From Heritage New Zealand, Autumn 2009

by Geraldine Johns

Restore, revive, renew or revise - how hard is it to be true to the heritage of a home?

At Government House, Wellington, an extensive conservation project is under way. Every room, floor and wall – and the spaces in between – of the vice-regal residence has been painstakingly examined. So too has the site itself. It’s all part of a vast project: the extensive renovation and refurbishment of the 100-year-old building that will take it into the next period of its long life, while not discarding its past. As a project, although the final amount to be spent on it is under review, it is a model of its kind.

Other aged residences are not always afforded the same deal of conservation care and heritage attention. In Auckland, stories of landmark homes being demolished under the guise of “renovation” – often under non-notifiable consent – are common. The developers defend their deeds in the interests of privacy and progress. But each demolition brings death to the memories of the past and the people we once were. Nothing and nobody can ever bring them back.

What, then, are the pros and cons of renovation and restoration with old houses: should we respect their integrity by making them as authentic as possible, or are old houses over-rated aesthetically and not worth saving? Are they relics that should be adapted to contemporary conditions? Who decides what is right?

Anybody who has attempted to renovate or refurbish a house will repeat the same refrain: cost over-runs, building delays, bureaucratic nightmares, neighbourly wars. One person’s heritage gem is another’s eyesore. And the rules are not absolute, as Alison Dangerfield explains. Dangerfield, Heritage Adviser Architecture, Central Region, for the New Zealand Historic Places Trust says a house need not be registered as an historic place for it to warrant special recognition. “Registered historic buildings are nationally important and highly valued by their owners, but any building – registered or not – can have its heritage values considered,” she says. These may include social history, its archaeological and architectural values and its technological, scientific and integrity value.

“The threshold for registration as an historic place is quite high, and not every building will measure up to that, if we see a wide range of houses of a particular age,” Dangerfield continues. “On these occasions, one building may be chosen to represent a whole number of buildings of that age.”

Houses will have some historic and cultural value, or, although they may not have much commemorative worth, they may be of educational importance, offering a good opportunity to understand how people once lived.

It’s a balance of all the values, says Dangerfield. These include a nod to modernity. Occupational safety and health requirements, as well as climate change issues, also need consideration in the 21st century. Often, the argument against conserving the historical value of an old home by preserving it comes down to cost and time – with both asking too much of a new owner.

Says Dangerfield: “It takes time to work through a conservation project. There are always costs associated with repair, but for buildings with heritage value, it’s worth it to repair them.  Because, if you lose those buildings – that joinery, that glassware – you’ve lost it forever. The District Plan Heritage Inventory is an excellent way of recognising the heritage values of a building.”

Even the most dedicated restorers and renovators can find themselves challenged on occasion. Christchurch couple Jill and Trevor Lord have spent the past 23 years restoring their 1887 Papanui Road home, Woodford, to its original glory. It has become part-detective story and part-love story as they have uncovered the secrets of the past. The two-storey Victorian villa was divided into flats and in a “run down and terrible state” when the Lords first set eyes on it, says Trevor. They resolved to bring it back to being a family home that faithfully replicated its past – both inside and out.

“It was a project that we knew would be a long-term sacrifice: in time, money and commitment.” The house was once a half-hour horse and cart ride from the city centre; now it’s a 10-minute drive. The Lords have restored and renovated in stages, as money has become available and as each tenanted flat has become vacant.

Initially, they did much of the work themselves, as they could not afford to hire tradespeople unless it was absolutely necessary. As time went on, they worked with a builder. Although they describe their home as still a work in progress, it has been returned to its original look.

Time has been on their side, says Trevor Lord. When money was tight or flats unavailable for restoration and renovation, they were able to research what the house was like originally, and who the people were who once lived in it.

“We got an understanding of how the house worked.” To that end they have met some of the families of previous owners – who have provided photographs, memories and stories of the house. Some of those photos are now on display in the Lord home. Trevor and Jill’s efforts have extended beyond the home itself: they have also been buying back the surrounding land.

