Cost of keeping heritage buildings safe means they should

be restricted - report

Heritage buildings are an important part of any city's landscape but they can be
a large burden on their owners, the report says.
The Government should cut the number of heritage-listed buildings to reduce
the burden on owners, who are often forced to fork out millions of dollars
in strengthening and maintenance costs.
A report by The New Zealand Initiative and Deloitte found a stock of buildings of
relatively low heritage value, but high earthquake risk, are difficult to make safe
because of the constraints placed on heritage buildings.
Listed-buildings are far more expensive to renovate and strengthen because the
work must be respectful of the building's heritage character.

PHIL REID/FAIRFAX NZ
A number of buildings in Cuba St in Wellington are heritage-listed.
On top of that, there was a limited amount of support available and resources
were spread too thin, the report said.
"Wellington's earthquake-prone stock of heritage buildings is a microcosm of a
problem facing New Zealand more generally.
"In short, too few public resources are devoted to protecting too many heritagedesignated buildings.
"While the public enjoys the benefits of a pleasant urban environment featuring
many older buildings, those buildings' owners are left to bear the cost of owning
listed buildings."
There was no "one magic solution" but something needed to change, it said.
"Wellington is a great city. Its heritage districts help to make it the greatest little
capital.
"But, in a severe earthquake, those same buildings could kill many of us
unnecessarily."
As a result, the report suggests the Government should restrict the number of
listed buildings allowed in each city.
As well as that, councils should consider which buildings are most valuable and
help provide funding to support heritage preservation.
"While heritage buildings are a vitally important part of the city's landscape and
culture, they often impose a large and uncompensated burden on their owners.
Because even if the buildings were made safe, the economics of doing so
was quite difficult, it said.

"While there are many heritage buildings that are vital to save, available
resources are spread too thinly.
"Nowhere is this more clear than in Wellington, both because of the earthquake
risk facing the city and because of the substantial stock of heritage-listed
buildings."
Issues surrounding heritage buildings were "extremely complex and farreaching", therefore any solutions would need to reflect that, he said.
"Despite these numerous complexities, the unanimous consensus points to
a council facilitated strengthening process as an attainable low-hanging fruit on
the road to reducing the risks associated with Wellington's bending moment a moment that is inevitable."

SOURCE: stuf.co.nz

57 Comments

RSS|Subscri

Common_sense13 minutes ago

The NZ Initiative is an extreme right wing body and any recommendation by
them must be taken in that context. I cannot imagine any report of theirs on
this subject doing anything but siding with private property owners.

Steve_T64754 minutes ago

Napier and the Art Deco needs protection, CHCH we need to choose what
can be done.
We worked in CHCH in a heritage building Nice wide hallways (fell in too
wide) Nice copper panel's on the roof almost killed someone, Nice stone
arches (we went out the replacement aluminium window as doors jammed
arch falling in), no reinforcing steel through the bricks upper floors (fell
down) Beautiful stairway (the hand rail and centre was gone we worked
down the wall) Electrical wires in steel tubes several people were shocked
with live earths (the power was not of immediately).
Life is worth more than a building, choose a Heritage area and keep that
area in CHCH the Arts centre, Museum etc area should be protected but
even modern re-engineered Heritage buildings were damaged beyond repair
the Cranmer Courts apartment building had millions spent bringing it up to
around 65% of code and it was not enough to save it.

TikaPori56 minutes ago

To the "prospective" buyers of heritage classified buildings: Don't buy them if
you can't deal with the compliance, and don't buy them with the intention to
knock them down. It's fairly simple.

Druid2 hours ago

The Gerry Brownlee approach to heritage preservation !!!!!! A philosophy
that goes completely against everything civilization stands for !!!!!!

Kaimai12 hours ago

I fail to understand why some people get emotive about a building.

Druid25 minutes ago

Cultural and historic ignorance !!!!!!!

Stevey232 hours ago

The New Zealand Initiative is just the old Business Roundtable in drag, isn't
it?
Of course the old boys from the eighties want to demolish everything.

