Mission to save the city

Allan Matson, outside the old Kauri Timber Co building on Fanshawe St. Photo / Dean Purcell

Allan Matson admits he can be pig-headed. Even his admirers call the self-appointed guardian of Auckland's old buildings uncompromising. His adversaries have nothing printable to say about him.

"My lawyer says I suffer from prolixity," says Matson. Which, when I look it up, means he can be "tediously lengthy".

But after seven years of poking sticks at bureaucrats and property moguls, there are signs that Matson's relentless message is beginning to hold sway.

One of the last acts of the Auckland City Council was to list a raft of buildings and features for heritage protection and Matson was instrumental in saving three of them.

Optimists saw the September 14 decisions of the planning hearings panel as a line in the sand against the relentless erosion of Auckland's architectural heritage.

To cynics, it was a belated bid for atonement by a council with a sorry track record. Either way, it was not a bad day's work for a heritage advocate used to more misses than hits.

The 1870s Kauri Timber Co building was lurking right under the noses of Auckland City Council building consents staff, but was unprotected.

The four-storey building with arched windows and rusticated columns stands in isolation in Fanshawe St between a carpark and a petrol station.

But in the late 1800s it was the epicentre of Auckland's housing boom, taking logs barged from Northland and the Coromandel to be turned into kauri villas.

Matson got involved when prospective new owners planning to convert it into apartments approached him and he found it was not on the council's schedule of protected buildings.

He applied for a private plan change and put up such a compelling case that the council hearings panel gave it Category A protection when council staff recommended only Category B. The strictly impartial panel gave him a round of applause at the end.

They then voted to protect an art deco building at 35 High St, known these days as the Rakino's building.

Matson also had a hand in the preservation of the distinctive "Wood's Grocer" building on the corner of Mt Eden Rd and Esplanade Rd which was earmarked for demolition. He helped persuade the owner to look at an alternative redevelopment which retained the main building.

Matson's name has popped up in most of the big preservation battles in the city of the past decade: the Tabernacle buildings on the corner of K Rd and Queen St; the 1857 Fitzroy Hotel (one of Auckland's earliest pubs) in Wakefield St; the Canvas City and Partridge buildings in Hobson St; the Jean Batten building; the Yates building in Albert St; Greenlane Hospital buildings; St James Theatre; the Chatham buildings in Pitt St ...

Trouble is, by the time he learns a building's future is under threat it is often too late. That's because too few of the city's character buildings are on council or Historic Places Trust protection lists and there is nothing to stop demolition.

He has single-handedly filled a void of political and bureaucratic indifference - seeking private plan changes to get buildings scheduled, pushing for higher rankings for those already listed, making submissions, doing heritage assessments, badgering politicians and officials.

"I want to have a beautiful city, says Matson, 48. "It sounds a bit evangelical or moral but I just hate these bloody ugly things they are doing. It's short-term thinking - people out to make a quick buck.

"We should be looking creatively and architecturally at how to do our city."

Christchurch-born, he says his love for character stems from several childhood years living in England and visiting European cities which have thrived because they kept their heritage.

An early career in merchant banking means he can relate to developers, he says, and argue that keeping heritage pays off financially. Law firms, media businesses and boutique retailers, for instance, tend to prefer character surroundings to bland modern boxes.

But Auckland City has done little to encourage heritage protection - offering little in the way of incentives - and the council's heritage division has been poorly resourced.

Individual property rights have usually taken precedence over the long-term rewards of preserving character and coherent streetscapes.

These individuals may be well-connected but, says Matson, councils also have a self-interest in leaving buildings unprotected. Replacing a building owned by a single ratepayer with 80 or 90 apartments (or an office tower) means rates income and development contributions.

Yet, when we visit overseas cities, it's heritage we most appreciate. European history is my history - this is our kaitiakitanga. We Pakeha need to do a better job of guardianship."

AN ARCHITECTURE graduate who never practised, he has built up a textbook knowledge of the Resource Management Act. Working from a tiny downtown office (he lives in equally modest surroundings), saving the city's heritage is his full-time job.

He draws little income beyond the $10,000 he gets for his elected post on the Historic Places Trust board.

"People think I'm independently wealthy but I'm just deeply committed to it.

"I need to work out how to make a living out of this. I can't stop it."

Through exhaustive research, he unearths the story of the buildings - their owners and occupiers and social and cultural relevance, as well as considering their architectural merits.

Often, his information contradicts council staff who, in Auckland City, use a points-based system to decide whether a building merits an A or B listing or misses out.

