Another day and another story about the City Rail Link notice of requirement hearings from the Herald. This focus of this article is the heritage buildings on the corner of Albert St and Victoria St.
Auckland Transport consultants are divided over whether a block of inner-city heritage buildings more than 140 years old will survive excavations for the city’s underground railway.
Heritage consultant Bruce Petry told planning commissioners yesterday at a route designation hearing for the 3.4km project from Britomart to Mt Eden that he supported the “adaptive reuse” of the Martha’s Corner buildings at the intersection of Albert and Victoria Sts, which include nine small shops and restaurants.
“It’s a challenge, but I am pretty sure we can get a realistic solution for that site,” he said.
The transport organisation supports a proposed condition of a designation that an appropriate level of reuse of the buildings, which will be at an entrance to the $2.86 billion project’s largest underground station, could include retaining their facades on all street frontages.
Fellow consultant John Fellows, who is advising Auckland Transport on the design of the future Aotea Station below the full block of Albert St between Victoria and Wellesley Sts, has cast doubt at the hearing on chances of saving even the facades.
“If the current concept design is implemented it is unlikely that the retention of facades, interior fabric and interior floor of these buildings with a view to adaptive reuse will be possible,” he said in earlier written evidence.
If your not sure exactly what buildings they are referring to, they are these ones.
And here is the designation that Auckland Transport are seeking for the project
It is this part of the article which is interesting
Mr Petry acknowledged that Auckland Transport was proposing the potential demolition of Martha’s Corner “as a worst-case scenario”.
“From my investigations, and taking into account its values, I consider demolition of these buildings is not an unacceptable outcome from a heritage perspective, if there is no other realistic option.”
Now I’ll make it clear, I’m not a fan of keeping stuff just because it is old but I do wonder how much other options have really been considered. In particular I think there is an option that should be considered on the diagonally opposite corner.
In the City Centre Masterplan (CCMP) that was adopted last year, one of the key projects was to create a Green Link connecting up the Domain, Albert Park, Victoria Park and the Waterfront. Through the core of the CBD that would be in the form of linear park along Victoria St. Here is what the CCMP has to say about it:
Victoria Street Linear Park will become the city centre’s urban green link, allowing Victoria and Albert parks to merge. It will act as a breakout space for those visiting and working in the Engine Room and has the potential to become one of the postcard images of Auckland, with a wave of green vegetation down Victoria St from Albert Park.
A linear park on Victoria St will require fewer lanes for vehicles, wider footpaths, more green amenity and slower traffic movement. This will deliver a sequence of attractive, safe and engaging spaces or rooms that strongly integrate with the surrounding built form and land uses, and celebrate the public life of the city centre. The street’s traffic function can be maintained for the most part with a reduced number of buses continuing to operate along its length, and an improved cycling environment
And here is an artist’s impression of what it could look like.
But what does all of this have to do with the CRL? Well that much wider pedestrian area that is created by the linear park could be the perfect location to put a station entrance. Hell perhaps it might allow two entrances, one of the western side of Albert St and one on the Eastern Side. Combine that with the fact Victoria St is expected to be narrowed down and the CCMP also suggests that every major intersection along the route should have Barnes dance crossings and combined it would be very easy to get from either entrance across Victoria St to get to the areas north of the station. An addition benefit is the two entrances should also help to spread the load of passengers out.
Further to this it avoids Auckland Transport getting into fights with the noisy heritage groups and it means that there is less land that Auckland Transport need to purchase, slightly reducing the overall costs of the project. Lastly it also provides some impetus to get the linear park in place so it can actually become a reality rather than just a nice idea and a pretty drawing.
Processing...
Completely agree.
Right on.
Seems logical. There’ll also most likely be an exit (albeit underground/internal) on the same side of the intersection as those buildings, down the road at Sky City.
On another matter relating to the “after” image of the linear park, just where is the improved cycling amenity that is mentioned? The wide footpath and greenery looks fantastic, regardless.
