Australian Capital Territory
Heritage (Decision about Provisional Registration of 13 Canterbury Cres, Deakin) Notice 2008 (No 1)
Notifiable Instrument NI 2008 - 103
made under the
Heritage Act 2004 section 34 Notice of decision about provisional registration

1.	Name of instrument
This instrument is the Heritage (Decision about Provisional Registration for 13 Canterbury Cres, Deakin) Notice 2008 (No 1).

2.	Registration details of the place
Registration details of the place are at Attachment A: Provisional Register entry for 13 Canterbury Cres, Deakin.

3.	Reason for decision
The ACT Heritage Council has decided that 13 Canterbury Cres, Deakin meets one or more of the heritage significance criteria at s 10 of the Heritage Act 2004.  The provisional register entry is at Attachment A.

4.	Date of Provisional Registration
4 April 2008.

5.	Indication of council's intention
The council intends to decide whether to register the place under division 6.2.

6.	Public consultation period
The Council invites public comment by 8 May 2008 on the provisional registration of 13 Canterbury Cres, Deakin to

The Secretary
ACT Heritage Council
GPO Box 158
CANBERRA ACT 2602

  …………………..                            
Gerhard Zatschler
Secretary ACT Heritage Council 
GPO Box 158, Canberra ACT 2602

7 April 2008
                                             
	AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

HERITAGE REGISTER
(Provisional Registration Details)

Place

For the purposes of s. 33 of the Heritage Act 2004, an entry to the heritage register has been prepared by the ACT Heritage Council for the following place:

•	13 Canterbury Crescent

Block 1, Section 2

DEAKIN

DATE OF PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION

Notified: 9 April 2008 Notifiable Instrument: 2008/NI2008-103

PERIOD OF EFFECT OF PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION

Start Date: 4 April 2008           End Date: 4 September 2008

Extended Period (if applicable)   Start Date ________    End Date  _______

Copies of the Register Entry are available for inspection at the ACT Heritage Unit.  For further information please contact:

			The Secretary
			ACT Heritage Council
			GPO Box 158, Canberra, ACT  2601

	Telephone: 132281	Facsimile: (02) 6207 2229

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PLACE

•	13 Canterbury Crescent, Block 1, Section 2, Suburb of Deakin, ACT.

HISTORY OF THE PLACE

Residential settlements such as Deakin were an integral part of the creation and planning of Canberra.  The suburb began development in 1928 and to this day consists primarily of individual houses.  It is located to the southwest of Parliament House and its most distinguished residence is the Lodge, designed as the Canberra residence for the Prime Minister by the architecture firm of Oakley and Parkes in 1926, and constructed in 1927.1  An aerial photograph taken in 1930 shows the Lodge as the only building constructed in the northern part of the suburb at that time.  Both Adelaide Avenue and National Circuit are evident on the photograph but do not join up, and there appear to be no other streets in this area of Deakin.2

The 1933 plan of Canberra, three years after the period of administration under the Federal Capital Commission, shows only three developments in the Suburb; the Lodge, the first building at Canberra Girls Grammar School designed by L H Rudd and D E Limberg, constructed in 1926-27 (known then as St Gabriel’s Anglican Grammar School), and a proposed block subdivision between Robe Street and Fergusson Crescent.3

There would appear to have been very little development in Deakin up until the 1950s, evidenced by the styles of residences in the suburb.  As Paul Reid notes “These were the hard years of the Depression, World War 11 and post war recovery….Canberra’s development during this period was piecemeal and slow”.4

In 1948 the Federal Government decided to relocate all department headquarters to Canberra over the following decade.  In 1955 a Senate Select Committee criticised the failure to instigate this decision.  Three years later the National Capital Development Commission (NCDC) was established with one of its main aims being to further Canberra’s development as an administrative centre.5

Possibly the most urgent issue facing Canberra in the period 1959-60 was housing. The relocation of all department headquarters resulted in the near doubling of the public service in Canberra, including more than 2,000 defence personnel; many being transferred to Canberra from Melbourne.  The National Capital Development Commission’s first Annual Report noted, “A considerable number of housing and flat projects concerned with the Defence transfers in 1959 is in progress”.6

While much of the housing designed for the NCDC was flats, the house at 13 Canterbury Crescent, Deakin, for Colonel T.F.B. MacAdie, was part of this extensive development of housing associated with the large migration of public servants to Canberra.  Colonel MacAdie was a high-ranking army officer who moved from Melbourne to Canberra when the Department of Defence relocated.