Glenda Fryer, a former councillor and planning commissioner, says Matson exposed shortcomings in assessments. "He was able to show gaping holes in council policies and procedures and that officers had done the wrong thing - he was the first to really rattle the cages."

Matson points out that he is free to put in countless hours of research whereas the council's small heritage division is under severe budget and time constraints. Little wonder he finds things they've missed.

Unsurprisingly, he tends to score buildings higher than council officers and, while he'll listen to opposing arguments, has not been known to change his mind.

"He would have more success if he moderated his style," says a senior planning lawyer. "With some [opponents] it does get personal."

His early approach did not endear him to council staff.

"He used to turn up at quarter to five and demand things," says one insider.

"Then he started lodging Official Information requests. If he was billed for the amount of time council staff have spent servicing him he would be bankrupt. But there's a legitimate place for an advocate and he's certainly passionate."

Bureaucrats and politicians talk of being bailed up in corridors for 10 minutes while Matson harangues them.

"He's a maverick - some people really dislike him," says Fryer. "I always found him refreshing."

Protecting a building can take years, drawn out by appeals. They are high stakes battles, fought under the arcane rules of planning law, up against lawyers for developers out to maximise floor space and profits.

Matson's fight to save the Yates building and its neighbours on Albert St is in its sixth year. "It's a very unproductive way to define what is heritage for our city."

Though developers argue they buy unlisted buildings in the expectation they can demolish them, he believes all pre-1940s buildings should be subjected to a heritage assessment.

Toni Millar, another ex-councillor and planning commissioner, says Matson brings a wealth of knowledge and insight to proceedings but can be esoteric and struggles to tailor his message to tight legal confines.

"Sometimes his presentations don't fit into the boxes - the way he conveys the information can be challenging. But he has knowledge that needs to be captured - I believe our city will be the richer for listening to him."

Matson will fight for buildings which may not appear to be architectural masterpieces - often because they have been badly modified or left to decay, such as Fitzroy and Yates. He goes beyond aesthetics to point out their social and cultural significance.

The Rakino's building, for instance, was home to the RSA, film distributors, record labels and the Listener, while Cause Celebre, its basement nightclub, hosted stars including U2, Mick Jagger and Debbie Harry.

Planning commissioner and former council hearings chairman Graeme Mulholland admits Matson's evidence on the Kauri Timber Co building blew the councillors away. "Most people just say they like the building.

Allan gets beyond the emotion into the purpose and uses of the building, the condition it's in, how it could be restored ... The city needs "two or three Allan Matsons", says Mulholland, a commissioner for 20 years.

There are no easy solutions to save what's left of the city's pre-1940s heritage - planning law changes can take even longer than heritage battles and may trigger a pre-emptive wrecking ball frenzy.

Scheduling a building only guarantees protection to the exterior, unless interior features are specified, while category B buildings can still be altered or removed if there is "compelling reason".

What's needed, says Matson, is political will. More resources to identify and assess heritage buildings would be a start. The rule which allows developers to demolish unscheduled buildings as-of-right should change.

He maintains a 2003 RMA amendment making heritage a matter of national importance gives councils grounds to send back consent applications unless a heritage assessment is done. They are not using their powers.

"Demolishing things when we don't know what they are is not a very intelligent approach when it's a matter of national importance."

But there must be equity for property owners, he says.

"If we are going to keep something for the collective good, where does the burden lie?

"Instead of taking a passive stance, the council could be more proactive in investigating the alternatives and incentivising developers."

Measures like transferable development rights, rates relief and floor space bonuses could be better utilised.

It's a fair bet heritage protection won't improve quickly under the new single council. Heritage policies will come under the city's long-term spatial plan, a process likely to take years. As for increased funding, heritage will have to compete with transport and other infrastructure priorities.

And mayor Len Brown's vision extends well beyond the CBD. But he could do worse than listen to Matson's take on where the city could be going. He will get an earful.

* The battle to save the Kauri Timber Co building is far from over. Owners Omara Property Group have lodged an appeal criticising the council's process and claiming the building's protection is "entirely without merit".

Building scores

Auckland City's protected building schedules.

Points

Council staff award points for age, style, construction, social history, landmark quality, interior features, etc. Criteria include: architecture, history, environment, usefulness and building integrity.

Category A: 75+ points

Buildings which have outstanding natural beauty, or architectural, scientific or historical significance well beyond their immediate environs. Classification prohibits demolition of building exterior and, if specified, the interior.

Category B: 50-74 points

Buildings of such quality and character that they should not be removed or significantly altered without compelling reason.