The Press THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1975. The Theatre Royal and the Normal School

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33773, 20 February 1975, Page 14

The Press THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1975. The Theatre Royal and the Normal School

Deciding which of Christchurch’s old buildings should be preserved and which may be demolished without serious loss to the community is a difficult business. Aesthetic, historical, and economic considerations have all to be weighed, in the past, the rights of owners to do what they liked to secure the highest return they could from investment in urban property was almost unchallenged: development was regarded as being more important than preservation. The pendulum is now swinging the other way. Some people are failing to make the carefully discriminating judgments about particular buildings which must be made if the proper balance is to be struck between development and preservation. In recent months the advocates of preserving old buildings have won important victories in Christchurch. The Trinity Pacific Church, the Chief Post Office and most of the buildings on the town site of the University now seem safe. But the future for two buildings, the Theatre Royal and the old Normal School, is still in doubt.

The purposes of preservation are to ensure that a concrete record of the city’s past survives to delight and inform future generations and to ensure that sufficient buildings of various styles and scale survive so that the city does not become uniform or bland. If a building is an outstanding or, perhaps, unique example of a style of architecture which will not be used again, it should be protected unconditionally. Applving these criteria, neither the Theatre Royal nor the old Normal School deserves efforts to protect them as vigorous as those which should be made to preserve some other old buildings, among them the Post Office. The school is not the best example of its stvle of architecture in the city and the preservation of the old university buildings makes the preservation of the school as an architectural record unnecessary. But the building appeals to many people and it contributes significantly to the attraction of Cranmer Square. To others, not insensible to architectural merit, it holds little attraction. Nor is the exterior of the theatre unique. But no building of similar style in Christchurch combines such a handsome facade with such an interesting interior. Although the loss of these buildings could hardly be deemed disastrous architecturally, their preservation is at least worth considering seriously. Acres of other old buildings of no merit to speak of should certainly be replaced before the theatre or school are demolished. Of course, the owners and users of many undistinguished buildings are making what they consider to be satisfactory use of them and these buildings are generally of a less specialised nature than a theatre or school.

Preservation is costly. The ratepayer or taxpayer can often be spared much of the cost of preservation if buildings erected for purposes for which they are no longer needed are adapted for alternative uses. The old Normal School is apparently suitable for conversion. Those responsible for its future have a duty to the public to reveal the information on which their decision to demolish the building was based and to examine closely and honestly the proposals made recently which suggest that the building could be strengthened and adapted for new uses at a reasonable cost. If it proves uneconomic to continue to use the Theatre Royal for its original purpose, alternative uses could probably be found which would ensure the preservation of the facade if not the distinctive interior. But it might prove shortsighted to convert the theatre to another use and merely retain the facade. Christchurch’s population and its interest in the performing arts are both growing. Although the theatre’s business has languished in recent times, the revived demand for a theatre of these proportions would be costly to meet if a new theatre had to be built. And in spite of the many virtues of the Christchurch Town Hall it cannot satisfy all requirements.

The Christchurch City Council is clearly in no position to put up the large sum needed to buy, repair, and renovate the old Normal School or the Theatre Royal even if, eventually, a reasonable return on the investment could be secured. Nor is there any indication that the Government is going to make more money available to the Historic Places Trust for such purposes in the near future. But the Government would be responding to the clear wishes of a considerable number of citizens if it substantially increased the amount of money available to the trust and widened the scope of the trust’s activities so that it could participate more easily in schemes to convert or retain old buildings for continuing use. Only such schemes will ensure the survival of such buildings as the Theatre Royal and the old Normal School. The preservation of such buildings is not at present essential, but the time may soon come when at least the retention of the theatre will be considered prudent