News this week that the future of the council’s civic building is uncertain once the council move out of it later this year and move to the old ASB tower on the corner of Albert and Wellesley St.
The future of New Zealand’s first skyscraper, the 100m tall Auckland Council Civic Administration Building, is in the balance.
To be vacated by the council later this year for new headquarters at 135 Albert Street, the building has serious structural issues and would require an estimated $70 million retrofit to give it a new lease of life.
The council has no further identifiable use for the building – designed in the 1950s and opened in 1966 – so it faces possible demolition or refurbishment for other uses, the Finance and Performance Committee heard today.
At the leading edge of building technology when constructed, the building is not listed for protection but two recent assessments suggest it worthy of Category A or B scheduling. Category A listing would limit the type of renovation permitted.
Refurbishment would have to include removing asbestos installed during construction as a fire retardant.
The committee decided to test the market for investor interest in refurbishment and at the same time request Regional Facilities Auckland, a council controlled organisation, to include the building in a review of possible future uses of the Civic /Aotea Centre precinct.
“Market testing and precinct planning opportunities will allow us to determine the future of the building with a complete picture of options and costs,” said committee chair Councillor Penny Webster.
Staff will report back before the end of the year.
There’s a good piece on this from Todd Niall at Radio NZ.
Just before it was built it also featured in this short film that effectively documents when some things started going really wrong with Auckland. It’s at about 3:35 in but if you watch from the start you have to first get part the part where they talk about how the city used to be noisy and congested due to the trams but that with them gone traffic can be controlled smoothly. But goes on about how we need to get the cars off the streets and give them paces to stop when they want to (like they are a living being). To do that a “vigorous parking building programme” was underway to build a ring of parking buildings around the CBD. Later on it celebrates the sprawl that dominates Auckland today and the construction of the motorways
So what do you think should happen to the civic building which is said could be replaced with a new building with twice the floor space for half the cost of refurbishment?
Processing...
The perfect location for a 60+ floor tower!
No significant heritage value. Bowl it, build something better.
The question is “how to” bowl it rather than whether
There are teams in Christchurch who are very good at this, and by next year will be looking for work.
I’d say it has quite significant heritage value in that it is a really nice looking building. Strange to see all the “bowl it” comments. I wonder which high-ris you lot would point to and say it does have heritage value? This has long been one of my favourite buildings in Auckland and one I look at every day from my office window.
I’m normally all for heritage, but that thing is a blight on the landscape. The cost of making it usable is not too far off the cost of making the St James usable, and I sure as hell know which I’d rather see saved.
Tear the bastard down and replace it with some large trees, extending Aotea Square. Maybe a childrens playground (it’s not far from Myers park, I know). I’m guessing that if the building was gone then you could re-claim all the parking that surrounds it, too – enough space for a splash pad, jungle gym, skate park, stand of native trees… More open space should be secured if we really are looking at large population growth over the next 30 years.
If you build a residential tower there, you can kiss goodbye to any events in Aotea Square that require a PA system. Other than that, a modern replacement tower wouldn’t be so bad if a monetary return was required.
I always thought it a perfect fit that the old Auckland Council inhabited that building. It does symbolise all that is wrong with the city.
Bowl it, and build a primary school and an intermediate school.
The central city does need schools – maybe using the wasted space behind it and Bledisloe would work?
From an urban planning perspective it’s only heritage value is it provides an example of how not to build a city. Le Corbusiers Modernism has consistently been shown to produce ineffective and poorly thought out urban forms.The building contributes to a complete destruction or urban life in its vicinity. I can only hope they bowl the thing.
Don’t confuse Corb’s architecture with his planning, like Wright, he is clearly one of the greatest designers of buildings of the last century but because of their advocacy for the autodependant megapolis, they are no longer admired as planners. Corb’s, Mies, Aalto, Wright, uncontested geniuses, but not flautless.
Bowl it, make an open air performing space, it sits already in a natural amphitheatre. Nice grassy slopes leading up to the square.
The building is an eyesore. Heritage protection for it is a terrible idea. I also agree with Tim A that it should not be turned into residential, given you need Aotea Square for events.
But fair call, might as well test the market to see if Auckland Council can sell it as a commercial building.
