Gaudy or great?

Owners of a terrace house in Port Melbourne have been fined $4000 for painting the front fence of their property, which is subject to a Heritage Overlay. After fighting the decision at VCAT, they now have to repaint the fence into one of the approved heritage colours, or pay the fine.

The controversial rainbow fence in Port Melbourne
Image source: The Age
Owner Alex Skopellos slams the VCATdecision  saying that the colour will stay, and that the move is “just the council wanting to make it more conservative for the yuppies”. After speaking to his neighbours, Mr Skopellos claims that he’ll be doing “more bad than good painting over it, because everyone loves it”.

 The idea for the scandalous fence came from overseas trips, where historical precincts are often full of colour and character. Coloured paint is a cheap, fast, and relatively temporary way for residents to personalise their properties, a move which many cities embrace. 

Distinctive rainbow row housing in Bristol, UK
Image source: 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lens_buddy/4813421118/?rb=1

Individually personalised historic properties in Trinidad, Cuba
Image source: 
www.jod.uk.com
The Council’s hyper-conservative approach is especially disappointing given Melbourne’s global reputation as a dynamic and vibrant city. Melbourne had street art and astro-turfed laneways before the guerrilla urbanists could unstack their milk crates. And many would argue that it is this self-expression which gives Melbourne its strong local identity and much heralded ‘liveability’.

Far from being contextually inappropriate, we consider that the rainbow fence was a well-considered, and even well-consulted, expression of fun and humour in what is otherwise a fairly repetitive streetscape. The colours are taken from a muted rainbow spectrum which works with, rather than against, the neighbours’ approved beiges, pinks and greys.  


So what’s the harm? Tell us what you think. 



Banner image source: Alastair Campbell (DLA)

0 comments:

Post a Comment