New development shouldn’t be seen as inherently at odds with heritage, writes Max Reeves, who argues for three recent ‘losses’ to be redefined.
The recent announcement that Christchurch’s Anglican Cathedral may be mothballed should cause heritage advocates and professionals to pause and think. If the mothballing goes ahead, it would represent a third “loss” for heritage advocacy this year.
It follows minister for housing Chris Bishop’s decision to reduce Wellington’s character areas to 86 hectares, and the redevelopment of 284 Stuart Street in Dunedin, the site of a historic home and lime tree. These decisions could be viewed as losses, but they also provide a chance to consider the context in which these buildings were constructed and the values they embody. The Resource Management Act (RMA) does, after all, call historic heritage “those natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and culture”.
New development shouldn’t be seen as inherently at odds with heritage. Instead we should consider the ways that new development tells a story about the social history of New Zealand.
Wellington character areas
Wellington’s character areas have been reduced from 306 hectares to 86 hectares, meaning that development is allowed without notification. Heritage advocates claim this risks introducing a “Swiss-cheese effect” for built heritage, but it is not clear this is the case.
Take Aro Valley. It contains art deco apartments at 3 Aro Street built in the 1920s, the modernist Aston Tower built in the 1960s, and the Aro Valley Community Hall, built in 1974. Rather than detract from the area’s character, lower Aro Street’s “intensely developed and defined street edge adds further distinctiveness”.
While heritage advocates focus on a limited selection of buildings, a neighbourhood’s character is also a product of its people. Aro Valley “has been a working-class area over most of its history”. But in 2018, more than 50% of the population were professionals and managers despite the suburb containing the “largest unadulterated collection of working-class homes in Wellington”.
New development enabled by the new district plan will continue to add to the distinctiveness of the suburb and enhance its built character, while preserving its social character by ensuring supply of affordable housing.
284 Stuart Street
284 Stuart Street, a 104-year-old arts and crafts house in Dunedin designed by architect Edmund Anscombe, became the scene of a heritage debate in June due to a protected lime tree on the site. After a redesign, the plan to build 30 apartments while conserving the tree is now under way.
Heritage New Zealand stated that the building is not currently considered for listing. Even if it was, it would not be a priority because buildings of its type are already well accounted for on the list. Within Dunedin’s central area there are a total of 26 listed arts and crafts residential houses, including the 20 homes that make up the Windle Settlement Workers’ Dwellings Historic Area.
Moreover, Dunedin’s heritage “also includes less tangible elements such as stories about people and places, which impact on our evolving understanding of the significance of where we live“.
Anscombe’s story is one of a progressive architect who travelled extensively and brought new styles to the country. His vision of New Zealand’s values was summed up in a letter to the Evening Star, when petitioning for Dunedin to host an international exhibition:
This progressive vision was an important part of Anscombe’s architecture. The Centennial Exhibition he designed in Wellington also sought to show New Zealand’s progress, with a large, purpose-built art deco complex.
Had the focus on building conservation existed in Anscombe’s time, would 284 Stuart Street have been built? Or would the two cottages previously occupying the site have represented an important part of our history?
While heritage advocates worry about changes to neighbourhood character caused by contemporary styles, Anscombe’s former home is protected by Wellington City Council because of its “distinctive architecture which sets it apart from the surrounding modern apartments”.
When Anscombe contributes to character he should be protected. When Anscombe detracts from character he should be protected. Anscombe’s contribution to New Zealand is more than buildings. It is a vision of enterprise and progress. Preserving those values means allowing new architects to build as he did. In contemporary styles, sometimes out of step with surrounding character, as part of a vision of progress.
Christchurch Anglican Cathedral
A plan to rebuild the cathedral as it was before the 2011 earthquakes was supposed to “breathe new life and vibrancy into the heart” of Christchurch. Instead, the cathedral remains fixed in time. Not in 1874, but in 2011.
The history of Cathedral Square has been one of adaptation: the square has continually changed to suit the needs of residents.
This is what Bishop Victoria Matthews wanted to do with the rebuild, believing that a $100m reconstruction wasn’t what a city full of people suffering needed. Eventually, legal challenges from heritage advocates caused the Anglican Synod to attempt a rebuild.
The first changes to Cathedral Square occurred before it was even built. The square was originally supposed to host a school and a cathedral, but not enough land was set aside for the school, so it was moved to the Botanic Gardens. The statue of Robert Godley has been moved twice. The ever-changing road layout continues to be a subject of debate.
Even the cathedral itself has changed. The original design by George Gilbert Scott was for an all wood cathedral, then a wooden frame and stone exterior, then for an all stone cathedral. The eventually completed cathedral was a modified version of Scott’s design, with additions made by Benjamin Mountfort. From 1960-1962 vestries were added to the building.
Where the square’s history of change has been embraced, it provides beloved destinations. Christchurch City Libraries saw the loss of their building as an opportunity, and built one of the most impressive contemporary public facilities in the world.
By denying the history of change, and committing to conservation at any cost, heritage advocacy has failed in its goal. The social history of the cathedral as the heart of Christchurch risks being lost entirely – instead a mothballed ruin will stand as a testament to the earthquakes.
Stories or stuff?
When we conserve our historic buildings, we do so for two reasons. Buildings can have architectural and historic significance in their own right, but they also tell stories about our history. In some cases, this conservation can obscure these stories.
In Wellington, character areas have persevered through the addition of contemporary buildings, but the social character of these neighbourhoods has not survived the character designations. In Dunedin, new development has been opposed to preserve the legacy of one of our most forward-thinking architects. In Christchurch, heritage advocacy risks creating the biggest failure of the rebuild.
It is time for heritage advocates and professionals to rethink their approach. Development does not have to be at odds with heritage. In some instances, development enhances the social heritage of an area. Every heritage building was once a new development, and if we had always opposed change, none of them would exist today.