I always thought it was quite a handsome building. It seems far more deserving of heritage protection than the revolting shed (soon to be sheds?!?) on Queen’s Wharf. Aotea Square is already too big for the activity which takes place there (i.e.almost nothing). If they pull it down they should definitely replace it with another office building, not more boring square.
The Bledisloe Building was the first “high rise” in Australasia.(The 1st high rise in Sydney, the AMP, in Circular Quay opened 1960) Designed by Francis Gordon Wilson (1900-1959) with Douglas Jocelyn “Jock” Beere (1913-2001), the 11-storey Bledisloe State Building (to use its full name) was completed in 1959 and occupied by government staff from March that year. The name was chosen as the result of a competition by school children. At the Wellesley Street end, the Maori anchor sculptures were installed.
The most dangerous time for any example of cultural production is in the era immediately following its construction. And in the case of Modernism that is right now. As can be seen from the careless comments above and in the frankly bizarre idea enshrined in the Unitary Plan that heritage building ceased in 1944. The UP is basically a charter for the destruction of our Modernist heritage yet it fetishises even the dreariest examples of Victoriana and Edwardian construction. Ironically to despise this period now is to mirror Modernism’s near total disregard of those previous era’s less rigorous buildings that we have now come to value again.
This building like Tibor Donner’s other works (including both the Parnell and Pt Erin baths) is an irreplaceable classic of that currently undervalued and misunderstood movement.
That previous councils removed the street fabric out from under it that has left it stranded on the edge of their absurdly expensive and twice built parking hole is no fault of the building itself. It has both wonderful aluminium cladding detailing, really advanced for the period, and a narrow floor plate which makes every internal square metre bathed in natural light, it would make fantastic apartments. And a great roof terrace. It’s the closest we have to an example of the classic Modernist towers like Corb’s great Unite d’Habitation, Marseilles, though of course it is a much lighter and much less monumental form. I’d live there.
Don’t be fooled by the asbestos beat-up, it’s clearly contained now, or the building couldn’t be occupied, in fact demolishing it is the best way to release it for inhalation. And those figures are fantasy too. Why not see what those private developers can do with it? How would that cost the city anything?
Remember when it comes to heritage we have a double responsibility; both the heritage we inherit and the heritage we bequeath. Is there any confidence that anything new on this site would be of any quality especially if it has to fit some bogus math invented to justify this act of cultural vandalism.
I think some of these 1960s buildings are becoming classics. They have clean lines, nice proportions, quality materials, and a kind of retro charm. They were also quite daring for their era, and that attitude is worth celebrating. This building is a keeper and I can’t imagine the cost of refurbishing and re-purposing it are as high as the figures being discussed, unless there is a serious structural issue that is being kept secret.
Two issues from what I understand, doesn’t meet new seismic regulations so needs structural works, and is full of asbestos.
The new seismic code is an unnecessary wreckers’ charter, especially in Auckland.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11232451
(Can’t believe I’m linking to Roughan!)
Seismic strengthening has a shockingly low BCR. We’re essentially forcing every city and town in NZ to undergo a Christchurch-scale demolition and build exercise, but without the benefit of an insurance payout. All to save maybe 200 lives every 200 years.
It is also a problem that will fix itself eventually anyway, as buildings are naturally replaced.
But surely it won’t cost $70 million to strengthen the Civic Building?
Roughan’s opinion piece contains two fatal errors.
First, Ian Harrison’s paper used the Ministry’s estimates of potential lives saved. These estimates are incorrect by almost an order of magnitude.
Second, while the seismic code is specifically aimed at saving the lives of those inside buildings, the actual observed outcome for UMR buildings in historic earthquakes is primarily to save the lives of those on the footpaths outside the buildings, and incidently to cut insurers costs by 75% . Hence the deaths caused by “earthquake prone” buildings was actually 48 not 4.
MBIE estimated lives saved over the next 80 years by assuming the 48 lives lost in the 80 years since the Napier was normal and therefore 48 lives would be saved every 80 years if all UMR buildings met 35% of code. The screamingly obvious thing they overlooked was that the Sept 4 quake had already caused the city to become almost 80% compliant with this part of the Building Code, due to earthquake prone buildings being identified and owners being ordered to strengthen or demolish the buildings or fence off the drop zones. Consequently, if the two big quakes had happened 6 minutes apart instead of 6 months, the death toll would have been close to 250.