Lower speeds, narrower roads and less traffic = improved cycling environment?
I agree infrastructure would be good, but that is already a huge improvement.
Given the amount of room in the sketches, I would say a 2 way cycle path would be able to be accommodated in their quite easily. It could be a very busy link for cycling to the Grafton cycle path.
Agree 100% stay away from heritage buildings -it won’t be smart to go there and your proposed solution sounds better anyway.
Maybe this group of heritage buildings have very poor seismic loadings and their Initial Evaluation Procedure report is lower than 34%? This is a way of making some private sector buildings safer?
That green link is so very cool !!
I have never heard of it before. I hope they start work on this soon?
I am also a fan of heritage buildings and wouldn’t want them knocked down if it could be avoided.
In my point of view those heritage buildings are awful little dirty boxes and the earlier they go the better. Ok I’m from Venice so my idea of heritage is a bit skewed.
The linear park idea is great though
Yes, heritage in NZ means “buildings that arent glass and steel rectangles”. So thanks to our city fathers and architects, not much left really. Handy for designing and building ugly auto-centric urban environments though.
Heritage in this country usually means anything more than about 75 years old, no matter what value it had the year before, or how poorly built and temporary it was when constructed.
This reckless attitude means that things of great value (architectural, cultural, social) are not protected, because they are young. It also means that we don’t have the opportunity to breathe and change, as all great cities do – particularly those that have built up over centuries and have impressive architectural legacies.
Are you seriously arguing that heritage has been in any way a hold up of new developments in Auckland? Seriously? I can think of maybe 1-2 examples where the developer didn’t get their way when confronted with an old building on a site they wanted to develop. Auckland has a very poor history of protecting our past, and the innercity is all the poorer for it.
Yes, I grew up in Edinburgh, whose “old town” is medieval and “new town” dates from about 1760. So maybe that affects my perspective too. But irrespective of how old any buildings here are, it’s a mystery to me why we would want to keep these particular ones. They look hideous to me, and are probably functionally and structurally deficient.
I love the green linear park idea.
I agree with you 100%.
The only issue is what will we get instead? Glass and steel rectangles – apparently the only class taught at NZ architecture school or the only one property developers can comprehend. Not sure which.
Are these building actually listed anywhere as heritage?, I have looked at both the Historic places trust and the Auckland council’s “cultural heritage register” and cannot find them,
Are they actually listed, or are they just old, ?
To be honest they look like many of the double brick buildings that got nailed in CHCH, I’m guessing they have been deemed earthquake prone, but AK council still have this list as secret don’t they?
Does anyone know if they are still going to build an apartment building where the Elliot Street carpark is? If they are, they should build this station, strengthen the heritage buildings and do the linear park thing all at the same time. Just shut the whole area off a la “Christchurch red zone” and rip through it all. Be done in a couple weeks I reckon.
I agree this is a great idea Matt L. But there is a problem, that would mean actually committing to the linear park, not just talking about it. And this would be right on the Herald’s doorstep; we don’t want the sky to fall down.
Unlike others here I appreciate these old shops for the variety of their vintage. It’s not like we’re short of building space – huge adjacent surface car park, SexCity brothel site, plethora of soulless car park buildings on neighbouring streets, that apartment building a bit further up Victoria St that thinks it is a clever interpretation of the Leaning Tower, over allocated road space as this article points out… Let’s tackle the low hanging fruit before we throw out what little of our past remains.
There must be some kind of issue with the owner of the big empty site on the corner of Vic and Wellesley as it is clearly the natural place for both construction works and probably the most important pedestrian access to and from the station. Probably some swinging dick negotiator demanding the earth for any cooperation so AT are attempting a work-round.
Not wild about those old shops, but much grumpier about the pub sneakily demolished by the Chow brothers to maximise the value of their land holding. Perhaps we should be insisting on taking over the ground floor of any new building on that site for station access.
