Avoiding the Wrecking Ball Ensuring Heritage Buildings ...

Avoiding the Wrecking Ball Ensuring Heritage Buildings

Have a Future

Clare Dale and Odette White – Christchurch City Council

Jenny May - Heritage Management Services

Christopher Slane cartoon – published in Listener – 2011

Introduction

• What is heritage & why is it important

• The Canterbury situation & legislation

• Demolition – avoiding the wrecking ball

• Money

• Alternatives to demolition

• Monitoring and post consent

• Arts Centre example

• Trusts & public buildings

What is Heritage ?• Heritage is a much misused and maligned noun

• Something that is inherited from one generation and passed to the next

• Features of a culture or a particular society that are still of historical significance:

- traditions

- languages

- buildings

• Tangible and intangible

• A wide variety of items private and public, family and community, national and international

Photo: Christchurch Bicycle Band c1905, Quote: Bettina Drew

“The past reminds us of timeless human truths and allows for the perpetuation of cultural traditions that can be nourishing; it contains examples of mistakes to avoid, preserves the memory of alternative ways of doing things, and is the basis for self understanding…..”

Without an understanding of our past it is difficult to make sense of the

present and without that understanding we take nothing forward

and leave nothing tangible behind to

mark the evolution of each generation and its effect on human

evolution.

Queen Victoria Statue

Christ Church Cathedral

Built Heritage is Critical to the Future

• Tourism and Recreation

• Identity and Pride - Brings communities together

• Makes efficient use of resources

• Finite resource – regret only goes one way

• Catalyst for other development

• Start up businesses and boutiques thrive in heritage buildings (Jane Jacobs – Death and Life of Great American Cities)

What have the Canterbury EQ’s highlighted?

• Public vs private – financial burdens

• Perceptions - too expensive, too hard, too many rules

• Insurance

• Performance of previous earthquake strengthening

• Quality engineering advice

• Relationships with building owners

• Priorities

• Backing winners and willing owners

Tom Scott cartoon – published in The Press – 20 April 2012

The Canterbury Situation • Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011:

- Section 38 CERA power to carry out or commission demolition- Building owners may also apply to CERA for a Section 38

• Section 38 is to be exercised for ‘dangerous buildings’: - How that was assessed and whether there were other reasons not stated- Criteria for deciding on a demolition notice - not that clear to us.

• Demolition exemption from the requirements of the Building Act 2004.

• Demolition of a building undertaken by CERA to be a permitted activity.

Example - Bells Arcade

Cashel Mall – Feb 2011

Building Act

• Definition of earthquake prone buildings – a building that is less than 34% NBS

• Changes to EQ prone building legislation:• Timeframes for identifying & strengthening• Time dependent on seismic risk• Strengthening required when substantial alterations

undertaken• Register & public notices of earthquake prone buildings• Extensions of time for heritage buildings

Assessing Demolitions • Economics / financial burden may not justify demolition

• QS estimates

• Insurance gaps

• Public safety

• Reasonable (not exhaustive) alternatives to demolition explored - Ashburton Railway & Harcourt's Building Cases

• Heritage assessment

• Engineering assessments

• Alternative strengthening schemes

• Retrieval strategy and interpretation

The Importance of Quality Information

Example - Dwelling• Demolition application

• Lengthy insurance battles

• Owners accepted insurer’s assessments

• CCC engineering peer review - disagreed on severity of damage

• CCC - building could be repaired with less work & cost

• Application withdrawn

• Building sold to another party for restoration

• Quality information - appropriately qualified & experienced professionals

Example – St Barnabas Church

• Testing the information• Asking the right questions• What’s presented up front may

not be the best/only option

Money Talks• Balancing private rights / financial burdens with public

expectations requires financial incentives

• CCC commits to the HIG: $763,000 annually

• Central City Landmark Heritage Fund: 2012/13 $2.7M, 2013/14 $2M

• This type of funding has made a huge difference

• Christchurch pre and post-earthquake has shown this has to be “real” money – it does have to meet the shortfall

• Above all you have to have a willing owner

Example – Money Talks Armson Woolstore

• Cat1 Group 1 listed building • 2006 grant from HPT $75k, 2004 CCC $225k – a

success story at the time. • Structurally sound, had excellent uses and

survived the earthquake well due to previous strengthening

• Wrecking ball not avoided – Demolished 2012 under the CerAct. Reason: building owner could not afford to restore the building.

