It is deeply sad and rather ironic that the day that the submissions for the Gordon Wilson Housing Scholarship close wth NZIA, the Minister of Everything announces in his usual manner that the Gordon Wilson flats are now “gone burger”.

I know that I may be preaching into the ether here, with no one else sticking up for them, but the ironic thing is that the Gordon Wilson flats are actually some of the best designed small apartments in the entire city, especially when compared to the basic shit that we are building these days. New offerings of apartments around town are pretty much either unredeemingly terrible, being small, badly designed and somewhat unaffordable – or decently sized, adequately designed, but massively overpriced and completely unaffordable. You really can’t win with new these days. Much better to refit existing.

What the Minister, the University, the Council, and most of the dreary-brained citizens of the city do not seem to be able to understand, firstly, is that the Gordon Wilson flats (lets call them simply GWF) look bad because they have had no maintenance done to them for years. Any of our many buildings in Wellington would also look bad if they have had no work done for years. Secondly – the building looks flat because it is made of concrete, and the concrete is spalling off on some external panels because the steel inside is rusting. The easy answer to this is of course to remove all these rusting panels and replace with GRP panels or aluminium panels, lightweight and brightly coloured as originally intended, and perfectly capable of never rusting.

What people do also not understand is that, apparently, the university is still flat broke and has zero money for maintenance – but also has zero money for demolition, or for building anew. So, regardless of what laws are passed by the brown bishop, the uni will presumably still cry out that they can’t afford to demolish it and build again. So, overall, it still makes sense to keep it and restore it, rather than demolish it. It is not going to be going anywhere for quite some time, I would guess.

Why is the building so apparently “earthquake prone”? Well, of course the truth is that almost every single building in New Zealand is earthquake prone (EQP), because the Engineers changed the rules and so whatever used to be “OK” under the old rules, is now “Not OK” under the new rules. The implementation of the new Seismic Rules in NZ is a shit show in a fuck factory, as Logan Roy would say, and now nobody knows what is what. The GWF is a lot less EQP than the many other buildings in NZ, such as all the buildings still existing with brick walls. Bricks are not the friends you want in an EQ – and especially not in an EQP building.

The GWF is made of concrete, so in theory it should be fine. The reason that it may not be fine is also something that cannot really be checked – what are the concrete foundations made of? No Engineer wants to sign them off as OK, because they can’t see down to the bottom of the concrete pour, and there are no sign-off slump test sheets from whoever poured the concrete at the time. There is a high likelihood that the concrete foundations are indeed all very fine, but that’s completely impossible to say definitely about anything. There is nothing to say that they may not be OK, but also nothing to say that they are OK…..

The reason that they are great is that instead of being a squalid, tiny, low-roofed slice of hell, like the Paddington, the Hyde Park, the Mayfair, the Soho, the Peak etc – all of which exist with low ceilings of just 2.4 or 2.5 or maybe even 2.7m if you pay enough. But these GWF enjoy a double height space for most of them, and so it is at least 5.4m or more from floor to the ceiling. They have space, and they look out into space, which others do not. They are all one or two bedroom in size, because that was what was wanted back then when they were designed and built. They are of course exquisite in their design – good basic European planning with bedroom upstairs and kitchen / living downstairs. Have a look at this video clip, rather ironically produced by the University.
They would be, if the Uni could pull its head out of its arse, be re-created as the perfect mature student flat. I could see a whole bunch of PhD students living there or visiting staff, leaving the Halls of Residence (or what ever they are called) to the baby students just there for a year. No drinking, no shenanigans, no worries, and some good PR for once.

Burgers are awful. But giant slabs of cheese are much nicer. Let’s ditch the Bishop Burger and instead try and persuade the University to do something good for once, and restore some heritage. New Zealand’s second best Modernist building. The Massey House has been saved and restored, beautifully, going by the latest photos from all its award-winning last week. Let’s do the same for the GWF !!