This house is one of only a few reflecting a shift at the time from mainly government designed and built housing to private development where the individual owner commissioned an architect. As such the building reflects not only the style of Chancellor and Patrick, but the result of the interaction between the owner and architect: the conscious choice by the owner of the Melbourne firm because of their style and the finished design demonstrating choices and wishes of the owner.

The house at 13 Canterbury Crescent, Deakin, exhibits elements of Chancellor and Patrick’s domestic work in Melbourne at that time, houses that “took the forms of ells and aitches; they slewed, cater-cornered…Compartmentalisation…was now reduced almost to the point where the only walls remaining shielded beds or plumbing fixtures.”  These features were demonstrated in the Freiberg House, Kew, 1959-60.7 

The local architect E John Scollay, of Architects Scollay Bischoff and Pegrum, oversaw the construction of the Deakin residence.8

The house was extended to the southwest in 1968-69 and a swimming pool was added about the same time.  G Neville Ward, a prominent local architect, designed the extension.9  The dining room southwest glazing was removed and a new single door width opening was cut into the full height brick wall of the original screened porch.  The dining room was extended into the screened porch with aluminium glazing replacing the original fly-screens.  The front brick planter box was retained.  

While the faceted full height glazing and the external vertical timber panelled wall to the new passage contrasts with the rectangular forms of the original house and brickwork there are elements that mirror the original.  The end bedroom has an inset corner similar to the original bedroom wing and there is extensive glazing overlooking the pool similar to the large areas of glazing overlooking the walled courtyard.  A new brick courtyard wall was built to enclose the pool mirroring the original courtyard wall.

The residence was further altered around 1993 when a drafting service designed minor internal changes to the 1968-69 wing.10  The major changes to the original fabric would appear to be the replacement of the second bedroom’s wide sliding door with a wall and hinged door and the removal of the original brick courtyard wall and the building of a new timber framed latticed screen that extends to the front beyond the line of the original courtyard wall.  The 1969 wall surrounding the pool was also partially replaced with lattice screen fencing.

Chapter 1	Chancellor and Patrick Architects

The original house at 13 Canterbury Crescent, Deakin, is the only known residence Chancellor and Patrick Architects designed in Canberra.

Dr Philip Goad records “The partnership of David Chancellor and Rex Patrick began in 1953.  In addition to their mutual interest in Wright’s Usonian and Prairie style house designs, they had an abiding interest in the work of Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony, and also the structural logic and expressive devices employed by…Richard Neutra”.11

One of their early projects was the significant McCraith House at the corner of Atunga Terrace and Caldwell Road, Dromana on the Mornington peninsula, Victoria, 1955.  It is “A small building embodying the ideas of structural experimentation, whimsical design, modern planning…”12 and showed an adventurous structuralist approach by the fledgling partnership rather than an ‘organic’ approach.

Chancellor & Patrick Architects work was considered significant at the time and was comparable to the work of the nationally noteworthy architecture firm of Grounds Romberg & Boyd.  “The advanced houses of the late 1950s, such as Chancellor & Patrick’s McCraith House and Grounds Romberg & Boyd’s Haughton James House, presented an immediately recognisable contrast to the all pervasive hip-roofed asymmetrically fronted 1950s suburban villa.  Such houses took the forms of ells and aitches; they were slewed, cater cornered or even reversed on their blocks to steel sun or notoriety.”13  

Dr Philip Goad believes Chancellor & Patrick’s were “Melbourne’s most skilled interpreter’s of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Usonian house principles”.14  Additional examples of their work are the Iggulden House, Beaumaris, 1956; a house in White Street Beaumaris, 1959, and the house at 200 The Esplanade, Brighton, 1966.