A less obvious and even more worrysome oversight is that, to obtain the correct number of potential lives saved per year/decade/century it is important to remember that earthquakes are random events and the historic records show that while moderate earthquakes have been distributed equally across all hours of the day and night, that has not been the case for those that have been assessed as MMVII or larger in major population centres (ie the ones that cause parapet and facade failures). Since European settlement began only two have occurred during the “normal business hours” that dominated the NZ’s history (ie 8am-6pm Mon-Fri plus 6pm to 10pm Fri and Sat) rather than the three or four expected according to random probability. Hence the probable death toll in the next 80 years is c500.
So the $10bn cost would potentially save 400 lives every 80 years. By comparison New Zealand has spent between $50bn and $150bn over the last 60 years on road safety initiatives that have saved c15,000 lives ($3m-$10m per life saved). If the building regs were to focus on securing parapets and facades, which accounts for 90% of the lifesaving benefits but only 20% of the cost, then seismic strengthening would have an impressive BCR better than 50:1 whereas it is only 5:1 under the current proposals. Analysis of building damage from the Masterton earthquakes revealed that this type facade and parapet strengthening, which was recommended after the Napier quake but never mandated, reduced insurers costs by 75% compared with buildings where tie-ins and anchors had not been installed. That is where the biggest cost saving should come from for building owners.
Roughan also notes that “GNS Science this week estimated the city could expect a major earthquake every 10,000 to 20,000 years” but omits to mention that in 2008 GNS estimated exactly that same risk for the Port Hills earthquake. The Auckland quake (m7 40km from the CBD) will be even worse news for UMRs than was the case for Christchurch during the Darfield quake because of the simple fact that the most probable epicentre is along the Wairoa North/Motutapu fault sequence will be much closer to the city’;s old industrial buildings than was the case in Christchurch for that first quake.
However, the Civic building isn’t a UMR and it is isn’t on soft soils in south Auckland, and as Patrick points out it doesn’t have an asbestos problem unless it is going to be demolished, to quote WorkSafeNZ ” Where the assessment shows that the asbestos product is in a stable condition, no further action may be warranted. Encapsulation or enclosure may be viable alternatives to removal.” It is also one of the few attractive examples of the “international style”.
Obi’s right, “surely it won’t cost $70 million to strengthen the Civic Building?” especially not when the Harbour Bridge was strengthened for only $5m ten years ago.
Agree totally with Patrick. I love the looks of the thing, so much more character than many other glass boxes – and an apartment use could indeed be awesome. Such a central location.
Patrick,
My initial thoughts were to get rid of it having worked in it for a few weeks continuously about 14 years ago I can say it has few redeeming features as an office building, not least as the air conditioning (even after extensive and expensive refurbishment in the 90’s) was crap, the windows let so much light in that the office workers who live near the windows invariably pull the blinds down leaving them down all day which ends up making the interior workspace pretty dark and dingy to work in, and with stairs/lifts at the ends means you have a long walk to get to the middle of the building…
…But having read your comments my thoughts are to turning towards leaving it standing, but it does need a lot of rework (inside) to make it work for its new lease of life.
Not least, the air conditioning – which simply can’t work properly – the windows are too large and let too much heat in (and out) and are all single glazed and are not particularly weather or sound proof – so full double glazing for sound proofing if nothing else is needed for whatever future it is to have. Re-Glazing the building with modern glass could reduce a lot of the issues and probably allow the air con to work better, same goes for the buildings insulation – aluminium cladding will let heat flow easily from inside to outside and v.v. so also needs fixing or it will be an expensive energy intensive building to live in.
Neither will be cheap to fix, but its fixable with the right time and proper attention given to its future uses.
I also agree that Tibor Donner’s other works including both the Parnell and Pt Erin baths need to be saved/kept.
Regarding “the frankly bizarre idea enshrined in the Unitary Plan that heritage building ceased in 1944”
I think the 1944 water shed was simply 50 years “ago” from when the new ACC District plan (the first after local borough amalgamations) became partially operative in 1994, whether the intention was to preserve anything that made it to 50 years of age (so that the rule was 50 years old, not before 1944), I suspect the planners simply codified the year to make it simpler to enforce, but also makes it simpler for developers to weasel out of too and doesn’t live so if the 50 year rule applied, then this building and all others since 1944 would be automatically protected “as of right”.