“Everything that we’ve done about the house, we’ve thought hard about,” says Trevor. “Some of the most unsuccessful renovations are those done by people who have all the money to do it all at once and throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

He adds that it costs as much to do a bad restoration and renovation as a good one. Trevor is a member of the NZHPT Canterbury Branch Committee; Jill is on the Canterbury Historic Houses Conservation Trust, a group of people who keep an eye on similar homes and encourage their owners to retain them. They also formed the Christchurch Vintage Homes Restorers’ Group – which offers practical, hands-on help and moral support to other aspiring renovators of old homes. Says Trevor: “The incentive to keep a house must come from the owner. They need to appreciate what they’ve got before they damage it.”

Noting that houses with significant historic value still get demolished, and that many more do not have NZHPT registration, the couple say they are worried about the loss of appeal of old homes. They say it’s time for a re-think, and that there’s a need to re-establish the value to people of an old home.

Auckland is another city where there is a lot of development pressure. And, as Robin Byron notes, the sites that old buildings occupy are often desirable ones. Byron is Heritage Advisor, Architecture, at the NZHPT Northern Regional Office. She says that areas of high land value with an old building may kindle the desire to start with a clean slate. Like the Lords, she says that it’s not just the building that’s important, but the surroundings too. “There hasn’t been enough regard in a lot of urban planning for the importance of the site that surrounds these places,” says Byron.

“When you sell off the land surrounding these houses, you’re often compromising the heritage value of the place – and potentially the ability to appreciate them visually.” Byron notes a recent move towards recognising what is important to the whole character of a neighbourhood – that what is important is not just what houses contribute to a street but also garages, fences and gardens.

When restoring and renovating old houses, it’s important to reflect the scale, form, proportion and materials of the past while equipping the buildings for the future, she says.

For example, the intended Government House conservation programme would see the building become in some ways, a thoroughly modern residence, while maintaining its historic status. It will have been earthquake-proofed and re-roofed. It will be environmentally sustainable and have upgraded fire protection. A number of services which are at the end of their lives, such as water and power, will have been replaced. It’s described as a textbook example of a conservation project – one that will take many years to complete.

With all renovations and restorations, authenticity is a significant issue. It’s a thorny term, concludes Byron. “If you’ve got a really significant place, and good evidence of what was there previously, you may choose to restore it faithfully, but you don’t want to falsify the history. In most cases, when you’re dealing with old houses, you’ve got to recognise that what you’re putting in, in 2009 might be new, but it should sympathetically and respectfully acknowledge the heritage character and values.” And the craftsmanship and quality of an old home and its features should also be reflected in any alterations, additions, or new building that may replace it, says Byron. “The embodied energy in an old building is significant.”

However, she does not believe that every old building is necessarily worth saving, and says it would be anachronistic to simply have a collection of old buildings. Just because a building is old does not mean it is of great significance – especially if it has been modified beyond recognition, says Byron.

Regardless of its status, every old building has its own story to tell. Sometimes, a previous occupant will give a picture of its past. Consider the words of Margaret Coutts, who lived in the Coolangatta homestead in Auckland’s Remuera Road for 50 years. The home was demolished after Mrs Coutts moved to a retirement home, following the death of her husband.

Interviewed soon after its demolition in 2006, she spoke of sadness at the news that apartments were to replace her grand family residence. “It was our home,” she told the New Zealand Herald. “And our children grew up there and it was only when my husband died that I left. It’s all sad and you do get churned up, which one can’t help doing. But what can one do, when you’re getting old?”

Mrs Coutts said she had watched an increasing number of large estates being replaced by apartment blocks in Remuera, until Coolangatta had felt like the last bastion of the place she had grown up in. “We were there when the original farmhouse was there, and the man next door kept sheep and so on. They tore that down for apartments about 15 years ago. We’ve just seen it change enormously, and [developers have] destroyed it all.” She hoped the new development would at least be tasteful.