SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
G

·
TURUA STREET | ST HELIERS | Under Construction

A reminder of what transpired .... updates to follow:

Protestors lose bid to save art deco cottages
NZ HERALD
BREAKING4:31 PM Thursday Jan 27, 2011

An appeal to stop the demolition of historic St Heliers cottages has been denied by the Environment Court. The case for an enforcement order stopping developer Anacona Properties destroying six houses from 8-16 and 20 Turua St was put to the court yesterday. In a reserved decision issued today, Judge Laurie Newhook said there was not enough evidence six houses on Turua St had heritage or historic value. The fact the cottages are loved by many in the St Heliers community is not enough of a legal basis to stop the demolition, he said (brilliant). Save Our St Heliers Society spokeswoman Sally Hughes said his decision left many who had campaigned to save the houses - some for more than five years - in tears.

She said destroying the houses would change St Heliers forever. "There's only been a dozen of us in court but the people down on the street will be absolutely devastated. "They have given their lives to this case. It's part of the fabric of their community and they care very deeply about retaining the character that St Heliers was based on." Mrs Hughes said she expects the houses to be bulldozed "imminently". She did not know whether protestors would turn out to hamper the demolition work. The houses were about to be demolished last week when Mr Newhook issued an injunction stopping the bulldozers until the case deciding their heritage value was heard.

The decision today means Anacona Properties is free to destroy the properties and replace them with a planned commercial development and residential apartments. Auckland Mayor Len Brown said on January 17 there was no affordable way to save the cottages from demolition. He had sought a delay to the demolition after councillors turned down an attempt to place a heritage order on the buildings by a vote of 14-7 on December 16. "Absolutely everything that could be reasonably and legally done was done in this case, but unfortunately that was not enough."

A letter to councillors from Council Chief Executive Doug McKay said there was no evidential basis to impose or seek heritage orders to protected the buildings. Buying or shifting the cottages would likely cost in excess of $10m, he said. "The preferred position is to allow the developer to progress his approved and consented development. "There is no appetite for spending this amount of money, is the sense I have from feedback to date."

A shame that these renders are so poor but I think that it fits in well with the "village" feel :) Mixed-use is the way to go and will help create a lively community. Now it is time for the bulldozers to move in on the strip mall to the left of picture 1 :)



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,497 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
^^

At least they kept the building along the roadside and activated the street front as opposed to the old trick of putting the parking in front of the building.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,852 Posts
I realise the NIMBYs will forever hate it, but I think it actually fits into its surroundings quite well. Although from memory, last time I was there, it isn't as flattering coming down one of the streets that backs onto it and heading towards the water. At least I think that was this development. It was a while back mind you....
 
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
Will have to wait and see what the area behind the brick wall will be used for in the short-term, I'm not convinced that there will be parking there.

And, I much prefer this to what was there before. The old optometrist building was nice though.
 
G

·
If those "heritage" buildings were so special why were they left to rot ? There was also no commitment from the people who owned those buildings to restore them and quite frankly there is no place in Auckland / NZ for degradation. I think that the new building fits in very well with the coastal feel of St Heliers and I for one am very happy that they have placed parking behind the building and activated the street edge with retail (before it was private land and a no-go zone which offered the town centre nothing in return) :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,210 Posts
Vinnie - Cities by their very nature are about change and evolution. Keeping old buildings just because they are old effectively puts the city into amber so it is a question of if we want to live in a city or a museum. I find that many European cities face this problem of preserving heritage even though the buildings they now preserve were once new and which had replaced even older buildings. By all means lets preserve the great old buildings we have but lets not try and out history Europe by trying to keep every little shack that was ever built. Don't forget that what we build today will be considered historic in 50-100 years time where similar arguments will occur.

As for the car parks, no I don't like them but they are a byproduct of stupid minimum parking requirements. Its not the developers fault that they are there but the councils for having unnecessary regulations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,182 Posts
Vinnie - Cities by their very nature are about change and evolution. Keeping old buildings just because they are old effectively puts the city into amber so it is a question of if we want to live in a city or a museum. I find that many European cities face this problem of preserving heritage even though the buildings they now preserve were once new and which had replaced even older buildings. By all means lets preserve the great old buildings we have but lets not try and out history Europe by trying to keep every little shack that was ever built. Don't forget that what we build today will be considered historic in 50-100 years time where similar arguments will occur.

As for the car parks, no I don't like them but they are a byproduct of stupid minimum parking requirements. Its not the developers fault that they are there but the councils for having unnecessary regulations.
i wouldnt call St Heliers the city bro plus the new building there sux. algood, get rid of the old museum looking buildings and we should be sweet. yeah right
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,210 Posts
Last I looked St Heliers was in the Auckland urban area, you do realise that the city of Auckland is more than just the CBD don't you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,182 Posts
Yeah mate of course i know "Auckland" covers loads of area.. but that isnt what i was saying and no i dont class it as the 'city' can u imagine clubs where this new development is ? If u can then thats the city. But yes i agree with u it is 'urban'. Moving on i think...
 

·
Retired
Joined
·
1,222 Posts
Yeah mate of course i know "Auckland" covers loads of area.. but that isnt what i was saying and no i dont class it as the 'city' can u imagine clubs where this new development is ? If u can then thats the city. But yes i agree with u it is 'urban'. Moving on i think...
Wow, that took some reading to try and understand your point...

I agree with you and Matt if thats possible.. My issue which i raised at the time was the failing of the process not in the merits of the design or the value of the existing buildings..

The Council had highlighted a number of building in the St Heliers "Village" that were important to the ambiance of the place.. In the space of months nearly 30% were demolished.

Sydney I dont think your argument is entirely helpful, as if you applied that to the Yates buildings for instance then they would be tearing them down tomorrow..

Whats done is done now, the buildings whilst i think are ok could be better.. but thats life... what needs to happen is that protection is strengthened to protect what we value (whatever that may be) and not let owners/developers dictate terms against the common wishes of the community..
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top