Example – Money Talks Shands Emporium

• Last timber commercial colonial building• Not badly damaged in EQ’s• Owner said would not fit into a new

development and not economically viable • Public money was offered but declined • Played out in the media to the owner’s

advantage • “old dunger” to quote Minister Brownlee • purchased for $1 and relocated - but that is

not the point or is it?

Shands Emporium & Trinity Church - 2016

Other Examples – Money TalksHIG Fund

Ironside House grant of $112k helped save this one but good insurance and long term good maintenance was the key.

Mountfort’s Trinity Congregational 2012/13 $1M

Alternatives to Demolition

• Strengthening

• Adaptive re-use

• Additions

• Subdivision

• New owners

• Make safe and leave

• Façade Retention

• Relocation

• Replicas?

Façade Retention

Former Clarendon Hotel

Monitoring and Post Consent •Monitoring by applicant and/or Council critical to a

successful heritage project

• Contractor Briefings on RC Conditions and TPP’s

• Conservation Architect/Heritage Professional end to end involvement – from design / AEE to construction completion

•Majority of projects - post consent changes

• Try to allow for the unknown in conditions

• Flexibility required

•Often need to be dealt with onsite and quickly

Example : Arts Centre

Arts Centre

•25 masonry buildings EQ damaged

•Trust Board settles insurance quickly

•Strategic planning to move forward

•Complex planning, building and heritage issues

•New uses within the complex

•Future proofing - access and services

Arts Centre Site –April 2011

Arts Centre - Observatory Block March 2011

Arts Centre – Rutherfords Den 2016

Arts Centre

• March 2012 - Central City Recovery Plan

• Greater level of EQ repairs and reconstruction permitted

• Despite permitted activity status for some works Arts Centre chose to consult over these as part of wider consent processes

• Communications and Consultation with Council & Heritage New Zealand

• Wider community consultation

Arts Centre – Gymnasium Canopy 2013

Arts Centre – Canopy 2013

Arts Centre

•Future proofing through the introduction of unified site wide efficiencies:

- energy - services - technology

•Standardised modern fit-outs for kitchen and bathroom facilities

Arts Centre – New Workshop Building 2016

Arts Centre – Workshop

Arts Centre – Site wide heating 2016

Arts Centre – Library Block 2015

North Quad - 2016

Arts Centre Site –April 2011

The Great Hall - 2016

Trusts and Public Buildings• Alternative ways to save heritage buildings

• Some proven success nationally and internationally

• Advantages and pitfall

• Different types of Trusts eg:

- The Christchurch Heritage Trust: Purchase at risk buildings, restore and on sell

- The Christchurch Civic Trust: Action group of residents dedicated to the preservation of significant heritage landmarks

- Canterbury Heritage Awards Trust: Promotion and advocacy through award recognition

Example – Trusts and Public BuildingsRiccarton House

• Partnership – managed by a Trust but CCC hold the insurance • Have managed the repair and conservation programme for

the Trust • Now open and operating

Trusts and Public BuildingsExample : Rose Chapel • Land and building as a reserve contribution to prevent demolition

Trusts and Public BuildingsExample : Former Government Buildings

• Public purchase, seismic upgrade and sale

Trusts and Public BuildingsExample : Provincial Buildings • Vesting Buildings in Public Ownership

Trusts and Public BuildingsExample : The Land Mark Trust UK• Take on historic places in danger, restores them and makes them

holiday lets.

Key Messages

•Heritage Buildings are critical to our future

•Heritage buildings are vulnerable

•Relationship with building owners

•Pragmatism

• There are many alternatives to the wrecking ball

• Sometimes the wrecking ball cannot be avoided

•Quality information

• End to end process and professional involvement

Contacts

• Clare Dale – Senior Planner (Resource Consents Unit – CCC) [email protected] or (03) 941-8548

• Odette White – Planner (Resource Consents Unit - CCC) [email protected] or (03) 941-6369

• Jenny May - Heritage Management Services Ltd [email protected] or 0275937310