The problem you are describing seems to be public engagement with the assets. One school group would double or treble the weekly numbers. It’s not rocket science. So the problem may well be the human resouces in the HHT rather than the assets.

Indeed it may be that it’s just another sheltered workshop for Party mates, marking time, not committed to their vocation, if it’s the same as every other area of the public sector in the NSW: Based on networks and power grip over merit. shunning competitive open job selection or fearless transparency, equal opportunity as lipservice.

The cycle turning might just refer to the next election.

Furthermore, observing the audience at the recent Garden Music concert at Government House, the ‘Now Generation’ indeed engaged with the house, with performances and soundscapes inside interpreting the place in an exciting way. As a member of said ‘Now Generation’, my personal experience is that many of my peers are time and again drawn to events such as the 50s Fair at Rose Seidler House (which draws larger audiences each year), Garden Music, the Becks Festival Bar at Hyde Park Barracks and festivals held at The Rocks. I would be interested to know on what evidence you base your assumption that young people do not engage with these properties.

The trust continues to be at the forefront of collections management and curation in this country, and deserves to be supported. Take the Houses away from the Trust and Sydney, and Australia, would suffer a great loss.

(And while we’re on the topic, I find it no small irony to note Ian’s own self-descriptor as a “heritage conservationist”. Surely constructive criticism of the state’s two largest non-statutory heritage bodies is more helpful than an ill-advised article promoting the sale and development of some of the State’s best heritage sites?).

Ian’s article is so full of invective and superficial reasoning that it is hard to know where to begin in response. Above all, however, I would emphasise the difficulty in measuring ‘value’ in the conservation of heritage items. It is simply specious, simplistic and damaging to reduce the landmarks of cultural development to mere dollar values; and it is precisely the prevalence of this attitude in the shaping of state policy that has led to the loss of countless sites, aspects and features of our built environment. Don’t mistake me - development must occur and it is one of the primary drivers of a healthy economy. But the economy - and economics - is far from the only perspective by which to see, and measure, the value of things. Intelligent debate on this matter is vital - not reductivist quoting of entry figures as justification for the sale of properties conserved over decades. If anything, this value is reflected in their dollar value, not contradicted by it.
These sites are integral to a healthy environment, and also to future economic growth - judicious conservation is the keystone to successful development. Here in Australia, our failing is that we don’t give our heritage much time to grow old. Go to the UK, Mr Evans, and see what strengths and gifts a healthy National Trust can give to its nation – not a trust that is emasculated before its time. Shame on you.

Many thanks for pointing out that I neglected to state my connection with Godden Mackay Logan. I should also point out that I am currently on extended leave from the organisation and working for the Dictionary of Sydney, an independent body. I am also a representative of Interpretation Australia and an active member of the History Council of NSW. More importantly however, I am a long-time patron of the HHT’s properties and events. I would consider it incorrect to claim that my personal comments may be connected with commercial considerations.