KEY POINTS:
After last week's column about the question mark hanging over the futures of Auckland's two main drama theatres, the SkyCity and Maidment, several callers asked about the historic, and derelict, St James Theatre in Queen St. Sadly, there's nothing but gloom here as well.
Developer Paul Doole has submitted revised plans for his 39-level apartment block, over and abutting the heritage building. The plans include the demolition of three adjacent cinemas and a small part of the historic building. Instead of making the St James the centrepiece of his development, the plan is to cut it off and mothball it.
Unfortunately, heritage laws in New Zealand are so weak, that even the owner of a building with the highest heritage protection going, cannot be forced to preserve his treasure from decay or neglect. The fear is that the theatre will be left to suffer further leaks, break-ins and vandalism until it becomes unsalvageable.
Last May, after a fire in the adjacent West End Cinema, growing concerns about public wellbeing led to the council closing it for safety and compliance short-comings. Mr Doole seems happy to leave it now to slowly decay, telling the Central Leader this week he had no plans to reopen it.
A council feasibility analysis into reopening the theatre gives a clue to Mr Doole's lack of enthusiasm. Council officers say it would cost between $10 million- $60 million to restore the theatre to a usable state. To meet minimum building code requirements, including seismic strengthening, it would need a major structural upgrade costing around $50 million.
For $10 million, it would be possible to reopen the stalls area and parts of the first circle to seat 900 people. This would involve a basic upgrade of fire protection and upgrading the electrical wiring. However, there is doubt over whether this basic repair work would be acceptable to the consenting authorities. The sum does not include the substantial backstage improvements needed to accommodate opera, ballet or lyric theatre. In other words, the quick fix is money potentially wasted. And no one is rushing forward to fund a proper refit.
Mayor John Banks told the Central Leader he would like to see it restored but the council wouldn't get involved unless there were significant contributions from the private sector and the Government.
Unfortunately the city doesn't have much in the carrot and stick department to persuade Mr Doole to love and enhance and treasure the cultural gem slowly rotting away at the bottom of his property compost heap. And somehow, I doubt making him honorary consul to a sister city of his choice would make much difference. The only thing the bureaucrats do have to play with is time. More time in which more caring Aucklanders can come up with a rescue package, attractive enough to persuade or shame Mr Doole into accepting. Unfortunately the bureaucrats are not playing this card.
In December 2004, Justice Patrick Keane overturned the resource consent Mr Doole had obtained for an earlier version of his proposed apartment tower. The High Court judge said the council was wrong to have given non-notified consent to what would be one of the largest buildings in the city. He said the Resource Management Act contemplated as normal that the design and other effects of such a building would undergo public scrutiny. Despite this stern rap over the knuckles, city officials are treating this new application on a non-notified basis.
The bureaucrats consider they have observed Justice Keane's ruling by submitting the new designs to the city's urban design panel and by consulting with the developer during the redesign.
Yet in his 2004 decision, Justice Keane noted the developer had "obtained the right to construct what will become one of the largest buildings in central Auckland without the application undergoing the public scrutiny which the 1991 act contemplates as normal. The assessment was made entirely within the council itself. That is exceptional ... "
The judge said the previous tower should have undergone "public scrutiny" and ordered the council to reconsider the application. What's different this time round?
Not only does the public have a right to a say on this latest design, but a notified hearing process would provide much needed time for those that care about our heritage, to assemble a rescue package for the St James.
