Throwaway culture is a recent privilege we just can't afford

Newsroom

2 days ago

Opinion: Images of the Gordon Wilson flats on the Terrace in Te Aro, Wellington, may have persuaded many readers that Chris Bishop was right to amend the RMA so that the flats, owned by Victoria University, would be eligible for demolition.
Bishop states: 'The flats sit as an ugly scar on the Wellington skyline,' and that they are, 'emblematic of a failed planning system that prioritises preservation of heritage, no matter the economic cost'.
He got one part of that sentence right: the building is emblematic of a failed planning system, that allowed the building to fall into such disrepair that it was perceived widely as a scar on the skyline – a process that many have described as demolition by wilful neglect.
It is not my intention here to argue in favour of the flats' heritage status; interested readers can read more about the McLean and Gordon Wilson Flats on Heritage New Zealand's website. Whether you think they are ugly or brutalist or represent a period in New Zealand history that should be preserved, is beside the point.
Its heritage listing is being used as a scapegoat. The cold, hard, fact is that there are tons of embodied energy locked in the building, along with 87 housing units, at a time when there is a desperate shortage of housing. Yes, it needs to be refurbished but the fit-out costs would be the same whether it is a new building or a refurbishment.
Demolishing this building would be a despicable act of waste – much of the developed world would be appalled. It would fly in the face of many international initiatives, such as the retrofit first policy, now adopted by three London boroughs, and gaining traction elsewhere. The policy is designed to discourage new buildings and encourage a circular economy, reliant on building reuse. Under the policy, developers are required to consider a whole life carbon assessment early in the feasibility stages of a project and assess varying degrees of retrofit, prior to considering demolition and re-build.
The priority is on retaining at least 50 percent of the existing building's superstructure, because nearly 50 percent of a typical, large building's embodied carbon lies in the superstructure, with a further, nearly 20 percent, locked in the substructure.
Circularity is also soon to be a legal requirement in Brussels, where Article 4 of the Regional Urban Planning Regulations states that: 'Every existing building will be conserved and, if necessary, renovated.' A similar legal framework is also proposed in the EU.
Why do we in New Zealand feel that we should be exempt from these progressive principles – are carbon atoms somehow different down under?
Sustainability architect Carl Elefante said in 2007 the 'greenest building is the one that is already built'. We now know that that the greenest building is the one that already exists and has been remediated to ensure it performs efficiently.
The Gordon Wilson Flats were built as a model of high-density inner-city housing, close to employment and transportation routes. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Operational carbon emissions from buildings account for approximately 28 percent of global energy-related carbon emissions, according to the World Green Building Council. It also states:
'Towards the middle of the century, as the world's population approaches 10 billion, the global building stock is expected to double in size. Carbon emissions released before the built asset is used, what is referred to as 'upfront carbon', will be responsible for half of the entire carbon footprint of new construction between now and 2050, threatening to consume a large part of our remaining carbon budget.'
Therefore, when building new, the target should be net zero or, ideally, carbon negative – the latter being an ambitious target that has yet to be achieved in New Zealand. But working with what already exists will always be achievable because we already have it – we have paid for it both in terms of carbon emissions and dollars. Why waste it?
Wastefulness is a recent and poorly exercised privilege – one that was inconceivable to, for example, my grandparents, who managed to narrowly survive WWII, and then maintained a frugal existence for ever after, having learnt the hard way what going without really means. Our throwaway culture is exacerbating the climate crisis. Therefore, it is astounding that such a significant and substantial building is being considered for demolition.
Yes, we could build new with 'sustainable materials' but as the UK engineer and contributor to Building Design, Anna Beckett, said, this is comparable to a fad diet: 'Ultimately, to consistently reduce carbon we have to build less.' The challenge is building less but delivering more, she explains, and this is where re-purposing existing buildings is so important.
The Architecture Centre is currently working on a proposal that illustrates how the Gordon Wilson Flats could be seismically strengthened and refurbished so that the building envelope meets high thermal performance expectations and low operational carbon emission targets.
In its proposal, an externally installed, mass timber structure, with steel dampers, would enclose the building, offering a reinterpretation of the original facade. This would ensure high thermal performance as well as increasing the ductility of the building, ensuring that it performs well in an earthquake, achieving at least 67 percent New Building Standard.
Initial engineering advice suggests that this is not only a relatively simple solution, but a cost-effective one too. The internal spaces could be retained in their existing form.
Retaining the superstructure of the building will save considerable money as the construction time would be reduced and the superstructure would not have to be demolished and re-constructed. Furthermore, this proposal also ensures that concerns about the 'ugly' aesthetic of the building are addressed. The building would be re-envisioned much like the Cité du Grand Parc, in Bordeaux, by Lacaton & Vassal has been, illustrated below.
In this way, the site's most significant heritage values would also be retained. It would continue to be used as housing and the important legacy of the flats as a significant piece of New Zealand's social housing history would also be retained.
The re-envisioned building could serve as much-needed (and highly desirable), post graduate housing or faculty housing, similar to the Symonds Street flats, which are owned by the University of Auckland and were refurbished for this purpose.
The re-envisioned building would be an exemplar of how a large mid-century building can be both seismically strengthened and thermally efficient, one which Victoria University could showcase as a truly sustainable development it could be proud of.