Owner of Dragon Café/Barron Building has lodged an application to demolish

The owner of 175 Rattray St is listed as Anchorage Properties Ltd, according to DCC rates information. The NZ Companies Office gives the directors of the company as Lincoln Darling and Christina Murphy.

Related Posts:

12.1.11 Demo by neglect? Save the facade?
13.1.11 Banks, Barron & Co Building Collapse pics
13.1.11 Barron Building and Rattray Street
22.1.11 SAVE Dragon Café / Barron Building – Sign the Online Petition
26.1.11 D Scene: Honour heritage

The Save Dunedin’s historic Dragon Café / Barron’s Building online petition is ACTIVE http://www.gopetition.com/petition/42203.html

Images ©2011 Elizabeth Kerr

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

15 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Construction, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, People, Politics, Project management, Site, Town planning, Urban design

15 responses to “Owner of Dragon Café/Barron Building has lodged an application to demolish

  1. peter

    This is not surprising. So… we’ll have the Southern Cross on one corner and the Crown Hotel on the other – with a sea of car parking space in between. They do this very well in ‘dead heart’ American cities. Mind you, Rattray St is pretty well had it in terms of a shopping precinct. Big Box shops like The Warehouse and Harvey Norman further up have put paid to that. The most action probably now takes place at 166. Who likes walking along lower Rattray St now? One side of the street is redundant with the large SC car park stuck in the middle. Would any city money to help this building be better spent elsewhere? Besides, I’d be reluctant to spend any heritage money on those wealthy ‘developers’ who don’t particularly love Dunedin’s heritage.

    {Moderated. -Eds}

  2. Elizabeth

    DEMOLITION TODAY (UPDATED – 5.00pm)
    Engineers have informed Dunedin City Council that the Barron Building is in danger of imminent collapse, and demolition work will occur today.

    However, upon further discussion it seems likely that the building will have ‘some’ demolition work applied to render the structure safe. Weakness in the back wall of the structure has brought about the need for further stabilisation (this does not necessarily mean demolition to the ground).

    When this stabilisation work has stopped, the owner, as I understand, will be required to obtain resource consent for the full demolition. There is a cost involved in obtaining the consent. The consent application could kick in archaeological authority requirements through the Historic Places Act, involving basic recording of remnant fabric in view of archaeological heritage values.

    ****

    Please note the following information received via an update (28/2/11) by Katrina Bach, Chief Executive, Department of Building and Housing, in response to the Canterbury earthquake:

    Early indications are that the earth shaking was probably much more violent than designed for the New Zealand Building Code, with vertical shaking that was both extreme and unusual. Building Code standards are based on the kind of shaking expected to happen about every 500 years; experts are saying that the shaking that occurred in Christchurch’s central business district last Tuesday may have been as much as three times greater than this.

    The Building Code is consistent with international best practice and reflects this country’s position as a leader in earthquake engineering. The requirements for earthquake design have been progressively improved since 1935, as knowledge about earthquakes – and how to design buildings to resist them – has improved.

    The Building Code is not retrospective, although local councils are required to have policies for upgrading earthquake-prone buildings. With some exceptions, old buildings performed poorly during last week’s quake, and new buildings performed well – especially considering the extreme ground shaking.

    It will be several months before we have the detailed information to draw well-informed conclusions. The Department is undertaking an investigation into the performance of key buildings and the reasons for collapse in some of them, but we can’t yet access the most damaged buildings. This work will include the impact of liquefaction on building performance, and it will tell us if any changes are required to Building Code standards.

    • Elizabeth

      The onus on the building owner is to make the building safe. 175 Rattray Street is an archaeological site – this includes the ground and the building itself.

      ### ODT Online Wed, 2 Mar 2011
      Barrons building may be demolished today
      By David Loughrey
      The 135-year-old Barrons Building in Rattray St that partially collapsed in January could be demolished as soon as today.
      Read more

      • Elizabeth

        It’s likely we’ll see an application for demolition of the N & ES Paterson Building next door to the Barron Building. Result? An abundance of carparking.

        The roof of the N & ES Paterson Building was damaged by falling debris when the Barron Building’s roof and parapet side wall collapsed.

        • Elizabeth

          The move to demolition of the Barron building and the N & ES Paterson building may well require DCC to redraw the boundary of the Townscape Precinct…

          ### ODT Online Thu, 3 Mar 2011
          Second building coming down
          By David Loughrey
          A second Rattray St building appears to be facing demolition, after the Dunedin City Council late yesterday received an application to demolish the N. & E. S. Paterson Ltd building. That building stands next to, and is understood to share a wall with, the 135-year-old Barrons building, which partially collapsed in January. That means both now have requests for demolition with the council, and only paperwork appears to be holding back their demise.
          Read more

        • Elizabeth

          ### ODT Online Sat, 5 Mar 2011
          Final curtain for historic building
          By David Loughrey
          The death knell has sounded for the historic Barrons building in Rattray St and its neighbour, the N. and E.S. Paterson building. Demolition consents for both buildings were signed yesterday, after engineers reported the Barrons building was in danger of collapse. No decision had been made on the future of the site.
          Read more

        • Elizabeth

          [An archaeological] authority would be required when the building was level because the basement and foundations would be handled according to the usual protocols of a historic site.

