Princes St buildings should be demolished

Sue Gale is right that there are existing consents to demolish some of the buildings behind the facades.
But the District Plan protects the facades.
They are not a danger to people on the street and can be retained for less than the cost of keeping them - Lou Robinson's submission.

So why is the committee even thinking about giving permission to demolish them?
The application should be declined and the buildings should be sold to developers who want to work with our heritage - they exist.

- Peter Entwisle

Well stated pukeko, a constructive critique. I agree that all should be done to restore the buildings of this nature and era, and I too believe that a 'compromise' of sorts is possible by retaining (and stabilising) existing facades of our heritage buildings whilst erecting new 'buildings' behind them. We are currently capable of erecting a structure as significant and modern as the new stadium (regardless of the arguments for and against that) so surely we have the ability to hold onto some existing heritage facades whilst improving/utilising the space behind them if necessary ? I'm definitely with you on this one pukeko.

A few years back I went to a lecture here in Dunedin given by Peter Beaven, a prominent Christchurch architect. He was very entertaining and informative and implored Dunedin not to follow in Christchurch's steps with the wilful destruction of old buildings and their replacement with tacky modernist structures.

At this point, we seem to be on a knife edge between the forces of destruction vs preservation.As someone said to me recently, 'do you see tourists take photos of buildings like the big black box on the corner of Moray/ Princes St?'

Or will they take photos, in great numbers, of our 'mini-me stadium' when it is complete-  aside from rugby enthusiasts, whom we know are in decline.

You only need to look how Christchurch has been messed up pulling down bit by bit many character buildings that made the streetscape in this so-called "growth". Quite a lot of it turned into characterless, soulless precincts of generic buildings, with the few key heritage buildings like the remaining "teeth" that gave character or a sense of place.

There's tons of buildings in the UK, where, instead of destroying their identity in the so called name of progress, they retained them. They did all that was necessary in restoration rather than using the  "can't do" basket. Now, as many buildings have aged, their identity has remained and has kept a well established sense of place, often hundreds of years old.

We don’t have much of what they have, so we should do our best to retain what we do have -  it’s a no brainer.

If the guts of the buildings should come down and new buildings are put behind there (if the state of them isn’t deliberately blown out of proportion to justify demolition - it’s happened before) then it surely cannot be too much to fully brace the facades and make them safe. It's been done many times before.

Just because these buildings don't have the grandeur of the railway station, the law courts or the town hall, it doesn’t mean to say they don’t play a part, especially in a precinct. Looking about the area, and down the general area, it’s nice to see an air of authenticity rather than clashing garish paint jobs (like many of the generic cafes) dolled up to look like Disney or hideous facades like the ugly ‘building block’ design that Dirkzwager came up with last time.

Well done to the councilor who told him to go and desecrate somewhere else - namely Christchurch, which sadly has suffered since the days when it still had much of it’s charm in the mid 1980s. Since then it's been largely ruined by the wrecking ball to line the pockets of  yuppie types. Utterly short-sighted philistine type thinking, as applies here too.

Like the much loved Century theatre that was virtually across the road - a real act of travesty that let those responsible for the unsightly mess years after get away scot free.
And if people think these buildings are shabby or dangerous, you havent seen anything yet, try visiting places like the Philippines![Abridged]

These are not unworthy buildings of little significance - they are structures with a lot of historical value. Size and showiness are not the only, or even the best, criteria for working out historic value. These buildings are around 150 years old - much older than most of the historic buildings in central Dunedin (e.g. over 40 years older than the Railway Station, and 10 years older than First Church). They are also significant as an uninterrupted group.
Two were designed by William Mason, Dunedin's most famous Victorian architect after Lawson - much of whose work has already been demolished. There are architectural features of considerable merit and interest. Most historic Dunedin commercial buildings have been altered at street level, and this does not significantly detract. Condition is a concern, but some form of retention is viable. Dunedin needs to put more effort into reversing neglect and preserving buildings such as these. If we only keep the cream of the cream, we will no longer be able to claim we are a heritage city.

Gazroid  - hiding behind a pseudonym - might like to read the report by engineer Lou Robinson, commissioned by Dunedin City Council and presented to the hearing.
No-one in Princes St is at immediate risk of building collapse.
How buildings and structures are likely to perform in earthquake conditions is one of Lou Robinson's expert specialisations.
Paint colour is neither here nor there. Example, George Street Heritage Precinct.
Elizabeth Kerr

I just wish some of these people out to protect our heritage would differentiate between worthy and unworthy
As stated by Suegle, these building s are a danger to any one walking by, and some people expect others to spend thousands just to keep a facade with no future benefit

If they really had an appreciation for these buildings, where were they when they were painted pink and blue?
Knock them down and let Dunedin grow. Don't let our children grow up amongst ruins

Unfortunately, very little of what the writer states is properly attended by fact or relevant context. Readers may prefer to read formal submissions received on the application, as well as the evidence provided by the applicant and his consultants.