Do you think murals should be protected even if the buildings are privately owned?

I am a fierce advocate for art and the integration with public realm and architecture.

But I've got to say, I'm also fiercely on the position of, no, they shouldn't be protected.

And only for the reason that I think public art is different to gallery art in that it is supposed to be temporary.

It is supposed to have a start and an end, and the end can be very short.

There's famous works of street art around the world that hopefully will never be removed, but there is something fragile about them being in the public realm that makes them beautiful.

I also think Adelaide has a strange history here of proving a well-known paradox around protection.

So as an architect, on another question, Gerald, what is the biggest thing you come up against when seeking building approvals?