But you do make some assertions too which are plainly wrong as follows:
“That previous councils removed the street fabric out from under it that has left it stranded on the edge of their absurdly expensive and twice built parking hole is no fault of the building itself”
If you look at the video at 4:09 to 4:12 you will see the original design for the entire block of land where Bledisloe, Aotea Centre, the Civic Centre and the parking buildings now stand.
You will also note that the Mayoral Drive road was always planned to be where it is now and the Bledisloe state Building was to have a twin up the hill from the Bledisloe, much closer to Albert St, with linking between the 3 buildings.
So yep, it was placed there, off to the side, deliberately, and stranded deliberately – no not the buildings fault maybe, more like the original designers if anyone is to attribute blame.
And if Tibor Donner as the building designer were to deny he didn’t know that plan when he designed it, that would be pretty disingenious I think.
“Don’t be fooled by the asbestos beat-up, it’s clearly contained now, or the building couldn’t be occupied”
True, the Asbestos is contained, but a good chunk of it its still there today – deemed too expensive to fully remove during the last refurb by owner ACC, this means any refurb. work especially on the services through the roof spaces will be expensive and risk letting asbestos fibres loose in the process. And most of the refurb work will need to redo the services in the building to modernise it, so it will be a long process to fully demolish or refurbish either way, so that $70m figure may not be too out of the ball park as it appears. I also recall asbestos around the cladding as well – so might be a problem there.
However, if done properly, the building will be fit for another 50+ years – then we can let future Aucklanders decide on its true value 50 years from now.
Greg yes I stand corrected about the siting of the building which was indeed part of a grand ‘tabula rasa’ scheme that Donner clearly either had a hand in or certainly was in favour of. In fact it’s pretty clear he was keen to demolish the horribly pre-modern Town Hall too. Lucky he didn’t get his way there, and nor should we allow neo-modernists to wipe this moment from our past away either. Utopians are everywhere! Kevyn’s link below is really insightful, including about the steel structure and its earthquake readiness. That is a good point about the differing standards that must be met; I wonder which one has been costed…..?
Oh dear, there a few buildings I would like to bowl in Aotea Square as well as the Civic Tower block including the the appalling Imax Centre, the boring Bledisloe block with its spooky alley between it and the Civic Theatre. The muddle of shacks behind the Town Hall and the entire section of maybe so called heritage buildings that run from the Bledisloe building around into Mayoral Drive and please, no more ‘Sheds’ We are grown ups and don’t need cubby houses to play in.
Bite the bullet Auckland
Far more culturally important than most of the things we ardently preserve. New Zealand is such a young country that it has made the mistake of confusing age with value. Because we’ve had to invent culture, a fetish for its first hundred years has been enforced, at the cost of making a diverse and interesting nation which is still being defined.
The most dangerous time for any example of cultural production is in the era immediately following its construction. And in the case of Modernism that is right now. As can be seen from the careless comments above and in the frankly bizarre idea enshrined in the Unitary Plan that heritage building ceased in 1944. The UP is basically a charter for the destruction of our Modernist heritage yet it fetishises even the dreariest examples of Victoriana and Edwarnian construction. Ironically to despise this period now is to mirror Modernism’s near total disregard of those previous era’s less rigorous buildings that we have now come to value again.
Current legislation reinforces these ideas, advancing hastily constructed piles of wood over deliberate statements of design and culture. I have little hope that this building will be saved. In 50 years we’ll have posts by TransportCyborg about the vandalism of the early 21st Century.
Very well said Patrick. A beautiful comment in fact. The post immediately beneath yours is classic!
I agree with some of your points Patrick, but to view the architectural merit of the building in complete isolation of it’s surrounding context is pointless. The removal of the surrounding street fabric was an integral component of the overall development of Aotea Square which included the civic building and Bledsoe house. the building itself fails to form any meaningful or valuable relationship with it’s surrounding environment. If it was to stay, I’d prefer to see some extensive modifications to the lower floors to promote a built form which serves to respond to and activate Aotea square and mayoral drive
Yes I agree with your last point, but in fact I think it addresses the square more than adequately, it’s round the back and the relationship with the wholly vile Mayoral Drive ‘stroad’ that the problem is, but then that’s even more true of the Aotea Centre itself (a much less successful and more severing building). The Civic building has a delicate footprint; hardly obstructing any movement or opportunities for new buildings, again: cf Aotea Centre.
