The value of the Architecture and Design from the 1950’s and 1960’s is often disregarded.
Caulfield and East St KiIda, as well as some other suburbs on the inner rim of Melbourne, were a hub of building activity during the 1950’s and 1960’s. The war was over and Melbourne was experiencing a period of great optimism. European immigration had brought to Melbourne builders, craftsmen and Architects who brought with them a distinctive European sensibility as well as the ideals of Modernism. Soon the ideas that they brought began to revolutionise how we would live. The homes that were built now concerned themselves with light, space and the latest of technologies. Materials, however, were still in short supply, so great care had to be taken to avoid waste or excess. Despite this, these homes managed to retain a groovy yet sophisticated sense of warmth with the use of colour and natural materials that enlivened the interiors and were at the height of fashion. Most significantly, the émigré Architect, Ernest Fooks, had the mentality that spacious apartment and town-house living was acceptable and should be encouraged. As a result, during the 1950’s and 60’s he designed small groupings of apartment blocks and townhouses that were built from Kew to Elwood. This approach to living would forever change our street scape and as an idea, that was way before its time, went against the now clichéd ‘dream’ of owning a quarter acre block with house and a car in the garage. I can imagine the professional real-estate community shaking their heads in disbelief wondering if anyone would want to occupy these strange new properties – after all, weren’t we trying to get away from the small town mentality of Europe? As we know, it turned out to be the way of the future and introduced us to a more economical and sustainable way of building and housing. These buildings were often built expertly and with the very best materials available at the time. As a result the surviving examples, although in various stages of dilapidation, are now entering their 2nd or 3rd generation of ownership. Many of the houses and apartments that I have encountered over the years have retained their original features - some of which are central to the essence of the building and others which are not. The question is, what is worth saving and why?
It has always fascinated me as to why certain things survive the generations and why other things are thrown aside to end up in land-fill. There are no clear answers here, however I think it has got something to do with both the influence of fashion, our changing tastes, and the desire to live differently to our parents. So maybe the revival of what is now called ‘Retro’ has got something to do with the nostalgia for things that remind us of our grandparents. However, there is more to it than that. We may also be reacting to the throw away mentality of the previous generation and our own realisation that the objects and buildings from the 1950’s and 60’s were often of a very high quality and used beautiful materials that can be brought back with restoration.
We also may have come to the realisation that ‘less is more’, in that the simplicity of the Modernist building or object now fits better with our aesthetic mindset by the removal of visual clutter and the rise of subtlety. Until recently, many these buildings were deemed to be drab and in some cases that assessment would be correct - in that, much of it was brown on brown with little use of uplifting colour in the right places. On the other hand, many of these buildings were at the height of building aesthetics and technology at the time, like the Fooks House 1966, which have characteristics that display, if not bold colour, a variety of contrasting textures and patterns achieved by the use of timber, masonry and concrete.
This is not to say that they got it right every time – often the interiors and gardens of this era of building took on the influx of design trends, from the UK, America and from home, that were incorporated in ways not always complementary to the architecture. With our contemporary eye and with the aid of hindsight it is easy to make value judgements about these elements. I believe that there is always room for our personal aesthetic to influence our living spaces. After all a home should be like a type of organism that should evolve with the ebbs and flow of life and take on the influence from its owners. It is in these instances that my philosophy prevails, which is…’do as little as possible and as much as necessary.’
The surviving examples of buildings from the 1950’s and 1960’s are worth preserving. We should value the contribution these buildings made to our urban environment and begin to better understand how to live in them without destroying their essence. Many of these buildings deserve a new lease on life, and with a little advice can be brought into the 21st century so that the current generation can enjoy their full potential.
Leon Lopata, Architect
Boyd.R, Australia’s Home, It’s Origins, Builders and Occupiers, 1987, Melbourne University Press
Edquist. H, Ernest Fooks: Architect, 2001, School of Architecture and Design RMIT University