Revealing Hidden Histories to Shape the Future of Local Heritage

Step closer, look deeper. What heritage stories lie within the bricks and mortar of our suburbs, streets, and homes? Too often, heritage is seen as static and frozen in time, and yet it is ever progressing and dynamic, with a rich tapestry of concealed histories below the surface. Let us examine the evolving lenses through which we have conserved our local heritage.

The conservation of local heritage can be divided into three distinct historical periods: proto protections (1920s-1960s); emergent protections (1960s-1980s); and consolidating protections (1990s-2010s), culminating in the challenges heritage faces today from the Victorian Government’s planning and housing reforms.

My approach is anchored in ideas of ‘heritage value,’ which offer us ways to analyse what has been – and continues to be – deemed worthy of preservation. Writing for the Getty Conservation Institute, Avrami, Mason, and Torre note,

'values give something significance over others and thereby transform some objects and places into "heritage."'

I further interpret heritage values as ‘the attributes, characteristics, and qualities ascribed to things, places and objects by people and societies over time.’ This adds historical lenses to conservation, as examined in my book Values in Cities: Urban Heritage in Twentieth-Century Australia (2023).

In Victoria, the earliest proto protections for heritage from the 1920s were driven by aesthetic and historical interests. Grand landmarks like Parliament House, the Shrine of Remembrance, St Paul’s Cathedral, and the Windsor Hotel were recognised for, respectively, their artistic treatment, pioneering history, community pride, and architecture.

Overall, early conservation approaches celebrated colonial settlement and the nation with a selective memory, prioritising the monumental over the ordinary, and disregarding Indigenous heritage. This initial phase tended to overlook the everyday stories, the less grandiose narratives, and the places that contribute to our suburban and local life.

The emergent protections period, roughly spanning from the 1960s-1980s, marked a turning point. Amid the international ‘heroic period of conservation,’ grassroots movements like inner-suburban communities in collaboration with the National Trust battled urban renewal and championed the conservation of more ordinary places. It was a pushback against rapid postwar urban development, as intertwined with urban, environmental, and social concerns.

In heritage practice, this era was motivated by the conservation attributes of integrity and intactness, coupled with a deep appreciation for old materials and fabric. Meanwhile, the hidden narratives of ordinary lives began to surface, as residents fought to preserve their communities and the stories embedded within their neighbourhoods.

The consolidating protections phase, since the 1980s, saw the establishment of heritage planning laws, including the heritage overlay. This period still grappled with conflicting agendas. In the 1990s, the ‘Save Our Suburbs’ movement battled against advocates of unbridled development. Meanwhile, participatory, social, and spiritual values gained traction in conservation. Over time, we have seen the

increasing recognition of twentieth century and modernist heritage, broadening our definition of what is worth preserving; though there is still always more to uncover.

Today, local heritage is being challenged. Heritage is wrongly blamed for hindering housing and has become a scapegoat in the face of ongoing urban challenges. Heritage areas are already relatively dense, and capable of further densification, in ways that preserve historic and social fabric. The warehouses of Fitzroy, the Art Deco apartments of St Kilda, and the terraced streets of Yarraville have above- average density for Melbourne. Furthermore, when postwar, cream-bricked, six-nine-or twelve-pack apartment blocks are replaced with new luxury apartments, we tend to lose homes and density!

The Victorian Government’s planning reforms appear to lead to diminished local heritage protections. In recent weeks, serious concerns about the reforms have been raised by the Heritage Council of Victoria, Australia ICOMOS, Royal Historical Society of Victoria, Planning Panels Victoria, Charter 29, and the National Trust. They have identified a lack of prioritisation of the conservation and enhancement of heritage places.

Battles over heritage have always been about more than just preserving buildings. Heritage is about safeguarding the very essence of what makes our suburbs and communities special. Heritage can continue to uncover stories that still lie hidden, while inspiring great design, facilitating sustainable development, and fostering community. By engaging and designing with Country, through collaborations with

First Peoples, heritage can also contribute to Indigenous reconciliation, truth-telling, and voice.

Prioritising our local heritage is compelling. The aesthetic and community benefits of heritage are well-established. Research also demonstrates the climate-positive benefits of retaining existing buildings. Adapting and retrofitting, instead of demolishing, reduces carbon emissions. Engrossing ourselves in heritage places enhances our health and wellbeing. Conservation also creates skilled jobs and grows the tourism, creative and development sectors.

Local heritage has evolved before and will continue to evolve. Modernised approaches could make a renewed positive contribution to our suburbs – accommodating housing needs, while preserving what matters most. Only then can we truly protect the layers of hidden (and visible) history and heritage

that surround us and build great suburbs and homes for generations to come. We need to encourage the Victorian Government to value our heritage, and to think thoughtfully in our background (#TIMBY).

This article originally appeared in the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) Magazine, Winter 2025.