demolition of the Stick Shed, including Peter Walsh MP and the Victorian Farmers’ Federation.The National Trust and the Heritage Council of Victoria oppose demolition but as we’ve seen with the Oakleigh Motel or Hamer Hall, state heritage protection doesn’t stand for much in Victoria anymore. Luckily, the Heritage Council are applying to have the “Stick Shed” added to the Commonwealth Heritage Register and demolition is now very unlikely.

The Heritage Council has started a programme of restoring the shed, which is currently in a poor condition. In places, the roof is missing and some of the woodwork has rotted. The Heritage Council held an Open Day today so that members of the public could see the “Stick Shed” for themsleves.

I can say that it proved to be a very popular attraction!

Because I had to make a long journey from Melbourne, I was awake at 5am in order to be in Murtoa for the 10am opening. As it turned out, I arrived 20 minutes early and a generous Heritage Council staffer agreed to let me in early so that I could take photographs of the shed whilst it was empty. (One can never underestimate the generosity and friendliness of rural folk).

^{Discovering the wonders of the “Stick Shed” in Murtoa.}

The “Stick Shed” is a vast size and much bigger than I imagined it to be. The concrete floor was dusty, there was debris in many places and there was a large hole in the roof in the middle section of the building. As I wandered around, I could hear pigeons roosting above my head and even found a smashed bird egg on the floor. On one side of the shed was a long conveyer-belt that had long ago seen better days and notices warning of certain poles being dangerous were attached to various columns. Nevertheless, it is a wonderful building to wander around and I really enjoyed the experience.

As I inspected the “Stick Shed”, I could see how dangerous and unsuitable such a facility would be if used for its original purpose today, but following the restoration I am certain other uses can be found for it. Being of such historical importance and aesthetic beauty inside, there’s no way that a building like this should be demolished or neglected further.

I know it seems like a peculiar idea, but as I walked around I couldn’t help but think it would be a great spot for a rave party!

The open day was very well attended with a wide variety of people travelling to Murtoa to take a look. Hopefully this will encourage the Heritage Council to host more open days in future and give the public a chance to see the restoration work up close.

If you’d like some more information about this wonderful building, it has an unofficial website at http://www.murtoastickshed.com.au/. The “Stick Shed” is located at GrainCorp’s facility on the Wimmera Highway in Murtoa, next to the railway line.

If you ever happen to be passing through the regional city of Bairnsdale in Victoria’s Gippsland district, be sure to make some time to call in to St. Mary’s Catholic Church. You needn’t be religious in order to appreciate this fine building, which is elaborately decorated on the inside with a plethora of beautiful painted murals.

I visited St Mary’s yesterday, and was totally amazed with what I saw so I thought I’d provide an account of my experience for you to enjoy.

^{The decorated interior of St Mary’s Roman Catholic Church in Bairnsdale, Victoria, Australia.}

Getting There

Bairnsdale is 290 road kilometres from Melbourne, on the Prince’s Highway. In order to have a reasonable period to appreciate the sights of Bairnsdale, a Melburnian needs to leave early and allocate about 8-hours for driving time both ways.

The serious tourist would be best advised to spend the night in Bairnsdale, but since I’d recently been to the city and the sole purpose for my visit was to see this one church, I decided to squeeze it into a single day.

I departed Melbourne fairly late in the morning, and had lunch in Moe, so I didn’t arrive in Bairnsdale until 2:30PM. Unfortunately for me, as I entered the church I discovered that a wedding was about to commence, so after driving for four hours, I had to wait yet another hour and a half to have a look around!

First Impressions

St Mary’s is a red-brick construction that was designed and built in 1913. The front entrance and bell tower were completed in 1937. The church was designed by Augustus A. Fritsch and  is listed on the Victorian Heritage Database and the National Trust Register.

As one travels into Bairnsdale on the Prince’s Highway from Melbourne, one sees the church tower on the left stretching into the sky. On the right is a massive water tower, also stretching into the sky. On first impressions, it seems as if the church’s tower was extended with the sole intention of ensuring that its tower appears taller than the nearby water tower!

