Any modern student of colonial-era architecture and house construction, wandering the urban streets of the older city, could not but be impressed with the determination of property owners, subdivision developers and local councils to ignore the effects of the elements.
Draughty villas, iron-clad, uninsulated roofs, wooden structures planted directly on the earth - it does not take much study to add these deficiencies to positioning, whether facing the vast distance to the Antarctic, or the bitter northeast winds, or along valley floors where the sun cannot penetrate in winter. In truth, then as today, only the wealthy could afford the best, most sun-drenched, wind-sheltered locations, and build using the most cold-repelling materials.
A study of some of these better homes, however, suggests a general attitude to climatic conditions substantially of indifference, when compared to the present. So when a city councillor proposes a draconian ban on the construction of all new houses other than those positioned facing north into the sun, it should prompt citizens to wonder what might be next on the green agenda.
A man's home is far from being his castle these days, and therefore no longer impregnable to petty interference, burdensome regulation, and the imposition of conditions to determine how he should live.
Fliss Butcher may claim some personal expertise in housing construction and - as she is a professional enthusiast for energy efficiency - one can see where she is coming from. But there is a greater issue involved in her proposition: how far should councils be permitted to interfere in individual choice?
Cr Butcher wants a prohibition on the construction of south-facing homes. It was no longer good enough, she was quoted as saying, for anyone to be building, in the southern hemisphere, houses facing the wrong way.
But what in Cr Butcher's mind is the wrong way may well be the right way for some individual citizens who, for instance, prefer a nice sea view - and a very large part of the city faces the southern ocean. Furthermore, in what direction does a house actually face?
Is this determined by the location of the front entrance, which may actually be located to one side; or the master bedroom; or the position of the garage, the letterbox, or where the swimming pool lies?
The formal determination of where houses face must be decided by the user, but Cr Butcher's proposed embargo implies it be left in the hands of the bureaucrats, or worse, councillors.
While most of us are fond of sunshine and outdoor living during the warmer months, some are likely to be just as fond of shade, or of living in the depths of the bush, or prepared to exchange a quotient of vitamin D for a view, of which in Dunedin there are prospects in all directions unmatched by any other New Zealand city.
New Zealanders have an extremely close relationship with where they happen to live, possibly because nowhere is anyone far from being able to view the bush, the ever-changing sky, the sea, open spaces and, perhaps most importantly, the general topography.
No local authority has a duty, whether overt or implied, to interfere with that relationship in pursuit of some ideological concept. It is extraordinary the proposition should even be entertained.
It is quite another matter for local authorities to encourage innovation in favour of energy-saving construction, while fostering the design of structures capable of withstanding the forces of nature, including earthquakes, and requiring adequate insulation in all new structures as a permit condition.
The practical assistance from central government to retrofit insulation into some of our older houses is also to be encouraged, together with double-glazing and the use of heating systems that make full use of solar energy.
It may be the city's draft spatial plan can identify prospective sub-division locations that take account of north-facing locations, although it is difficult to envisage where any new such places might be within or near the built environment.
But the imposition of simple-minded bans as a means of coercing fundamental social change in such a sensitive matter as the location of the domestic hearth would surely prove unworkable.