If this country was somewhere sensible like, I dunno, Guatemala, they would look at the rebuild costs, retrofit some cheap EQ bracing like carbon fibre wrap to some of the shear walls, whack new panels on and tart it up then let it out to students
I’ve seen some student digs in my time and this place would be miles ahead in quality
And tell the engineers to wind their necks in
Did it survive the Kaikoura shake? yes
Put an “at your own risk” clause in the tenancy agreements and get on with life
Honestly this country is overrun with jobsworth pearl-clutching cowards who are too scared of being made accountable for anything to look at a risk vs cost and come to the sensible conclusion that you don’t throw something out that isn’t broken
The Bishop of the almighty chin has made a decision that is 180 degrees in the wrong direction
Absolutely agree 60, thank you for that comment. Nice turn of phrase “overrun with jobsworth pearl-clutching cowards who are too scared of being made accountable” which would cover off many of those at the university as well as the people at the council.
But as usual, most people can’t see past the layers of graffiti and pigeon poo. I’m sick and tired of people saying “it’s ugly and it sticks out like a sore thumb” – except, ummm, no it isn’t. It’s big a square and looks like a block of cheese. Maybe the Uni could get sponsorship from Fonterra and get painted like a 10,000 kg block of Tasty.
Name me a large building in Wellington that isn’t ugly. Anyone ?
No one has answered this last question yet…
I’m going to go with the green-tiled building on Manners St that Athfields did for Telecom in the 1980s – is that large (and new) enough?
Agreed – that one, I think most people might agree, is definitely NOT fugly. It’s quite cool.
Are the old State Insurance Building and the old Defence Building in Stout Street big enough to be large? There was the Midland Hotel, but it’s gone.The James Smiths building in Cuba Street . . . . hey they’re all old. . . . quick – think of a new one. . . . ummmmmm. . . . . . errrrrrrrr. . . .
From that generation, I’d chuck in the Victory Flats in Berhampore.
I’m wondering – is it the preponderance of concrete that makes people say “ugly” – so, does a new building with an all glass skin make it “not ugly”? Is that the answer? In which case, are the two new all-glass buildings on the waterfront, the Deloitte and the BNZ, are they officially nice then ? Anyone ?
Great piece nemo. By today’s standards the flats are actually overbuilt. They just need a re-clad to make it safe enough to re-inhabit. Just doing that will bring it up to a higher standard than the WCC housing that are being occupied now. It will be much faster, cheaper and more sustainable than building new.
I don’t think the University want to build housing and there is this strange aversion to ex-high rise social housing blocks – as if, ‘we can’t give people million dollar views’ because they will block my view and they will all want them. Housing is housing, not a political tool.
“It will be much faster, cheaper and more sustainable than building new.”
From your lips to god’s ears
My thing is that I hate seeing waste and not recycling these flats is a complete waste
It’s just frustrating watching an asset get run down because a bunch of weasels can’t make a sensible cost/benefit decision
As Henry F says, the VUW could put it out as a property deal for people to own the rights to lease the flats out for X amount per flat and the Varsity keeps the title rights and runs the daily management of the whole set of flats
Structure the deal with the right incentives and the VUW get enough money to do it up and investors get a return for their dollars
I don’t know if anyone has tried running the numbers and maybe it doesn’t stack up but FFS, the thing is already built so how much can they screw it up?
“. . . how much can they screw it up?”
Well that’s a dangerous question. Hopefully we never find out. But experience suggests. . .
Correct. The facade is <34% NBS which dictates it's earthquake prone status. Removing that and adding a new skin and some bracing will bring the building up to 67-74% NBS which far exceeds a lot of housing that exists today. Compare that to rebuilding all of the foundations, the core the elevators, stairs and the new facade and it's clear what is cheaper and faster. There is a staggering amount of carbon in the concrete alone that all goes to waste when they bowl it. VUW have had 13 years to figure out how to use this building for housing. Mature students, faculty, serviced apartments, short term stays. They should consider the revenue they have missed out on rather than the $1.5M they have spent letting it rot.
Back in the day (the late1980s), there was a company floated on the NZX to buy, then renovate, refurbish, and develop, various of the old wooden villas on The Terrace, to the south of Boulcott Street.
I live in hope that the Heritage Industry will give their public a similar chance to put their money where their mouths are with regard to the Gordon Wilson Flats.
I like them and would like to see them restored.
But let’s be honest, no one with any money wants to. So, its knock them down or they get worse and worse as an eye-sore over time. Perhaps even a safety hazard.
I used to think this until it was pointed out to me that no-one with money has been given the opportunity, thanks to the shady swap between Housing and Victoria. Mana Whenua who should have been given right of first refusal didn’t even get a chance because they technically weren’t ‘sold’