The firm’s commercial work was also significant.  “The early 1960s also saw a minor Wrightian revival.  Although mainly confined to houses such as the Godsell designed by David Godsell in 1960 and the Freiberg houses, the movement produced Chancellor & Patrick’s ES&A Bank (Elizabeth Street)”,1959.  “This is Chancellor & Patrick’s only central city building and a tribute to not only Frank Lloyd Wright but also Walter Burley Griffin…a convincing example of the survival in Melbourne of the organic principles of Frank Lloyd Wright following his death in 1959.”15

The Freiberg House, Kew, 1959-60, designed by Chancellor and Patrick, was featured on the cover of Neil Clerehan’s Best Australian Houses published in 1961.  The Kew house, designed and constructed at the same time as the Deakin house, has a “T” plan and a low-pitched gabled roof, slightly in contrast with the flat roof and “C” plan of the Deakin house.  The Kew house has in common with the Deakin house the horizontal bands of windows and broad eaves, and each wing of the Kew “T” plan houses a different function; a bedroom and bathroom wing, a kitchen and dining wing and a living wing, similar in principle to the Deakin house with its “C” plan.  The bedroom wing of the Kew house has a comparable layout to the Deakin house as well as inset glazed corners to the main bedroom.  The main bedroom projecting brick surrounded wardrobe is placed at the end wall and not the side wall, however, the wet areas are planned differently, not being two-way shared bathrooms.  

The Deakin house also has in common with many of Chancellor and Patrick’s Victorian houses the integration of the carport roof with the house as a whole.

In the 1960s the firm received major commissions including: Frankston Community Hospital, 1963-79; halls of residence at Monash University and La Trobe University; St Matthew’s Presbyterian Church, Cheltenham, 1964, and St Peter’s Church, Mornington, 1966.16

Chapter 2	Organic Architecture

Organic architecture is imbued with the principles and teachings of Frank Lloyd Wright.  Wright was one of the most important figures in modern architecture and influenced architects throughout the world during the 20th Century.  His “Prairie” style of the first twenty years of the 20th Century emphasized the horizontal, using cantilevering forms, extensive roof overhangs and open free planning with extensive areas of glazing often wrapping around the corners so as to integrate inside and outside spaces and often crafted with leadlight designs.  The long low horizontal forms seemed to hug the ground.  The influence of this architecture was enormous throughout the western world.

In the 1940s Wright designed many residences in USA that he called his “Usonian” houses, a name he used to describe what he felt were wholly American houses.  Often on small budgets, these designs emphasised simplicity and utility.  Most of these houses had “L” or “T” shaped floor plans, and were constructed in brick and timber cladding with flat overhanging roofs, (in contrast to his earlier houses with their low pitched hipped roofs), and with gardens on the inside angle of the plan.  Possibly the earliest example of a “Usonian” house was the Jacobs House, Westmoreland Wisconsin, 1936, others include the Baird House Amherst, Massachusetts, 1940, and the Pope-Leighy House, Woodland, Virginia, 1940 and the Rosenbaum House, Florence, Alabama, 1940.  

During the same time Wright designed brick or concrete block houses.  The brick houses were greatly admired by Australian architects and their clients.  The Kenneth Laurent House, Rockford, Illinois, 1949, is a low lying flat roofed brick residence with extensive timber framed glazing that opens out onto a brick walled courtyard, similar to the house in Deakin, but without the stepped roof line.  The Theodore Pappas House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1955, is also a low lying flat roofed house but it was constructed using red coloured concrete block.  It incorporated the stepped roof form and emphatic chimney similar to the house in Deakin.  All of these ideas were absorbed by and influenced architects in Australia.

Predominantly a domestic style where buildings blend in with the site and take advantage of the topography, the earliest example of the ‘organic’ style in Australia is the work of Walter Burley Griffin with Marion Mahony Griffin and E M Nicholls in the 1920s and 1930s.  “Australia’s inability and unwillingness to give them (the Griffins) opportunities to make significant contributions to its architecture was a sign of the nation’s cultural immaturity at that time   The Griffins left us with little more than a university college, a few innovative houses and some superbly sculptural incinerators.  The significance of their special brand of organic architecture was not fully appreciated until after WWII.”17

The ‘organic’ style architecture of the Griffins is directly related to Frank Lloyd Wright’s work during the first half of the twentieth century, the Griffins having worked with Wright in Chicago, however, the “Usonian” house principles were formulated by Wright after the death of Griffin in India.  

