Latest news with #GordonWilson
Newsroom
19-07-2025
- General
- Newsroom
Throwaway culture is a recent privilege we just can't afford
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.
The Spinoff
08-07-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
This Wellington sea wall shows how our heritage rules are broken
The government wants to make it easier to remove protections on heritage buildings – but more change is needed. The Oriental Parade sea wall is a long, concrete barrier that curves around the stretch of Oriental Bay. It's a critical piece of infrastructure, first built in the 1920s to protect the adjacent houses and roads from storm surges. Its purpose is just as vital today – arguably more so, given the threat of rising sea levels due to climate change. But there's a problem: the sea wall is subject to heritage protections, because it is recognised as ' an important early civil engineering structure ' with ' a distinctive form and profile.' Those protections mean that any maintenance on the sea wall requires an expensive and lengthy resource consent application, and must use like-for-like materials in a way that recreates the original appearance. At a practical level, that means repairs are more difficult and expensive than they would otherwise need to be. That costs the council (and ratepayers) money. The Oriental Bay sea wall is not the only piece of heritage-protected infrastructure in Wellington. There's also the Evans Bay sea wall, the Lyall Bay sea wall, the Island Bay sea wall, the Seatoun Tunnel, the Karori Tunnel, the Northland Tunnel, the Hataitai Bus Tunnel, the Kelburn Viaduct and the retaining wall on Carlton Gore Road. All of these structures were significant engineering achievements at their time and are worth acknowledging. But they're all still in active use, and to most people, their value is practical, not historic or aesthetic. The heritage protections are a hindrance to their core purpose. Wellington is not the only city facing overly onerous heritage restrictions, but the issue is particularly salient in the capital because it has a greater number of heritage buildings (575 on the current council register), many of which have suffered earthquake damage. Wellington City Council has spent $380 million strengthening its heritage buildings over the past five years, mostly on the central library and town hall. Other publicly owned heritage buildings, such as the Gordon Wilson flats and Dixon St flats, have become prominent ruins. Several private building owners want their heritage protections removed so they can do simple renovations. Oh, and the city now has heritage protections on a rusty oil tank. Wellington City councillor Ben McNulty has been leading the charge on heritage reform. During last year's District Plan debate, he attempted to remove the heritage listings from 10 buildings (all of which were requested by the owners), including the Gordon Wilson flats and the rusty oil tank. After that move failed for process reasons, McNulty and Wellington mayor Tory Whanau wrote a letter to minister for RMA reform Chris Bishop asking for new legal powers to remove heritage protections. 'The decisions made by previous generations of heritage advocates are resulting in expensive legacy issues. Whilst the Council technically can remove properties from heritage listing under current legislative conditions, in practice it is an uncertain and risky pathway to delist a heritage building,' McNulty and Whanau wrote. The protection process There's a common misconception that Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga is responsible for imposing heritage protections – but that's not quite right. Heritage New Zealand identifies buildings for the national heritage list and advocates for their protection, but the actual legal restrictions kick in once a council 'schedules' the building in its District Plan. Many councils also employ in-house heritage experts to identify sites of local significance that aren't recognised by Heritage New Zealand. Most of Wellington's heritage sea walls fall into this category. Giving a building heritage protection is a relatively simple process and, in the past, it has been mostly uncontroversial. It's only years later, when the building owner wants to renovate or demolish it, that the heritage protections become a problem. But once a council has made a heritage decision, undoing it isn't so easy. Removing heritage protections requires a change to the District Plan, which involves an extensive process of public hearings and can be challenged in the environment court. Once a building has been heritage-scheduled by a council, its protection becomes a 'matter of national importance' under the Resource Management Act. This is an extremely high bar which planners and courts must consider and often trumps all other considerations. What could – and should – change Bishop has proposed creating a streamlined process to allow councils to remove heritage protections by a simple majority vote. This would be much faster and harder to challenge than the current system, as it would leave the final decision in the hands of the environment minister rather than the courts. Wellington City Council supported the streamlined delisting process in its submission on the RMA reform bill. Heritage New Zealand opposed the change, with chief executive Andrew Coleman writing that 'there is insufficient evidence to justify them and they have not been fully worked through'. The streamlined process would help to address some of the more egregious issues with the heritage regime, but it's really just a stopgap measure. Both the council and Heritage New Zealand agree that more is needed. The big issue that needs to be addressed is that pesky matter of 'national importance'. See, heritage isn't the only thing considered to be of national importance under the RMA. There's also: coastal environments, lakes and rivers, outstanding natural landscapes, areas of significant native bush, Māori connections to ancestral lands and water, protected customary rights, and risks of natural hazards. Many other relevant matters aren't listed, but might be locally important on any given decision: urban growth, access to housing, costs of repairs, safety risks, property rights, and, in the case of the heritage sea walls and tunnels, the ability to maintain and operate essential infrastructure. Under the current law, there is no guidance for how planners and courts should weigh up these competing matters. This means we end up in situations like the Gordon Wilson flats, where there are many obvious negatives of letting a decaying ruin continue to stand, but its heritage protections leave it stuck in a quagmire. There needs to be some kind of government-level directive which makes it clearer how each other those matters should be weighed against each other. Heritage protections aren't an inherently bad thing. The problem with the current system is that they are too blunt and inflexible. We can protect the buildings and structures that we collectively value, but we need to acknowledge that those protections have trade-offs – and sometimes, those trade-offs simply aren't worth it.