          ### ODT Online Mon, 21 Mar 2011
          Historic places protocol waived for Barrons building
          By Eileen Goodwin
          The New Zealand Historic Places Trust will not follow usual protocol during the demolition of Dunedin’s historic Barrons building on Rattray St because the building is unsafe. However, it was planned a heritage building specialist would be allowed access to record the site before demolition.
          Read more

        • Elizabeth

          Barron Building:
          The context for New Zealand Historic Places Trust’s (NZHPT) decision not to require the full archaeological authority process was because Dunedin City Council (DCC) made a rare decision to allow the demolition in terms of Sec 330 of the RMA on the grounds of the serious threat to public safety. NZHPT has provisions in the situation where public safety is at risk, to not obstruct those works.

          Of general note:
          In the time between the ’emergency’ decision to approve demolition made by DCC and now, the building still stands.

  3. James

    Solution for Dunedin’s historic buildings:
    *Institute a car-park levy of say, $2000 per annum per park, like some other overseas cities.
    *Make it harder to re-zone land
    *Make it harder to get consent to demolish.
    This should create a demand for re-use of buildings in the CBD and re-vitalise transportation options. I’m sure, of course, that this would go down like a cup of cold sick :)

  4. ro

    I understand, appallingly, that our current town plan encourages the replacement of buildings with parking for cars. I think it’s the case that applications to change the use of inner city (& campus buildings) must contain provision for off-street parking. Elizabeth, can you clarify this?

    • Elizabeth

      ro, in the case of heritage buildings DCC has full discretion to waver the parking requirement and has done so in a number of instances to good effect.

      The District Plan (10-yearly) review now underway approaches change to objectives, policies and methods (incl rules) in relation to zoning, sustainability, streetscape, heritage and so on, and will be open to public consultation.

      Meanwhile, DCC is preparing the Spatial Plan for public consultation, available relatively soon – this is another chance to submit on the parking issue in relation to zoning, sustainability, streetscape and heritage values, etc.

      DCC is already inviting public feedback, including ‘your’ concerns, criticism, proactive ideas and potential solutions on the Your City Our Future webpage – this went up at the end of last year. However, according to Sue Bidrose, General Manager Strategy and Development, speaking yesterday, there has been very little feedback received to date.

      Possibly we’re all running a bit shy of endless Council-initiated consultation processes?! Know I am, despite continuing to feed in when I get time although not necessarily in writing which I find too ad hoc. Always, it seems, each ask for public consultation and feedback lacks sufficient overview and explanation of the whole Council mechanism, and any overarching premise(s), objective(s) or direction. I can tilt a specialist or generalist hat on a whim for consultation purposes, but mostly the various exercises requesting public input appear to be ‘cellular emittances’ from departments not talking to each other, and Councillors don’t seem able to crack this in governance terms. So, good luck Mayor Dave Cull in getting the rabble together for enhanced leadership and outcomes. Tough, tough job.

      And of course, we’re coming up to the public consultation process for DCC’s 2011/12 Annual Plan, another means for comment via the four LTCCP (Community Plan) ‘community outcome’ areas:

      *Wealthy Community: A city that encourages strong local business, employment growth and attracts increasing numbers of new businesses and tourists.

      *Accessible City: A city with a transport system that supports economic development and where people move about easily and safely.

      *Safe and Healthy People: A city where residents feel safe and enjoy a healthy lifestyle.

      *Sustainable City and Environment: A city that makes the most of its natural and built environment.

      In the end, there’s only so much free thinking and time I’m prepared to give a local authority. That’s the cold hard reality. Volunteerism has to have sane limits. :)

  5. ro

    Thanks, Elizabeth. It’s clearly our own responsibility… but how much energy it requires!

  6. peter

    ‘No decision had been made on the future of the site.’ Answer: Carpark.

  7. Appalling building owners to end their game with the Dunedin public and the DCC ?! This only proves the buildings like so many in the area south of the Octagon that are now being cared for and redeveloped by responsible owners and investors, could have been maintained and strengthened. Instead, the longstanding demolition by neglect has been topped by the further neglect that has played out since 2011, affecting all in the street (including the dodgy Chins and their very convenient fire). Don’t think for a moment that what the buildings are to be replaced with (carefully not revealed) will bring any joy whatsoever to the listed Townscape Precinct.

    Poor, poor Drake Leather – you’ve endured absolute HELL.

    Rattray Street IMG_9117 4Image: Elizabeth Kerr

    ### ODT Online Thu, 19 Dec 2013
    Dragon demolition date confirmed
    By Debbie Porteous
    Abandoned buildings in Rattray St, Dunedin, are to be demolished in February after standing damaged and empty for three years. The historic N. & E. S. Paterson Ltd and Barrons Buildings, which housed the Dragon Cafe, have been fenced off for nearly three years since the roof of the Barrons Building collapsed in January 2011.
    Read more

    • What sort of low-grade structure will be erected to the new ‘parking area’ fronting Rattray? Expect the DCC-approved tacky; but Linky and Earlie, will it take three or six years to appear?

      ### ODT Online Tue, 7 Jan 2014
      Demolition of the Dragon (+video)
      By Debbie Porteous
      There were a few mutters of ”about time” from onlookers as an excavator took a day yesterday to demolish two historic Dunedin buildings that had stood partially collapsed in Rattray St for three years. Barrons Building owner Lincoln Darling has previously declined to explain the delay.
      Read more + Video

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s