If an investor buys only thinking about yield and not expenses, then they've
just overpaid for their buildings. Bad investment shouldn't be rewarded,
especially for the old guys who've been charging staggeringly high leases to
shops and cafes in earthquake prone buildings.

Fozzie Bear3 hours ago

Perhaps we could take an example from Munich - when a new building is
built, a small percentage (I think 3% or something like that) has to be added
for the creation of large scale durable public art-work installations in, on or
around the new building. This would make the new building less bland, and
help define future heritage status.
Unsafe, un-reinforced concrete and brick facades are a ticking time bomb.
Only good for landfill. If it's wood, then that's a diferent story. Wooden
heritage buildings should be presevered wherever possible.
Darnunderbloke3 hours ago

Fortunately Dunedin shows a rather more mature attitude, as witness the

restorations of several 19th century buildings in the warehouse precinct,
often with assistance from the DCC. A recent survey of ratepayers showed
strong support for this policy. OK, the fact of Dunedin being, in the NZ
setting, a low earthquake risk area may be another factor in this.

Professor Plum3 hours ago

I love the old buildings. I cried driving through Chch and seeing them gone.
It is part of who we are as a nation. That is the sentimental part of it.
The reality, however is much diferent. Many sat unused because they just
werent up to standard or became a Maccas. How many times can you rewire,
get modern fittings in (such as broadband, etc), insulation and all the other
things that make a building more comfortable (to attract Staf and/or
Customers)?
The maintenance alone must be horrendous.
then, as others have said, there is the most important safety factors.
Maybe we need to take a hard look and save a few that have very special
significance, and say a fond farewell to the others. At the end of the day, the
taxpayers dollars are only going to go so far, and investors look at from a
business point-of-view (as they should).
Reality can often be harsh.
reasonedresponse3 hours ago
Why can't we build new heritage buildings? They do this in many parts of
Europe. So you get the aesthetics of a cultural building but the modern day
safety. Instead NZ gets ugly glass/metal boxes.
Coastalgirl3 hours ago
No. Keep the heritage buildings. Only those who are passionate about
heritage and wish to see them preserved and prepared to pay, will buy
them. And we will be all the richer for their endeavours. Take protection
away and they will be demolished and ugly glass towers rise in their place
and will lose yet more of our soul. People actually travel to and around NZ to
see these buildings, it's called heritage tourism. This brings economic
benefit. The old buildings are just so beautiful, I love them and I thank all
you people who own them and care for them and let us enjoy them. Good on
you.

Fozzie Bear9 minutes ago

Unfortunately, your thanks and kind words won't help those owners pay for
the quake strengthening, and won't be any use to those poor souls squashed
to a pulp under the falling concrete facades when the ground moves again
like it did in Chch.

Campbell3 hours ago

Heritage buildings are a valuable part of the fabric of our cities - but only if
they are both safe for the occupants and passing people. I mourn the many
beautiful buildings in Christchurch that were destroyed by the earthquakes but people must come first.
I find it ironical that the law requires an employer to provide so extensively
to keep employees safe (often, safe from their own inattention), yet we allow
the "Heritage" status of a building imperil people. In some cases,
strengthening an old building will cost hugely more than replacing it with a
compliant structure. A structure that would comply with the OSH laws. Those
that people so adamant to force owners to strengthen at any cost might well
have other motives if they had to pay for that strengthening themselves.
It surely must be within the abilities of modern NZ architects to design
equally beautiful structures - they do it overseas so it is only lack of will that
it is not done. Or, we employ those overseas architects. NZ lags so far
behind in the design of so many things in building in both aesthetics and in
low to zero energy requirements - the "why" I always fail to understand.

South Islander23 hours ago

I agree that some buildings don't deserve their heritage label. Just because
they are old doesn't mean they have heritage value.

