THE PRESS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1981. Boys’ High School building

Press, 28 February 1981, Page 14

THE PRESS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1981. Boys’ High School building

Few people dispute that New. Zealand's cities must be made safer than they now are in the event of a major, or even a moderate, earthquake. The dangers arise from the still quite large numbers of buildings put up before building codes or practices took safety in an earthquake adequately into account. The alternatives for these buildings are simple: demolition or strengthening. Although strengthening buildings can be costly, it cannot be dismissed as an economical alternative to demolition and a new building. In many instances, however, it will be cheaper to pull the old building down and erect a new, safer one in its place, especially if it is likely to serve its purpose better. Differences of opinion arise whena building is judged to have such great historical interest or architecturalmerit, or has such warm associations from the past for many people, that it seems proper, to some to accept any expense to retain it. Deciding whether a building is an earthquake risk, what measures are needed to strengthen it sufficiently, and how much these measures might cost are all matters for disagreement among engineers and architects. When the more subjective considerations —the building’s quality or its atmosphere—intrude as well, deciding whether a building should fall or stand and be strengthened can become a matter for intense and heated debate.

Debate has been hot in Christchurch about the old Christchurch Boys’ High School building, which is to be demolished later in the year on the grounds that it is an earthquake risk and that it is outmoded for teaching purposes. If it could be said unequivocally that the building is of exceptional architec-

tural merit, a case could be made for spending the sums needed to strengthen the building adequately and also to adapt it to modern classroom requirements. The building is, however, neither particularly old nor of unusual architectural distinction. The general appearance of the ivy-covered brick facade has probably been agreeable to most people who pass by: this is not the final test of a building’s worth.

Its loss will be regretted by many, especially if those advocating its retention can establish clearly that strengthening and alterations —perhaps of just the more interesting central portion — would not be excessively expensive. The authorities have a responsibility to entertain .seriously any well founded suggestions about ways to retain it. Neither in this nor in any other instance should an earthquake risk be an excuse for indiscriminate razing of old buildings which could be strengthened to withstand even a severe earthquake. Sad as it will be to see the building come down, especially to people who taught or learned within its walls, it seems likely that future generations of staff and pupils would be better served and safer from risk if it were replaced by a new building, which could well be of real architectural merit and soon gather around itself the same aura that makes the present building loved by many. If the central, clocktower portion can be retained at reasonable cost, this should be done: but it must be acknowledged that saving even this part of the building will be a concession to nostalgia rather than a necessary step to preserve a part of the city’s architectural heritage which is too valuable to be lost.