The apparent collusion, between the Honourable Chris Bishop and Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, to demolish the Gordon Wilson Flats (GWF) is emblematic of our throw away culture, which is exacerbating the climate crisis. It is astounding that a university organisation that offers an environmental science degree and promotes it by asking: “how can we make a meaningful difference?” could even consider such an environmentally unconscious act.

Demolishing this building would be a despicable act of waste – the rest of the developed world would surely be laughing at us. It would fly in the face of many international initiatives, such as the retrofit first policy, now adopted by three London boroughs, and gaining traction for wider adoption in the foreseeable future. The policy is designed to discourage new buildings and encourage a circular economy, reliant on building reuse. Under the policy, developers are required to consider a whole life carbon assessment early on in the feasibility stages of a project and assess varying degrees of retrofit, prior to considering demolition and re-build. The priority is on retaining at least 50% of the existing building’s superstructure because nearly 50% of a typical, large building’s embodied carbon lies in the superstructure, with a further, nearly 20%, locked in the substructure. Therefore, retaining the superstructure and foundations of the GWF would substantially reduce carbon emissions. If we simply rely on building new but with ‘sustainable materials’ – the sustainability of which is, in any case, sometimes dubious – we are only acting below the central part of the graph below. This, of course, makes some contribution towards reducing carbon emissions but we can aim so much higher. The building industry is a carbon spewing monster so “building nothing” is the best solution, as the graph illustrates. Why do we feel that we should be exempt from these rules – are carbon atoms somehow different down under?

Globally, environmental entities such as rivers, mountains and forests are increasingly being afforded legal personhood because these entities are entitled to be pollution free. However, proposing a step further is Professor of the Environment and Development in the Global South at the University of Amsterdam, Joyeeta Gupta, who suggests that the global climate and hydrological cycles also have similar rights. As guardians of these further two entities, we have an obligation to ensure that we take all measures possible to ensure that we do not contribute to their degradation. It is possible that in the future, the global climate, for instance, would take legal action against activities such as the proposed demolition of the GWF as they are so directly damaging and avoidable. Affording the global climate a right to stay ‘undamaged’ means that key industries such as the construction industry, which globally generates approximately 50% of carbon emissions, need to substantially alter the manner in which they operate.

Also arguing for a similar fundamental shift is Professor Jorge Otero-Pailos at the University of Columbia who states, in the 2024 article ‘Repairing Architecture Schools’, that: “[w]e need a new architectural imagination, and new pedagogical agendas to go with it.” He explains that currently, architecture does not have the mindset or the skill-set to care for the existing built environment. Largely, students are taught about building new buildings and the approach is entrenched in principles that were being taught in the 19^th century. Conservation principles can assist and be applied more broadly to the general care of all buildings. However, conservation rules are largely broken and too inflexible, argues Otero-Pailos.

Similarly, the New Zealand heritage rules are also flawed and in that regard, I do agree with the Hon. Chris Bishop on one point only – our planning system is broken. The Hon. Chris Bishop states that the GWF are a symbol of the broken planning system. However, rather than wiping the slate clean, starting again, and perpetuating retrograde methods, this project could be an example of how the planning system could be fixed, by promoting building re-use and a flexible approach to heritage. Allowing change where necessary is critical to ensuring on-going viable use, whereas New Zealand’s heritage rules are often too rigid and focused on a ‘one size fits all’ approach, which has resulted in many buildings being neglected and/or demolished – one often leading to the other. Exemplary projects such as Balfron Tower in London by Studio Egret West, Park Hill in Sheffield by Mikhail Riches, and Cité du Grand Parc in Bordeaux by Lacaton & Vassal (below), to name just a few, have demonstrated that neglected, mid-century buildings can be successfully refurbished and have a positive future in our urban environments.

What of the “ugliness” then? Some say the building is an eyesore. I say that my teenage daughter’s room is an eyesore, however, there is nothing defective with the room itself, its eyesore status is simply down to poor user management. The GWF have not been maintained or cared for, so it is no surprise that the building presents poorly. It is likely that during the refurbishment of the building it will need new windows and improved solar control, perhaps even balconies, and certainly a new entrance, as would any new building. So, these new elements also offer the opportunity to change the look of the building, if that is the desired outcome, and such changes should be supported if it means that the building is retained.

Ultimately, while historically significant, it is irrelevant, at this point, that the GWF are “heritage listed”, or “ugly” or “brutalist”. All of these aspects are subjective labels, which can reshape and fluctuate with time. The cold, hard, indisputable fact is that there are thousands of tons of embodied energy locked in the building. Furthermore, it offers 87 housing units, which are virtually ready to go and available, at a time when there is a desperate shortage of housing. Yes, it needs to be refurbished but the fit-out costs are the same whether it is a new building or a refurbishment. Let’s not use heritage listing as a scapegoat. The real issue here is waste.