Brian Rudman: Time to hold heritage-ruining bank to account

Lethargy's an awful thing. For years I've been going to walk away from the Bank of New Zealand and sign up with one of the try-harder banks that actually pay interest on my current account.

The fate of Jean Batten State Building could be the nudge I've been waiting for. After all, I'd hate to think my money, on free loan to them, was being used to help finance the destruction of yet another slice of Auckland's heritage.

Before Christmas came news that BNZ was planning a new $30 million national headquarters on the downtown Auckland site bounded by Queen St, Shortland St, Fort St and Jean Batten Place. One of the casualties will be the seven-level Jean Batten building, a 1937 building in the "international style" and forerunner of today's office blocks.

The Art Deco Society and heritage advocate Allan Matson quickly prepared reports emphasising the building's historic features.

Protests prompted the city council's heritage department to reassess Jean Batten's absence from its protected list and declare it worthy of "a robust category B".

Unfortunately, declaring it eligible is not the same thing as actually listing it, and as things stand, it could be something akin to a posthumous award.

BNZ claims it has a valid demolition consent issued four years ago. The council says it expired in December, but the BNZ is arguing a 2003 amendment to the Resource Management Act extended its life.

Lawyers are now arguing the toss.

Even if BNZ is forced to apply for a new demolition order, Auckland City has not begun the process of awarding the B category protection.

The council could temporarily freeze any action by issuing a heritage order. But even if that gave time enough to have it classified a B heritage building, it's not enough. It needs an A classification to ensure full protection. And the council heritage staff say it does not qualify for that highest ranking.

Two weeks ago, BNZ executives met Auckland City heritage staff to discuss options. Several meetings have followed.

Before the first meeting, Ian Grant of the heritage department proposed the historic building be integrated into the new bank building, saying: "I think it could be adapted with the co-operation of the BNZ and we could still achieve their requirements and get a satisfactory outcome."

Lips have been sealed since. An optimist would say the good news is that talks are still taking place. But the whispers are hardly reassuring.

There's talk, would you believe, of facadism, that ugly word to describe an even uglier process.

If you're not sure what it means, just look across Queen St from the Jean Batten block to see the world's worst example. Who was the guilty party? None other than the BNZ, who butchered its century-old headquarters two, or was it three decades ago, building a glass tower behind, but leaving the facade standing, like a Disneyland film set.

BNZ compounded that crime by building the squat, ugly Queen St office it now wants to replace as part of the Jean Batten development.

What the bankers don't seem to appreciate is that a decent architect could design a new building that linked and complemented a restored Jean Batten building, creating a landmark structure that brought credit to both the bank and the city.

New mayor Dick Hubbard and his new council have been quick to claim their credentials as lovers and protectors of our built heritage. Now's the time to prove it.
Instead of sitting back, wringing their hands and falling for the legal and technical obstacles the bureaucrats and lawyers are digging up, they should take a political lead.

Mayor Hubbard and an entourage of concerned city worthies should be on the plane across the Ditch to meet Graham Kraehe, chairman of BNZ's owners, National Australia Bank Group.

They could remind Mr Kraehe of his group's corporate social responsibility report he signed last year, declaring his commitment "to build trusted relationships with all of our stakeholders - our customers, our people, our shareholders, our regulators, our communities ..."

They could tell Mr Kraehe that customers like me are not happy, to say nothing of the community of Auckland as a whole, about his bank's destructive approach to our heritage. They could point out that kiwi are not the only heritage worth saving in New Zealand.