The Mayoral Drive ring road is a bit of a disaster, for it’s entire frontage around the back of the square there is not a single active edge or humane frontage. That’s 500m with nothing, same distance up Queen as Fort St to Wellesley St.
The other half of Mayoral is slowly being fixed, especially around the university. We should look at the western side too.
I say nuke both the tower and the Aotea centre, then build out the whole block so that it fronts Mayoral Dr as well as the square. Get four of five towers if you like, all fronting onto Mayoral wrapping round from Wellesley to Queen, plug them in to Aotea station, plug them into the square, into the surrounding streets. Turn Mayoral into a proper boulevard with shops and stuff, same with the square frontage on the other side. Have little laneways between the blocks filtering into the square and up into the hinterland.
That crescent with the Aotea Centre, admin building and parking on it is 30,000 m2, about the size of Britomart!
Nick you still make no case for the demolition of this fine and urbane building; the faults to place you identify are all elsewhere. In the stupid and destructive baby ring road, and the space-eating and severing Aotea Centre.
Furthermore why this ‘modernist’ blankslate approach? What are the advantages in trying to completely erase this period in our history? Isn’t adaptive reuse our credo now? Surely one of the great lessons from modernism to be more respectful and tender towards our built heritage, our former selves, than modernism was?
There are many many poor buildings from the last century; this one however, if time is taken to look and to understand its qualities, is a particular and precious example of a currently unfashionable typology. If we carelessly brush this aside now we will be judged as philistines by future generations.
Furthermore it is hardly in the way of anything there on the side of the square with its polite footprint and modest form, it clearly can be repurposed and given new life, and be made more integrated with its immediate surroundings. And if its height is what frightens people then how can any new but lower building be either economic or less bulky. I would say its slenderness is ideal for the location.
Taste is personal, fine for people to not like this building, but then the same goes for the adjacent Edwardian lump; the Town Hall. It was tatty and unfashionable once too, and considered too expensive to update, but thankfully the easy and thoughtless option of pushing it over was resisted, and effort was put into giving it new life.
And the Council in particular has a duty to have a longer cultural memory and view than private owners; what sort of precedent is this cavalier attitude?
My main issue is that is is basically just plonked there north-south, intentionally I guess to give it ‘space’, not far off the old towers in the park we have tower in the square. So I don’t think it fronts the square very well, and it entirely ignores the Mayoral Dr street.
Couple that with the refit costs and it seems better to remove it and replace it with a series of buildings that do work with the square and the ring road properly. But sure, I’ve got no fondness for the building, but if you do and you think it has value then sure there are options. What would you suggest then for maintaining it while utilising the space around it and opening up that 500m of dead space?
To me it seems just perfectly wrong for working around the street and square, you’d end up having to do some sort of constrained wrap-around.
“and it entirely ignores the Mayoral Dr street.”
Which can be fixed.
Photo of original design in this article shows unbuilt low-rise wings that addressed the space differently:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/241781/future-of-civic-building-uncertain
better photo shows wider context:
http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?BU=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aucklandcity.govt.nz%2Fdbtw-wpd%2FHeritageImages%2Findex.htm&AC=QBE_QUERY&TN=heritageimages&QF0=ID&NP=2&MR=5&RF=HIORecordSearch&QI0=%3D%22580-10179%22
So many comments on this blog in general are against profligate spending on roads but then peeps on this post are talking about bowling entire blocks of central Auckland as if the money to do it is there for the picking! In reality, the building should be refurbished as a mixed use building which will increase foot traffic through that part of Aotea / Mayoral with the rest of Aotea Sq / Centre / surroundings dealt with as and when there are developers and council keen to do it.
Personally I really like the building and would like to see it saved. It has many great aspects to it that usually get support hereabouts but for some reason isn’t on this post. It doesn’t have several floors of parking underneath, it’s a human sized height, it’s walkable to everything useful, and mostly it’s already there!
I guess the initial ‘bowl it’ response is due to some of the figures that have been released regarding pricing to either bowl it or refurb it. I would like to see some more details on how these figures have come about. For instance, before bowling the building, all of the asbestos related materials (lagging?) would need to be removed anyway so I don’t see how it is dearer to do this as part of demo rather than refurb. It would be interesting to see just how much earthquake strengthening is required.