KLK – you miss my point. Demolition costs serious money. The University has zero spare dollars. Therefore, who would pay for the demolition? Not the university, they claim they’re broke. Not the council, we all know they are broke and incompetent at fixing anything. Not the government, unless Bishop wants to knock it down with that big wrecking ball he came swinging in on.
Apparently the cost for the demolition is in the millions because they can’t just blow it up with all of those pesky Kelburn neighbours. Bishop and McNulty are keen to have a go at swinging the sledgehammer. I can’t wait to see them take on those 8 inch thick walls.
Gordon Wilson was Government Architect when I started as a draughting cadet in 1953 in the Ministry of Works.
It’s an absolute tragedy that the Minister of Housing can dictate the destruction of such an historic building.
Hi Shirley, lovely to see you pop up here – you are a LEGEND !!! I’d love to give you a whole column of your own to talk about your work back then. Have you got any written memoirs? Fancy publication? Or your own interview? You must have so much to tell about that time and those people – and the buildings. I’d love to know more, and to share it with the readers of the Fish. How about it ?
Minor correction to a great post. Unfortunately the often quoted double height spaces do not exist in this building. Living room ceilings are generally ~2.6m and bedrooms are ~2.3m. You could get a double height space it would just require deleting a bedroom.
Hi Mark, correct, but you still get a sense of volume at the stairs, and you get sun from both the East AND the West, with circulation only every second floor – it is so much more clever and interesting than any other apartment building in the country.
Oh Nemo my friend – you excel yourself !!!!!
I have a very serious suggestion to make. This is so good it needs wider circulation. Would you be open to that as an op-Ed piece in the Post with the Arch Centre’s admiring endorsement? They’re really keen but they’ve asked if (and please don’t be insulted) if you could “modify some of the cussing”
I’ve said I’d ask you but I’ve also asked them to highlight those parts they consider to be cussing
How about it?
I’ve also highlighted to Lindsay Shelton at SCOOP with the same suggestion – but likely to be far less sensitive about the “cussing”
Best,
Stuart
Potty-mouth comments were a direct quote from Succession – which can of course be excised. “Shit show in a fuck factory” is such a wonderfully colorful expression that so succinctly sums up the family of Logan Roy… as well as the implementation of the new seismic code! But perhaps the word schmozzle could be used instead – equally applicable. And pulling their head out of their bottom might be less offensive.
I’m very happy to have it more widely spread so people can hear a wider view.
Posted on Wellington.Scoop
Nemo – I live in a two-story timber framed concrete/stucco house built in 1940 for a photographer who worked at the long demolished Rongotai Exhibition Centre. I have lived here for over 50 years, reared a family and still here despite 35 steps to access it. No “granny flat” for me!
However the age of the house meant considerable money was spent over the years to make it habitable because it was damn cold in the winter with only south and west sun, the bathroom fittings were pink, the fire place tiny and the ceilings high.
Despite its thick walls we needed to insulate it, update plumbing and outside drainage (still do) scaffolding was needed for repaints/repairs and most rooms needed woollen carpet and now it needs rewiring. No cracks from earthquakes yet but who knows the future.
No public agency was ever going to look after the GWF like we did with our home and despite the passion I think we have to let it go. It will be very expensive either way but unless it goes into private care as suggested by 60MPa it’s demise is probable.
Thank Janet – your house sounds lovely. Well done for hanging on to it – and I hope it lasts for many more years. I’m wondering though – what would you do if you didn’t have the money to do it up and keep it all tidy – and your neighbours said you had an obligation to tear it down because they thought it was ugly. What would you do then, keeping in mind that you had no money to demolish it? It’s a tricky conundrum isn’t it?
Looks like that’s that then. From The Post this morning. . .
“ Victoria chief operating officer Tina Wakefield confirmed the university had set aside funding for demolition across the 2025 and 2026 financial years. The flats would be gone within the next 12 months though.”
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360735044/gordon-wilson-flats-demo-funding-secured-wrecking-ball-within-year
Yeah, probably, but then again: never say never. As long as I’ve been in Wellington, the University has never managed to do anything on time. A curiously inept organisation when it comes to timekeeping.
My concern is more centred around – What will replace them, and how can we make sure the replacement is just as good, or even better than the original ? I wonder if they have set themselves that as a goal?
And just in passing, although I know that you, Mr Henry Filth, will be clear on this, many / most Wellingtonians are not: The Gordon Wilson building is the flat one at the back, and the one that looks really terrible, covered in netting, is the Maclean State building. Completely different kettle of fish. No official word on whether that goes, or stays, or whether the Minister for Mullets knows the difference…
An interesting viewpoint expressed on Newsroom:
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/07/11/an-unseemly-hatred-for-one-building/