The academic literature contains an increasing quantity of references to Smart Heritage. These references are at the intersection of the smart city and heritage disciplines and primarily within informative, interpretative, and governance applications. The literature indicates the future expansion of the Smart Heritage discourse into additional applications as researchers apply smart technology to more complex cultural environments. The Smart Heritage discourse signals an advancement in the literature beyond Digital Heritage and Virtual Heritage discourses as Smart Heritage pivots on the active curatorship of heritage experiences by automated and autonomous technologies, rather than technology as a passive digital tool for human-curated experiences. The article comprehensively reviews the emergent Smart Heritage discourse for the first time in the academic literature, and then offers a contemporary definition that considers the literature to date. The review and definition draw on literature across the contributing disciplines to understand the discourse’s development and current state. The article finds that Smart Heritage is an independent discourse that intertwines the autonomous and automatic capabilities and innovation of smart technologies with the contextual and subjective interpretation of the past. Smart Heritage is likely the future vanguard for research between the technology and heritage disciplines.

In 1967, New Zealand architect James Beard took a year-long professional sabbatical in the US to learn more about regional and landscape planning. Following personal advice from MIT's Kevin Lynch, Beard headed to Harvard University to study toward a Master's qualification in their highly regarded landscape department under Professor Hideo Sasaki. While Beard was able to employ some of his learning in his later career (most notably at Kaitoke Regional Park in the 1970s), Beard returned to a New Zealand that was not yet ready for the broader regional-level consideration of landscape planning and design that he had discovered in his US studies.

This paper is based upon the premise that US architectural journals have had a much greater significance on the development of post-war New Zealand Modernism than has thus far been admitted to be the case. This is a rather difficult position to defend, not just because of a lack of hard evidence, but because the established orthodoxy posits the English Architectural Review as the ‘bible' to this generation of architects. The privileging of the Architectural Review in recent historiography is easily traced to a 1994 interview, conducted by Philippa Hoeta, with five architects who belong to that post-war generation. As a "fact," this privileging can easily be taken at face value: there is evidence in the many libraries and collections that subscribed to the Review; and there is the personal testimony provided in the interview itself. It is fairly safe to say that the statement is valid. But somewhere along the process, which sees simple fact become historiographic truth, other truths are overlooked, skirted around, rejected, or forgotten - perhaps there was more than one gospel? In the Hoeta interview, the conversation was redirected after only a few seconds - the journal discussion was not returned to. This paper restarts that discussion, extends it, and probes deeper to find the role and significance of the other journals that sat next to the Review on local architects' shelves. New Zealand architectural historiography has shifted into its second-generational phase; where the canon is largely set and new histories are able to operate uncritically within its scope, its structure and main narratives have become entrenched, and the key truths are almost self-evident. This paper picks up on one such truth, examines the historiographic process from which it arose, and investigates what has been obscured by uncritical adherence to its complete veracity.

The Beard, Alington, and Mackay houses represent the endpoint of a direction in New Zealand domestic architecture that was both internationalist and based within the realities of local house building in the mid-twentieth century. Imi Porsolt, while reviewing Stephanie Bonny and Marilyn Reynolds'book Living with 50 Architects in 1980, specifically points to the Alington house as the final formalisation of this purist trend. Porsolt's review provides an historical subtext to Living with 50 Architects that opposes the "altogether austere style" of the pavilion with the vernacularism of what is best described as the "elegant shed" tradition of New Zealand house design. More elegant than the elegant shed, these pavilions reveal something of a "blind spot" in New Zealand's architectural history – aside from the inclusion of the Beard and Alington houses in Living with 50 Architects,they have not appeared in any of the canon-forming historical surveys such as Mitchell and Chaplin's The Elegant Shed or Shaw's A History of New Zealand Architecture. The Mackay house also has not featured until its recent appearance in Lloyd Jenkins' At Home: A Century of New Zealand Design. This paper uses Porsolt's view as a useful starting point from which to consider the relationship that exists between the Beard, Alington, and Mackay houses, and their place in the development of New Zealand's domestic architecture during the 1960s.

No abstract