Objections To Proposed Building In Square

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30482, 2 July 1964, Page 14

Objections To Proposed Building In Square

The Church of England was accused yesterday of changing its stand on the question of the height of buildings around Cathedral square.

Cr. G. D. Griffiths, chairman of the City Council’s townplanning committee, told the Bishop of Christchurch (the Rt. Rev. A. K. Warren) that the Church had first asked that no building be allowed to exceed 102 ft, then had publicly approved the height of 140 ft for the Bank of New Zealand building, and now was objecting to the Christchurch Transport Boards proposed building height of 218 ft.

The Cathedral Chapter and the Church Property Trustees were two of five objectors to the board’s application to the committee to depart from the council’s maximum building height of 102 ft. The Transport Board plans an L-shaped building with car parking space for 450 vehicles in the sevenstorey horizontal block (where the bus barn is now) and an 18storey office tower on the western part of the site. Other objectors are the New Zealand Refrigerating Company, Ltd., the New Zealand Shipping Company, Ltd., and the State Advances Corporation. The two companies have neighbouring buildings, and the corporation has bought Dalgety’s building in the Square, where it proposes to build a 16-storey office block. The committee (Crs. Griffiths, W. P. Glue, M. R. Carter, and T. D. Flint) reserved its decision.

Bishop Warren urged that the council should not depart from its present code of ordinances relating to Cathedral square until an overall plan had been developed and a scale model made to show the height and position of the present buildings and the approach to the Square. “I consider it an urgent necessity,” he raid, “that no further permits for rebuilding in the Square be granted until the whole question, including the present code of ordinances, has been examined by an outside expert. From what has appeared in the newspapers and from local knowledge it would seem that local architectural opinion is divided.” Bank Building He said that no objection was made to the height of the new Bank of New Zealand building because it appeared from perspective diagrams that the building, set back as it was, would not be detrimental to the

Cathedral and Cathedral square. "But without a scale model neither I nor most other . people are able to express an informed opinion as to what the impact of the new Bank of New Zealand may prove to be,” he added. Questioned by Cr. Griffiths, Bishop Warren said he was away from Christchurch when the Church Property Trustees approved the height of the new Bank of New Zealand building. Cr. Griffiths pointed out that a scale model had been made of buildings around the Square, but the Church had not inquired before approving the bank’s height Bishop Warren said he believed a greater height than 102 ft would be all right for some buildings, but not for others. Full-Scale Model Asked whether he thought the new buildings, sketched to scale on a photograph, detracted from the Cathedral, Bishop Warren replied that no-one was qualified to give an opinion until a fullscale model was made. Then it should be seen by an independent expert "Do you thin*: it should be a solid mass of buildings around the Square, and no tower blocks?” asked Cr. Griffiths.

"Words are being put into my mouth,” said Bishop Warren. “I am not opposed to tall buildings. I want them placed so that they enhance and enrich the Cathedral.” Cr. Griffiths said the Church's objection did not quite line up with its past actions. The committee had been ready to get property owners together to discuss building heights, but since the Church had given its opinion about the bank’s new building. the committee was not tn a hurry. ‘'Haphazard” Growth Miss Nancy Northcroft, a town planner, told the committee on behalf of the Church that she was concerned that buildings were going up haphazardly around the Square without any understanding of tb-’r effect on the Cathedral or on each other. “The lack of any over-all conception or even of any guilding principles is not only prejudicing the future design and character of the Souare.” s’’d Miss Nnrtheroft “but is adding to the uncertainties and difficulties for nmperty owners and developers " She said that a larger model was needed than the one owned by the council. It should be to one-eiehth scale, which

would make it about 9ft by 6ft An over-all design was urgently needed for the Square, and studies should start at once on the questions of office requirements, lighting standards, traffic and parking. S.A.C. Views Mr R. M. Cato, solicitor to the State Advances Corporation, told the committee that the corporation proposed to demolish Dalgety’s building in 1966 and build a three-storey or four-storey podium covering most of the site and topped by a tower block limited to a height of about 180 ft This had been discussed with the council, and the corporation had gone to considerable trouble and sacrifice to meet the size and height controls. Mr Cato said that the corporation did not want to dominate the Cathedral, but the Transport Board’s proposed building was considerably higher and more bulky than the spire. It would become the dominant feature of the Square and the city. With the Transport Board’s building not set back to the 65-degree line (from the face of the corporation’s promiddle of the road) the north posed building would be in shaded until nearly midday. Cr. Glue commented that the corporation’s proposed building height also contravened the city ordinances: it exceeded the maximum height by 38ft Mr L. E. Brooker, the corporation’s architect, said that the corporation would be content if the Transport Board kept the height of its building to the 65-degrees heightcontrol line. Loss Of Sunlight Mr G. G. Philips, manager of the New Zealand Shipping Company, Ltd., said that its architect, Mr K. D. Marshall, considered the board’s new building would shade the company’s building to a marked degree, particularly at midday in winter. Mr Marshall also considered it could be a precedent for further high development, with consequent detriment to the company’s building.

Mr T. M. Stanton, a partner in the architectural firm that designed the New Zealand Refrigerating Company’s building, said the company objected to the proposal be-

cause the proposed building shadow would interfere with the use of enjoyment of the upper stories and seventhfloor cafeteria of the company’s building. Mr S. W. Minson, the Transport Board’s architect was asked why the board’s building did not conform to the 65-degree line. Mr Minson said the site was only 66ft deep and the 65-degree angle would reduce the upper floors to an uneconomic development The high tower block was necessary to make the most economic use of the costly heating, plumbing, and lift services. Mr J. J. Dunn, representing the Ministry of Works, said that the Ministry was not concerned at the height of the board's building, but it desired that there should be no interference to access to Government buildings through Customs lane. He

recommended that the lane should not be restricted to less than 12ft. “There are indefinite plans for multi-storey rebuilding on the Government site,” said Mr Dunn, "and we would like an assurance that the Transport Board building will not prejudice that rebuilding.” “In Public Interest” Mr W. K. L. Dougall told the committee on behalf of the Transport Board that because of the tremendous value of its land for building purposes it was in the public interest that a large building be erected. The master transport plan indicated that by 1890 parking space for 18,000 vehicles would be needed in the city, and every encouragement should be given to any body that could help to provide it

Although it was conceded that for certain times in the winter the new building would mask the direct sunlight it was not agreed that there would be any undue interference with light The problem for offices with northerly aspects or westerly aspects was not to let the sun in, but to keep it put. As for the Cathedral, he submitted that there was no road leading to Cathedral square from which there would be any interference with the Cathedral’s silhouette. From the Square itself the Cathedral would always retain its dominance because of its position in the middle.