The earliest examples of the ‘Wrightian’ ‘organic’ style by Australian architects are probably the Audette house at Castlecrag, designed by Peter Muller and begun in 1955, and the work of Chandler and Patrick in Melbourne.  The authors of Identifying Australian Architecture note “it was not until the 1960s that there were enough examples of organic architecture by dedicated practitioners for the existence of an ‘organic’ style to be discernable”.

Organic architecture also has another strand that is inclusive of buildings that have characteristics associated with ‘respect for the earth’ and can be loosely referred to as alternative lifestyle, buildings that consume as few natural resources as possible; examples include earth covered buildings and buildings constructed of mud brick.  The architecture of Chandler and Patrick is not of this type.

Brigadier Thomas Fergus Buchanan MacAdie C.B.E. D.S.O. i.d.c. & p.s.c. 

Brigadier Thomas Fergus Buchanan MacAdie was born in 1919 and graduated from RMC in 1940.  He held many distinguished positions during his army and defence career.  He was Co. & Battalion Commander S.W.P.A., Japan, and Military Attache in Saigon for Vietnam, Laos & Cambodia 1954-56.  He was awarded the Distinguished Service Order in 1943.

At the time of his relocation to Canberra he was Director of Military Intelligence, (1957-60), and later became Director of Military Operations and Plans 1960-62.  He was promoted to Brigadier in 1963 and was at the Imperial Defence College in 1963, and Chief of Staff HQ Eastern Command, Sydney from 1964-67, after which he retired.  

In 1968 he received the Order of the British Empire-Commander (Military) and was appointed to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission as Head of International Relations.  He died in 1973.18

DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE

The house at 13 Canterbury Crescent, Deakin, was designed by Chancellor and Patrick architects in 1959, construction being completed in 1960.19  The house is an example of the Late Twentieth-Century Organic Style (1960-) with its free, asymmetrical massing.20 

13 Canterbury Crescent is set across the road from a treed park that partly surrounds the Lodge, on an elbow corner with a northerly outlook. The house is located centrally and to the rear of the block.  The block slopes slightly to the northern front.  

The original house has been altered.  The following describes the original house and then the changes to the house.

Original House

The flat roofed “C” plan house was comprised of five massing elements.  A brick wall extended across much of the north-west front of the site, forward of the house, returning at both ends to enclose a large landscaped courtyard; an open carport roof extended out across the front of the smaller southwest wing; a northeast bedroom wing extended back to a larger volume, the main living wing with its greater roof height.  

The entry from Canterbury Crescent is to the northwest side along a straight path that leads under the carport roof and beside the front courtyard return wall.  The path leads to a gate, up a few steps past a screened porch to the south and then up to the front entry.  The path is covered, set under the one continuous roof structure of the carport, the screened porch and the southwest wing.  A line of four supporting timber posts delineates the pathway.  

The front door is set within a glazed wall and opens onto an entry foyer.  The living room is to the left and the dining room is to the right.  The living room is nearly square in plan with a large brick open fireplace placed centrally in the front, fully glazed wall.  The southeast wall has continuous high-level glazing up to the 2.9m high ceiling.  Two exposed timber beams span the room from the fireplace to the rear wall, supported on timber stub posts within the high-level glazing.  The living room opens out into the front landscaped courtyard through a large glazed sliding door to the side of the fireplace.  

The dining room opens off the entry foyer through a 1750mm wide cavity sliding door.  The shape of the room was a shortened inverted “L” that extended slightly towards the southwest and looked out towards the side garden through half height full width glazing; it extended slightly towards the front screened porch and opened out onto the porch through a full height glazed sliding door.  

The screened porch had a full height brick wall to the southwest and had full width fly-screened openings to the other two sides 

Directly to the southeast of the dining room is the kitchen and laundry.  Cupboards extend along the rear wall and the adjoining dining room wall forming a wide galley kitchen.  The laundry was to the northeast.  The windows to the kitchen are in two forms; a long low full width window extends just above bench height up to a bricked in vent pipe surround, where the glazing changes to a window, slightly indented, that extends from the bench up to the ceiling.  The laundry glazing mirrors the larger kitchen window while the upper windows are a continuation of the living room high-level glazing.