Anonymuss4 hours ago

Due to poor quality staf of those managing and total lack of understanding
of heritage values of buildings, this is now a setback to development. Many
of those managing the classifications of such buildings have no serious
qualifications in such an area.

mah 612 hours ago

A bold statement but can you back it up with so evidence.

wolly4 hours ago

Well I have warned them...when wgtn cops the expected 8.2, it had better be
in the wee small hours, otherwise the death toll will be large...All over wgtn
there are piles of bricks and concrete waiting to collapse....onto footpaths!
TheWhiteZone2 hours ago
I think it's generally recognised that if Wellington is nearby an 8.2 or similar,
there will be quite a lot of casualties.
You can do so much to protect against a massive force of nature like this,
and there comes a point where for every mill that's spent, the return
diminishes.
Even the Japanese with their well engineered tsunami wall around the East
coast towns couldn't protect their populace. You'd think a ten M wall would
ofer a fair level of protection, until you saw the 15M wave.

Stevey231 hour ago

Given the Christchurch experience, the worst risk could be poor quality
buildings from the eighties: The same ones that replaced other heritage
buildings using the same quake-risk argument.
JasonCarter4 hours ago
Whilst it's important to preserve beautiful historical buildings where we can,
NZ also needs to be realistic. Compared to Europe (for example) our
'historical' buildings are actually comparitively new.
Instead of spending millions of dollars and years of construction work trying
to strengthen an old building, we have the technology today to knock it
down, and replicate it with the latest building materials and standards today.

The Wellington city hall is an exmaple of a building that has been closed for
years and is costing millions of dollars to strengthen. Could that money not
have been better spent taking it down, and building a replica with todays
technology, and in so doing create buildings that will stand the test of time
and one day become heritage buildings for future generations?
Personally I would rather have safe citizens and a resilient city than a cbd full
of beautiful heritage buildings just waiting to come down in the next big
shake.
Stevey234 hours ago
If investors own a building that needs work and they can't aford to do it,
they should sell it at its reduced fair market value to someone who can.
They've been playing monopoly pretending that things like strengthening

never actually need to be done.

Commercial investors can take a loss, just like everyone else.

Steve_T6471 hour ago

One heritage building in CHCH was ofered at $1 it was still 700% more
expensive to re-engineer than start over.
The Heritage trust saved some building facade but later determined it would
be too expensive to re-engineer just the faade and pulled it down. This is
the people who are here to SAVE the heritage pulling their own faade down
as too expensive and not unique enough.

mr man4 hours ago

They are deathtraps.

BaddieJoneee3 hours agoRoad fatalities, drownings and suicides claim more

New Zealanders each year than earthquakes ever will.

hype0thermia14 minutes ago

Of the 185 victims, 115 people died in the Canterbury Television building
alone, while another 18 died in the collapse of PGC House, Neither was a
heritage building.
Madix5 hours ago
The building MUST meet earthquake building code to protect human life - far
more valuable; if the owner can aford commercial property they can aford
their responsibilities of protecting human life. Otherwise the Government is
sued and the tax payer pays or "The New Zealand Initiative and Deloitte can
pay".
Steve_T6471 hour ago
The code changed from 33% of code to 65% of code. The only way some of
these buildings could comply are steel beams, these have to be hidden, not
destroy any period features, not change the original engineering and be
complimentary to the original design.
Those requirements are far too restrictive!

big_ry5 hours ago

I suspect that those that want to keep the heritage bvuildings would also be
unwilling to pay for their upkeep, sooo easy to spend other people's money.

klane5 hours ago

Are our cities not ugly enough without destroying the only charm they have heritage building . No No No
the reaction to the Chch earthquake is far too disproportionate - cities like
Wellington, Napier have lost many buildings to be replaced by cheap and
nasty tilt slabs

T Bone4 hours ago

Today's "cheap and nasty concrete slabs" are tomorrow's heritage buildings

No More2 hours ago

Hardly as most modern buildings are only warranted for seven years their
life-expectancy must be considerably less than the buildings built years ago.
We have buildings including houses that are considerably older that are still
watertight and usable that were built without all these engineers and
regulations that are considered necessary now yet we have major problems
with modern builds. Remember the leaky home debacle that we taxpayers
have been fleeced to pay for?
Don Q5 hours ago
Lets trust the developers, they have such good instincts. Look at downtown
Auckland, and all those wonderful concrete monstrosities built in the sixites,
gosh they are so pretty now.