St Mary’s is an imposing building, but one which looks entirely approachable and soft in its appearance. Unlike many Australian churches from the interwar period, St Mary’s is predominantly Romanesque in design, giving it a stylistic link with the churches of Spain and Italy instead of Britain and France.

Inside St Mary’s

As one walks in, the eye is immediately drawn to the altar and specifically the ornate tabernacle, which is surrounded by a series of highly-decorated stained-glass windows. From there the eye moves around the rest of the building, and discovers the beautiful art that lies within.

^{Upon entry, one’s eye is immediately drawn to the altar. As Christmas is approaching, a small nativity scene is depicted.}

St Mary’s has a barrel-vaulted ceiling that initially reminded me of many of the historic Catholic churches I had seen in the Philippines.

The ceilings of St. Mary’s have been ornately decorated with painted murals which are the work of Italian painter Francesco Floreani.

Floreani’s murals were painted over six years in two stages; the first between 1931-4 and the second between 1937-8. Floreani spent six long years lying, kneeling, balancing and bending on a 15-metre scaffold!

Floreani’s work depicts many themes central to Christianity, as well as some themes unique to Catholicism.

Above the altar is a depiction of Mary, the Mother of God. Cherubs hold a scroll around Her which reads Immaculata in Luce Puritatis (Latin for “Immaculate in the Light of Purity”). On either side are paintings of the Nativity and the Taking Down from the Cross. In front of the main alter are themes of Heaven, Hell and Purgatory. These paintings have the most effect, as we can clearly see the bodies of the damned and sinful burning in the eternal fire of Hell, whilst the angels attempt to recover those who sit in Purgatory. Such dramatic depictions probably seek to remind the congregation why they should continue to visit the church!

The walls of the church are also richly embellished and feature the Apostles, the Gospel Writers, the Crucifixion and the vision of St. Francis of Assisi. There’s even a depiction of Francesco Floreani in there! These are much friendlier works which seek to celebrate the Christian faith and glorify God.

Being a Catholic church, St. Mary’s also has a set of framed Stations of the Cross, but when compared to the beautiful murals on the upper-walls and ceilings, they pale into insignificance and I barely noticed them!

Some History

As mentioned previously, St. Mary’s was built in 1919 and completed in 1937. The interior of the church was initially plain, as can be seen from this photograph.

Francesco Floreani was born in Venice, and studied painting at the Academy of Arts, Turin. In 1927, Floreani emigrated to Australia where work was plentiful until the Great Depression of 1930. In 1931, Floreani met Fr. Cremin on a farm whilst he was employed as a pea-picker at Metung.  Floreani asked the priest if he knew of any better jobs in town. When Fr. Cremin learned that Francesco Floreani was an artist, he employed him to decorate the church. Starting with statue-painting, it was a job that would last him six years!

Francesco Floreani also gained paid work outside Bairnsdale. Melburnians can see his work in the Regent, Plaza and Forum (former State) theatres.

Francesco Floreani’s work at St Mary’s in Bairnsdale is regarded as one of his most significant works. In terms of church design, it is also highly significant because such expansive painted murals are relatively rare in Australian churches, when compared to those in Europe.

Access

As it happened, my delay in accessing the church turned out to be a blessing in disguise.

On account of the wedding, I was able to speak to parish priest Fr. Denis O’Bryan who kindly permitted me access to the mezzanine, which is ordinarily closed to the public.

Mezzanine access felt like a good ‘reward’ for being patient in waiting for the wedding to finish, and the elevated perspective enabled me to take photos from a different vantage point to most visitors, which was fantastic.

Like most churches, St Mary’s is open to the public during daylight hours, and all are welcome regardless of religious affiliation. Access is always free, but a donation towards the church’s upkeep is appreciated.

Unfortunately, St. Mary’s doesn’t have a website, but their address is 23 Pyke Street, Bairnsdale. As you’ve hopefully gleaned from this article, it is well worth a visit.

With the full blessing of Heritage Victoria, developers have recently demolished or gutted much of the Oakleigh Motel, despite the building’s inclusion on the state’s heritage register.