This station will be insanely busy and I suspect access on all points of the compass will be ideal, although at this northern end of the station surely the most important places will be down to Elliot St, towards Queen St, and up the hill to Federal St and the Sky City behemoth.
I think the big empty carpark has a tower consented. So AT can’t rely on the use of the site for construction or station access. If tower construction has not started then they may find it useful to lease, but is all very uncertain.
Also interesting to note if AT knock down the old shops the land will increase substantially in value so will be able to make a tidy profit.
Is that not where the Elliott Tower was planned to go? I think its going through consent again re changes.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=557107&page=36
Would apparently be the 2nd tallest structure in NZ after the Skytower
Great link, that is massive http://queencitylaw.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/photo34.jpg
I prefer them to the huge glass slab of the office tower behind them. They reflect a certain type of quaint NZ architecture that they don’t build anymore. I like the upstairs windows and how shops step up the hill. More evident from across the street than walking along under the verandas. The colours aren’t the best though. That’s my opinion, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If they were demolished they would almost certainly be replaced with some bland glass boxes.
“I prefer them to the huge glass slab of the office tower behind them. ”
Is the issue not so much that we like the shops, but that we’re scared of what would replace them? A quality development would solve that problem.
Generally yes, that is one of the issues, we’d end up with some soulless monolith with pleeeeenty of parking.
I like those shops because they have a nice fine grain to them, lots of activity coming and going, much nicer than the foyer of some tower. Also a huge benefit of the low height on that corner is that they let a heap of sun in to that corner of Victoria St and half of Elliot St. That will be most welcome with the linear park.
Bang on – that is exactly my concern.
I like the shops – they might not be St. Peter’s Basilica but they are, in my opinion, worth preserving – not at the expense of the CRL, obviously, but it doesn’t have to be one or the other. I like the linear park idea, not only for the way that it could fit in with the CRL, but for the lift it would provide for that whole stretch of Victoria St. – which at the moment is a disgrace.
I like them too, unlike pretty well every other building in the area they interface well with the street and unlike most buildings in the area aren’t a shallow cover to a massive carpark.
meh, demolish them. ugly, ugly,ugly. but that is purely subjective. I have no problem with glass and concrete. But if the current owners want to keep the buildings, then that’s fine also. concrete/glass is cheapest and a rectangle block gives the most office space so its the obvious choice to get the best return on investment. Do you expect developers to purposely lose money? I suppose you could build out of wood for several stories, but it would probably end up looking the same anyway.
I have seen plenty of office buildings around the world that arent featureless glass boxes. Even the Lumley Building has some shape to it.
Why would developers necessarily lose money just because they choose an interesting design? Are they losing money on other interesting iconic buildings in other cities?
Or do you think that because the rents are potentially lower in Auckland than other world cities that they are forced to build bland boxes? Or is it just that interesting buildings are not seen as important or valued in Auckland?
It would be interesting to hear from someone who has some experience in that.
Imagine them without the garish awnings and paint job and upgraded footpaths/seating/bins etc at the street level. I would take that over a bulky, faceless, medium-rise tower any day.
“Imagine them without the garish awnings and paint job and upgraded footpaths/seating/bins etc at the street level”
I thought the same thing – but then I wouldn’t mind a 50 storey glass box there either.
This Linear Park reminds me of La Ramblas in Barcelona – surely one of the best streets in the world. http://www.perfecttravelblog.com/Las%20Ramblas%20from%20above/Las%20Ramblas%20-%20above.jpg
It has a really wide, tree lined pedestrian area with a single lane of one way traffic down each side.
http://pher.ch/photos/cities/barcelona/slides/Barcelona,%20las%20Ramblas%201.html
Interestingly, they have access to their metro from the middle of the stree too:
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-04-22-lasramblas_huffpost.jpeg
Chris: yuuuus!
Making use of the proposed Linear Park is a great idea in my opinion.
“If your not sure”?
Great Idea, love the green belt. Be great for those living within the area. Gets away from looking at monotonous buildings.