I think Earthquake strengthening to the high degree required only applies if it remains a public use building. If in private hands – apartments etc, then those rules don’t apply to the same level.
So this means that council retaining its use for Council business is a non starter – not that they need that space anyway given 20 floors in the old ASB Centre to use.
As for removing Asbestos, yes thats the biggest unknown, and my biggest fear is that council decide to sell the site and building cheaply on that basis thats its a “toxic waste dump” to some private developer (either by direct sale/lease or PPP) but who then lumps the risks back onto council for removal of asbestos. A lose-lose situation and asbestos removal is something council should take care of, after all they created the mess in the first place.
In all fairness, I think councils property division needs to “own” the problem, and get the asbestos fully removed and the building interior gutted and “cleaned up” ready for redevelopment.
Then they can decide how to proceed, at that point then a proper leasehold or whatever deal can be put in place for redevelopment using private developers if council doesn’t want to do it.
I for one think a longer term (5+ years) approach is warranted, after all it costs council nothing much to leave the building mothballed while they decide. But its value will only increase the ore work they do on it.
And won’t this building be pretty close to Aotea station, so it will end up as an effectively “new” 16 story building within easy distance from Aotea station (heck they could even build a link to Aotea from the building while they’re building the CRL), so its value as a built building will only increase over time – once the asbestos is all removed.
As a site, not so much.
Having the building as apartments would enhance the need to fix that broken link to Myers Park and improve social safety in the area.
You could site four or five towers by demolishing the building and planning the block properly, it would make money.
Why not outfit it for student living apartments? Could make a bit of profit over the next decade or so, maybe even ease a bit of morning traffic, and bus capacity.
Hmm, it would actually suit apartments well. Narrow long building, apartments along both sides with a central corridor, lots of light and windows.
Additional note: How can this really be discussed without any concrete proposal for what we could have there instead? Not some abstraction, an actual project, where does that costing come from? What has been costed? Some miserable value managed quantity surveyor’s grimism? Is the glee for destruction creeping up from Christchurch? This wrecking is clearly being pursued as an end in itself. Remember the Royal International site is still a bomb site carpark and the Star is about to become, oh glory, a multi layered carpark. Oh bright future: clearly worth smashing the past for.
You have a good point there, maintaining the building at least keeps it there, knocking it down doesn’t guarantee a replacement.
Some very good points Patrick. It is far from the ugliest building in this city and yes, the significance of it’s history is as important as many other buildings. It would be interesting to see where all the pricing has come from and how it is put together. Even if the building is bowled, the asbestos still needs to be removed from site. I suspect they’ve under estimated the costs to pull it down.
I don’t care much for the building myself, but I think you argue the point for preserving a piece of modernist history and our collective responsibility to our heritage well. I do agree with Nick that it seems like a terribly awkward thing to work around though. Do you have any thoughts about what should be done? Not so much with the building itself, but more the surrounding area?
Fill in the rear “moat” on the west side, rip out (at minimum) the huge slip lane, and presto, you have a large open space to either really use as open space, or more sensibly, to add some low-rise active frontage to Mayoral / Cook side.
Bowl it, sell the rights to build there and use the money for the CRL.
Sell the Beehive, so Key can build more of his motorways.
I’m all for saving heritage where warranted, but that style and that building in particular is just plain nasty. Demolish it ASAP
This building featured in some dodgy Herald ‘ugliest Auckland building’ poll a few years back. I couldn’t believe it had been included when all I could see was quality, style and thoughtfulness. Sure, integrate it into the site properly, esp the Mayoral Drive side, but apart from that, pitchforked mob, leave it the hell alone!
The unbuilt low-rise wings were to be the Council Chamber (east side) and Reception Hall (west side). The Aotea Centre was originally called City Hall. There is a very illuminating history of the development of the Civic Centre and why the space was utilised the way it is.
http://www.aucklandartgallery.com/media/5027317/auckland%20modernist%20civic%20centre.pdf
Plus, the history of Mayoral Drive is that it was originally conceived in 1948 (schemes 1 & 2) to connect the Harbour Bridge with the Southern Motorway. The plan adopted in 1951 (scheme 4) no longer has the direct connection between Quadrant Rd (Mayoral Dr) and Symonds St so that it’s only useful purpose when it was constructed was to prevent Greys Ave from becoming a cul-de-sac (sledgehammer-walnut).
