Post in Loss of Heritage

Aug 01 02:40 UTC

Hi Irinka,

If places like the Purchas St lot you are criticising do not suit people
then they will not get enough tenants/owners to make them viable. (As has
happened in Auckland) The 'cost' to those who invested in such projects is
loss of capital. It happens.

Now, if - and I do not think it will happen... If, we suddenly have food
shortages then tin-pot construction like the Purchas St one will quite
easily be torn down.

Whether the place would be converted to cropping or horticultural use would
then be a moot point. The bare land may we be more important (i.e., worth
more) set up as a caravan park...or something...

You cannot grow food to feed the hungry masses while the rates are higher
than the income. Purchase St converted to a food garden would probably come
under that category.

Just because the city suddenly runs out of food (because four days have
passed and no trucks have arrived according to your scenario) it does not
mean that the CCC suddenly reduces the rates to a level able to sustain the
growing of produce on inner city land.

Jo Colgan, a property developer and new contributor to this forum  has tried
to explain why some places are pulled down and replaced with less attractive
buildings. In the end, someone wants to use the property. They cannot use it
if rules state it has to be earthquake-proofed, the zone no longer applies
or it has difficult access, window display area, car-parking etc.

To some degree the perceived earthquake danger can act as too strong an
incentive for demolition. The fact is, earthquakes of building-demolishing
intensity are relatively rare. Those that are likely to collapse are -
relatively - small compared to modern earthquake-proof structures. Thus few
people would be in them in the event of an earthquake. Add the possibility
an earthquake occurs at night (50/50 chance of that - closer to 60/50 if you
count the hours from 1800 to 0800 as "night" hours) when few, if any are in
the building... and you get something like a reasonable cost/benefit ratio.

 To make the point more clear, some part of Christchurch Hospital is under
strength. If an earthquake occurs the building might (I emphasise MIGHT)
collapse. Those in it may be killed or injured. The cost to replace the
building with a complying one is quite a few million dollars. If NOT
replaced that leaves quite a few million bucks to pick up the pieces from
the rest of a devastated city - a few stuck in hospital may die but
represent far fewer deaths than the many outside the hospital where the
resources would be better spent or invested....(But I bet the hospital will
be replaced)

To preserve heritage building (as Jo Coglan pointed out) you need to have
people who WANT to use them, regulations that allow affordable conversion of
the building into something usable, some sort of visible sign as to the
standard of earthquake proofing so Armageddon-fixated persons can choose to
avoid entering the building, and up-to-date technology that allows
relatively inexpensive up-grading of older buildings.

It is sad to see old building disappear but sometimes it is better to let
old buildings gradually disappear than to have some sort of regulation that
firstly forces owners to retain their old buildings and secondly requires
new buildings to emulate the style of the period being protected. A classic
example of this is Napier. This city has some marvelous art deco
architecture. However, instead of preserving the art deco buildings many
property developers have taken the "theme" on board and have built modern
renditions in the art deco style. To do this they have knocked down pre-art
deco wooden buildings along the Napier foreshore and replaced them with
their architectural art deco interpretations.

Now, you may think I am a little cynical... but have you ever seen an
architect "interpret" anything? Yep, he (it is usually a "he") adds his own
interpretations to a style and ends up incorporating stuff that is not
within the style at all. He produces synthetic abominations finally creating
a fairy-tale fantasy of frivolous fuck-ups that ultimately spread through
the historic area dominating and drowning out the true heritage buildings.

Oh, if Napier is too far away go take a look at Arrowtown. Its original
buildings have been utterly ruined by owners and the tenants - but they
still collect a few tourist pennies.

I do not know what the answer is. Perhaps, if you want to "save" a building
or precinct then it has to be registered as a museum and isolated from any
economic activity.

But the answer is neither regulation nor enforced compliance codes.

Although there are beautiful places in Europe where buildings take on a
delightful uniformity that blends into the surroundings one has to remember
that many of these places are now satellite towns with most economic
activity taking place in nearby grey cities...

It is a worthy topic - anyone any ideas?

Cheers,
Tim Kerr