We are not going to pretend that this home is going to survive. And, considering its age, condition and materials attributed to the times and budget in which it was built then maybe that is a more natural demise. The lack of insulation and apparent rot is all we need to acquiesce to its inviability for contemporary living and sustainability standards. What we will do, however, is look at the overall design of this little house; the expanse of windows, the easy open plan between living and kitchen, the sophisticated lines on that side elevation, it’s placement within a beautiful site and wonder – how in the world did we turn our backs on this? For a middle-class house built in the 60s, why then only 15 years later, did we eschew these creative, indigenous new designs and insist on filling our greenfield estates with hideous expressions of severe architectural regression? The nu-colonial, double fronted, eaveless, pokey windowed cottages which were only ever fit for a 19th century Northern Hemisphere? (not to mention our gorgeous and hardy native grasses, shrubs and tree cover replaced with bald lawns and skeletal roses). And why must these godawful designs still have a grip on volume real estate to this very day? Why aren’t our new suburbs filled with smarter, better built and expanded upon versions of this lovely home? Are people really that simplistic as to think a house must look (and thus perform) as a child draws it – A triangle, a square, a front door and 2 windows facing the street? Imagine the richness of our lives and the beauty of our newer streetscapes, if only we’d continued on a design path from this ‘everyday’ home into the future.