Thanks Kevyn! Great history there. NZ’s first ‘skyscraper’; got to be kept.
That changes my mind, it actually has significant heritage value… and by heritage I mean actual heritage, not just old, but meaningful to the history of buildings in the city.
So the question is how to make it work, how to tie it to the street and the square, how to build in some of those podiums or equivalent (and how to give it some friends!).
Nick,
>> how to make it work, how to tie it to the street and the square, how to build in some of those podiums or equivalent (and how to give it some friends!).
Are these aspects separable from its heritage? I agree that a building isn’t heritage just because it’s old-timey; however, I’d argue it isn’t also just a built thing that occupies the envelope of four walls, a foundation and a ceiling. It seems to me that modern architecture encompasses the negative space surrounding the building, as much as the minimal structure in the middle. I wonder whether this “Nigel Nomates” building can be given friends and yet preserved for its character.
Well that’s an interesting conundrum, what to do when the heritage value comes from a failed concept.
But anyway, it was originally designed with two podium buildings, so we can obviously build something similar while staying heritage sympathetic… But of hanging on to our modernist history means holding on to the worst of the movements mistakes then maybe history needs a little rewriting.
The only heritage in this building was the activities that were carried out in it. As a building it was poorly conceived as a Bledisloe on its end design. That resulted in a footprint that is not economic and has heating problems. (When I worked there all the sensors were on the east so the heating was off in the mornings when the sun was on that side and we all froze, then the heaters came on in the afternoon when the sun would poor in from the west and it was too hot.) The asbestos removal in around 1989 was only partly successful. We should follow our forebears actions and knock it down and rebuild bigger. That is our true heritage not keeping stuff just because it is old.
Our forebears were planning to knock down the Town Hall because it had got a bit rumpty and unfashionable, and things like the heaters didn’t work, should have knocked that down too instead of fixing the heating?
I wouldn’t have cared one jot. The acoustics are crap and the layout sucks. It looks nice from the outside but that’s it really. The building I really miss is His Majesty’s Theatre. It looked like crap from the outside but was the best theatre we have ever had.
Still all three buildings are ‘heritage’ regardless of your personal taste.
Incidentally I had my first ever public [ie not counting Art School] exhibition in a gallery in His Majesty’s building. Three portraits in a group show and the self-portrait was stolen. I was so rapped!
The worst thing about the building’s removal is that it was replaced by total vileness. Also, although but more down home than The Strand [1910] it was our only other period Arcade. It is missed. Worse still is the violation by parking garage in the once fine grained block between it and Albert St. Totally f**ked now. The demolition of HM sparked this decline off.
I get the feeling that once Aotea station starts to boil those mid rise parking structures will start to disappear and be replaced with more human buildings.
It was so sad when the destroyed His Majesty’s. I think it is a copy of Her Majesty’s in Haymarket London except they change the title with the sex of the Sovereign. I was a traffic engineer at Auckland City at the time and the application for a temporary parking use came across my desk not long after. We couldn’t decline it but I did manage to lose it between my desk and the wall for a while.
“The acoustics are crap and the layout sucks”… are you talking about the town hall or the Aotea centre? 😉
ha- take your pick! The shame is that the St James isnt bad at all but they wont reopen it. For a fraction of what was spent on the Civic we could have a good venue. When I become dictator for life I will make sure not one cent of public money is spent on old columns or gargoyles or stupid decoration but every community would have a modern theatre black walls, black curtains small space, everyone sits close to the front. It is what happens in buildings that matters not the building itself.
You did just describe the Q Theatre…
The St James should be our opera house. The Aotea Centre should be for conferences and talks only.
If we’re taking ideal scenarios then the Aotea Centre should be destroyed and replaced with a real building.
St James must be revived. Best performance in AK, and fantastic heritage, gargoyles and all.
Traffic engineers will be re-programmed into useful human engineers; math skills used for good not evil.
“Traffic engineers will be re-programmed into useful human engineers; math skills used for good not evil.” Patrick its much worse than that- I also trained as an economist! My next business card is going to have the tag line “Paving paradise, putting up parking lots”