^{The Oakleigh Motel in November 2009.}

Heritage Victoria, who are charged with protecting our built heritage and consider the 1957 motel to be of “state significance” seem to show a cavalier disregard for our architectural heritage and appear to have lost sight of their very reason for being.

With nothing left but some walls and a sign, it’s time to take a look at the Oakleigh Motel’s significant history, its architectural and cultural significance, and the path that led to its destruction.

The motel as a phenomenon

The Oakleigh Motel in the south-eastern Melbourne suburb of Oakleigh was the very first motel ever built in Victoria.

Constructed in 1956, “the Oak” was the official ‘turning point’ for the marathon in the 1956 Olympics and typical of a new style of architecture developed in response to the boom in car ownership in post-war Australia.

These days, we take motels for granted but in the 1950’s, the motel was the newest architectural development to emanate from the United States. Deploying a novel style of design and ‘modern’ conveniences such as car parking, telephones, air-conditioning and individual bathrooms, the motel as a phenomenon would soon spread across the country like a bushfire.

^{The Oakleigh Motel in 1959. (Picture: National Archives of Australia)}

There had been several failed attempts to build motels in Victoria before 1956, but with the accommodation shortage that resulted from the city’s hosting of the Olympics, the pressure to build motels increased. Commissioned by former car salesman Cyril Lewis and designed by architect James Miller, the Oakleigh succeeded where others had failed up to that period. Nevertheless, delays prevented its completion until 1957 when the Olympics had ended.

In the United States, motel design had developed into a form that would later be known as “Googie” architecture. Googie architecture typically relied on the use of garish colours, peculiar eye-catching building materials, bright neon signs and unusual structural forms that were all designed to catch the eye of fast-moving vehicular traffic.

Australian architects travelled to the United States to examine, learn from, and adapt the Googie style to Australian conditions. The Oakleigh Motel was the first expression of Googie architecture in Victoria, and a good example at that.

The Oak’s enormous portico with signage, the enormous neon sign above the motel (added in the late 1950’s) and the unusual form of the building (especially the dining room) typify the Googie style and would have attracted the eye of many. Whilst the Oakleigh was the first, many similar buildings followed.

What made the Oakleigh unique (and therefore historically even more significant) was the fact that in 2009, the motel was still largely as it was constructed in 1956. Still fully operational, but with a different colour scheme and minor modification to the neon sign, the motel had survived where most others from that period were either significantly altered, or demolished.

Redevelopment

In 2008, the motel was sold to developers who wanted to turn the site into 54 apartments. The City of Monash was in full support, but many community members were not and the National Trust lead a campaign to have the Oakleigh Motel listed on the Victorian Heritage Register.

After public submissions were considered (including one from the City of Monash opposing the motel’s inclusion on the register), the Heritage Council decided in favour of adding the motel to the state’s heritage list, thus protecting it from redevelopment or alteration.

Or so you’d think.

^{The gutted reception area and covered-way}

Legal issues

As I speak, the Oakleigh Motel, which is described by the Victorian Heritage Council as an “unusually intact example of 1950’s modernism in Victoria” and as being “aesthetically significant as an example of the American ‘Googie’ style of architecture” is being totally gutted. The walls remain, but almost everything else has been ripped out to make way for 33 apartments.

This is how Heritage Victoria looks after buildings “of architectural, historical and aesthetic significance to the State of Victoria”.

^{Walls are all that remain of the individual units}

The City of Monash, who evidently value rates and revenue above cultural and architectural history, have opposed the protection of this building from the very beginning.

In 2008, councillors at the City of Monash voted to remove the motel from the Monash Heritage Overlay and advised the new owners that it could be demolished, until the Heritage Council stepped in and prevented wholesale demolition.

Following the intervention of Heritage Victoria, the City of Monash received a proposal to put 54 units on the property from developers Oakleigh Development Pty. Ltd., but felt that the site was over-crowded and so the plan was rejected.

Oakleigh Development Pty. Ltd. then took the City of Monash to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

VCAT also rejected the proposal, so the developers were forced to re-work their plans into a more acceptable form. This involved reducing the number of proposed dwellings to 34. The City of Monash accepted the revised plans, pending approval from the Heritage Council which oddly, was granted.