Located off the kitchen was a detached flat roofed rectangular brick store.  Its roof extended up to and partly beyond the end of the kitchen providing a covered connection to the kitchen rear door.

To the northeast a study opens off the living room through a 1750mm wide cavity sliding door with the passage to the bedroom wing continuing through the room along the fully glazed northwest wall overlooking the walled front courtyard.  This glazing is a continuation of the living room glazed wall with a matching sliding glazed door to the end panel.

To the rear of the study is a two-way bathroom that also serves the third bedroom.  The bathroom has high-level glazing that is a continuation of the living room high-level glazing.

A passage extends along the northeast bedroom wing.  The passage is glazed and opens out to the walled courtyard through a wide sliding glazed door.  The three bedrooms open off the passage.  The roof over this wing is set down 600mm from the living room roof.

The third bedroom is next to the study and opens off the end of the passage.  The eastern external corner is inset.  The glazing extends along the rear wall and around the inset corner with a mitred glazing butt joint.  The northeast wall has continuous high-level glazing.  The high level glazing extends to the underside of the ceiling and externally has a brick header course sill.  This glazing extends the full length of the facade along all bedrooms and the bathroom.  The bedroom has a built-in wardrobe and desk.

The passage then steps down three steps and the second bedroom opens off the passage through a 1750mm wide sliding cavity door.  The room has highlight glazing along the northeast wall, however, when the wide sliding door is open the passage becomes part of the room and there is direct access into the courtyard through a wide, sliding glass door.

The main bedroom is located at the end of the passage.  Both the end and southeast walls project out.  To the north the brick courtyard wall joins onto the end wall of the bedroom and full height and width glazing extends across the end wall and around the corner of the projection.  A wide, sliding glazed door opens out onto a more private corner of the courtyard.  The wardrobe is placed in the southeast projection.  The high-level glazing extends right around to the full height brick wall enclosing the wardrobe.

A two-way bathroom is set between the main and second bedrooms.  The windows to the bathroom are part of the high-level continuous glazing band.

The house is constructed in brick-veneer with a flat metal tray roof and is exceptionally well detailed, with corner glazing mitred and butt jointed; down pipes and vent pipes built-in; the hot water unit located over the fireplace so that the water was partially heated by the fire; the large areas of timber framed glazing and high-level glazing fully coordinated so that the horizontal roof planes “float” above the solid masonry forms, and open planning that allows the spaces to flow freely, yet provides the option of closing the spaces up with the large cavity sliding doors.  

The brickwork and glazing frames are painted, however, it is not clear from the approved drawings whether the brickwork was originally painted.  

Additions and Alterations

The house has been altered with the addition to the southwest of a slightly opened “L” shaped flat roofed wing built around a swimming pool and incorporating a study, two bedrooms, a bathroom, a relocated laundry, and a convex, facetted glazed living room beyond the dining room’s southwest full height brick wall.  The dining room has been extended into the screened front porch.  There is a pantry off the kitchen, replacing the original laundry and the laundry has been relocated in the original detached brick store.

There are two bedrooms at the end of the passage.  The end bedroom has an inset corner similar to the original bedroom wing and there is extensive glazing overlooking the pool.  A brick courtyard wall and timber latticed screen enclose the pool.  

The original brick courtyard wall has been replaced with a timber framed and latticed screen that extends to the front beyond the line of the original courtyard wall.  

Condition

The residence is well maintained and in good condition externally.  The exterior is painted and there are minor internal alterations to some areas, while the southern extension has altered the form and obscured the side elevation of one wing of the original house.

Design Comments

The original scale, form and fabric of the house and brick courtyard walls contribute to the building’s architectural form, with free asymmetrical massing juxtaposed against fine detailing.  Other architectural elements of the Late Twentieth-Century Organic style (1960-) displayed by the building that relate to the external forms are:
•	clearly expressed timber structure, the carport and entry;
•	horizontal roof planes, and
•	highlight windows.

The residence also exhibits elements of the Post-War International style (1940-60) including:
•	large sheets of glass;
•	overhang for shade;
•	plain smooth wall surfaces, and
•	Corbusian window motif (to the kitchen).

The residence also exhibits elements of the Post-War Melbourne Regional style (1940-60) including:
•	steel roofing;
•	long, unbroken roof line;
•	narrow edge to roof, and
•	brick chimney expressed as a simple block.21

The following features are also integral to the building’s design:  the integration of the carport roof with the house as a whole; the enclosed original courtyard and brick walls; the large areas of timber framed glazing including the corner windows with their frameless mitred glass panels; the open planning incorporating the large cavity sliding doors; the fireplace; the exposed beams to the living room, and original finishes and details.  The setting of the property enables the open form of the entry and general view of the house from the crescent and park to be seen. 

The house can be compared with other, but later, significant houses in Canberra in the Late Twentieth-Century Organic style, in general most of which have been designed by Enrico Taglietti including: the McKeown House, Downer; 1964; the Tange House, Griffith, 1965; the house at 19 Downes Place, Hughes, 1966; the Paterson House, Aranda, 1969; Green House, Garran, 1976, and the Mijuscovic House Wanniassa, 1979.  It can also be compared with his important public and commercial works including the `ACMA Conference Centre, Barton, 1967, (altered); the Dickson Library, 1969; the Giralang Primary School, 1976, and the Apostolic Nunciature and Chapel, Red Hill, 1977.  These have a similar aesthetic however their roof forms are more dominant, often with horizontal boarded fascias and large overhangs creating deep shadowing under their eaves.22

The house can be contrasted and compared with the significant “Bowden House” Deakin, 1955, by Harry Seidler, which is in the Post-War Functionalist style.  The “Bowden House” has in contrast with the house at 13 Canterbury Crescent a cubiform overall shape, an inward pitching roof form, contrasting texture with the stone wall at the entry and originally had a cantilevering balcony off the main bedroom.  Both houses have large sheets of glass, overhang for shade, plain smooth wall surfaces and Corbusian window motif to their kitchens.23

STATEMENT ABOUT THE HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PLACE

The house at 13 Canterbury Crescent, Deakin, is an example of the early moves towards the introduction of modern architectural styles to Canberra.  It is a relatively rare example of a late 1950s house design and is illustrative of modern architecture.  The crescent corner setting and spacious park combine with the architecture to produce a place of integrity, illustrative of modern architecture.

The house is important for its association with the provision of housing for public servants moving in large numbers from other states as government departments were relocated to Canberra in the late 1950s.

13 Canterbury Crescent exhibits the principal characteristics of modern residential architecture in a planned neighbourhood suburb; appropriate human scale, functional domestic planning and well sited.  As a design in the Late Twentieth-Century Organic style of architecture it has special interest in being the earliest in Canberra of this modern ideal by one of Melbourne’s important architecture firms.

The house exhibits creative and artistic excellence as an entity possessing an architectural theme of modern architecture in Frank Lloyd Wright’s ‘Usonian’ principles.  The house is aesthetically significant for its free, asymmetrical massing juxtaposed with fine detailing, all expressed with a sensitive affinity to and close relationship with the site.

The place has been acknowledged as a distinctive example of twentieth century architecture by the RAIA.  It continues to fulfil its original purpose and its planning remains innovative and sound.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Pursuant to s.10 of the Heritage Act 2004, a place or object has heritage significance if it satisfies one or more of the following criteria.  Significance has been determined by research as accessed in the references below.  Future research may alter the findings of this assessment.

(a)	it demonstrates a high degree of technical or creative achievement (or both), by showing qualities of innovation, discovery, invention or an exceptionally fine level of application of existing techniques or approaches;

The creativity of the architects David Chancellor and Rex Patrick is apparent in the design of the house at 13 Canterbury Crescent, Deakin, constructed in 1960, which was innovative when compared with other houses built in Canberra at that time.  

The house is of considerable architectural merit; the solution incorporating a “C” form plan fitted to take advantage of the northern sun with an elaborate open plan interior demonstrated an innovative architectural response to the needs of the 1950s family life style.  Each wing houses a function; sleeping and bathrooms, living room with central fireplace, and kitchen and dining; with the number of internal walls reduced to a minimum. 

The house exhibits creative design and artistic excellence by virtue of its architectural theme of modern architecture in what is an interpretation of Frank Lloyd Wright’s ‘Usonian’ house principles.

It is the only known house Chancellor and Patrick designed in Canberra, and is otherwise an accomplished early example of a Late Twentieth-Century Organic style building in Canberra. 

The design treatment of the 1968-69 extension, designed by G Neville Ward, was carefully composed in its affect on the original structure; it incorporated many materials similar to the original.

(b)	it exhibits outstanding design or aesthetic qualities valued by the community or a cultural group;

The house at 13 Canterbury Crescent, Deakin, is a very good example of the Late Twentieth-Century Organic style (1960-).  The building exhibits free, asymmetrical massing, one of the two particular architectural elements specific to the style.  It is notable for displaying the high design skill of the architects David Chancellor and Rex Patrick.  

The following design features are of additional significance; plain smooth wall surfaces; steel roof with its long, unbroken roof line, overhang for shade and narrow edge; the integration of the carport roof with the house as a whole; fire place and brick chimney expressed as a simple block; the large areas of timber framed glazing with their large sheets of glass including the corner windows with their frameless mitred glass panels; the Corbusian window motif (to the kitchen); open planning incorporating the large cavity sliding doors and relationship to the enclosed courtyard and original brick walls; the exposed beams to the living room, and original finishes and details.

The house was carefully planned to achieve a sensitive affinity to and close relationship with the site.  The division of sleeping, living and eating areas has been achieved in an organic composition of asymmetrical massing.  

The firm of Chancellor and Patrick Architects is considered Melbourne’s most skilled interpreters of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Usonian house principles.  This house by them exemplifies these principles, for which it has been recognised by the RAIA ACT Chapter in the Register of Significant Twentieth Century Architecture.  

The two examples of Late Twentieth-Century Organic style architecture in Canberra that most closely compare with the Canterbury Crescent house are the McKeown House, Downer; 1964 and the house at 19 Downes Place, Hughes, 1966; both designed by Enrico Taglietti.  The Downes Place house is listed on the RAIA ACT Chapter Register of Significant Twentieth-Century Architecture.

(c)	it is important as evidence of a distinctive way of life, taste, tradition, religion, land use, custom, process, design or function that is no longer practised, is in danger of being lost or is of exceptional interest;

The Canterbury Crescent house is particularly interesting as it demonstrates a distinctive planning approach.  

The planning of the house is of exceptional interest.  Each wing houses a function.  The open planning incorporating large sliding doors provide a play of space between the indoor and the outdoor spaces.  The planning innovations were based on the 1940s-50s ‘Usonian’ houses designed by Frank Lloyd Wright in USA.  Relatively few houses designed in the Late Twentieth-Century Organic style were built in Canberra, and this was the first.  

(d)	it is highly valued by the community or a cultural group for reasons of strong or special religious, spiritual, cultural, educational or social associations;

This place does not meet this criterion.

(e)	it is significant to the ACT because of its importance as part of local Aboriginal tradition

This criterion is not applicable.

(f)	it is a rare or unique example of its kind, or is rare or unique in its comparative intactness

This place does not meet this criterion.

(g)	it is a notable example of a kind of place or object and demonstrates the main characteristics of that kind

This place does not meet this criterion.

(h)	it has strong or special associations with a person, group, event, development or cultural phase in local or national history

The house is important for its association with the provision of housing for public servants coming in large numbers from other states as government departments were re-located to Canberra during the late 1950s.  In contrast with much of the housing that was provided in blocks of apartments, this is a detached house on its own block seen at the time to be suitable to the high public service role of the owner Brigadier MacAdie, Director of Military Intelligence.

(i)	it is significant for understanding the evolution of natural landscapes, including significant geological features, landforms, biota or natural processes

This criterion is not applicable.

(j)	it has provided, or is likely to provide, information that will contribute significantly to a wider understanding of the natural or cultural history of the ACT because of its use or potential use as a research site or object, teaching site or object, type locality or benchmark site

The architecture of this residence has the potential to contribute to the education of students of architecture and may contribute to understanding late twentieth-century architectural styles.  Experiencing heritage buildings enables the visitor to locate the building in its historical and environmental contexts.  These experiences readily enable the establishment, understanding and interpretation of the building’s heritage value and significance.  This house is a very good example of mid-twentieth-century modern architecture, being an example of the Late Twentieth-Century Organic style, based on a sensitive affinity to and close relationship with the site.  Its innovative planning contributes to its significance and educational heritage.

(k)	for a place—it exhibits unusual richness, diversity or significant transitions of flora, fauna or natural landscapes and their elements

This criterion is not applicable.

(l)	for a place—it is a significant ecological community, habitat or locality for any of the following: 
(i)	the life cycle of native species;
(ii)	rare, threatened or uncommon species;
(iii)	species at the limits of their natural range;
(iv)	distinct occurrences of species.
	
This criterion is not applicable.

FEATURES INTRINSIC TO THE HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PLACE

The features intrinsic to the heritage significance of the Place and which require conservation comprise: 

•	The original scale, form and fabric of the house and the remains of the brick courtyard walls.  Specifically the free, asymmetrical massing; integration of the carport roof with the house as a whole; the narrow edge steel roof with its long unbroken roof line and overhang for shade; plain smooth wall surfaces; the brick chimney expressed as a simple block; the large areas of timber framed glazing with their large sheets of glass including the corner windows with their frameless mitred glass panels and long ribbon windows; the open planning incorporating the large cavity sliding doors and relationship to the enclosed original courtyard; the fireplace; the exposed beams to the living room; original finishes and details.

•	The setting of the place that enables its scale and form to be appreciated including the open form of the entry and general view of the house from the crescent and park.

“Original scale, form and fabric” shall mean that which was designed and built and is shown on the working drawing titled “House in Canterbury Crescent, Deakin, Canberra, for Colonel T. F. B. MacAdie; dated April ‘59 Working Drawing Drwg No. 335-2 (the drawing is torn at this corner removing any further numbers); all by Chancellor and Patrick (Architect).  Planning Authority of the time “ Plan No. 365.”

REASON FOR PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION
13 Canterbury Crescent, Deakin, has been assessed against the heritage significance criteria and been found to have heritage significance against 5 criteria under the ACT Heritage Act.

APPLICABLE HERITAGE GUIDELINES

The Heritage Guidelines adopted under s27 of the Heritage Act 2004 are applicable to the conservation of 13 Canterbury Crescent, Deakin.

The guiding conservation objective is that 13 Canterbury Crescent, Deakin, shall be conserved and appropriately managed in a manner respecting its heritage significance and the features intrinsic to that heritage significance, and consistent with a sympathetic and viable use or uses.  Any works that have a potential impact on significant fabric (and / or other heritage values) shall be guided by a professionally documented assessment and conservation policy relevant to that area or component (i.e. a Statement of Heritage Effects – SHE).

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS

Draft provisional registration entry was released for public comment on 12 April 2008 and period for public comment closes on 8 May 2008.

2. REFERENCES

1	NCDC 1959 “Government Housing”, First Annual Report.
2	Goad, Philip 1999 melbourne ARCHITECTURE, The Watermark Press, 1999.
3	ACTPLA Building File.
4	Ibid.
5	Ibid.
6	Philip Goad, op cit.
7	Ibid.
8	Ibid.
9	Ibid.
10	Ibid
11	Ibid.
12	Richard Apperly Robert Irving Peter Reynolds, Identifying Australian Architecture Styles and Terms from 1788 to the Present. Angus and Robertson 1989.
13	Aust. Int. Corps Assoc. Secretary.  Conversation with Chris Henderson, and Who’s Who Australia.
14	ACTPLA op cit.
15	Apperly et al, op cit.
16	Ibid
17	RSTCA
18	Ibid
19	RSTCA
20	Reid, Paul 2002 Canberra following Griffin  A Design History of Australia’s National Capital National Archives of Australia.
21	Ibid and Apperly et al, op cit.
22	Paul Reid, op cit.
23	Australia’s Heritage, 1971.

Other Information Sources

Heinz, Thomas A 2002 Frank Lloyd Wright’s Interiors. Grange Books, Kent. 

Lind, Carla 1994 Frank Lloyd Wright’s Usonian Houses. Archetype Press Inc.Washington DC.

RAIA ACT Chapter RSTCA Citation on 13 Canterbury Crescent, Deakin.

3. PHOTOGRAPHS AND PLANS

Figure 1. Location of 13 Canterbury Crescent, Deakin.