Categories: THINK Nov 2009
      Date: Nov 17, 2009
     Title: Back to the future

With any heritage project, the balance between preservation and project objectives is critical. New Zealand's new Supreme Court has been no exception.

The project has essentially been two in one - creating a new Supreme Court building that will become an iconic heritage landmark in its own right, whilst restoring the adjacent former High Court building that was opened in 1881 and, while unused since 1993, is significant nationally for its architecture and long association with the administration of law in New Zealand.

Conservation of the building's heritage value was seen as vital, but within the requirements of a brief that reflected the very particular functional requirement of a new Supreme Court. Much of the challenge of achieving this balance in one of the most significant restoration projects in New Zealand's history fell upon conservation architect Chris Cochran.

Adding to that challenge is the fact that there is no definitive book of rules to follow when it comes to restoration projects, with many different schools of thought on how heritage values and their conservation should be measured and tested.

Chris looks to the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Charter for general guidance, but also seeks more specific guidance in places such as district plans.

"If the building is registered as Category 1, and if it is listed on the District Plan as being a structure of high heritage value, I start from the presumption that it is a precious building and deserves the best conservation treatment possible." However, balanced with that imperative of conservation, he says, it still has to be made functional.

"Function, to me, is very high on the list of priorities. That the building is going to be useful and enjoyed by people in the future is as important a component of conservation as the intrinsic value of the fabric and space in the building that you're dealing with."

This question of function vis-à-vis conservation was addressed at the outset of the Supreme Court project through a conservation report authored by Chris, with multi-disciplinary input, that became one of the base documents for the whole project, and formed an important part of the brief to the architects, Warren and Mahoney.

"Although the old High Court building as a whole is important, there were parts within it that had very low key functions. The conservation report had value in the design sense in that it went carefully through the whole of the fabric of the building and each of the spaces individually in order to define a hierarchy of spaces and fabric."

Chris concedes that there were minor conservation losses, such as the demolition of two later additions at the back of the building, but that these were a reasonable sacrifice to make for the sake of getting a modern building that worked.

"It was certainly looked at very carefully and debated at length and judged to be a loss that could be sustained. If it had been for an extra couple of carparks, well of course one would have resisted far more strongly! It's where losses occur arbitrarily or for no good reason that you regret them."

The Building Intelligence Group project director Ian Macaskill adds that the question of what was a reasonable sacrifice arose not only at the macro level, but at every micro level of the project.

"In some cases, we had to accept that we'd lose certain elements and replicate them with modern methods. For example with rotten timber trusses - we had the choice of using the same timber, or more modern materials that would provide the structural integrity that the engineer would sign off on and the contractor would work with."

The hierarchy of importance that had been established in the conservation report was used to guide these decisions, he explains.

"It was a matter of, time and again, balancing heritage issues with pragmatic issues such as financial viability and who is going to provide a warranty. So while a purist conservation preference would have been to use traditional methods throughout, decisions to use modern methods were not considered a loss of heritage value - the overall outcome for the building is exceptional."

Along with architect Roy Wilson, Chris also promoted modern design for the new building rather than replication. There's a clause in the ICOMOS charter that says modern additions should be of the time and should be distinct. "In this case there are 130 years separating the buildings, but they sit together comfortably," Chris says.

The Supreme Court is due for practical completion at the end of the year, and will be operational early in 2010. For Chris, Roy and Ian, it has been a privilege to work on a project of such significance. "We've enjoyed the challenge of pulling together two uniquely separate building projects," says Ian. "Not only is the Supreme Court going to be iconic, but it is probably the most important public building being constructed in New Zealand at present, while the Old High Court Building will be one of our most significant heritage sites. It's exciting to see both nearing completion at the same time and to see the vision taking shape."

Read Ian Macaskill's thoughts on avoiding heritage project pitfalls.