T Bone4 hours ago

Without developers we wouldn't have a place to live, work and play

Campbell3 hours ago

LoL - yes and believe it or not - some of those monstrosities have actually
been listed as having "architectural merit" ..... which in time will become

"heritage" buildings.
hype0thermia8 minutes ago
Mirror glass was always going to be classy. What about fitting heritage
buildings with it at the same time as strengthening is carried out, as a
tribute to Chase Corporation?
mlpc5 hours ago
Some heritage buildings are just plain ugly and completely unfit for purpose,
yet a few fanatics clamour to keep them.
Not sure if the Gordon Wilson Flats on The Terrace have heritage status, but
they look really bad and are unsafe to occupy. They really need to go, even
though one or two people think they have heritage value.

nettieg35 hours ago

Leave them where they are.

big_ry5 hours ago

Open your wallet then.
bates234 hours ago
We do- by choosing to live, work, and spending money in a city like
wellington. I certainly don't live here for the weather.

Steve_T6471 hour ago

OK look at CHCH and all the fenced of areas, footpaths and "fall zones" most
of Wellington would be one lane at best.
Toastypie5 hours ago
Cities are supposed to be dynamic. If a building is no longer fit for purpose
knock it down.
For all the bleeding hearts bagging the owners of these buildings go and buy
them yourselves.
aye6 hours ago
landlords are happy to use their period features to sell their property to
prospective tenants but are not prepared to invest in it. Maybe if the council

would stop letting ugly buildings being built it would not be such a problem.
Steve_T6471 hour ago
In chch a 10+ tory building was ofered for sale for $1 to the heritage trust.
It was not purchased because the engineering required to re-engineer the
building to 65% of the building code was 700% higher than demolishing it
and building new and could not save the internal period features.
Rosemose6 hours ago
All the arguments are money based. If I cant aford something then I have to
sell it. Why the heck would we let go of our beautiful heritage architecture to
save building owners money. If they cant aford to do the earthquake
upgrading then sell the buildings. Oh so they might lose money, tough!!!
Welcome to our world, the real world where the government just stands by
and lets you go belly up if you cant aford to conserve your property or pay
your mortgage. No legislation to save you money, just good old reality, you
own it, you fix it.

RH_815 hours ago

Some of us don't believe that money grows on trees.

Rtap5 hours ago

You buy & you fix with your own money.

big_ry5 hours ago

If you're so concerned ..... open your wallet.

Indy_6 hours ago

After Christchurch the buildings I wouldn't want to work in are those built in
the 1980s...
WellyBoy6 hours ago

It is possible to keep the fronts of these buildings and rebuild behind, which
they have done with great success in both Auckland and Wellington over
many years.
aucklandsam5 hours ago
I hope you're being facetious. If you're referring to "facadism" then that is
one of the great crimes of architecture and you may as well pull the whole
thing down. With the exception of the Jean Batten building in Auckland,
every attempt to do it has been completely hideous.

Rtap5 hours ago

Looks really ugly like a patch job.

Rtap6 hours ago

The people who want a heritage listing on a building should buy it & be
totally responsible for it with their own money.

Stevey234 hours ago

People who bought a heritage building knew it would need strengthening at
some point. Squealing now when it comes to the crunch is cynical.

Hopelessmess4 hours ago

If only it was that simple. What sort of city do you want? Do you want
diversity. Or do you want rows and rows of mirror glass and concrete? as has
been created in CHCH now?

Steve_T6471 hour ago

I do not want old buildings to fall on people and kill them, either the
strengthening is supported by the Heritage listing and either local or regional
govt or the number of heritage buildings and the reasons for a building to
have heritage listings should be reduced to a significant standard or reason.
We moved out of a heritage building because it was going to cost over
$25,000 to replace a single light switch half way down a hallway with a two
way switch one at each end of the hallway.
We also were fined for installing a security camera in the building after it was

tagged!