The Spinoff
23-06-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Windbag: The Gordon Wilson flats saga reaches the funniest possible conclusion
Chris Bishop's plan to pass a new law specifically to demolish one ugly building is a hilariously petty solution to a ridiculous problem. When housing minister Chris Bishop announced an amendment to the RMA that would make it legal to demolish the Gordon Wilson flats, he celebrated by posting a photoshopped image on social media of himself riding a wrecking ball into the flats. The headline of the official press release sent last Tuesday was 'Gordon Wilson flats' heritage protection goneburger', a sentence that could have only been written by cabinet's most Twitter-brained minister. That parliament will pass a new law with the sole function of making it legal to demolish this specific abandoned apartment block is undeniably funny. It's legislative speak for 'fuck this building in particular'. 'It's not a step that we take lightly, but there have been two previous attempts to delist them, and both have failed,' Bishop said on Tuesday, addressing media in front of the abandoned 87-unit apartment complex on the Terrace. 'When the council wants them gone, Wellingtonians want them gone, and the owner of the building wants them gone, the government has taken the simple and pragmatic view that it is time to get rid of them.' For 13 years, the Gordon Wilson flats have been stuck in a doom spiral. Too expensive (and arguably impossible) to repair, but illegal to demolish, they've instead been left to decay, paint fading and the facade crumbling, deteriorating into an ugly, uninhabitable eyesore. Let's go back to the start. The Gordon Wilson flats opened in 1959, at a time when Wellington's population was rising rapidly and there was a severe housing shortage. The government architect Gordon Wilson, for whom the flats are named, designed them in a modernist style typical of high-rise public housing in the post-war era. The building was given heritage protection in Wellington's district plan in 1995 and was listed as a category 1 historic place by Heritage New Zealand in 2021. The flats were good, affordable housing. Each unit was small but with high ceilings that made them feel airy. The landlord, Housing New Zealand, painted the exterior in bright rainbow colours. Thousands of people lived there over the years, most of whom have fond memories of the place. The story turned sour in 2011 when an engineer's report identified structural issues. The residents were evacuated in May 2012. The building was deemed uninhabitable. It was riddled with asbestos and so fragile that it could collapse from an earthquake, strong winds, or even, according to one assessment, 'a large person falling heavily at a critical location'. Housing New Zealand saw no realistic way to repair the damage, so in 2014 it sold the site to Victoria University of Wellington. The university initially planned to demolish the building and build new educational and research facilities on the site. That plan was scuppered in 2017 when advocacy group the Architectural Centre won an Environment Court case against the university, upholding the building's heritage status and blocking the demolition. While heritage advocates celebrated the legal victory, it did nothing to change the condition of the building. The flats continued to decay, becoming increasingly dangerous and less repairable. Campaigners insisted the university should repair the building. The Architectural Centre released a 3D model imagining how the building could be repurposed, complete with a cable car to Kelburn. Of course, it's easy to imagine pretty redesigns when you don't have any financial stake in the project. That doesn't mean it is viable. The university hasn't shown any interest in the proposal, nor has any other property developer offered to cough up the dough. The university tried again in 2020 with a proposal called Te Huanui – Pathway to the City, featuring three academic buildings, an atrium and a plaza that would provide a pedestrian connection to the Kelburn campus. Responding to public sentiment that favoured new housing, it later changed its plan to be focused on student accommodation. Wellington City Council was keen to support the development. At the university's request, the council voted to remove the building's heritage protections in 2024. But even that, it seemed, would not fly. Despite a majority vote by the elected body, it was legally dubious whether the council actually had the power to remove the protections. Bishop, as the minister responsible for signing off the district plan, declined the move; not because he didn't want to see the building demolished, but because he was afraid it would be vulnerable to a judicial review by a heritage advocacy group. The courts wouldn't let the building be demolished. The council – the entity that gave the building its legal protections in the first place – was seemingly powerless to change it. Well-funded advocacy groups were willing to launch legal action. The feasibility of repairs, already slim at the beginning, was now nonexistent. The legal system forced this decaying wreck to keep standing. There was no recourse. No other option. Which is why it came to this. The trump card of the New Zealand legal system. Parliamentary supremacy. Predictably, the minister's announcement has had heritage advocates crying foul. Heritage New Zealand's Jamie Jacobs told the NZ Herald he had 'serious concerns about the long-term wisdom of this outcome'. Historic Places Wellington chair Felicity Wong, writing in The Post, claimed the building's earthquake-prone status was 'misinformation'. There is a well-known principle in architecture: 'Form follows function.' It means the purpose of a building should be the starting point for its design. The heritage values and architectural innovations of the Gordon Wilson flats come from the building's function as a source of dense, affordable housing. According to the Heritage New Zealand listing, the Gordon Wilson flats have 'historical significance because of their association with the state housing programme' and are 'uniquely placed to demonstrate that chapter of New Zealand's response to the need for housing'. The idea that the building should be kept empty, or forcibly repaired at exorbitant cost, as a totemic reminder of affordable housing in a city with an active housing crisis is a cruel irony. The Gordon Wilson flats served their function for 53 years. They no longer do. All the collective nostalgia in the world won't change that.
