In Brunswick Road, Brunswick there is a building dating from the era of cable trams in Melbourne that is under threat from an inappropriate development. It was originally an engine house for the cable tram system, and housed a large engine that powered the cables that drew the cable trams along. Between the rails on which cable trams ran there was a slot in the road, in which ran a continuously moving cable. The ‘grip man’ on the tram had a large lever that went down into the slot and could grip onto the moving cable to enable the tram to move forward. The moving cable was powered by a large stationary steam engine in a nearby engine house. There were originally twelve engine houses sited at various points around the Melbourne cable tram system, but most of them have now been demolished. This is one of the few that remains. 
Because of its significance to Victoria and in particular for its role in the history of transport in Victoria, the building has been included on the Victorian Heritage Register. To quote from its citation in the Register: “The Former Cable Tram Engine House and Tram Substation is significant as a notable example of the engine houses constructed by the Melbourne Tramways Trust from the 1880s to power Melbourne’s cable trams. It is largely intact and features most of the external principal architectural characteristics of a cable tram engine house, including a wide doorway to allow large items of steam driven machinery to be moved in and out, a high ceiling, a bluestone plinth and brick walls with polychrome decoration.”
The proposed development involves the construction of a large and bulky apartment block on top of the existing building. The old engine house would be overwhelmed by a tower whose materials and bulk would offer little differentiation to enable the passer-by to read the original building in its own right. The tower would be erected directly over the façades of the old building on two sides with no set-back.
There may also be the remains of cable tram infrastructure under the concrete floor, such as tunnels, pits and equipment, which could be destroyed if the concrete floor is pulled up. It is not clear whether the developer intends to pull up and replace the floor or not.
The RHSV believes that, at the very least, the tower should be moved back from the façade so that both the front and side façades can be clearly seen and some sense of the original building can be retained. Above the front (Brunswick Road) façade, the tower should have a set-back of ten meters, and be treated with a much finer-grain and a lighter colour palette than the original brickwork.
The development proposal is currently being assessed by Heritage Victoria, which has to give its approval before the project can go ahead. The RHSV has made a submission to Heritage Victoria urging it to reject the application until the developer can find a way to give the existing building reasonable breathing space.
Object submission from RHSV to Heritage Victoria
Application P39543
Former Cable Tram Engine House & Tram Substation, 253 – 263 Brunswick
Road, Brunswick (VHR H2332)
The application is for a “seven level addition [which] will then be constructed on the site extending above and behind the retained heritage fabric, which will be integrated to form a podium. … At Level 3, the addition will fully project over the main southern wing of the building, and slightly project over the southern side of the northern bay.” (p. 24).
This is the essence of the proposal. It is a most blatant example of pure façadism and as such it should be rejected. The existing building would be reduced to a podium for seven levels of new building. It will be crushed beneath the weight of what appears to be a remarkably heavy building whose materials and coarse-grained bulk would offer little differentiation to enable the passer-by to read the original building in its own right.
It is a commentary that the Heritage Impact Statement is crammed with examples of constructions of new towers atop existing buildings from around the world and does not offer a render of the new proposal. To get an idea of what is envisaged one has to turn to the Architectural Drawings, Part 3, where a render is given little prominence as “07 Façade Strategy.” One suspects that no heritage consultant would want to draw attention to what is actually planned.
This building is included on the Victorian Heritage Register because of its significance to Victoria and in particular for its role in the history of transport in Victoria. It is on an important site at the entrance to the suburb. It is adjacent to the Sarah Sands Hotel which has been sensitively redeveloped in a manner which preserves the original building. For all these reasons, the original building should remain legible as a three-dimensional structure. Without this, little is left to remind the pedestrian of the significance of the building, which is the reason for its inclusion on the VHR.
To quote from the VHR citation:
“The Former Cable Tram Engine House and Tram Substation is significant as a notable example of the engine houses constructed by the Melbourne Tramways Trust from the 1880s to power Melbourne’s cable trams. It is largely intact and features most of the external principal architectural characteristics of a cable tram engine house including a wide doorway to allow large items of steam driven machinery to be moved in and out, high ceiling, a bluestone plinth and brick walls with polychrome decoration.”
It also is an important site demonstrating the transition from cable trams to electric powered trams in the early twentieth century. This significance is reflected in the existence of a sub station within the main building and equipment associated with that transition. We submit that Heritage Victoria should reject this application out of hand until the proponent finds a way to give the building reasonable breathing space.
The proposed development would completely change the appearance of the building with an eight story tower erected directly over the façade. Indeed, “the addition will fully project over the main southern wing of the building, and slightly project over the southern side of the northern bay” (p.24). One infers that there is some plan for a differentiation at levels 1 and 2, though this is not apparent in 07 Façade Strategy; indeed this render shows levels 1 and 2 as a broad horizontal band of red-orange with a narrower horizontal band of dark red, weighing upon the original building and visually enmeshing with it rather than differentiating it.
While the proposed restoration of the façade is welcome, the proposal retains the façade of the building only as a decorative element to the new building. This, as we have argued, shows up as a classic case of façadism. We strongly suggest that the tower be erected on the north side of the development and further west so that both the Brunswick Road and Black Street façades can be clearly seen and the building be retained as a three dimensional artefact. The tower above the Brunswick Road façade should have a set back of ten meters and be treated with a much finer-grain and a lighter colour palette than the original brickwork.
Another concern is the remaining cable tram infrastructure which is under the concrete floor. This may include tunnels, pits and equipment which may be destroyed by the proposed development. It is not clear from the documents whether the existing concrete floor is to be replaced. If so, this would enable the archaeological remnants to be examined and conserved or at least recorded. These elements are the centrepiece of this structure and their loss would seriously erode the significance of the place. There is no mention of them in the schedule of Conservation Works.
Another concern is the adjoining building to the west – no 261-263. These buildings were originally part of the engine house but are currently used as a shop and warehouse. Those numbers are listed in the current application but the plans do not seem to include them and they are currently being sold as a ‘development site’. It would make sense for the buildings to be considered together.
These, however, are secondary issues to the blatant façadism of the proposal, which is worsened by the treatments proposed. We strongly urge Heritage Victoria to reject the application.
Ms Elisabeth Jackson, Mr Ray Tonkin, Members,
Professor Charles Sowerwine,
Chair, Heritage Committee,
Royal Historical Society of Victoria.
239 A'Beckett Street Melbourne, Victoria, 3000 
03 9326 9288 
office@historyvictoria.org.au 
Office & Library: Weekdays 9am-5pm