With approval in hand, the developers set about gutting huge parts of a building that is supposed to be of “state significance”. All of this was achieved with approval from the government’s heritage agency.

What a farce!

The Oakleigh Motel lies in ruins

Last weekend, I decided to take a look at the Oakleigh Motel and was saddened to see it had been reduced to a shell. Yes, the walls remained (and the large portico), but the buildings had been gutted and the roofs demolished.

I have viewed detailed plans of the redevelopment by architects Carabott Holt (which I cannot publish here) and can say I am disappointed with the design, which seeks as much as possible to conflict and distract from the former Oakleigh Motel’s aesthetic.

Whilst the reception building will be retained, all of the units will have an (unsympathetic) second storey added and a couple of new blocks will be wedged onto the site. Granted, the original front building may remain its single story, but the fact that the only original features are a sign and some brickwork make me wonder whether it might not have just been easier to demolish the lot, because so little of value remains.

^{The former dining room, later a restaurant}

What now?

Whilst I am unhappy with the plans, I cannot criticise the developers and architects who have acted entirely within their rights and the law.

My criticism lies squarely with Heritage Victoria, which has shown itself to be an utterly useless government agency with an amazing disregard for heritage matters. Heritage Victoria seems to have a far greater interest in economic development than heritage, which strikes me as absurd.

The Oakleigh Motel was significant because of its novel layout as much as it’s Googie architecture.

If its soul is ripped out, its Googie elements reduced to mere tokenism and one can no longer see the design aesthetic and layout of the complex in all its detail, what is the value of retaining this small portion? Anyone viewing this property in 10 years time would be confused at the remaining motel skerricks, and gain no appreciation of what 1950’s motel accommodation was like.

In all honesty, I am getting sick of writing about these heritage matters but it is harder to distinguish who the true enemy of heritage protection is: the proverbial “greedy developers” or the Heritage Council of Victoria.

The longer I look, the more I am convinced it is Heritage Victoria who is demonstrating a dereliction of duty.

^{Artist’s impression of “Parkview Terraces”}

References:
^{Carnovale, M. (2010) Sign of the Times, Monash Leader, 9 March, p. 5.
D’Arcy, J. (2009) Strange bedfellows, Sunday Age, 28 June, p.20.
Heritage Victoria (2009) Oakleigh Motel, Heritage Register entry H2193
Howe, R et al. (2009) Decision of the Heritage Council.
Leiminger, K. (2010) It’s here to stay, but sign battle goes on, Monash Weekly, 8 March
Parkview Terraces (2010) Parkview Terraces website
Reeves, S. (2009) Submission Concerning Oakleigh Motel, Built Heritage Pty. Ltd. & National Trust.
VCAT (2009) Oakleigh Development Pty Ltd v Monash CC & Ors, Case No. P126/2009}

I have been arguing about the need to protect Melbourne’s heritage architecture in The Grapevine for years. In recent times, it has appeared that the State Government and particularly the Victorian Heritage Council are far more interested in “job creation” than “heritage protection”. Three recent examples highlight the immediate problem at hand: the demolition of Lonsdale House, the gutting of Hamer Hall and the proposed 40% demolition of the Windsor Hotel.

Yet these are the tip of the ‘iceberg’ of destruction that is likely to hit our city in the coming year.

Thankfully, I am not the only person concerned about taking some action to defend Melbourne’s built heritage.

In recent times, a new advocacy group called Melbourne Heritage Action has been formed, and I am proud to say that I am a founding member. Many of the people involved with Melbourne Heritage Action were previously associated with the Save Lonsdale House movement (I am not one of them). Whilst the group is still in it’s infancy, I am impressed with the breadth of expertise we have pooled, as well as the broad community support. Even the National Trust has come on board to lend a hand, which is fantastic! Community interest is growing, too.

^{The Windsor Hotel}

Melbourne Heritage Action seeks to promote an awareness of Melbourne’s built heritage, using a range of social media,  public submissions, public campaigns and demonstrations, where need-be. Through these mechanisms it is hoped that we will raise community awareness, which will entice the State Government (and other responsible agencies) to place a greater value on heritage protection.

