Editorial: Protection of old homes just in time

Opinion

The vast majority of people who live in heritage homes do so because they love them. They embrace these houses even though modern structures generally offer a more comfortable and energy-efficient lifestyle. They relish the way such homes give them, and their city, a strong connection to the past. And they have been appalled by the manner in which many such houses have fallen victim to a lack of political will or the assiduous pursuit of loopholes by a minority uninterested in vague heritage notions.

They, therefore, will be the group most cheered by proposed district plan changes that would see resource consents required for the demolition or removal of houses built before 1940 in Auckland City's residential 1 and 2 zones. Most Aucklanders will share their satisfaction. Far too many of the city's finest older homes have succumbed to the jackhammer. Whether the demolition has been a one-off or the character of whole streets or neighbourhoods has been undermined, the upshot is a mish-mash of styles, and a city with few remnants of its heritage unencumbered by modernity.

The support at the last local body elections for Mayor Dick Hubbard and Action Hobson, whose platform included "stopping the destruction of Auckland's heritage buildings", confirmed an increasing unease over this encroachment. The task for the incoming city council was, therefore, not whether to act but how far to go. It has decided, with commendable alacrity, effectively to lock down heritage areas. The proposed changes would protect Victorian and Edwardian villas in the likes of Ponsonby, Grey Lynn and Herne Bay, and the Californian bungalows from the 1920s and 1930s that are a feature of areas such as Mt Eden, Sandringham and Mt Albert.

If that represents a sharp change from previous policy, which allowed such houses to be torn down or removed without resource consent, it is hardly an excessive response. Auckland is a lesser city for the failure to preserve old neighbourhoods. Its past, it seems, has paid the price for a booming economy and swelling population, plus the occasional misappropriation of a regional growth strategy that judged the infilling of existing suburbs preferable to urban sprawl. A tepid attempt to establish "character zones" was undone by loopholes large enough to drive a bulldozer through. Only now, apparently, has it dawned that the dynamism of development need not entail the destruction of older heritage areas.

Another plus of the city council's proposal is that it recognises, and tries to ameliorate, some of the shortcomings associated with heritage homes. Many were built long before car ownership was common. Garaging was not a major consideration, thus a multitude of wrangles over roadside parking were born. The council, wisely, has provided more leeway by suggesting that front-yard landscaping controls in residential zone 1 be cut from 60 to 50 per cent to allow more off-street parking.

The council's plan has yet to be subjected to public comment. Doubtless, there will be those who jib at serious constraints being placed on what they can do with their own homes, or with the requirement for written approval to be obtained from neighbours before demolition. Inevitably, also, issues of subjectivity will be raised by the need for external additions and alterations to be in tune with the "character" of an area.

Yet such is always the case with architecture. There will never be universal agreement on matters of character. Surely, however, it is not beyond skilled architects to fashion appropriate responses, or for city council staff to interpret and enforce the proposed regime.

Auckland has already lost much - far too much if the city is compared with the likes of San Francisco. Public sentiment clearly favours the placing of a high priority on heritage values. The council has taken a strong step towards heeding that.