THE PRESS FRIDAY, JANUARY 2, 1981. Old buildings, new uses

Press, 2 January 1981, Page 10

THE PRESS FRIDAY, JANUARY 2, 1981. Old buildings, new uses

People who are keen to preserve the more interesting older buildings in Christchurch will be pleased by the news that the Canterbury Public Library building in Cambridge Terrace is going to be restored and put to new uses. The library staff will leave their old building cheerfully enough when their much more serviceable new premises have been completed; for its present purpose, the old building has long since exhausted its capability to supply the needs of the library. Nevertheless, it is still an agreeable riverside structure, not truly remarkable architecture, but much more an ornament to the city’s centre than most of its neighbours.

The willingness of a private firm, Paynter and Hamilton, to put its money into the renovation job deserves to be widely appreciated. The library building is not one that a public body should buy or retain for the sake of its preservation alone. It is, however, an attractive enough building, important enough for the contribution it makes to the area in which it stands, and it has a history long and interesting enough for its preservation to be a decided benefit.

The proposed restoration of the library for new uses is not an isolated occurrence. Other examples of how new uses have been found for attractive old buildings in Christchurch itself can be listed, and there is scarcely a major city in Australia, North America and Western Europe where similar schemes have not succeeded. Hundreds of old buildings around the world have now been saved from demolition because someone has seen their worth and has been imaginative enough to contrive new uses for them. The benefits that flow from this are not restricted to the satisfaction to be had from retaining architectural variety.

Even in strictly commercial terms, the strengthening and refurbishing of old buildings can be more economical than razing and building anew. It is unlikely that Paynter and Hamilton expect to lose money over restoring the library to a condition in which it can be leased or rented: nevertheless the

return from their investment may be lower than if they had spent the money on some other project.

It will be a big step forward for building preservation in New Zealand when the fact that a reasonable return can be gained from buildings restored for new uses finds expression in public policy. Britain, for example, has a successful “revolving fund” in which public money is lent for such projects. Schemes to restore old buildings for economic reuse no longer depend on the enthusiasm of private companies or individuals, although the criteria applied when selecting projects for support from such a revolving fund will often be not much less rigorous than those which a commercial company would apply.

Having such a fund financed from the public purse is rather different from having the Government or a local body buy an old building with little prospect of its ever paying its own way. Only a very few, very special buildings justify this. Christchurch still has many buildings that are no longer being used for their original and perhaps very specialised purposes. Preservation for the sake of their preservation alone cannot be justified; yet they deserve to survive if paying propositions for their conversion to new uses can be found. To name only three which start with the advantage of being already in public ownership and which are at present redundant but should be preserved if possible, there are the municipal buildings and Holly Lea, both in Manchester Street, and the Normal School in Cranmer Square. Private developers may come up with, or be persuaded to invest in, proposals for their conversion to new uses. So long as there is no revolving fund in New Zealand, support from the Government or local bodies will have to be limited to easing or expediting such proposals in any way possible which is consistent with financial responsibility. There may be no public money to put directly into preserving such buildings; this is no reason why public bodies should not be expected to do everything in their power to encourage preservation short of putting up public money.