At present there is a lot of work to do.

The beautiful Equity Trustees building stands to be gutted and altered, the Spencer Street Power Station is about to be skewered by the legs of a skyscraper which will stand over it, and the Scots Church Hall and Melbourne’s first multi-storey car park are to be levelled, but only if the developers get their way.

^{Melbourne Heritage Action founding members (L-R): Helene Athanasiadis, Katrina Grant, Rupert Mann (President), Adam Dimech and Jim Barrett. (Image: The Age)}

In an election year that has also been witness to the Planning Minister’s questionable handling of the Windsor Hotel saga, there is considerable public interest in heritage and planning matters. Today, the Sunday Age has published an online article about Melbourne Heritage Action, which I hope will help garner further interest from the public.

If you’d like to help defend Melbourne’s significant buildings, and raise community awareness about planning and heritage matters in Melbourne, go to the Melbourne Heritage Action website at http://www.melbourneheritage.org.au/.

If you think you can make a contribution or want to become more deeply involved, please send an email.

We’d love to hear from you!

Three weeks ago, Melbourne’s famous Hamer Hall hosted its final concert before closing it’s doors to make way for a $128.5 million renovation, funded by the State Government.

Originally known as the Melbourne Concert Hall, the complex was designed by Sir Roy Grounds and opened in 1982 after a lengthy land dispute with the City of Melbourne, ongoing engineering problems and industrial action that had hampered its construction for several years.

^{The exterior of Hamer Hall, illuminated at dusk}

After its opening, the Melbourne Concert Hall became a much-loved cultural hub, playing host to the world’s finest performers, orchestras and groups from Australia and abroad.

Whilst the Melbourne Concert Hall wasn’t very striking from the outside, the interior was fitted-out by expatriate designer John Truscott, who created a distinctive and luscious environment in which the public could enjoy a ‘special night out’ in the city.

^{Cadbury-Schweppes Room}

John Truscott’s opulent interiors are very special: The colours have been very carefully selected to create a rich atmosphere (a signature trait of Truscott’s).

From the box office with its gold-leaf ceiling to the lobby spaces with their rich red carpet or the verdant green of the Cadbury-Schweppes Room, Truscott created unique and distinctive interior spaces that contained only the finest of furnishings and fittings. The use of padded leather as a ‘wallpaper’ in many of the corridor spaces is certainly something I have never seen elsewhere, but suited the building extraordinarily well.

Sadly, it seems that most of Truscott’s legacy is to be destroyed during the renovations.

The huge glass chandelier in the foyer, created by Michel Santry and called Arcturus, is to be removed permanently. And if  the official preview images are anything to go by, there won’t be much of Truscott’s work left when the renovation is complete. The Victorian Arts Centre website states rather vaguely:

“The important contribution made to the interiors by interior designer John Truscott has been a key consideration in planning the redevelopment of Hamer Hall. The proposed changes to the interiors, both in the foyers and the auditorium, have been arrived at following considerable thought and care to ensure that the existing interiors are retained as much as possible”.

I don’t see much evidence of this.

^{Illustration of the planned refurbishment of Hamer Hall}

Last year I made a detailed photographic study of Hamer Hall as part of Melbourne Open House. Recognising the significance of Hamer Hall’s interior architecture, and suspicious that the State Government would trash yet another of our modern architectural masterpieces in it’s never-ending quest for the “modern” , I made a studious attempt to capture the essence of Hamer Hall, before it was all destroyed.

And destroyed it will be.

The original plans showed a horrible glass shard that would pierce the rear balcony to create a new entrance, but the latest renders seem to have omitted this particularly ugly feature.

^{The latest render of the redeveloped Hamer Hall.}

We can’t halt progress forever, but it seems a tragedy to me that we care so little about mid- to late- 20th century interior design. The National Gallery of Victoria had it’s interior destroyed, now it seems to be Hamer Hall’s turn. I wonder what we’ll have left from this period, if even John Truscott’s work is not considered significant enough to preserve?

Some pictures, for posterity: