2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

archifact

architectur e & conservation

limited

www.archifact.co.nz

64 khyber pass road grafton auckland 1023 po box 8334 symonds street auckland 1150 new zealand p 09. 966 6940 [email protected]

figure1 david o mckay building (archifact – architecture & conservation ltd, 2014)

david o mckay building proposed works

temple view hamilton

assessment of environmental effects

for

the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints trust board october 2016

1

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

prepared for: the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints trust board po box 5844 wellesley street auckland 1010

copyright © archifact – architecture & conservation limited, 2016 all rights reserved. without limiting the rights under copyright above, no part of this report may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. auckland, october 2016

2

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

1. SUMMARY The David O. McKay Building was part of a wider complex of buildings that collectively constituted the former Church College of New Zealand campus whose motto: “Build now for Eternity” was not about building structures, but about building people, communities, and future generations. In consideration of the heritage values attributed to the subject place, it is concluded that the heritage values of the building are dependent on, are related to, and should be measured against the heritage and community values of the Temple View Church College site as a whole and to the wider values of Temple View and its active Latter-Day Saint community. Accordingly the heritage values of the building derive from, are related to, and should be measured against the heritage values of the former Church College site as a whole and to the wider values of Temple View. This “associated value” is recognised in the Explanation of the Objectives and Policies connected to the Proposed District Plan’s Chapter 19 Historic Heritage - Buildings and Structures.

The demolition of the David O McKay building is a process anticipated through Church policy, practice and objectives in providing quality education for rural-based students, but only until the advent of accessible mainstream local education of a sufficient standard. The existing building was primarily designed and constructed as a sports and performance venue to serve the former LDS Church College and Temple View community. Having fulfilled its designed function, the LDS Church College has since closed and the surviving building is no longer considered suitable to meet sustainable contemporary needs. A range of alternative uses have been considered, but have proved inappropriate from a heritage perspective. One option saw the facility offered to the Hamilton City Council, but for a number of reasons (including Building Code compliance, structural upgrade requirements, and building services upgrade costs) this too proved unacceptable.

The building façade of the David O McKay Building is regarded as a strong contributor to the overarching heritage significance of the place, particularly in relation to historical and architectural values that are complimented by the brick masonry construction method. The suggested continued adaptive re-use options all envisage façade modifications to some extent, which although reflecting the original Modernist stylistic influences would likely have a significant adverse effect on the recognised heritage values associated with the place. Significant reconstruction of the façades would therefore be particularly detrimental to those recognised values. Consequently, adverse effects relating to the demolition of the David O McKay building have been mitigated in part through evolving and carefully considered development of the former

3

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

LDS Church College site. The evolution of the site is now defined by a number of enabling development consents elsewhere on the former campus that aim to reinforce the continued presence of the LDS community. Equally the Church has undertaken a comprehensive archival record of the building including oral histories from many who had been staff or students of the College. Selective recycling of materials from the David O McKay building is being considered including the use of timber to form new pews in other Church buildings.

The Explanation of the Objectives and Policies connected to the Operative in Part District Plan’s Chapter 19 Historic Heritage - Buildings and Structures also recognises that it is “important to ensure heritage buildings and structures are safe and usable. However, the strengthening of these buildings and structures still needs to ensure the heritage values are retained.” It has been recognised that the strengthening required to provide sufficient seismic resilience to the structure of the David O McKay building may well compromise the very fabric that contributes to the building’s historic heritage values. The upgrading, adaptive reuse, and seismic strengthening of the existing building is considered an uneconomic.

2. METHODOLOGY This Assessment of Environmental Effects – Heritage (AEE) relies on an objective heritage assessment report commissioned in 2014 and the assessment of historic heritage values recognised in the David O McKay building as found. That assessment is attached to this AEE as Appendix A. That Heritage Assessment establishes a clear description of the historic heritage values of the David O McKay building within its wider context and recognised that wider complex of buildings that collectively constitutes the former Church College of New Zealand campus.

The heritage assessment was written at the time when the Proposed District Plan (PDP) had been notified and was under review. Weight was given to the Operative District Plan (ODP) assessment criteria and provisions for the protection of places listed in that plan, while the assessment also had regard for the assessment criteria promoted in the PDP, recognising that as a matter of national importance the heritage provisions in the PDP were afforded “immediate legal effect”. The assessment criteria in the ODP and the PDP are effectively the same and assessment of heritage values has not changed the recognition of these values between plans. For completeness the Heritage Assessment also considered the assessment criteria found Part 4 s 66 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014.

4

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

3. AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL AND THE LOCALITY 3.1 The Church of Latter-Day Saints Trust Board [LDS] seeks resource consent to demolish the David O McKay building. The David O McKay building lies within what was formally known as the Church College of New Zealand Temple View campus and is listed in the Hamilton City Operative District Plan as a Category C place while the proposed District Plan (which is now effectively beyond appeal on heritage matters) recognises the David O McKay building in its refined two-tier classification system as a Category B place.

3.2 Temple View is located seven kilometres from the City of Hamilton and within the middle Waikato basin, which extends 80 kilometres from north to south and 50 kilometres from west to east. This basin is bounded by ranges that rise up to 900 metres in height. Key features of the basin include the scattering of low-lying hills and the Waikato River which, following flooding, faced a topography, which naturally prevents easy drainage. The river therefore played a significant role in the formation of scattered small lakes and extensive peatlands. The lower lying, often marshy areas, supported reed and moss and were largely populated with Manuka and Kahikatea trees.

3.3 The former Church college campus extends over 87 hectares and contains approximately 20 buildings of distinctly variable form, scale, function, and value. The Operative District Plan identifies and affords protection to seven places of recognised cultural heritage value within Temple View and the Proposed District Plan maintains recognition of these places. However no places of cultural heritage value, including those recognised in the District Plan within the Temple View area have been recognised by Heritage New Zealand by way of inclusion on the Heritage New Zealand list.

3.4 A total of six buildings within the Church College Character Area have been included as Heritage Items in the Hamilton City Council Operative (in part) District Plan (October 2016).. The Temple itself lies to the south of the Character Area within its own Temple Heritage Precinct as recognised within the Hamilton City Council Operative (in part) District Plan (October 2016)and is recognised as a Category A place being a place of “… highly significant heritage value [including] those assessed as being of outstanding or high value in relation to one or more of the criteria and are considered to be of outstanding or high heritage value locally, regionally or nationally” (8A: Built Heritage (structures, buildings and associated sites)). Of note, this precinct is located within a Group 2, Significant Archaeological Site; identified as Site A11: Koromatua - Urupa (Burial Grounds) on Planning Map 60B (Appendix 3). Further items of significance located within both of the above sites include a number of Category 1 and 2 trees (T62,

5

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

T63, T64 on Planning Map 60B), which are included in the Hamilton City Council Operative (in part) District Plan (October 2016) ‘Significant Trees Register’ in Appendix 9 Schedule 9D. To the southeast of the David O McKay site, and on the flat land below the Tuhikaramea Road ridge are two sites which have seen heritage covenants between the Church and Heritage New Zealand agreed; these being the George R. Biesinger building [GRB] and the Kai Hall.

3.5 The LDS Church College development was one of the key elements of the Temple View community, but this understanding should be tempered with its redundancy today and with that redundancy recognition of the long-held LDS intention that the Church College play a finite role within a much greater vision for Temple View and its occupation and meaning to the community established by the LDS.

3.6 Importantly the site has been subject to a number of additions and alterations which have had a positive effect on the designed layout, and which have integrated the natural environment with the built environment. The evolution of the place has also ensured that the needs and aspirations of the LDS Church Community have been able to evolve in parallel with the wider Temple View community without the loss of meaning or significance. This has been more recently enabled by a series of consented changes enabling realisation of that envisioning programme which has resulted in the removal of a number of buildings and the approval to construct new buildings (the Stake Centre) and alter or add to existing heritage assets (the Wendell B. Mendenhall Library, the Kai Hall and GRB).

3.7 The proposal to demolish the David O McKay building is conscious of its recognised heritage values and of those other heritage assets found within the broader Church College Character Area (identified on planning map 60B of the Hamilton City Council Operative (in part) District Plan (October 2016)) and the adjacent Temple Heritage Precinct which collectively contribute to the area values and character. Heritage assessments undertaken in July 2013 and November 2014 have taken note of a series of structural engineering appraisals and reports from other disciplines to aid in the measure of values of the place as found.

3.8 The application seeks consent to demolish the listed Category B Operative (in part) District Plan (October 2016) David O McKay building. The application has considered the heritage values recognised in the listing of this place and has considered these values against the building as found today. The proposal has also considered the earthquake-prone status of the building and the obsolete or poor standard of its building services, and explored a range of alternative options for each individual built element

6

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

and the collective whole of the David O McKay building ahead of resiling on the application for demolition outright.

3.9 This assessment considers the environmental effects on the heritage and special character of the David O McKay building and the character area around it arising from the proposed demolition of the David O McKay building assessed against provisions of the Operative District Plan with respect to heritage and character and of the Proposed District Plan with respect to heritage.

4. THE DAVID O MCKAY PROPOSAL 4.1 The David O McKay building is located on part of the now redundant former Church College of New Zealand campus and on the east side of Tuhikaramea Road on land that falls from the Tuhikaramea Road ridgeline to the toe of the ridgeline and out towards the plain which spans eastwards towards and across the adjoining flat land.

4.2 The historic heritage values of the David O McKay building itself, and of the wider area, have been acknowledged by way of inclusion in Schedule 8A: Built Heritage (structures, buildings and associated sites) in Appendix 8 Historic Heritage of the Hamilton City Council Operative (in part) District Plan (October 2016) as a Category B item being an item of “significant heritage value [including] those assessed as being of high or moderate value in relation to one or more of the heritage criteria1 and are considered to be of value locally or regionally.” These values have been understood and used to inform appropriate measures that, in the context of those recognised heritage values, seek to ensure a continued use for the LDS Church College site as a whole.

4.3 The proposal seeks consent to demolish the building and develop the site for a range of housing types including provision of family housing and for senior housing.

1 Schedule 8A reference to the David O McKay building acknowledges the following qualities: a – historic; b – physical / aesthetic / architectural; c – context or group; d – technological; and f - cultural

7

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

5. THE OPERATIVE (IN PART) DISTRICT PLAN – HISTORIC HERITAGE ITEMS 5.1 Schedule 8A: Built Heritage (structures, buildings and associated sites) appears to raise the heritage status of the David O McKay building from ‘C’, as identified in the legacy District Plan, to ‘B’ in the Hamilton City Council Operative (in part) District Plan (October 2016) through the reduction in the number of heritage categories from four to two.

5.2 Chapter 19.2.1 describes the Objective of identifying and protecting the city’s historic heritage. The corresponding policy at 19.2.1a addresses the protection of the city’s historic heritage “… from the adverse effects of subdivision, use and development”. Significantly this is not a veto to subdivision, use, or development of the city’s historic heritage, but in an RMA s6(f) sense is about the appropriateness of that activity. In this particular case the appropriateness of the proposed demolition of the David O McKay building is comprehensively considered through the application in the round and ultimately it can be concluded the application is appropriate.

5.3 Policy 19.2.1c is concerned with: “Subdivision and development shall adhere to the conservation principles of International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) being the New Zealand Charter (2010) for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value where applicable”. This is conditioned with the words “where applicable”. Notably recent consideration of the ICOMOS NZ Charter by the Independent Hearing Panel hearing submissions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan considered the ICOMOS NZ Charter “… was not prepared for the purpose of administering the Resource Management Act” and is a guide.

5.4 Objective 19.2.2 is concerned with the “protection” of heritage values. As addressed at paragraph 5.2 (above), in an RMA sense, “protection” is linked to the purpose described at s6(f) and the appropriateness of activities of subdivision, use, or development. Accordingly, Policy 19.2.2b (concerned with the “loss of heritage values associated with scheduled items”) needs to be read in the light of the “appropriateness” test. Equally the loss of the physical attributes of the David O McKay building will not result in the loss of all the historic heritage values (including those tangible and intangible values associated with the David O McKay’s historic and cultural qualities) as a process of archival recording and collection has been in place since the 2009 closure of the school and the systematic collection of CCNZ records from 2013 as described by Mr Olsen2 and adheres directly to the Church College of New Zealand motto: “ Build Now for

2 Olsen, R. Remembering the Church College of New Zealand, Pacific Church History Centre

8

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Eternity” which was not about building structures, but all about building people, community, and future generations.

5.5 Objective 19.2.3 – Buildings and Structures, seeks to protect “the heritage values of significant buildings, structures and their immediate surroundings and this objective is supported by policies of which are considered relevant in consideration of the proposal: Policy 19.2.3b Demolition or relocation of buildings and structures ranked B in Schedule 8A should be discouraged.

Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment While it is recognised that the proposed demolition of the scheduled David O McKay building is “discouraged”3, demolition is not prohibited. Extensive investigations have been undertaken with a view to securing a continued use for the redundant David O McKay Building, however, those investigations have revealed limited or constrained potential for a continued or new use for the building in its current form; particularly in light of the significant scale of the building elements and concerns over its seismic capacity limitations. Many of the potential reuse options considered present in themselves a direct and adverse effect on the recognised historic heritage values of the place. However, it is considered that through an informed understanding of the heritage significance values relating to the heritage item and its wider context guidance towards an appropriate development of the site is possible.

The report by Beca Ltd Consultants in June 2016 identified that the earthquake performance of the David O McKay Building would achieve less than 35% NBS (%NBS = Percent of New Building Standard). The threshold at which buildings are considered earthquake prone is currently 33% NBS as determined through NZS 1170:2004. Subsequent structural analysis has determined that the David O McKay Building would achieve approximately 25% NBS and therefore likely to be classified as earthquake prone. There are also serious deficiencies in the building services as identified in the Beca report.

The heritage values of the building derive from, are related to, and should be measured against the heritage values of the former Church College site as a whole and to the wider values of Temple View. This “associated value” is recognised in the Explanation of the Objectives and Policies connected to the Operative (in part) District Plan’s Chapter 19 Historic Heritage - Buildings and Structures. While, the Explanation indicates that demolition of “highly significant historic buildings and structures will be

3 Policy 19.2.3b of the Proposed District Plan – Appeals Version, October 2015, updated 22 December 2015

9

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

considered only in exceptional circumstances” the David O McKay building cannot be considered “highly significant” in the context of the former Church College campus or indeed the Temple.

The demolition of the David O McKay building is necessary in order to realise the sustainable development potential of the land resource and is a process anticipated through Church policy, practice and objectives in providing quality education for rural- based students, but only until the advent of accessible mainstream local education of a sufficient standard. The existing building was primarily designed and constructed as a sports and performance venue to serve the former LDS Church College and Temple View community. Having fulfilled its designed function, the LDS Church College has since closed and the surviving building is no longer considered suitable to meet sustainable contemporary needs.

As addressed at paragraph 5.2 (above), in an RMA sense, “protection” is linked to purpose described at s6(f) and the appropriateness of an activity. Accordingly, the application assessed against Policy 19.2.3b (concerned with avoiding the “demolition or relocation of buildings and structures ranked B in Schedule 8A “should be discouraged”). The Explanation of the Objectives and Policies connected to the Operative (in part) District Plan’s Chapter 19 Historic Heritage - Buildings and Structures also recognises that it is “important to ensure heritage buildings and structures are safe and usable. However, the strengthening of these buildings and structures still needs to ensure the heritage values are retained.” It has been recognised that the strengthening required to provide sufficient seismic resilience to the structure of the David O McKay building may well compromise the very fabric that contributes to the building’s historic heritage values, raising further concerns with respect to Policy 19.2.3i. The upgrading and seismic strengthening of the existing building is considered an uneconomic option. Repurposing of the David O McKay building does not enable use of the land for the evolving LDS community. The LDS preference is to re-use the site for higher density residential purposes.

The effects arising from the proposed demolition of a scheduled item is not avoided and is more than minor.

10

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Policy 19.2.3c Subdivision and development shall retain, protect and enhance the heritage values of any building or structure listed within Schedule 8A. Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment Paragraph 5.2 (above) discusses the important meaning of “protection” in an RMA sense, particularly as linked to the purpose described at s6(f) and the appropriateness of activities of subdivision, use, or development. As discussed above policy 19.2.3b “discourages” demolition, but does not prohibit it. The test for protection is the appropriateness of the activity and the application provides evidence showing how in this particular case the demolition of the David O McKay building is appropriate.

Policy 19.2.3d Subdivision and development shall avoid any potential cumulative adverse effects on any building or structure listed in Schedule 8A Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment The proposed demolition of the David O McKay building presents a single rather than a cumulative adverse effect on any building or structure listed in Schedule 8A. At Temple View six other buildings or structures listed in Schedule 8A are protected, conserved, and repurposed ensuring their futures. While the demolition of the David O McKay building presents an ultimate adverse effect on the physical historic heritage attributes of the asset, its demolition will not result in the complete loss of other attributes (historic or cultural) associated with its historic heritage value. The comprehensive recording, salvage, and interpretation of the story and spirit of the David O McKay building is perpetuated in its place in the new Pacific Church History Centre in the adjacent repurposed Mendenhall Library (one of the surviving listed assets at temple View) as is “encouraged” in policy 19.2.3g.

Policy 19.2.3g The continued use or adaptive reuse of any building or structure of identified heritage value shall be encouraged. Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment Careful and considered exploration of the building’s continued use and of a range of potential adaptive reuses has been explored by the applicant and these options have been addressed elsewhere in the application documentation through the lenses of a range of professional disciplines. This exercise has demonstrated a number of factors which individually and collectively frustrate such use including the current earthquake resilience of the building, the costs and degree of intervention of seismic reinforcing and the difficulty in repurposing the complex of existing facilities to current standards.

11

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

The “residential” option requires a significant shift in the extent of natural ventilation and daylight required for health and wellbeing. Implications arising from meeting such a requirement would result in significant changes to the appearance of the existing external envelope of the building as designed. The design of the building does not lend itself well to residential adaptation as its overall footprint does not afford good penetration of daylight. In order to address that design requirement the Walker Architects residential option introduces light wells in various locations to bring daylight to the internal areas of the existing building footprint. New floor levels have also been introduced to lessen (and maximise) the volumes presented by the existing building. These modifications represent significant alterations to the significance recognised in the architectural values for which the building is currently recognised.

The “commercial” option similarly requires a significant increase in the amount of daylight penetrating the building envelope than the building currently affords. The potential adaptation to commercial use introduces large expanses of glazing to the existing elevations where currently these are monolithic masonry. Such an alteration shifts the monumental qualities evident in the building as originally designed.

The “recreational” option is, by its very nature, the least invasive, but still requires a degree of change in order to meet current Building Code requirements from which the effect on the recognised values of the David O. McKay building would be significant. It is relevant to also recognise not only the potential adverse effects on the heritage values of the David O McKay building evident in the “recreational” option arising from the extent of intervention to bring it up to seismic and building code compliance (as with any other more expensive and invasive option), and to also consider the costs of redevelopment (quoted in the Telfer Young Ltd report4) estimated at a cost of $29,841,998.90 plus GST. While the Telfer Young Ltd report concludes that the David O McKay building is “not economically feasible under these “highest and best use” options”5 consideration of the economic externalities that often arise from historic heritage assets should also be considered and while the Temple is a clear generator of economic benefit to Temple View and the wider Hamilton City Council area, the same cannot not be said of a refurbished David O’McKay building competing with nearby public facilities.

4 appendix 14 of the resource consent application bundle, section 19.5, p41 5 Ibid, p43

12

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Policy 19.2.3h The site surrounding the heritage building or structure shall be protected to the extent that it contributes to the heritage values. Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment The David O McKay building formed part of a campus-wide estate which included a number of buildings, structures, and elements of which five other buildings have also been recognised for their historic heritage value in the Operative (in part) District Plan. This is an important and relevant context within which to recognise the historic heritage values of the David O McKay building. That wider and consciously determined context is a physical expression of the former Church College of New Zealand motto: Build Now for Eternity CCNZ. This was not about building structures, but all about building people, community, and future generations. It would be inappropriate to read the David O McKay divorced from that wider context or to consider it in isolation from its scholastic purpose and the designed complex of buildings and landscape that defined the campus. Importantly it is this wider campus context within which the David O McKay building should be read and in accordance with this policy the degree of adverse effects arising from the demolition of the David O McKay building may be recognised as mitigated in part by the conservation and repurposing of those other recognised assets.

Policy 19.2.3i Encourage the strengthening of buildings in Schedule 8A to increase their ability to withstand future earthquakes while minimising the significant loss of associated heritage values. Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment The structural strengthening of the David O McKay building has been thoroughly tested and the purely structural issues are canvassed elsewhere in the application bundle. In terms of effects on heritage values arising from the potential structural strengthening it is clear that between the essential structural weaknesses identified through calculation and invasive investigation the physical requirements to effect appropriate strengthening risk damaging or destroying the very architectural elements recognised in the description included in the Council heritage inventory record. Therefore even if an appropriate reuse of the David O McKay building could be identified and a committed owner found prepared to spend the estimated $30 million, the physical works required could not be limited in their necessary extent or the effects on heritage fabric appropriately managed.

13

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

5.6 Rule 19.3 – Activity Status Table identifies the proposed works to demolish the David O McKay Building as Discretionary in accordance with the following: i) Demolition of any structure or building ranked B

5.7 Section 1.3.3 - Restricted Discretionary, Discretionary and Non-Complying Assessment Criteria contains a range of criteria that, where relevant, can be used to assess an application. In accordance with Rule 19.3 – Activity Status Table the proposed demolition of the David O McKay Building is considered to be a Discretionary Activity and accordingly will be assessed against, but not limited to, the following relevant assessment criteria against which we can provide comment:

5.8 Section E - Heritage Values and Special Character – General E1 Considers the extent to which the proposal, development, excavation or subdivision of a historic site or place:

d) In Schedule 8A of Appendix 8 maintains visual linkages between the building or structure and the street.

Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment The David O McKay building sits deep within the former LDS College site at a point some distance from Tuhikaramea Road and is largely shielded from street view by surrounding buildings, structures and landscape features. Consequently the David o McKay building is considered to have a disconnection with the street frontage and therefore the proposed demolition will have little effect on visual linkage values.

e) Is compatible with the reasons for inclusion of the building, structure or site and its significance in Schedules 8A or 8B, of Appendix 8. Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment The building has been included within Schedule 8A, Appendix B, as a Category B place and is considered within that Schedule to hold high historic, physical/aesthetic/architectural, context/group and cultural qualities with moderate significance attributed to technological values. While the place (the building and its site) has been assessed by Council as having historic heritage values (also reflected in the Category C status recognised in the ODP) we have undertaken an independent assessment of the place as measured against a broad range of criteria found in the Heritage New Zealand Act in order to consider the values of the building within its collective context of the former Church College campus

14

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

and the overarching values of the Temple View site and its community. This analysis provides a contextual reading of the David O McKay building and its individual values within the continuum of heritage recognition and the weight of protection that should be given it should be recognised in that context. It also recognises the founding tenet of the Church College of New Zealand whose motto: “Build Now for Eternity” speaks directly to the historic heritage values recognised in the David O McKay building and its particular and distinctive context. Accordingly, the historic heritage values associated with the David O McKay building sit relatively low in its wider immediate context. While its ‘B’ classification in the Operative (in part) District Plan is not challenged, its significance within its former campus context has undergone retesting through the District Plan review process, resource consent, and Comprehensive Development Plan processes associated with the evolutionary redevelopment of the former Church College campus. It is this context and that greater community association that represent essential values that should be considered over those associated with the building in isolation.

As a consequence of this understanding the proposal has been fully informed of the heritage values of the David O McKay building and the relative weighting recognised in those values through a detailed assessment process. The proposal has used that understanding to guide appropriate decisions with regard to the significance of the David O McKay building in relation to the heritage values of the LDS Church College site and the Temple. Although the proposal is considered to have a more than minor effect on the heritage item per se, it is considered that the re-purposing of the land on which the David O McKay building now sits will result in a positive enhancement of the core values of the former LDS Church College site as a whole.

f) Addresses cumulative effects on heritage values. Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment The potential extent of remedial works is likely to have a considerable effect on key aspects of the historic built fabric, particularly where building facades connect to adjacent elements. The consequent loss of original fabric through those works may be of such a degree as to compromise the buildings recognised heritage values. Indeed, the required level of intervention is recognised within the report by Beca Ltd Consultants of June 2016 as potentially having “an aesthetic impact once completed” and would “effectively be a heavily retrofitted .1950s building.”

15

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

g) The irreversibility of an effect (e.g. the loss of unique features). Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment The demolition of the David O McKay building represents an irreversible action and will therefore result in the physical loss of building features. However, a programme of recording will be implemented prior to demolition to ensure a detailed record of the place as found is saved within the LDS archive for future study. A pictorial record of both the exterior and interior of the David O McKay building along with all other buildings on the campus was completed by Walker Community Architects in November 2009 and this will be added to over time as the David O McKay and other buildings are progressively removed.

h) The opportunities for remediation and the costs and technical feasibility of remediation. Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment The proposed demolition is considered through a well-informed understanding of the significant values of the heritage item and using that understanding to guide an appropriate future development of the site. Extensive investigations have been undertaken with a view to securing a continued or new use for the redundant David O McKay building. Those investigations have revealed limited potential for a new or continued use of the place in its current form; particularly in light of the significant scale and seismic capacity limitations.

A report by Beca Ltd Consultants in June 2016 concluded that the David O McKay Building’s “inherent resistance to lateral loads falls well short of current standards and in all likelihood the David O’McKay Building is classified as earthquake prone.” In considering the scope and extent of work necessary to effect an adequate retrospective structural seismic upgrade the report suggests that there are “a number of intrinsic design shortfalls when considering the building in a seismic context.” It is therefore likely that extensive areas of the building will require invasive works, with particular emphasis placed on improvements to structural connectivity between floors, walls and roof elements; all of which have will require “significant investment to bring the building up to a standard acceptable to the relevant codes of practice, regulations and Church leadership.”

The potential extent of remedial works is likely to have a considerable effect on key aspects of the historic built fabric, particularly where building facades connect to adjacent elements. The consequent loss of original fabric through those works may of such a degree as to compromise the buildings recognised heritage values. Indeed, the

16

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

required level of intervention is recognised within the Beca report as potentially having “an aesthetic impact once completed” and would “effectively be a heavily retrofitted .1950s building.”

Economic development of the site requires the provision of family-sized accommodation which is adaptable to contemporary needs. The retention of the David O McKay complex is considered detrimental to achieving that end and would not make efficient use of the existing land resource (which has capacity for further dwelling units).

i) The resilience of the heritage feature to change (e.g. the ability of the feature to assimilate change, or the vulnerability of the feature to change). Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment The David O McKay Building has become redundant following the closure of the LDS Church College and the building has reached the end of its design life. The building requires significant remedial works to continue in a new use and therefore the extent of necessary works is likely to pose a detrimental effect on recognised heritage features of the place; so restricting its ability to assimilate change.

j) Adheres to the conservation principles of International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter (2010) for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value, where applicable. Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment The proposed demolition of the David O McKay Building does not adhere to the aspirational conservation principles of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter (2010). This criterion is conditioned with the words “where applicable”. Notably however, recent consideration of the role of the ICOMOS NZ Charter by the Independent Hearing Panel hearing submissions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan considered the ICOMOS NZ Charter “… was not prepared for the purpose of administering the Resource Management Act” and is a guide about practice and not a consideration in decision making.

k) Includes consultation with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment The David O McKay building is not registered under the provisions of the Heritage New Zealand Taonga Act 2014 Act 2014, however, consultation with Heritage New Zealand staff has been ongoing since 2012 on all aspects of the Temple View development including specifically the proposal to remove the David O McKay.

17

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

E2 Whether the heritage values of any buildings or places identified in Schedules 8A or 8B of Appendix 8 would be adversely affected by the proposal. Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment The demolition of the David O McKay building will constitute an adverse effect on a place identified in Schedule 8B. However, while the place (the building and its site) has been assessed by Council as having historic heritage values (reflected in the Category B status recognised in the PDP) we have undertaken independent assessment of the place as found. This independent assessment measured the values of the David O McKay Building against a broad range of criteria found in the Heritage New Zealand Act in order to consider the values of the building within its collective context of the former Church College campus and the overarching values of the Temple View site and its community. It is considered that this context and that community association represent essential values that should be considered over those associated with the building in isolation.

The proposal is conscious of the relative heritage values of the David O McKay building in the context of its place within the former Church College campus and the Temple itself through a detailed assessment process. It has used that understanding to make appropriate decisions regarding the significance of the David O McKay building in relation to the heritage values of the LDS Church College site. Although the proposal is considered to have a more than minor effect on the heritage item per se, it is considered that the re-purposing of the land on which the David O McKay building now sits will result in a positive enhancement of the core values of the former LDS Church College site as a whole and is well aligned with other previously consented development in that context.

18

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Temple View Character Area, E11 “Whether removal of any building or structure within the Character Area will affect the gateway appearance of the Character Area.”

Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment The David O McKay Building is well set back away from the main Tuhikaramea Road to such a sufficient degree that the gateway appearance of the Character Area will be unchanged should the building be demolished.

E12 Whether it has been clearly demonstrated that demolition of any heritage building in Schedule 8A of Appendix 8 is necessary, considering alternatives for the refurbishment or re-use of the building, financial cost and technical feasibility. Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment The objectives and relevant policies of the Operative (in part) District Plan aim to avoid the demolition of Scheduled buildings and encourage their continued or adaptive re- use. In light of the LDS commitment to the recognised heritage status of the David O McKay building and its wider historic context, strenuous measures have been taken to explore opportunities for continued use or find an adaptive reuse for the building and positively seek a solution to avoid the demolition process now subject to the current proposals.

The concept schemes concerning commercial and residential development of the building generally entail wide-scale subdivision of internal spaces in order to accommodate new facilities, whereas a re-use option orientated to health and recreation could continue to utilise much of the existing internal building configuration, whilst all options have the potential to retain a refurbished swimming pool.

However, all three suggested continued-use options would require significant structural upgrade to meet current building codes. The extent of necessary modifications could potentially involve, but not be limited to, the replacement of building services, existing timber floors, provision of new doors and windows, extensive recladding of external surfaces and variations in the original design loads which crucially would require additional strengthening works for the foundations and superstructure.

Although the structural design could be devised to ensure regard is paid to the heritage status of the place, the report by Beca Ltd Consultants of June 2016 highlights that “the

19

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

visible fabric of the building is also the structure and this would largely need to be reconstructed” in order to achieve seismic upgrade.

The building façade of the David O McKay Building is regarded as a strong contributor to the overarching heritage significance of the place, particularly in relation to historical and architectural values that are complimented by the brick masonry construction method. The suggested continued re-use options all envisage façade modifications to some extent (the recreational reuse represents the least degree of modification of the alternatives explored), which although reflecting the original Modernist stylistic influences would likely have a significant detrimental effect on any recognised heritage values associated with the place. Significant reconstruction of the façades would therefore be particularly detrimental to those recognised values.

Consequently, adverse effects relating to the demolition of the David O McKay building have been mitigated against through evolving and carefully considered development of the former LDS Church College site. The evolution of the site is now defined by a number of enabling development consents elsewhere on the former campus that aim to reinforce the continued presence of the LDS community.

E14 “Any immediate or cumulative effects of the loss, alteration or removal of any buildings on the overall coherence of the Character Area.”

Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd comment The Temple View Character Area combines elements of the built and landscaped environment with ‘widespread use of certain key elements such as colour, materials, landscape treatment, consistency of building form and design, and internal roading.’ A key feature of the Character Area is displayed through the arrangement of buildings and landscaping either side of Tuhikaramea Road. This arrangement creates a distinct gateway approach to the Temple with ‘a unique spatial pattern which is articulated through uniformity in the height, bulk, architecture, materials and vernacular style of its buildings and other structures.’

The David O McKay Building currently forms part of wider complex of buildings that collectively constitutes the Temple View Character Area. The former Church College site has, since its inception, undergone a process of organic development that has reflected the changing needs and requirements of the LDS College community. Recent consented development of the campus has seen the demolition of a number of LDS former Church College buildings of both primary and ancillary status that will result in the retention of a core sample of buildings with scheduled status.

20

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

The construction of a new complex of building types and the selection of retained scheduled buildings will provide a permanent record of the formative years and original use of the site by the LDS Church, while enabling appropriate development. The David O McKay Building, whilst acknowledged as one of the larger buildings within the Character Area, is also just one component of the recognised wider context of built and landscaped elements that combine to reflect the areas distinctiveness.

The character of the Temple View Zone is continually evolving and following the closure of the LDS Church College the site has undergone a degree of change through consented demolition of redundant former College buildings. In light of the key elements that combine to form the Temple View Character Area, it is considered that the demolition of the David O McKay Building will constitute only a minor immediate effect on the overall coherence of the Character Area, but through the continued organic development of the Temple View community, the demolition of the David o McKay Building will have a less than minor cumulative effect on the overarching values of the Temple View Character Areas as a whole.

6. THE OPERATIVE (IN PART) DISTRICT PLAN – SPECIAL CHARACTER 6.1 Section 5.1.4 of the Operative (in part) District Plan defines the extent of the Temple View Zone and at 5.1.4.2 the Temple View Character Area (defined on planning maps 51B and 60B). 5.1.4.2c) recognises that “provisions in the Character Area have been designed to enable a range of different activities to take place, with a view to enhancing and complementing the adjacent Heritage Area.” 5.1.4.2d) describes the Character Area as straddling “Tuhikaramea Road and includes a number of Heritage Items and Significant Trees that are individually protected […], but the Temple View Character Area values extend beyond these individual items. The character of the area originates from the widespread use of certain key elements such as colour, materials, landscape treatment and internal roading.” Further there is “considerable unity” between different areas of activity as a consequence of siting, design and proportions of the built environment. The Operative (in part) District Plan acknowledges that new development, “which is compatible in scale, materials, form and design, will enhance and maintain this special character.”

21

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

7. conclusion

The David O McKay building is recognised in the Operative (in part) District Plan as a Category ‘B’ place of historic heritage value. It does not appear on the New Zealand Heritage List administered by the Heritage New Zealand, and it is not subject to covenants in respect of heritage value.

Having considered the effects arising from the proposed demolition works against the relevant objectives, policies, and rules of the Proposed District Plan with respect to historic heritage we have concluded that the proposed works will not avoid the demolition of a scheduled item and will have a more than minor effect on the environment with respect to that item. However in considering the heritage values of the David O McKay building, in its wider campus context, and with regard to the spirit of the former Church College of New Zealand dictum ”Build Now for Eternity” it is important to recognise both its wider former Church College campus context and the originally anticipated redundancy of the whole of the College and the anticipated growth of the Temple View community; an important concept in the recognition of heritage values associated with both Temple View and with the subject building.

As a consequence of that understanding of heritage values, the exploration of existing and adaptive reuse options, and the seismic resilience and associated costs of upgrading of the building structure to enable reuse; this assessment of effects recognises that while the effects on historic heritage values arising from the proposed demolition of the David O McKay building is more than minor, the wider envisaging project already partially consented will see an evolution in the local special character, the retention and reuse of six of the seven locally recognised buildings, and the enabling of appropriate development within that context.

22

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Appendix A

Archifact – architecture & conservation ltd, the David O McKay Building Heritage Assessment, November 2014

23

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

archifact

architecture & conservation

ww w.archifact.co.nz

archifact limited 64 khyber pass road grafton auckland 1023 po box 8334 symonds street auckland 1150 new zealand p 09. 966 6940 [email protected]

figure 2 the david o mckay building, no. 435 tuhikaramea Road (archifact limited, 2012)

the david o mckay building,

435 tuhikaramea road temple view hamilton

heritage assessment

for

the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints trust board november 2014

24

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

prepared for: the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints trust board po box 5844 wellesley street auckland 1010

copyright © Archifact-architecture & conservation limited, 2014 all rights reserved. without limiting the rights under copyright above, no part of this report may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. auckland, november 2014

25

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage contents 1.0 executive summary ...... 28 2. commission ...... 29 3. brief ...... 29 4. identification of the place ...... 29 4.1 address ...... 29 4.2 ownership ...... 29 4.3 legal description ...... 29 4.4 local authority designation ...... 29 4.5 new zealand heritage listing ...... 30 5. methodology ...... 30 5.1 hamilton city council operative district plan (2012) - assessment criteria ..... 30 5.2 hamilton city council proposed district plan (13 november 2012) - criteria ... 31 5.3 heritage new zealand pouhere taonga act 2014- assessment criteria ...... 31 5.4 constraints ...... 32 6. history of the place ...... 33 6.1 early history ...... 33 6.2 development of site ownership ...... 34 6.3 lds church school development ...... 35 6.4 establishing church college site ...... 36 6.5 lds church college development ...... 37 6.6 lds college redevelopment ...... 41 6.7 lds church college sites of heritage value ...... 41 7. description and physical condition ...... 43 7.1 location ...... 43 7.2 site boundaries ...... 43 7.3 Information provided by Certificate of Vol 335 No. 156 ...... 45 7.4 chronology of ownership ...... 45 7.5 chronology of site development ...... 46 8. david o mckay building – building assessment ...... 46 8.1 chronology of change ...... 46 8.2 david o mckay building - site ...... 46 8.3 david o mckay building - structure ...... 47 8.4 david o mckay building - exterior ...... 48 8.5 david o mckay building - interior ...... 50 8.5.1 principal spaces ...... 51 8.6 structural assessments ...... 63 9. the individuals or institutions connected with the place ...... 64 9.1 david o mckay ...... 64 9.2 edward o anderson ...... 65 9.2.1 Information from American Architects Directory 1956...... 66 9.3 arnold ehlers ...... 67 9.4 peter garry ...... 68 10. heritage character assessment ...... 68 10.1 general criteria for significance...... 68 10.2 evaluation criteria ...... 68 10.3 additional criteria for establishing significance ...... 70 10.4 degree of significance ...... 70 10.5 assessment ...... 71 11. statutory requirements ...... 74 11.1 historic places act 1993 ...... 74 archaeological significance ...... 74 12. conclusion ...... 74 13. bibliography ...... 76 appendix a – certificates of title and deposited plan ...... 78

26

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage appendix b – hamilton city council operative district plan map 14A ...... 86 appendix c – chronology of development ...... 92

27

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

1.0 executive summary The David O McKay building has been recognised in the Hamilton City Council Operative District Plan, July 2012 as having historic heritage value. This inclusion has seen the David O McKay building measured against criteria at Appendix 2.3-I Assessment of Heritage Items of the Operative District Plan and has seen its inclusion in the District Plan as Heritage Item 106 in Appendix 2.3-II Heritage Items Schedule as a place ranked Category C. In light of the recent publication of the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan (17 September 2012), the place has also been measured against criteria at Appendix 8A: Built Heritage (structures, buildings and associated sites).

This Archifact Limited heritage assessment of the David O McKay building has assessed the building against the same criteria and has also considered the place (the building and its site) against a broader range of criteria found in the Historic Places Act in order to consider the values of the building within its collective context of the former Church College campus and the overarching values of the Temple View site and its community. It is considered that this context and that community represent essential values that should be considered over those associated with the building in isolation.

The David O McKay Building’s post-war International Style coupled with a range of comprehensive facilities was considered a less common educational format in New Zealand at the time of its construction. The Modernist influences are apparent throughout and the design portrays the classic clean planes, straight edges, recessed elements, and alignment of fenestration with linear horizontal or vertical emphasis.

The David O. McKay Building however is part of wider complex of buildings that collectively constitutes the former Church College of New Zealand campus. Although of significant scale, the considered form and use of materials present qualities that allow the various elements of the building to sit comfortably within its immediate and wider setting. In consideration of the heritage values attributed to the subject place, it is concluded that the heritage values of the building are dependent on, are related to, and should be measured against the heritage and community values of the Temple View Church College site as a whole and to the wider values of Temple View and its active Latter Day Saint community.

The subject building and the Church College campus was designed by Arnold Ehlers, a relatively minor American architect who, at the height of his career became Supervising Architect for the LDS Church Building Committee. His career coincided with the peak of the International Style, which was guided by a simplification of form, with unadorned detailing and form influenced by function.

A number of structural reports have been commissioned to consider the seismic competence of the building and have concluded that significant retrospective seismic upgrade work is required. The Beca report of 29 May 2009 identified that the earthquake performance of the David O McKay Building would achieve less than 35% NBS (%NBS = Percent of New Building Standard). A report by Dunning Thornton Consultants in November 2012 concluded that the David O McKay Building was earthquake prone and that in considering the scope and extent of work necessary to effect an adequate retrospective structural upgrade considered that the works would have an “effect on the existing planning and inevitable [...] effect on the appearance of the building, both externally and internally.” Of note the Dunning Thornton report concludes that it may well be “the very bits that may be most desirable to retain may be the high risk elements of the existing building”.

28

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

2. commission Archifact Limited was first commissioned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board in November 2012.

3. brief The brief for the project required Archifact Limited to form an independent and objective professional opinion assessing the heritage values of the place as found.

4. identification of the place 4.1 address The David O Mckay Building, 435 Tuhikaramea Road, Temple View, Hamilton.

NZTM reference: Easting: / Northing: 1796119 / 5811835

4.2 ownership The David O. Mckay Building, No. 435 Tuhikaramea Road, Temple View, Hamilton is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Trust Board.

4.3 legal description Certificate of Title Ref: SA68C/73, Lot 1, DPS88403.

4.4 local authority designation According to the Hamilton City Council Operative District Plan, July 2012, the subject property is located within a Community Facility Zone, Church College Character Area, which seeks to “To ensure development within the Church College Character Area maintains and enhances its special character.”

This place appears as Heritage Item 106 in Appendix 2.3-II Heritage Items Schedule of the District Plan as a place ranked Category C place with ‘recognised heritage value’6

The place is also included in the Hamilton City Council Proposed District Plan (13 November 2012) as Heritage Item H106 in Appendix 8A:Built Heritage (structures, buildings and associated sites). It is ranked within this appendix as a Category B asset, and is included in Planning Map 60B. The place is considered through assessment by Hamilton City Council to be: …of significant heritage value locally and regionally, setting a standard for school facilities that would come much later to colleges in Hamilton and the Waikato region. It is considered to be of high or moderate value in relation to the following criteria:

a)Historic Qualities; high, b) Physical/Aesthetic / Architectural Qualities; high, c) Context or Group Values; high, d) Technological Qualities; moderate, e) Archaeological Qualities; not assessed, f) Cultural Qualities, high

6 Hamilton City Council Operative District Plan, July 2012, Appendix 2.3-I-Rankings of Significance.

29

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

The David O McKay building is significant as the key recreational facility built in 1955 as part of the Church College. It is named after David O McKay an international leader of the LDS Church, and President at the time the building was constructed. The building is significant for its modernist architectural design, and as an example within the College campus of designs prepared by the LDS Architectural and Engineering Department and supervising architect Edward O Anderson. It is significant as an example of the skills of the Labour missionaries with Perry Brown as Crew Leader and Maurice Pearson Foreman. The building is of significance as an example of a building constructed using concrete bricks made at the LDS block plant. The importance of the complex at Temple View to the community is evident in the formation of the Temple View Heritage Society formed to campaign for the retention of buildings within the college complex.

The Proposed District Plan was amended from its draft version to make all categories of heritage building non-complying to remove (see Rule 19.3 (i).

A copy of the Hamilton City Council Built Heritage Inventory Record Form relating to the David O McKay building is included in Appendix B.

4.5 new zealand heritage listing This place is not listed under provisions of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014

5. methodology This report offers an independent and objective assessment of the heritage values of the building located at No. 435 Tuhikaramea Road Temple View, Hamilton. A desktop analysis of historic data from a range of archives has been undertaken, including reference to Archives New Zealand and LDS Church College archive documentation.

5.1 hamilton city council operative district plan (2012) - assessment criteria The terms adopted are taken from those included in Appendix 2.3-I Assessment of Heritage Items, of the Hamilton City Council Operative District Plan, July 2012. This document lists criteria used in qualifying the inclusion of a place on the List. Criteria from this list used in this report include the following values and a short description of these: a: Social / Historical: The extent to which the building, structure or precinct reflects the history of Hamilton, the Waikato or New Zealand with either a strong association with a significant person or persons or reflective of social or economic patterns of its time. b: Traditional / Cultural / Spiritual: The extent to which the spiritual importance. For example, the building, structure or area may have symbolic importance (eg. a naming place, sacred site or symbolic feature) or commemorative importance (eg. a memorial site). c: Technological: The importance of the building, structure or precinct as a reflection or representation of significant technological development. d: Setting / Aesthetic / Landscape: The extent to which the building, structure or precinct contributes to the identity of the neighbourhood or surrounding area, either as a component of the landscape or as an identity in its own right.

30

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage e: Architectural: The importance of the building, structure or precinct as an example of a notable design style, architectural technique, or design feature or as an important example of the work of a notable architect, builder, designer.

5.2 hamilton city council proposed district plan (13 november 2012) - criteria Whilst this report refers to the Hamilton City Council Operative District Plan, July 2012, reference is also made within this report to the Proposed Hamilton City Council District Plan (dated 13 November 2012). The relevant criteria associated with the Proposed District Plan include the following values: a) Historic Qualities b) Physical /Aesthetic/Architectural Qualities c) Context or Group Qualities d) Technological Qualities e) Archaeological Qualities f) Cultural Qualities g) Scientific Qualities

5.3 heritage new zealand pouhere taonga act 2014- assessment criteria For completeness, the assessment also pays regard to the terms adopted and taken from a selection included in Section 66 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. This section of the Act lists criteria used in qualifying the inclusion of a place on the New Zealand Heritage List administered by Heritage New Zealand. Criteria from this list used in this report include the following values and a short description of these follows below:

A – Aesthetic: Considering the formal qualities of the fabric and setting: the form, scale, materials, space etc. Assessment of the space or its parts demonstrating aesthetic significance or contribution to the overall integrity of the design of the place.

B – Archaeological: The degree to which the space can be said to have an archaeological potential.

C – Architectural: Addressing the design and architectural aspects of the place. Assessment of the space demonstrating those particular characteristics of a school of design.

D – Functional The contribution of the function of the place that can be assessed as having cultural heritage significance.

E – Historical: The ability to demonstrate an association with persons, ideas or events. Included in this section are the histories of all the other criteria considered. F – Scientific: Concerned with the importance of the place as evidence and with the physical survival of that evidence in the building fabric. Scientific value is the potential to provide information about past human activity. This may encompass technology, archaeology, philosophy, custom, taste and usage as well as technique or material.

G – Social: The notion of a spiritual, traditional, political, national, or any other cultural sentiment expressed by a group.

H – Technological: Assessment of the demonstration of particular characteristics of a building technique or craft.

31

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

I – Townscape: An assessment of the ‘Townscape Value’ or the contribution of the space to its greater context.

5.4 constraints This heritage assessment has been based on information available at the time. A site visit was conducted on 13 November 2014. Free and open access to the place and its site surrounds has been made available. This assessment includes reference to a number of structural engineering reports on the existing building with respect to its seismic performance.

32

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

6. history of the place 6.1 early history The subject site lies some seven kilometres from the City of Hamilton and within the middle Waikato basin, which extends 80 kilometres from north to south and 50 kilometres from west to east. This basin is bounded by ranges up to 900 metres in height. Key features of the basin include the scattering of low lying hills and the Waikato River which, following flooding, faced a topography, which naturally prevents easy drainage. The river therefore played a significant role in the formation of scattered small lakes and extensive marshlands that presented a significant challenge for the early settlers of the region. The landscape vegetation throughout the region was variable, with rainforests on the bordering ranges and scrub, bush, fern and bracken on the lower lying hills. The lower lying, often marshy areas supported reed and moss and were largely populated with Manuka and Kahikatea trees.

The first human settlement of New Zealand was undertaken by East Polynesians somewhere around 1250 – 1300A.D and it is thought that the Hamilton area became a transient centre for Maori occupation from an early stage. The area was originally occupied by a number of Maori villages, but is more commonly associated with the Kirikiriroa, from which the city takes its Maori name.

The early Maori utilised the river as a principal trade route and were instrumental in early development of the land; undertaking alterations to the river terraces and considerable modification of the surrounding vegetation through burning and clearance of bush. A number of Maori tribes are said to have controlled this area, although many were of a transient nature. A presence was formed by the Ngati Kauwhata during the sixteenth century, followed by the Ngati Haua, Ngati Koroki and Ngati Wairere by about 1700, but by the middle of the eighteenth century, the Ngati Raukawa had also developed an influence in the region.

Figure 2 Map of the Waikato Frontier dating to circa. 1873. The map indicates the topography of low hills and extent of marshlands throughout the Waikato and around Hamilton (arrowed) at this time. (Auckland Libraries, Maps Online Ref: C 995.151hkc, accessed 11/2012).

33

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

6.2 development of site ownership During the 1850s there was significant progress in the productivity of Maori farming throughout the Waikato region; an area, which provided a fertile agricultural environment that was enhanced with the introduction of Western farming tools and practices. During the late 1850s however, the European settlers attempted to gain more control over these lands and through various means, the Maori saw much of their traditional holding either traded or confiscated by the Crown during the early 1860s.

The allocation of confiscated land was largely allotted to military personnel from the 4th Waikato Regiment, who, on 24 August 18647 were brought in to establish a permanent European settlement around Kirikiriroa, or Hamilton as it was then called by the settlers from that time.

Each settler was awarded a “town section” of one acre8, with an option to ballot for one fifty-acre section or more according to rank. The land beyond Hamilton’s boundaries was divided into fifty- acre lots and the Allotment attributed to part of the site on which the David O. McKay building now sits can be identified on the following map in Figures 3&4.This map is titled ‘Military Settlements of the Waikato District’ and dates to the 1860s.

Figure 3 Map of Military Settlements in the Waikato District dating to the 1860s. Location of the Allotment containing the current Church College of New Zealand is arrowed. (Auckland Libraries, Maps Online Ref: C 995.151hk., accessed 11/2012).

7Gibbons, P, J.,1977. Astride the River: A History of Hamilton, P39 8Raynes, N., 1988. South of West Hamilton.

34

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Figure 4. Extract of Map of Military Settlements in the Waikato District dating to the 1860s. Location of the Allotment containing the current Lot for the Church College of New Zealand is circled. (Auckland Libraries, Maps Online Ref: C 995.151hk., accessed 11/2012).

6.3 lds church school development From the 1830’s European traders and missionaries presented the most radical change to local Maori culture as the Ngati Wairere people began to adopt Christianity. This conversion to Christian religious ideas and practices was accelerated with the arrival in 1854 of Mormon missionaries who aimed to teach the Maori people the Gospel and by the mid-1880s; the Maori Mission branches outnumbered Pakeha branches throughout the country by a ratio of four to one.9

As the membership increased, the Mission leaders observed a need to provide education for the Maori population, as schooling at that time was generally only provided in the main centres. They formed their first school in 188610 and with the success of this venture, proceeded to establish more schools in the surrounding districts until improvements in State education towards the end of the nineteenth century witnessed a decline in attendance at the Mission schools.

The New Zealand Mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) still recognised a distinct need to further educate the Maori population and to provide a similar standard of European education that was often less accessible to the general Maori community. In particular, the Church recognised that a lack of Maori education had placed them at a disadvantage in land negotiations; losing property which they were often too willing to sell to European speculators rather than develop themselves for long-term financial reward.11 To support the further education of Maori boys and instruct in the fundamental principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the establishment of a college was proposed and the Mission obtained

9Scott C. Esplin.,(2011), Closing the Church College of New Zealand: A Case Study in international Church Education Policy. 10Hunt, B, W., 1977, Zion in New Zealand – A History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in New Zealand. 11Hunt, B, W., 1977, Zion in New Zealand – A History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in New Zealand, P33

35

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

130 acres of land at Korongata on April 1, 1908. Construction began during November of 1911 and the school operated from its official opening in 1913 as the Maori Agricultural College.

Although the school received many positive reviews for its contribution to the education of the Maori community, the Government initially declined to approve the facility and curriculum attendance dwindled to just 20 boys by 1930. The Ministry of Education finally granted the school official Government status, however, questions were raised by the Church as to whether the school could continue financially. This was confirmed on 2 October 1930 when the Church’s First Presidency indicated that a decision had been made to close the school at the end of the 1930-31 year as part of a general policy of the Church to withdraw from education, which was largely attributed to a significant improvement in the New Zealand state education system. However, prior to this being implemented the school was subjected to the severe earthquake of 3 February 1931, which saw much destruction throughout the site and wider area. The school buildings were severely damaged by this event and the school was immediately closed from that date.12

6.4 establishing church college site The process of establishing a new school for the Latter-day Saints Church in New Zealand was initially undertaken by Elder Matthew Cowley who was ordained as an Apostle in 1945.

Elder Matthew Cowley was called to be president of the Pacific Missions of the Church, and he placed great interest in establishing schools throughout the region. In 1947 Elder Cowley arrived in New Zealand, and although this was his first visit as an Apostle, it was not his first in the Country as he had first served as a young missionary from 1914-19 and acted as Mission President from 1938-1945.

His visit in 1947 coincided with a realisation by Church leaders that LDS Church members in New Zealand needed an opportunity to receive an education under the LDS Church. The original mission for the LDS Church College of New Zealand was to provide suitable education facilities for Latter-day Saint youth living in in remote areas without access to state schools. He returned to the United States and recommended to the LDS Church leadership that a new school should be established amongst the Maori people. He duly returned to New Zealand in 1948 with the news that a school would be built and that it “was to be fully accredited, co-educational, centrally located, with sufficient land and livestock to provide the necessary food”.13

In June 1948, President George Albert Smith assigned Gordon C Young the task of locating land for the College. Acting as New Zealand Mission President, he located a suitable site which, in May 1949 was being used as farmland.14 . The farm was owned at that time by farmer Burt Meldrum who was reluctant to sell to the LDS Church due to Government regulations under Section 51 of the Returned Services Act that regulated land sales following World War II. This Act would prevent him from obtaining an alternative holding unless he was a returning serviceman, should he relinquish his existing land. The Land sales Court Law was also in effect, and this Law froze property prices to those of 1942 levels, which made the sale of property unprofitable.15

To overcome this issue, President Young negotiated with Central Government in order to get the project under way. Through lengthy discussions with successive Governments, President Young succeeded in securing permission for the purchase of the land, and on 25 July 1950, a letter of authorisation was signed by R. B. Hammond, the Crown Building Controller.16 With terms successfully agreed to suit all parties, the site of 215 acres was purchased for a sum of £20017, and this occurred on 23 May 1949.

12 Ibid., P51 13Ibid., P65 14Young, G. C.,Te Karere, December 1957, 415 15Young, G. C.,Te Karere, December 1957, 416 16Young, G. C.,Te Karere, December 1957, 418 17Memoirs of Gordon C Young, p25: Ref: MJ9963 Box 2.

36

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Figure 5. Image of the site as farmland prior to Figure 6. Image of the site as farmland prior to construction. Image obtained from Hunt, W., B., 1977. construction. Image obtained from Hunt, W., B., 1977. Zion Zion in New Zealand in New Zealand

6.5 lds church college development President Young had identified a number of potential sites for the proposed College during his investigations during 1948. During October of that same year, Edward O Anderson, the Supervising Architect of the Church from Salt Lake City, accompanied President Young on an inspection of the prospective sites. With the most suitable site secured, surveying of the land began on 17 November 1949 and initial site and building plans were drawn up under the supervision of Anderson.

The Church College project began in earnest during the latter part of 1950 with the clearance of three acres of ground. The original homestead, which occupied the highest point of the land was moved to lower ground and altered to provide additional facilities as a meeting house and dining room, and became known as the “Green House”. The supervision for the project was assigned to George R. Biesinger, and the LDS Church in Salt Lake City provided the initial start-up funds with a cash budget of $25,000 (US). This funded the purchase of a timber mill in Otaua for the initial timber for the project.

A sequence for the College construction work was established in 1951, with a block making plant set up as a first priority in the farms old hay and manure shed. The initial blocks were produced on 7 July 1951 and by the end of the year, up to 2,850 were being produced each day. Following the formation of the block plant, priority of construction work was assessed to be the need for a joinery workshop, staff residences and a conference and mess hall, which was initially to be used for storage.

The task of obtaining suitably qualified personnel to undertake the construction tasks was organised under the Labour Missionary Programme. This programme brought quality craftsmen from America to New Zealand in order to supervise and train the local LDS Church members on a voluntary basis. The first of the tradesmen to arrive in August of 1952 was Elder William Child; a brick mason from Salt Lake City, and others quickly followed. To facilitate supplies for the extensive building programme, a rock quarry was obtained in Whatawhata to supply the rock and gravel, and a 3,800 acre forest was purchased in Kaikohe to supply an increasing need for timber.18

When George Biesinger arrived at the College site he discovered that there were no comprehensive plans for the proposed buildings. Consequently, the LDS Church Architect, Edward O Anderson was dispatched to the site and undertook further survey work; subsequently leaving the country for Fiji, where he stayed until he had produced plans for the site.19 Plans included those for the Classrooms and for the mechanics workshop, with ground breaking for the first classroom occurring during the Christmas holidays of 1952.20

18Hunt, B, W., 1977, Zion in New Zealand – A History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in New Zealand, P67 19Arnold Ehlers Oral History, p29, issued to Archifact by Emily Utt, 6 May 2013. 20Te Rongo Pai, p13

37

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Construction began on the Joinery workshop, with the first brick being laid in August 1952, and in that same year, the other priority buildings were begun, with temporary housing and the teacher Housing units all well underway by the end of the year. Works progressed at pace during 1953 with fifteen buildings under construction including the Kai Hall, Classrooms, and Teacher Houses whilst the Joinery Workshop and Automotive Garage were the first to be completed.

The first Teacher House (‘First House), followed soon after, with the Biesinger family moving in by Christmas. Eight more of the Teacher Houses were under construction with these houses the focus of much attention from government officials, the public, and the media, as the concrete- block construction cost considerably less than comparable homes provided by the government housing scheme.

During 1954 construction of the girls and boys dormitories began, with Arnold Ehlers now identified as the design Architect for these buildings. The first of the girl’s dorms was nearing completion by Christmas and the project continued in its original scope of work until a visit by President David O McKay in 1955. His visit coincided with a desire by the LDS Church at that point, to scale back the project, however, he was so impressed by what he found that the scope of works was actually increased. The new scope of works confirmed the construction of the David O McKay and the Matthew Cowley Administration building, amongst others.

The year of 1955 was significant with regard to the ground-breaking ceremony for the Temple building, the construction of which progressed rapidly from then on. The final Teacher House was completed in September and by the end of the year the majority of the classrooms and dormitories were finished. With Edward O Anderson concentrating on the Temple design, Arnold Ehlers produced plans for the additional College buildings, seeing the start of construction during 1955 for the Matthew Cowley Administration building, and the new Block Plant.

Figure 7. Ground work underway during the construction of the David O McKay building. Image obtained from Hunt, W., B., 1977. Zion in New Zealand and taken by Whites Aviation, Hamilton.

38

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Figure 8. Extract of the original site plan circa 1955 with David O McKay building circled. (Source: Walker Architects Report, 2009.)

Figure 9.Aerial image of LDS Church College. Date o image is unknown but is taken at some stage following start of construction for the David O McKay building but before the Matthew Cowley Administration building. Source: Image obtained from Hunt, W., B., 1977. Zion in New Zealand and taken by Whites Aviation, Hamilton.

39

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Figure 10. Aerial image of an early view of Church College with the David O McKay building circled. (Source: Hunt, W., B., 1977. Zion in New Zealand and taken by Whites Aviation, Hamilton.) It was not until 1956 that construction works began for the David O McKay building and by the middle of the year, the Block Plant was producing concrete blocks for all the Latter -day Saints construction projects throughout New Zealand with an additional fifty to seventy-five tons being shipped to Samoa each month.

Both the Temple and the College were built almost exclusively through volunteer labour, and by December 1956 the mission was supporting 238 labour missionaries. There were also 27 supervisors from the United States giving their time, and in addition to these individuals, a number of women volunteered to cook meals for the workers. The various Church units in New Zealand were asked to donate goods and produce to support the effort, prompting a newspaper reporter to write that “every tiny Church community in New Zealand which has made its contribution down to the last bottle of fruit” should not be forgotten.21 By the end of 1957 the Temple was finished; as was the majority of the David O McKay building, whilst the Boys Dormitories and the last of the classrooms would not be fully completed until 1958. During 1958 a number of additional buildings or projects were designed by the Project Engineering Crew under Elder Lyman’s direction. These buildings included the: Engineering Shop, Saw Dust Incinerator, Timber Stacking Building, Structural Steel for Temple Bureau of Information and the Sawmill.

The post-war International Style of the David O McKay College building was married to a comprehensive range of integral sporting and social facilities. This combination of style and accommodation was not considered to be common for educational buildings in the New Zealand context during that period.22 Many New Zealand Secondary Schools had existed in some form since the early period of European settlement and these grew organically over time to accommodate increased roll calls and changing curriculum requirements. The New Zealand Ministry of Education introduced the first of a new type of school planning in 1957 with the opening of schools incorporating separate blocks as self-contained units; each with six teaching rooms. Hallways were eliminated and the construction savings associated with this type of

21CCNZ sources from Chad Orton, provided to Archifact by Emily Utt on 8 May 2013. 22 Hamilton City Plan Heritage inventory Record Form, Obtained December 2012.

40

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage school enabled the addition of an assembly hall as well.23 With the David O McKay building boasting facilities including an auditorium, a thirty metre swimming pool, two gymnasiums and a basketball court, it is considered that there were few, if any, mainstream education establishments in the Country able to match the those offered at the LDS Church College site during its opening period.

Construction of the LDS Church College site was largely completed by 1958 with the arrival of the College teachers from America on 18 January, and with the formal Dedication of the College undertaken on 24 April by David O. McKay in the cafeteria of the building bearing his name.24 However, additional construction works were underway by the end of the year, with plans for a Medical Centre produced by the local Hamilton Architects, Garry &Clapp. This building was completed ready for the start of the 1960 term and the following year in 1961 plans were completed for a new library to serve the College, with the design was undertaken by Supervising LDS Church Architect, Harold W Burton. Aside from a number of minor buildings or extensions being erected (the Boys Dormitory car port in 1970, and the Automotive Workshop extension in 1972), the Library building marked the end of major construction until the addition of the Library extension. This addition was designed by yet another local architectural practice; G.A. Hughes & Associates during 1985. The naming of the dormitories occurred at separate intervals with the Girls Dormitories being named when the school opened. The Boys Dormitories were originally given A, B, or C designations, however, they were named in about 1966 after Clifton Boyack (an early school principal), Wendell Wiser (another early school principal), Keith Oakes (an Administrator of church schools), and Harvey Taylor (an Administrator of LDS Church schools).

The College expanded rapidly with 342 first year students in 1958 raising to 647 in 1970. However, LDS Church education policy up to that point was to operate schools in areas where there was a lack of quality public education, and following the death of David O McKay in January of that year changes to the student enrolment regulations saw a rapid decline of enrolment to just 450 in 1974. Further pressure on student numbers attending the College resulted from the introduction of a Seminary programme throughout New Zealand which meant that the students could remain at home rather than being sent away to stay at the College. Although enrolment numbers recovered somewhat in the intervening years, the College continued to operate under increased financial scrutiny, with the Seminary programme able to offer a religious education to more students for less cost. Coupled with significant improvement in the availability of state education and the significant costs associated with maintaining the ageing and deteriorating fabric throughout the LDS Church College complex, a decision was finally made to close the College in early 2006. With a staged closure plan implemented, the College closed permanently at the end of November 2009.25

6.6 lds college redevelopment A programme of site redevelopment commenced in 2014 with the demolition of a number of the original buildings that formed the LDS Church College. The principal buildings removed as of November 2014 include the Boy’s Dormitories, the Medical Centre, a Garage block and the first and second tranches of Teacher’s Housing (excluding the ‘First House’).

6.7 lds church college sites of heritage value The principal buildings, which occupy the College site include dormitories, classrooms, a library, the administration building, the David O McKay building, teacher’s housing, and extensive service facilities. Of these buildings, a total of six have been included as Heritage Items of Recognised Heritage Value in the Hamilton City Council Operative District Plan (July 2012). These Items are identified on the site plan shown in Figure 14 below. In addition to the College facilities, the Hamilton New Zealand Temple is located on the adjoining site to the south. This place is recognised within the Hamilton City Operative District Plan as a Category A+ place of “Outstanding Heritage Value” (Appendix 2.3-II Heritage Items Schedule), and forms the core of

23 http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/architecture-school-buildings/page-4 24Hunt, B, W., 1977, Zion in New Zealand – A History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in New Zealand, P73 25Scott C. Esplin.,(2011), Closing the Church College of New Zealand: A Case Study in international Church Education Policy.

41

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage the Temple Heritage Precinct. Of note, this Precinct is located within a Group 2, Significant Archaeological Site; identified as Site A210: Urupa (Burial Grounds) on Planning Map 14A. Further items of significance located within both of the above sites include a number of Category 1 and 2 trees, which are included in the Hamilton City Council District Plan ‘Significant Trees Register’.

Figure 11.Site plan showing the LDS Church College of New Zealand with Items of Recognised Heritage Value. These items do not include the Hamilton New Zealand Temple site located towards the south of the site.

42

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

7. description and physical condition 7.1 location

Figure 12. Map with subject site arrowed. The subject building is located on the eastern side of Severn Road. This road is aligned on a north-south axis. (Google Maps, 2012)

Figure 13. The subject site is identified as Heritage Item 106 within a Community Facility Zone, Church College Character Area in the Hamilton City Council Operative District Plan, July 2012. Planning map No. 14A.

7.2 site boundaries The subject property forms part of a complex of buildings associated with the Church College of New Zealand. The rateable boundary of the subject site includes the subject building which lies wholly within Lot 1 of DPS88403; an area of some 87.2438 hectares (216.5 acres).

43

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Figure 14. Aerial image of an early view of Church College legal title boundary with the David O McKay building circled . Image dated to 29 May 2012 (Courtesy of Google Earth 2012).

Figure 15. The subject site (arrowed) is identified as Heritage Item 106 within the Church College Character Area in the Hamilton City Council Operative District Plan, July 2012. Extract Aerial taken from Appendix 2.7-1E.

44

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

From Hamilton and the east, Tuhikaramea Road rises gently from the Waikato Basin plateau to the Church College. The complex is sited on the eastern side of a small prominence; nestling on land that falls towards the east. The College buildings are set back from the road and their alignment is integral to forming an avenue, which is delineated by a wide, tree-lined grassed berm that provides a buffer between the highway and the college facilities. This avenue follows the natural ridgeline topography until it falls again towards the south. Access to the College site is obtained via a lay-by drop-off point at the main entrance College Administration block with further vehicular access to the site provided via a service road located some 200 metres to the south. An off-shoot of this service road is directed along the western side the David O. Mckay building which occupies land towards the rear of the College Administration block.

7.3 Information provided by Certificate of Vol 335 No. 156 date description 24th Dec 1914 Mortgage 64031 14th June 1920 Extension of Mortgage 64031 13thAug 1921 Zenas Owen the younger, George William Owen and Edward John Owen of Hamilton are seized as tenants in 215 acres and 29 perches, equal shares 09th July 1925 Mortgage No. 181841 Zenas Owen the younger, George William Owen and John Owen to the Public Trust produced 6/4/? and …… 9/07/1925 1926 Mortgage No. 162023 30th Aug 1935 Discharge produced 3rd Sept 1935 Transfer No. 71615 the registered proprietors to Robert Neil, Farmer and Hannah Mary Charlotte Neil his wife 5th Aug 19?3 Variation in terms of mortgage 6th May 1940 Reclamation no. 10352 taking part of within land for road entered 26th May 1942 Transmission No. 48829 of the residue to Robert Neil, farmer 2nd Sept 1942 Mortgage 279725 of residue to the Public Trust 4th Oct 1946 Transfer 410802 of the residue Robert Neil to Bert Meldrum of Hamilton Farmer 11th Oct 1946 Mortgage 309080 of the residue Bert Meldrum to the Bank 5th April 1950 Transfer Bert Meldrum to the LDS Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board

7.4 chronology of ownership The surviving and searchable Certificates of Title (refer appendix a) and archival records provide the following chronology of owners:

7.4.1 Information provided by historical research date description persons 1860s Lot 1 identified as Military unknown Settlement land in the Waikato District

7.4.2 Information provided by Certificate of Title SA68C/73. date description persons 23 February Lot 1 DP South The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints Trust Auckland 88403 Board.

7.4.3 Information provided by Certificate of Title SA69A/105 Information unavailable at time of writing report

45

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

7.5 chronology of site development Refer Appendix C

8. david o mckay building – building assessment 8.1 chronology of change The following is a list of known alterations.

Additions & Alterations to 435 Tukikaramea Road, Hamilton P10, DP4411 date description of works 08/04/1963 Erect Additions to Construction Office 22/11/1965 Erect Additions to Kitchen Area 28/07/1967 Erect Boiler House 1979 Swimming Pool Changing Rooms 1979 Students Centre 29/08/1979 Addition to existing Library 18/09/1979 Plumbing to David McKay Building Additions 30/06/1986 Erect Squash Courts (Currently this area is occupied by pool changing facilities) 04/02/1987 Implement Shed in front of Warehouse 08/06/1994 To fit new roof over existing David McKay Building 09/04/1996 Construct stairs to Gymnasium 24/12/1997 Construct two new walls in PE Change Room. Demolish walls to Office Area. 23/10/2002 Erect a Foundation PAD for Satellite Dish

8.2 david o mckay building - site The David O McKay Building is sited on a gently sloping area of elevated land and sits some distance from the main Tuhikaramea Road. Aside from distant views on the approach from Hamilton, the building is all but hidden from public view as it is shielded by trees and College facilities that border the road. The main entrance into the building leads from a large tarmac car park which is orientated towards the north-western aspect. The immediate site surrounds throughout the northern and western aspects are generally laid to grass with areas of low-level shrub planting and are unbounded by physical barriers creating an open, natural feel to the development. The open, natural feel of the development in the wider context towards the north has recently been strengthened through the removal of the Medical Centre and the Boy’s Dormitories.

Figure 16. Looking east towards the David O McKay Figure 17. Looking south along the service road that Building. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) runs adjacent to the west side of the David O McKay

46

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

building. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

Figure 18. Looking north away from the David O McKay Figure 19. Looking south-east across the main car building. Note the disturbed ground where the Medical park. Centre was originally located. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

Figure 20. Looking south across the water tank array Figure 21. Looking west towards the David O McKay and open grassland beyond. building. Note the sloping topography that rises from the (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) plain of the Waikato Basin and forms a natural amphitheatre overlooking the sports field. (Archifact- architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

To the north east, a concrete service road delineates the north eastern boundary and this provides an access route to the service facilities, which are generally located on this side of the building. Aside from the service road, the immediate site surrounds of the eastern aspect are generally laid to grass with distant views over the Waikato Basin. The complex takes advantage of the landscape contours on this aspect to provide a natural stadium amphitheatre that overlooks playing facilities formed on the lower level of land forming the Waikato Basin. The immediate site surrounds for the south-eastern aspect overlook an area largely taken over by filter tanks that serve the swimming pool complex. Beyond this installation, the site again opens out to grassland that is populated by a mixture of tree and shrub species, and then onward to distant views of the Hamilton New Zealand Temple site to the south west.

8.3 david o mckay building - structure The building is generally arranged over a rectangular plan with a mix of individual elements, each of varying scale and proportion, combining to form the whole. The principal facilities are laid out to take advantage of the natural topography that permits a Basement level of accommodation to be formed within the fall of the land. Aside from the swimming pool, which is located on the lower lying land at the building’s southern end, the principal accommodation is arranged throughout the Ground Floor level. Additional seating accommodation within the larger volumes of the building has been created through the use of mezzanine structures.

According to the original plans the building was constructed with a reinforced concrete framework on concrete, strip footing and pad foundations. The infill panels are generally formed from reinforced concrete masonry blockwork. The blocks utilised for these external panels were

47

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage manufactured in the on-site block making factory and these were also used for internal partitions. It is understood that the initial concrete block production was performed by hand. The roof structures consist of long-span steel trusses supporting sarking and a steel deck.

The specification for the original development included facilities for an auditorium, gymnasium and swimming pool. In addition, the building was to feature service areas including dining rooms, a laundry and butcher shop. Since the building was completed in 1958, a number of alterations and additions have been undertaken. These principally consist of additions to the swimming pool block to provide changing and shower facilities; a Student Activity Centre and the creation of a new boiler house

The general condition of the building appears to be fair.

8.4 david o mckay building - exterior The Modernist influences are apparent throughout the place, but in particular the design of the Auditorium, Swimming and Gymnasium blocks tend to portray the classic clean, straight edges, recessed elements and alignment of fenestration with linear horizontal or vertical emphasis. Each area of the building is recognisable through the manipulation of building blocks that are juxtaposed in scale and form according to their function, and each principal space is linked to the next with a correspondingly scaled element.

The external elevation surfaces are generally formed from painted, concrete blockwork laid to standard stretcher-bond coursing. The Ground and First Floor levels of the western end of the building typically feature banks glazed panels in timber framing, set at regular intervals between the bays. Conversely, the eastern side of the building includes the significantly larger built elements housing the Gymnasium, Swimming and Auditorium blocks. These elements feature large expanses of painted masonry surrounding a combination of horizontal and vertical banks of timber or aluminium framed glazed panels in various sizes. Of note, the principal entrance set within the eastern elevation is accentuated and framed with polished concrete panels; coloured pink. These panels tend to highlight the entrance against the reserved off-white finish applied to the rest of the building.

Figure 22. Looking east towards the David O McKay Auditorium and the principal entrance into this part of the facility. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014).

48

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Figure 23. Looking towards the Student Centre block Figure 24. Looking north towards the David O McKay located at the north-west corner of the David O McKay building. building. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

Figure 25. Looking south-east across the main car park Figure 26. Looking towards the north-east aspect and towards the main entrance of the David O McKay the covered walkway leading to the main entrance. Building. Note this end of the building complex is (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) generally arranged over a single storey. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

Figure 27. Looking at the southern end of the David O Figure 28. Looking at the northern portion of the north- McKay north-east elevation and the double storey east elevation. The boiler house is central foreground of Gymnasium block in the foreground. (Archifact- the image. architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

49

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Swimming pool Gymnasium Boiler Room Kitchen and dining room

Figure 29. Looking south-west towards the David o McKay building. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

Figure 30. Looking north towards the swimming pool. Figure 31. Looking north towards the Auditorium block. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

8.5 david o mckay building - interior The principal entrance from the car-park opens into a wide corridor that extends the entire length of the building, although the southern segment of the corridor performs a dual function as overflow seating space for the Gymnasium. At the junction between the Auditorium and Gymnasium Foyers, a set of stairs leads to the mezzanine levels for those spaces. Further stairwells are located on the eastern side of the building and these provide the principal circulation routes between the Basement and Ground Floor levels. The Basement level facilities are primarily the Dressing Rooms, Shower and Laundry areas and these have multiple egress routes, which generally lead out in an area located towards the eastern aspect.

The interior spaces are well ordered and have been finished to a very high standard of workmanship and material use, however, further to the redundancy of the place, it is noted that the built fabric is showing signs of structural decay.

The general condition of the internal fabric is fair, however, the process of decay is likely to accelerate without a continued use for the place.

The following Chapter provides a descriptive overview of the place as found and highlights areas where the built fabric has been susceptible to decay (primarily from external water ingress) or where spaces have been subject to removal of fixtures and fittings.

50

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

8.5.1 principal spaces The principal accommodation throughout each level is as follows:

basement level ground floor First floor

Swimming Pool Corridor Mezzanine seating for the Dressing Rooms and Auditorium Gymnasium and Auditorium Shower Facilities Gymnasium Swimming Pool Mezzanine Laundry Student Centre Boiler Room Dining Room Storage Rooms Kitchen Workrooms Snack Room and Terrace Toilets

8.5.2 basement level swimming pool

Figure 32. Swimming Pool location (Source: Base plan Walker Architects, 2009)

Figure 33. Image showing a view of the swimming pool. Figure 34. Image looking from the spectator’s gallery Note the pool has been drained of water. over the swimming pool below. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) dressing rooms and shower facilities

Figure 35. Dressing Room and Shower locations (Source: Base plan Walker Architects, 2009)

51

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Figure 36. Image showing the Male Changing Room. Figure 37. Image showing the Male Changing Room (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) urinals. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

Figure 38. Image showing the Female Changing Room. Figure 39. Image showing the Female Shower Room. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) laundry

Figure 40. Laundry location (Source: Base plan Walker Architects, 2009)

Figure 41. Looking east across the Laundry Room Figure 42. Looking east across the Laundry Room. towards the east entrance (Courtesy of Walker Architects 2009) (Courtesy of Walker Architects 2009)

52

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage storage and workrooms

Figure 43. Storage and Workroom locations (Source: Base plan Walker Architects, 2009)

Figure 44. Image showing the stairs and lift at Basement Figure 45. Looking deeper into the Basement storage level. Both forms of access rise up towards the main space that contains a number of chiller rooms and food Kitchen on the level above. (Archifact-architecture & storage areas. This area originally served as the Boiler conservation ltd., 2014) House until the new purpose built facility was constructed. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

Figure 46. Image showing a typical Basement Level Figure 47. Image showing a typical Basement Level Workroom. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., Workroom. Note the damage to the ceiling fabric. 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) boiler room

Figure 16. Boiler Room location (Source: Base plan Walker Architects, 2009)

53

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Figure 48. The Boiler House. (Archifact-architecture & Figure 49. The Boiler House conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

8.5.3 ground floor level main corridor and reception

Figure 50. Main Corridor location Figure 51. Auditorium Foyer location (Source: Base plan Walker Architects, 2009) (Source: Base plan Walker Architects, 2009)

Figure 52. Image showing the main hallway at Ground Figure 53. Image showing the main hallway at Ground Floor level with the entrance to the Dining Room on the Floor level and the intersection with the Gymnasium left of the image. ahead, toilets to the left and Auditorium Foyer to the right. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

Figure 54. Looking into the Auditorium Foyer. Figure 55. Image looking across the Auditorium Foyer (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) towards the external entrances. Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

54

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage student centre

Figure 56. Student Centre location (Source: Base plan Walker Architects, 2009)

Figure 57. Image looking across the main open activity Figure 58. Image looking across the main open activity area of the Student Centre. area of the Student Centre. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) kitchen

Figure 59. Kitchen location (Source: Base plan Walker Architects, 2009)

Figure 60. Image showing the main Kitchen area. Note Figure 61. Image showing the main Kitchen area. Note the majority of the kitchen equipment has been removed. the majority of the kitchen equipment has been removed. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

55

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Figure 62. Image showing the decayed paint surface Figure 63. Image showing an area of water penetration covering one of the structural support column within the through the ceiling. The adjacent timber window Kitchen area. framework is consequently showing advanced signs of (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) decay. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) dining room

Figure 64. Dining Room location ( Source: Base plan Walker Architects, 2009)

Figure 65. Looking across the main Dining Hall towards Figure 66. Looking across the main Dining Hall towards the central corridor on the right of the image. the Kitchen. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

56

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Figure 67. Looking at the dividing wall between the Figure 68. Looking at the dividing wall between the Dining Room and Kitchen areas. Note that the removal of Dining Room and Kitchen areas. Note that the removal of fixtures and fittings has resulted in the loss of built fabric. fixtures and fittings has resulted in the loss of built fabric. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) snack room and terrace

Figure 69. Snack Room and terrace location (Source: Base plan Walker Architects, 2009)

Figure 70. Looking towards the Snack Area and access Figure 71. Image showing the internal arrangement of route out to the Roof Terrace. the Snack Room. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

Figure 72. Looking towards the Roof Terrace. Figure 73. Looking towards the Roof Terrace. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

57

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage washrooms

Figure 74. Washrooms location (Source: Base plan Walker Architects, 2009)

Figure 75. View of the Male washroom facilities. Note Figure 76. View of the Male washroom facilities. the high quality of fixtures and fittings. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) auditorium

Figure 77. Auditorium location (Source: Base plan Walker Architects, 2009)

Figure 78. Looking across the Auditorium from the stage Figure 79. Looking across the Auditorium towards the area. stage area. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

58

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Figure 80. View of the Auditorium from the stage area. Figure 81. Image showing the extent to which the soft (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) furnishings are exhibiting organic growth. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

Gymnasium

Figure 82. Gymnasium location (Source: Base plan Walker Architects, 2009)

Figure 84. Looking across the Gymnasium toward the Figure 84. Looking across the Gymnasium. overflow space. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

Figure 83. Image showing the Gymnasium with Figure 84. Looking towards the junction of the main bleachers and mezzanine seating in the background. Gymnasium hall with the overflow space that is (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) demarcated with full-height bi-fold partitions . (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

59

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Figure 85. Looking at evidence of water ingress Figure 86. Looking at decaying ceiling fabric displaying accumulating on the Gymnasium floor. evidence of water ingress. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

8.5.4 first floor-mezzanine levels gymnasium mezzanine

Figure 87. Gymnasium Mezzanine location (Source: Base plan Walker Architects, 2009)

Figure 88. Image showing the Gymnasium Mezzanine Figure 89. Image showing the view across the seating. Gymnasium from the Mezzanine seating area. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

60

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage swimming pool mezzanine

Figure 90. Swimming Pool Mezzanine location (Source: Base plan Walker Architects, 2009)

Figure 91. Looking towards the Swimming Pool Figure 92. Image showing the Swimming Pool Mezzanine seating area. Mezzanine seating. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) auditorium mezzanine

Figure 93. Auditorium Mezzanine location (Source: Base plan Walker Architects, 2009)

Figure 94. Image showing the Auditorium Mezzanine Figure 95. Image showing the view across the seating. Auditorium from the Mezzanine seating area. (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014)

61

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage stairwells

Figure 96. Image showing the Figure 97. Image showing the Figure 98. Image showing the north- south-eastern main staircase central main staircase eastern main staircase (Archifact-architecture & (Archifact-architecture & (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) conservation ltd., 2014 conservation ltd., 2014

Figure 99. Image showing the Figure 100. Image showing the Figure 101. Image showing the staircase serving the Auditorium staircase serving the Kitchen and extent of decay surrounding the Mezzanine. Storage area. north-eastern staircase window. (Archifact-architecture & (Archifact-architecture & (Archifact-architecture & conservation ltd., 2014) conservation ltd., 2014 conservation ltd., 2014

62

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

8.6 structural assessments Although the David O McKay building was designed and built to a high specification for the period, the design has been subject to recent seismic assessment to establish the extent of work necessary to bring the building up to current seismic code compliance.

Beca Carter Holdings and Ferner Limited [Beca] have undertaken a number of reports, which refer to the seismic competence of the building. A limited amount of invasive investigation was carried out with a conclusion in their later assessments that significant seismic work was identified as being appropriate26. The Beca report of 29 May 2009, identified that the earthquake performance of the David O McKay Building would achieve less than 35% NBS (%NBS = Percent of New Building Standard), in addition to a recognition that the building services and fire engineering would also require significant upgrade.

A subsequent report by Chartered Engineer, E. L. Bydder in July 2009, countered that conclusion with observations including acknowledgement that the structural design at time of build was of a very high standard. He concludes with a view that the building would “fully meet the current requirements of the building code”. 27 Mr Bydder’s credentials appear however not to be applicable in New Zealand and accordingly his conclusions should be tempered.

More recent studies however appear to align with the Beca assessment. A report undertaken in March 2012, by Bloxam & Burnett & Olliver concluded that the building would have the potential to suffer a catastrophic collapse during an earthquake episode.28 This view was again qualified in a further report undertaken by Dunning Thornton Consultants who concluded that the David O McKay Building was earthquake prone.29

26 Bloxham & Burnett & Olliver, Engineers, Planners, Surveyors. Report Ref: 140450-03, dated 13 March 2012. 27 Report by EL Bydder (PhD, MSc, CEng, FNZIP, MIEE, Chartered Engineer), 1 July 2009. 28 Bloxham & Burnett & Olliver, Engineers, Planners, Surveyors. Report Ref: 140450-03, dated 13 March 2012. 29 Dunning Thornton Consultants report dated 3 November 2012.

63

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

9. the individuals or institutions connected with the place 9.1 david o mckay David O McKay was born on 8 September 1873 in Huntsville, Utah. He graduated from Utah State university in June 1897 and in that same year travelled to Britain to serve in a mission until 1899.

In 1906 at the age of 32, he was ordained as an Apostle from which time he undertook a life of service to the LDS Church at its highest levels. Elder McKay headed a delegation to the New Zealand mission on 21 March 1921 in an attempt to improve LDS Church and Government relations. The relationship between the New Zealand Government and the LDS Church was often strained during the early 1900’s. Initially issues arose with Government refusal to allow the LDS Church to perform marriages and in 1917 the Government placed an initial ban on Missionaries coming into the Country. This restriction was amended to prevent any further increase in the existing missionary numbers and these remained in place until 1947.

After becoming President of the LDS Church on April 9 1951, he developed a plan for the missionaries with a programme for teaching the Gospel, with an expansion of the LDS Church vision for worldwide missions.30 During 1955 David O McKay returned to New Zealand to check on the progress of the College construction and to search for a site for a new temple31. . In association with Elder Matthew Cowley, David O McKay was considered to have been instrumental in founding the LDS Church College of New Zealand. He returned to New Zealand in 1958 at the age of 84 and dedicated the LDS Church College of New Zealand and the Hamilton New Zealand Temple. After 44 years in the Quorum of the Twelve and 19 as LDS Church President, David O. McKay died on January 18, 1970, in Salt Lake City at the age of 96.

Figure 102. Image showing David O McKay (circled) during his visit to the New Zealand mission in 1921 (Courtesy of Hunt, B, W, 1977).

30http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/controllers/potcController.jsp?leader=9&topic=events, Accessed December 2012. 31Esplin, S., C., 2008, Closing the Church College of New Zealand: A Case Study in international Education Policy

64

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

9.2 edward o anderson Edward O. Anderson was born in 1891.Edward received a High School Diploma in 1914 from Brigham Young University32, Utah, a private University owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He then studied architecture at Carnegie Tech University; graduating in 192333, leaving to undertake work as a draughtsman for architects Edward B Lee and Alden & Harlow. He then returned to Utah to train with Cannon & Fetzer and Pope & Burton before starting his own firm with Lorenzo Snow Young, called Anderson & Young. This practice ran from about 1928 to 1936, during which time Anderson was President of the American Institute of Architects (Utah Section) from 1935-36.34

The practice undertook a number of major projects, principally instrumental in the design of some notable buildings including the Kingsbury Hall at the University of Utah; one of the more significant non-ecclesiastical buildings he designed (1928-9) and Granite Stake Tabernacle (1929).35 Both of these places feature in the United States of America, National Register of Historic Places inventory. Kingsbury Hall was recognised in 1978 as one of the principal elements of the ‘University of Utah Circle Historic District’ and the Granite Stake Tabernacle was recognised on the Register in 2003.36

Figure 103. Kingsbury Hall at the University of Figure 104. Granite Stake Tabernacle. Utah.(Utah.gov services, 2012) (Utah.gov services, 2012)

Anderson worked on the Board of Temple Architects from 1939-1945 while maintaining his private firm, which also included some LDS meetinghouse design. His work on the Board coincided with the design of the Idaho Falls Temple although the Board was disbanded upon that temple’s completion. Anderson became LDS Church architect in 1949 whereby he focused primarily on temple design, whilst other people in the office managed meetinghouses. LDS Church architecture became increasingly standardised in the 1950s under Anderson’s direction.37

32http://www.byhigh.org/Search/ByClass.html, accessed December 2012. 33http://web-search.andrew.cmu.edu, accessed December 2012. 34http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_O._Anderson 35http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/USHS_Class/id/16488/rec/5 36http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/All_Data.html, accessed December 2012. 37Information provided by Emily Utt, 14 June 2013

65

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Figure 105. Bern Switzerland Temple Figure 106. Hamilton New Zealand Temple (idschurchtemples.com, 2012) (Utah.gov services, 2012)

These standardised designs are evident in the construction of the Bern Switzerland Temple (dedicated in September 1955) and Hamilton New Zealand Temple (dedicated in April 1958). He also designed the three-story London Temple (London, England) in 1958 and was recognised for his work on remodelling the Salt Lake Temple, the Manti Utah Temple and the St. George Utah Temple prior to his death on 9 August 1977.

9.2.1 Information from American Architects Directory 1956. Edward O. Anderson Date 16th May 1891 Born, Richfield, Utah 1918 Married (2 children) 1910-1911 Educated at Brigham Young University 1914-1915 University of Utah 1919-1923 Carnegie Tech Summer 1922 C J Taylor School of Art, Booth Bay Harbor, Maine 1922 Tau Sigma Delta 1922 Scarab Travel New Zealand, Tonga, Nui, Cool Island, Fiji Island, Australia, Hawaii, Mexico, Canada, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Greenland 1921-23 Draftsman, Edward B Lee 1923-24 Alden & Harlow 1924 Cannon & Fetzer 1924-27 Pope & Burton 1927-1934 Partnership, Anderson & Young 1935-1941 Chief Architect State of Utah 1934-1943 Architect Edward O. Anderson 1942-1946 Five Associates 1942-1946 Partnership Edward O. Anderson, Pope & Thomas, Associates 1943 Occupation: Supervising Architect, Latter -day Saints Church Reg: Calif, Colo, Idaho, Utah 1934 Prin. Wks: Salt Lake City Airport 1936 as Part; Town of Dragertown, Utah, Fed. Govt. 1955 Los Angeles Temple of Latter-day Day Saints Church 1955 Berne, Switzerland, Temple of Latter-day Saints Church Architect Associated, Berscher & Zimmer; Kingsbury Hall University of Utah & Granite Stake Tabernacle of Latter Day Saints Church both in Partnership 1935-1941 Supervising Architect: Federation Housing Authority, Utah 1943 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

66

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

1929-1931 Con. Architect D & R.G. RR Co, 1934-1936 Salt Lake City School Building 1935-1945 10 Housing Projects in Utah & Idaho 1935 Member of Ft. Douglas Golf Club 1935 Bonneville Knife & Fork Club Latter-day Saints Church High Priest 1928-1931 Educ. Activities Teacher, University of Utah 1934-1936 Series of Modern Architecture, Radio Station KSL 1952-1955 Special Interest Teacher, Various Latter-day Saints Meeting Houses in Los Angeles Area 1934-1936 Subj. Taught: Architecture, Public Service: Salt Lake County Planning & Zoning Commission 1935-1941 Government Service, Supervising Architect for Utah, Federation Housing Authority 1935 Books published: Salt Lake City Building Codes 1940 Published: F. H. A. Standards 1953 Magazine Articles: The Improvement Era 1935-1936 AIA Member : Utah Chapter ; P. President 1949-1952 Chairman Entertainment Committee 9 August 1977 Edward O Anderson passed away.

9.3 arnold ehlers Arnold Ehlers was born in 1901 Born to William H. and Louise (Schrader) Ehlers of Hamburg, Germany. He graduated from eighth grade, Blaine School, Salt Lake City in 1917 having earlier attended the Carlisle School and went on to take courses in mathematics and engineering at the Latter-day Saints High School, Salt Lake City, as basis for career in architecture between 1920 to 1921.

He served as a draughtsman at a number of architect’s practices working on minor projects between 1924 until 1939 working on such projects including the Labour and Interstate Commerce Commission buildings in Washington, D.C, and the library at University of Utah; eventually working up to Chief Draughtsman for Anderson and Young in Salt Lake City.

In 1939 he set up in partnership with Lorenzo Young of Salt Lake City, however this practice temporarily closed in 1941 due to the War and did not continue again until 1946. He continued with the practice through to1951 when he secured the position as Supervising Architect for the LDS Church Building Committee, although he did continue on a part-time basis completing previous projects with his earlier practice; and of note, designing Highland High School in Salt Lake City.38

Between 1952 and 1954, Ehlers became the Supervising Architect for the LDS Church Building Committee, New Zealand, during which time he worked on projects including the David O McKay building and the Matthew Cowley Administration building.

He proceeded to work on other projects as Area Architect for the LDS Church in addition to a brief spell in practice with his son, Jack Ehlers between 1964 and 1965. He then took charge of the Meetinghouse remodelling Programme for the LDS Church Building Department until retiring in 1971.39

38Information provided by Emily Utt, 14 June 2013 39Arnold Ehlers Oral History, issued to Archifact by Emily Utt, 6 May 2013.

67

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

9.4 peter garry In 2009, the late Peter Garry, as part of Garry & Clapp, and Church Architecture, were nominated by the New Zealand Institute of Architects (NZIA) for a Local Architecture Award for “Enduring Architecture” relating to their work on the David O McKay Building.40

The project architect for the David O McKay building was Arnold Ehlers and it is possible that he was supported in New Zealand by Peter Garry. Peter was partner in an architectural practice called Garry & Clapp Registered Architects and Engineers.

In a Home and Building magazine article in 1959, the practice was recognised for its work on projects including a block of five shops in Maeroa, Offices and Showroom in Te Awamutu, and Shops and Warehouse for the Hamilton Hardware Co. Ltd. With particular regard to the main methods used for the construction of the David O McKay, they were also regarded as specialising in steel and reinforced concrete frame construction techniques41.

10. heritage character assessment 10.1 general criteria for significance This section establishes the terms adopted in the assessment of cultural heritage value. The terms adopted are taken from the Hamilton City Council Operative District Plan, Appendix 2.3-I, Assessment of Heritage items

A conservative approach has been adopted for the assessment. Where the origin of an item is inconclusive and has the potential of having cultural heritage value, it has been assigned the highest value possible in order to avoid loss of potential cultural heritage value through lack of information at this time. Should, at a later time, more information become available these items should be reassessed.

10.2 evaluation criteria a: Social / Historical: The extent to which the building, structure or precinct reflects the history of Hamilton, the Waikato or New Zealand with either a strong association with a significant person or persons or reflective of social or economic patterns of its time.

The place is considered to hold social significance through its association with the efforts of the LDS Church to provide a high standard of education to the regional and wider Maori population.

The place has some historical significance as one of the later principal elements in the development of the Church College complex; a community development that reinforced the continued presence of the LDS Mission within New Zealand. The facilities specified for the David O McKay building were instrumental in the development of that programme in this country, and provided the Church College curriculum with sufficient breadth to be fully accredited. The post- war International Style of the David O Mckay College building was married to a comprehensive range of integral sporting and social facilities. There is historical significance attributed to the combination of style and accommodation that was not considered to be common for educational buildings in the New Zealand context during that period.

The place has social significance for the efforts of the Latter-day Saints to improve the educational standards of the Maori community who, as a result of their often remote locations, were unable to obtain an education comparable to that achievable in the main centres throughout New Zealand. There is also social significance attributed through the training programme offered by the Church to local volunteers who were able to learn new construction skills.

40 www.nzia.co.nz/awards/new-zealand -architecture-awards, accessed December 2012. 41 Home and Building, P62, Vol 21, No. 10, 1st March 1959.

68

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage b: Traditional / Cultural / Spiritual: The extent to which the spiritual importance. For example, the building, structure or area may have symbolic importance (eg. a naming place, sacred site or symbolic feature) or commemorative importance (eg. a memorial site).

The building has no perceived traditional, cultural or spiritual significance, but holds some commemorative value through its recognition of Church President, David O McKay.

c: Technological: The importance of the building, structure or precinct as a reflection or representation of significant technological development.

The place has technological significance through the use of concrete masonry blocks which were manufactured on site for the specific purpose of constructing the Church College Buildings. Until the introduction of imported machinery, the earliest blocks were formed by hand. The use of these blocks and of that technology was not however limited to the David O McKay building alone at Temple View as nearly all of the other buildings on the campus were also built in the same manner. The David O McKay building was built in stages, the Student Centre section not being completed until 1979.

d: Setting / Aesthetic / Landscape: The extent to which the building, structure or precinct contributes to the identity of the neighbourhood or surrounding area, either as a component of the landscape or as an identity in its own right.

The place has some setting significance value through its contribution to the Church College complex as one of the principal buildings from the second stage of the Church College development.

The subject place was designed to integrate with the surrounding College facilities by incorporating a common palette of building elements and materials that could be replicated throughout the development. Those elements have been pulled together with a common use of features including cornice details, recessed and suitably proportioned fenestration, and material choice. The building displays large areas of light coloured wall surface, which is softened by the textured surface of the concrete blocks used for their construction.

The scale and arrangement of the building has paid regard to the surrounding landscape features and integrates well with the associated College buildings; all contributing to present the place with considerable aesthetic significance.

e: Architectural: The importance of the building, structure or precinct as an example of a notable design style, architectural technique, or design feature or as an important example of the work of a notable architect, builder, designer.

The place has some architectural value as an example of work by the relatively minor architect Arnold Ehlers. The Church College project was a relatively rare piece of international Style design in New Zealand at that time and the work was undertaken by Ehlers at a time when he was Supervising Architect for the LDS Building Committee.

69

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

10.3 additional criteria for establishing significance This section establishes the terms adopted in the assessment of cultural heritage value. The terms adopted are taken from a selection included in Section 66 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. . This section of the Act lists criteria used in qualifying the inclusion of a place on the New Zealand Heritage List administered by Heritage New Zealand.

A conservative approach has been adopted for the assessment. Where the origin of an item is inconclusive and has the potential of having cultural heritage value (such as the archaeological significance of a site), it has been assigned the highest value possible in order to avoid loss of potential cultural heritage value through lack of information at this time. Should, at a later time, more information become available these items should be reassessed.

10.4 degree of significance A six-level scale of value has been adopted in tabulating the cultural heritage value of the spaces or elements within this place. This is based on the New Zealand Historic Places Trust’ 1994 Guidelines for Preparing a Conservation Plan. These values are: A Exceptional Significance The element or space is of exceptional importance to the overall significance of the place. B Considerable Significance The element or space is of considerable importance to the overall heritage significance of the place. C Moderate Significance The element or space is of moderate importance to the overall heritage significance of the place. D Minor Significance The element or space is of minor importance to the overall heritage significance of the place. 0 No Significance The element or space is of little or no importance to the significance of the place and is not intrusive or negative. X Intrusive The element or space obscures or passively detracts from the heritage significance of the place.

70

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

10.5 assessment A – Aesthetic: considerable B Considering the formal qualities of the fabric and setting: the form, scale, materials, space etc. Assessment of the space or its parts demonstrating aesthetic significance or contribution to the overall integrity of the design of the place.

The David O. McKay Building forms part of a wider complex of buildings that collectively constitute the Church College of New Zealand. Apart from distant views obtained during the approach from Hamilton in the east, the building is largely obscured from the public realm by mature trees and by the College buildings situated closer to the road. Although of significant scale, the considered form and use of materials present qualities that allow the various elements of the building to sit comfortably within its immediate and wider setting.

The subject place was designed to integrate with the surrounding College facilities by incorporating a common palette of building elements and materials that could be replicated throughout the development. Those elements have been pulled together with a common use of features including cornice details, recessed and suitably proportioned fenestration, and material choice. The building displays large areas of light coloured wall surface, which is softened by the textured surface of the concrete blocks used for their construction.

The scale and arrangement of the building has paid regard to the surrounding landscape features and integrates well with the associated College buildings; all contributing to present the place with considerable aesthetic significance.

N.B: Aesthetic significance is also assessed within Proposed Hamilton City District Plan.

B – Archaeological: no significance 0 The degree to which the space can be said to have an archaeological potential.

This place is not registered under provisions of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 Act 2014. An archaeological assessment by Warren Gumbley, Consultant Archaeologist is (at the time of writing this report) in progress and has shown that the only sites of prehistoric occupation or burial are located on the grounds of the Temple and not on the school grounds.

N.B: Archaeological significance is also assessed within the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan.

C – Architectural: moderate C Addressing the design and architectural aspects of the place. Assessment of the space demonstrating those particular characteristics of a school of design or style.

The subject building and the Church College complex of buildings was designed by Arnold Ehlers, a relatively minor American architect, at a time when he was Supervising Architect for the LDS Building Committee. His career coincided with the peak of the International Style which was guided by a simplification of form, with unadorned detailing and form influenced by function. The place has some architectural value as an example of work by the relatively minor architect Arnold Ehlers. The Church College project was a relatively rare piece of International Style design in New Zealand at that time and the work was undertaken by Ehlers

The clean, sharp lines of the building present a simple, sleek and elegant form which, despite the significant scale of some individual elements, juxtaposed to those of more reduced scale; the building as a whole embraces the ethos of the post-war International style that was particularly prevalent in American design of public buildings during the 1950s and 1960s.

Although the building has undergone a number of additions and alterations during its history, they have been designed to be subservient in scale and form and can be considered to have

71

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage posed little negative impact on the integrity of the original arrangement and composition of the place or its wider context.

With regard to the association of the place with architect Arnold Ehlers, and in the building retaining much of its original design within a complex of buildings that were conceived in the International Style, it is considered that the values of the place hold moderate architectural significance.

N.B: Architectural significance is also assessed within the Proposed Hamilton City District Plans.

D – Functional no significance 0 The contribution of the function of the place that can be assessed as having cultural heritage significance.

The development of the building throughout its function as a significant element of the Church College is evident in documentary records. These present commentary of a building that proved adaptable to the evolving functional requirements of the College during the period through which it operated. The sports facilities provided were likely to have been unique at the time in the New Zealand educational context and the function of the David O McKay building provided a focal point for College activities and daily routines of the students and staff.

However, further to the closure of the LDS Church College complex, the David O McKay building has ceased to operate as the multi function facility for which it was designed.

As such, the place is considered to hold no significance as a group element within the functional operations of the LDS Church College complex as a whole.

N.B: Functional significance is also assessed under Physical, Aesthetic and Architectural Qualities of the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan.

E – Historical: considerable B The ability to demonstrate an association with persons, ideas or events. Included in this section are the histories of all the other criteria considered.

The place is recognised as one of the later principal elements in the development of the Church College complex; a community development that reinforced the continued presence of the Latter-day Saints Mission within New Zealand. The building is associated with the perceived requirements of the Church leaders; principally President David o McKay and Elder Matthew Cowley, who wished to provide a high quality programme of education for the Maori people throughout the Pacific region including New Zealand. The facilities specified for the David O McKay building were instrumental in the development of that programme in this country, and provided the Church College curriculum with sufficient breadth to be fully accredited. The post-war International Style of the David O McKay College building was married to a comprehensive range of integral sporting and social facilities. This combination of style and accommodation was not considered to be common for educational buildings in the New Zealand context during that period.

In light of the above values, it is considered that the subject place holds considerable historical significance.

N.B: Historical significance is also assessed within the Proposed Hamilton City District Plans.

F – Scientific: no significance 0 Concerned with the importance of the place as evidence and with the physical survival of that evidence in the building fabric. Scientific value is the potential to provide information about past

72

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage human activity. This may encompass technology, archaeology, philosophy, custom, taste and usage as well as technique or material.

Neither the David O. McKay Building, nor the site upon which it sits, is considered to be associated with any scientific knowledge, development or achievement. Therefore, with the information currently at hand, the property is not considered to hold scientific significance.

N.B: Scientific significance is also assessed within the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan.

G – Social: minor D The notion of a spiritual, traditional, political, national, or any other cultural sentiment expressed by a group.

The place has minor social significance for the efforts of the Latter-day Saints to improve the educational standards of the Maori community who, as a result of their often remote locations, were able to obtain an education comparable to that achievable in the main centres throughout New Zealand

There is also minor social significance attributed through the training programme offered by the Church to local volunteers who were able to learn new construction skills. N.B: Social significance is also assessed under Cultural Qualities within the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan.

H – Technological: moderate C Assessment of the demonstration of particular characteristics of a building technique or craft.

The techniques used for the construction of the David O. McKay Building and the wider complex are generally considered to have employed common Twentieth Century practices with particular emphasis on reinforced concrete, masonry and carpentry skills. Those particular materials and techniques remain in common practice today and therefore, with the current evidence to hand, it is suggested that these attributes hold little or no importance to the technological significance of the place. However, it is recognised that the concrete block masonry was produced locally on the site; initially by hand presses and then at a later date with machinery. The use of such methods to produce construction materials on site could be considered to hold moderate technological significance.

N.B: Technological significance is also assessed within the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan.

I – Townscape: minor D An assessment of the ‘Townscape Value’ or the contribution of the space to its greater context.

The David O McKay building formed a key component within the LDS Church College site and developed an intimate relationship between the surrounding LDS College facilities. It is notable that a number of the buildings that originally formed this relationship have since been removed. Subsequently, the relationship of the David O McKay building within its historic context has been gradually reduced as each building has been demolished.

The building itself has been subject to a number of additions and alterations deemed necessary to adapt and serve the Church College community as its needs and aspirations have evolved. Although the building formed a distinct part of the College, it presents only a minor contribution to the wider contextual setting particularly as it is visually unobtrusive when approached from the public realm. It is therefore suggested that the subject building has minor townscape significance value.

N.B: Townscape significance is also assessed within the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan under Context or Group Qualities.

73

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

11. statutory requirements

11.1 historic places act 1993 archaeological significance An archaeological assessment by Warren Gumbley, Consultant Archaeologist is (at the time of writing this report) in progress and has shown that the only sites of prehistoric occupation or burial are located on the grounds of the Temple and not on the school grounds.

12. conclusion The David O. McKay Building is part of wider complex of buildings that collectively constitutes the former Church College of New Zealand campus. Although of significant scale, the considered form and use of materials present qualities that allow the various elements of the building to sit comfortably within its immediate and wider setting. In consideration of the heritage values attributed to the subject place, it is concluded that the heritage values of the building are dependent on, are related to, and should be measured against the heritage and community values of the Temple View Church College site as a whole and to the wider values of Temple View and its active Latter-day Saint community.

It is concluded that the David O McKay Building is implicitly linked to the operational activities of the former Church College and to the continued presence of the Latter-day Saints Mission in New Zealand. However, further to the closure of the LDS Church College complex, the David O McKay building has ceased to operate as the multi function facility for which it was designed and the removal of a number of key buildings within the LDS Church College site has dimninished its contextual relationship. As such, the place is considered to hold no significance as a group element within the functional operations of the LDS Church College complex as a whole.

Through an analysis of the inherent qualities of the site and the relevant evaluation criteria, the place is considered to possess considerable aesthetic and historical cultural heritage significance. In consideration of the heritage values attributed to the subject place, it is concluded however that the heritage values of the building are dependent on, and related to, the heritage and community values of Temple View and the Church College site as a whole. As such, the removal of the majority of the former Church College buildings and the evolution of the associated Latter-day Saint community’s occupation of that site means that the context for the David O McKay is also removed. Put another way, the David O McKay building is not a determinant of the essential values of the Latter-day Saint community at Temple View, but is a function of it. As the community evolves within its occupation of the Temple View site and perpetuates the validity of that occupation and community support the relevance of redundant and inadaptable buildings equally loses value.

A number of structural reports have been commissioned to consider the seismic competence of the building and have concluded that significant retrospective seismic upgrade work is required. The Beca report of 29 May 2009 identified that the earthquake performance of the David O McKay Building would achieve less than 35% NBS (%NBS = Percent of New Building Standard). A report by Dunning Thornton Consultants in November 2012 concluded that the David O McKay Building was earthquake prone and that in considering the scope and extent of work necessary to effect an adequate retrospective structural upgrade considered that the works would have an “effect on the existing planning and inevitable [...] effect on the appearance of the building, both externally and internally.” Of note the Dunning Thornton report concludes that it may well be “the very bits that may be most desirable to retain may be the high risk elements of the existing building”.

In conclusion, the heritage of Temple View lies first and foremost in its establishment as an occupation by the Latter-day Saint community. As such this is a place of living heritage and is not dependent on the protection of individual buildings per se; with the exception of the Temple itself. As a place of living heritage, a distinctive community, change or evolution in response to

74

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage that community is part of that continuum and the heritage of that community. The protection of the David O McKay building in the light of that higher understanding of the heritage values which are associated with Temple View provide an important measure for continuing relevance of the David O McKay building and as such its values are not sufficiently high to warrant recognition and protection.

75

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

13. bibliography

Bass, May, New Zealand Department of Conservation., 1993, The Northwest King Country: A History of the Land and its People / Researched and Written by May Bass for Waikato Conservancy, Dept. of Conservation. Published by Hamilton [NZ].The Conservancy Dept.

Elkington, R, J., (1958), Te Rongo Pai (The Gospel), History, Growth and Development of the Church College of New Zealand and New Zealand Temple Project.

Gibbons, P, J.,1977. Astride the River: A History of Hamilton Raynes, N., 1988. South of West Hamilton.

Hill, R, A, 1964.,Hamilton: Hub of the Waikato, 1864-1964.Published as Commercial Publicity for Hamilton City Council.

Hunt, B, W., 1977, Zion in New Zealand – A History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in New Zealand

Gatley, J, 2008, Long Live the Modern, New Zealand’s New Architecture 1904-1984. Published by Auckland University Press.

Raynes, N., c1981.,South of West Hamilton: A History of the Early European Settlement of the Rukuhia District, 1864-1914. Published by Hamilton: N. Raynes.

Scott C. Esplin.,(2011), Closing the Church College of New Zealand: A Case Study in international Church Education Policy. Religious Studies Centre.

Te Karere. Held in CCNZ archive

13.1 document information Hamilton City Plan Heritage inventory Record Form, Obtained December 2012.

Walker Architects Heritage Record. Report dated to November 2009.

Baigent, B, 1959 the Mormons in NZ. Held in CCNZ archive.

Memoirs of Gordon C Young, p25: Ref: MJ9963 Box 2.

Arnold Ehlers Oral History, p29, issued to Archifact by Emily Utt, 6 May 2013.

Tiki to Temple. Held in CCNZ archive.

13.2 electronic archive sources http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/All_Data.html, accessed December 2012 http://www.ldschurch.org.nz/?lang=eng&country=nz, accessed December 2012.

Utah.gov services, accessed December 2012 Index to the Journal of the New Zealand Institute of Architects, researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10063/.../paper.pdf Accessed December 2012. New Zealand Institute of Architects , www.nzia.co.nz/, accessed December 2012,

Auckland University, www.library.auckland.ac.nz/subjects/arc/arccol.htm, Accessed December 2012.

76

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage http://www.hamilton.co.nz/our-council/council- publications/districtplans/proposeddistrictplan/Pages/default.aspx, Accessed December 2012. Waikato Times article: Church College Building Gets Award, www.stuff.co.nz/waikato- times/news/.../Church-College-building-gets-award, accessed December 2012.

American Institute of Architects,www.aia.org/, American Architect’s Directory. Accessed December 2012

Archive material, Archives New Zealand: http://www.archives.govt.nz/, Accessed December 2012.

Matapihi, Collections from a number of cultural sources: http://www.matapihi.org.nz/en/matapihi/search?filter%5Bcategory%5D=Images&search_text=%2 A%3A%2A, Accessed December 2012.

Auckland City Library: Heritage Images Online: http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/dbtw-wpd/heritageimages/apphoto.htm, Accessed December 2012.

Alexander Turnbull Library: http://www.natlib.govt.nz/atl, Accessed December 2012.

National Library of New Zealand: Timeframe (Heritage images): http://timeframes.natlib.govt.nz/, Accessed December 2012.

Paperspast: http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast, Accessed December 2012.

Auckland War Memorial Museum Tamaki Paenga Hira: http://muse.aucklandmuseum.com/databases/librarycatalogue/BasicSearch.aspx, Accessed December 2012.

Auckland Museum: Research Library: http://muse.aucklandmuseum.com/databases/general/AdvancedSearch.aspx?datasetID=570, Accessed December 2012.

The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/ http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies, Accessed December 2012.

77

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

appendix a – certificates of title and deposited plan

78

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

79

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

80

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

81

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

82

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

83

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

84

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

85

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

appendix b – hamilton city council operative district plan map 14A hamilton city council proposed district plan map 51b and 60b hamilton city council built heritage inventory record form

86

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

87

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

88

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

89

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

90

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

91

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

appendix c – chronology of development

92

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Chronology date event

1948 Elder Cowley recommends to the First Presidency and Council of Te Karere, December 1957 Twelve Apostles for the establishment of a school among the Maori people. This was agreed and the proposed school was to be fully accredited, coeducational, centrally located with sufficient land and livestock to provide the necessary food.

June 1948 Gordon C Young becomes New Zealand Mission President Te Rongo Pai, p7

93

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Te Karere, December 1957 President George Albert Smith assigns Gordon C Young the task of locating land for the College.

October 25 1948 Edward O Anderson visits NZ for an inspection of a number of Te Rongo Pai, p7 prospective college sites.

May 23rd 1949 Farm of 215 acres purchased memoirs of G C Young: Ref: MJ 9963 Box 2 c.1949 LDS Church Architect Edward O. Anderson, who was designing Tiki and temple, P232 the new college, advised President McKay and President Young that he intended to use the California building code to ensure that, unlike the old MAC, the new college buildings would be earthquake resistant.

17 November 1949 Land dedicated for surveying Te Rongo Pai, p7

7 December 1949 Surveying of site completed Te Rongo Pai, p7

21 December 1949 Site topographical plan produced. Shows nine Teacher Houses (inclusive of two blocks of duplex homes).

June 1950 Land officially deeded to LDS Church on this date. Te Rongo Pai, p10 c.1950 President Young then urged the LDS Church architect to specify Tiki and temple, P234 concrete block construction, arguing its advantages over timber in the prevailing climate. He wanted to put a small joinery on the college land to produce windows and doors not only for the college buildings but also for new chapels wherever they might be built. c. 1950 During the last quarter of 1950, three acres of college land were Tiki and temple, P236 cleared

15 July 1950 Official approval given to proceed by NZ Government. Te Rongo Pai, p10 July 1950 The block making plant was set up in the farms old hay and Te Rongo Pai, p10 manure shed with extensions built on. (Sited on the hill now located between Cowley and McKay buildings). First concrete blocks produced on July 7 with cement imported into the country.

End 0f 1950 The LDS Church in Salt Lake City sent $25,000(US) to President Young as the first monetary effort for the project.

July 1951 the concrete-block machine was taken to the Hamilton Tiki and temple, P236,242 college site. by the end of1951 an eight-man crew was producing 2,850 blocks each day

November 1951 Plans produced for Joinery Building – Edwards O Anderson was the Supervising Architect.

November 1951 Site plan for the Joinery Building shows a total of 10 proposed

94

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Teacher Houses (inclusive of two blocks of duplex homes).

1951 Order of construction priority: (Report from Otto Buehner & (1) Shed for block manufacture as shown on the proposed layouts Co. 1951) for buildings. (2) Joinery building. (3) Residences. (4) Conference and mess hall to be first used as a warehouse for material, hardware, etc, during college buildings construction.

1951 Construction started on other buildings (Te Rongo Pai, p11

April 1952 The actual construction began in April 1952 with the building of the The beginning of CCNC, p2 joinery and later the construction of a brick home for Elder Biesinger.

August 12th 1952 The first brick for the joinery was laid on by Elder Child and his (Nz herald 1958-dedication brick crew document) And Te Rongo Pai, P41

Men with Bro. Crawford, Auckland turned up in force on Friday, January 29th, and worked long into the night, and all day Saturday to pour the concrete floor to the dining hall. c. August 1952 Broke ground for bunkhouses for the single men and huts or Tiki and temple, P242 cabins for families and for a cookhouse; drains and even roads were laid out.

7 September 1952 Brick walls for first house completed Te Rongo Pai, P194

October 1952 foundations and walls of the joinery were finished and a start was Tiki and temple, P242 made on roofing the building.

Two permanent homes, later to be used as faculty homes were nearly completed and others were begun

The original farmhouse up on the hill was moved down to the labourers' camp, overhauled, painted, and used as a recreation centre c.1952 Edward O Anderson, LDS Church Architect, visited the site; Te Rongo Pai, p13 surveyed and studied the grounds and drew plans for the classrooms.

Edward O Anderson produced the plans for the Joinery.

John Elkington’s crew began construction of teacher housing units. c. 1952 Original home of Bert Meldrum was moved to lower ground and The Beginning of CCNZ, p1 was known from then on as the ‘Green House’.

Te Rongo Pai, p11 Green House moved to a spot near the Camp Ground

95

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

1 November 1952 until Plans produced for the Classrooms. Supervising Architect was 8 October 1953 Edward O Anderson.

Christmas holidays Ground breaking for the classrooms 1952 The beginning of CCNC, p2

November 1952 Plans produced for Mechanics Workshop. Pers Comms – Emily with Adam c.1952 Temporary Housing finished and families move in just prior to Hui Te Rongo Pai, p15 Tau.

February 1953 About the middle of January Br Sidney Crawford began the Te Kare feb 1953, by Maurice building of the Kai House for Hui Tau. Pearson, 142

The Kai Hall and kitchen block for Hui Tau are under construction c.1953 Biesinger Drive laid out. Pers Comms – Emily with Adam

Early 1953 Machinery installed in the Joinery 1959 The Mormons in NZ by Barbara Baigent, P125

27 May 1953 All brickwork complete on Classroom No. 1 and ready for the roof; Te Rongo Pai, p195 Classroom No. 2 had the foundation complete; No. 3 foundation started. Mid 1953 foundations were laid for three classroom blocks, and Tiki and temple, P244/5 one was bricked to the square

The joinery, with floor space equal to all the hui tau tents combined, was operating. Contained the construction office until October 1956

There were seven married couples and twenty children in the married quarters and eighty-three men in barracks. Although none were permanent residents, they nevertheless formed the embryo that would become the Mormon town of Temple View, the nearest approach to Hoagland's "Mormon colony" that New Zealand was to know. As author David Cummings has pointed out, George Biesinger's assignment was to build a college, but he also built a town."

The college site was flooded during the winter of 1953, only the married couples' housing escaping.

June 1953 Those working in Garage in 1953: Te Rongo Pai, P44 Oliver Ahmu, head mechanic; Richard Ahmu, mechanic; John Aspinal, mechanic and panelbeater; Elder Kawallis, Mechanic, Elder Mason, mechanic; Prim Harris, garage assistant and driver. Drivers: despatcher, John Rarere, Poihipi Chase,'Matthew

96

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Patuaka, Rueben Paraki, J. R. Peter Hapi. Bill Ruwhiu, Paul Hahau, Rulus Marsh (front end loader), Paul Witerhira (front end loader), M. Tipene, Laurie Day (jeep), Ronald Bowen (pick up Intl. Joe McDonald (Cat. D.4), John Poihipi.

July 1953 Very near to completion is the school's modern, well-equipped Te Karere July 1953, p231 vehicle maintenance garage. Four large stalls will accommodate the largest of vehicles and is already doing valuable work on the five trucks, three tractors and miscellaneous machinery used throughout on the project.

July 1953 The staff housing area thus far planned is well under way with nine Te Karere July 1953, p252 houses (frames in brick) completed.

The joinery factory is almost complete with its quota of machinery.

Foundations for three class rooms have been laid and the brickwork of one almost completed

July 1953 Over 30 buildings of various types and capacities are to be Te Karere July 1953, p231 erected. Of the fifteen now under construction, two are completed, and two more are in the final stages of perfection

First to be completed was the large joinery building which has an area equal to that of all the tents combined used at our Hui Tau

At Christmas-time Elder and Sister Biesinger moved into the first of the nine beautiful residences that are being built for the faculty of the school.

August 1953 One of the classrooms is almost ready for the roof assembly and TeKarere August 1953, p288 house No. 4 is in the final paint stage

October 1953 joinery building was finished except for its roof Tiki and temple, P242

November 1953 The housing crew, in taking advantage of this break, have covered TeKarere November 1953, in another double-unit house and the roof of No. 1 classroom is p395 complete except for the pebble finish.

December 1953 On October 22nd Brother William Thompson passed away in the TeKarere December 1953, Waikato Hospital after a short illness. The funeral was conducted p431 in the joinery by Elder Biesinger, and the burial took place in Hamilton.

December 1953 The first permanent home was finished and the Biesinger family Tiki and temple, P243 moved into it on Christmas Eve.

Eight more homes, destined for college faculty, were in various stages of construction. These houses were the focus of much attention from government officials, the public, and the media, as the concrete-block construction cost considerably less than

97

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

comparable homes provided by the government housing scheme.

three barracks for workmen were finished and another was under construction.

Also under construction were eight huts for families, communal shower and toilet blocks, a kitchen, and a communal dining room where the food was served cafeteria style.

Slaughtering facilities and stock from the farm provided meat, which was stored in deep freezers

Several miles of fencing had been built and similar miles of drainage dug

Foundations and heating ducts were in place for the first of the college classroom blocks, and footings were in place for a second

4 January 1954 Kai Hall started under Brother Crawford's supervision. (Probably Te Rongo Pai, P195 referring to the previous year!) c. 1954 Kai Hall erected at a cost of £6000 from Hui Tau funds. Hall to be Te Rongo Pai, P42 maintained by workers and used as a recreation hall by them. The land around the hall was planted in grass, shrubbery and flowers

Finishing work, window frames/sashes installed in classrooms.

No2 Classroom finished and ready for painting

All windows and doors installed in No 1 Classroom.

Three brick homes finished and all attached garages re-orientated to have openings facing new road at rear of houses.

One end of the Kai Hall was lined and partitioned to serve as a temporary Chapel with new chairs and organ.

post 1955 Sports Fields constructed Pers Comms – Emily with Adam

April 1954 First Hui Tau held at college with meetings held in the Joinery. Te Rongo Pai, P42 5000 people attended.

The girls and boys dormitories were begun at this time.

Undated Site plan produced. Arnold Ehlers is recorded as the Architect.

May 1954 Plans produced for the Girls and Boys Dormitories. – Arnold Ehlers was the Architect. Glenn L. Enke was the Structural Engineer. A potential future fourth Boys Dorm was also highlighted on this plan.

98

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

October 1954 On one of the girls' dormitories the second floor is almost ready for Te Kare October1954, 357, by pouring, and on the boys' dormitories the 'brickies have almost Maurice Pearson completed the brickwork up to the second floor of one of the

buildings. – shortage of concrete

August 1954 The housing crew have almost completed the last of the first lot of Te Kare August 1954, 285 houses on the College lot.

and all the foundations, with the exception of one of the girls' dormitories, have been poured.

school buildings, and No.2 school is almost completely glassed in

We hope to have roofs on all dormitories very soon.

August 1954 foundations of four dormitories (2 boys 2 girls) almost completed. Te Kare August 1954, 285 bricklayers have commenced laying bricks on one of these foundations – shortage of concrete – work at standstill.

15 October 1954 Four new Ford trucks arrived from America and were assembled in Te Rongo Pai, P45 the garage.

Decemebr 1954 By Xmas the roof of one of the girls' dormitories will be on and the Te Karere December1954, p upper floor of one of the boys' dormitories should be bricked up 432 ready for roofing

December 1954 The roof on one of the girl’s dormitories was completed. Te Rongo Pai, p42

By Xmas also most of the classrooms will be glassed in. Already No. 2 Classroom is ready for glass

25 January 1955 There was considerable disquiet in LDS Church offices in Salt Tiki and Temple, P249 Lake City over the escalating costs of the project (already in the vicinity ofUS$1.5 million"), and it was suggested that it might be necessary to cut back the ambitious plans for the college. President McKay inspected the college project on this day. As a result of this visit, great things happened. President McKay was impressed by his inspection of the LDS Church College site. Instead of cutting back on the project, as intended, he decided to expand it.·8 The Matthew Cowley Administrative Building and the David O. McKay Building (containing an auditorium, an indoor swimming pool, and a gymnasium) were added to the campus, at an estimated additional cost ofUSS3.5 million

President McKay, Brother Mendenhall, President Ottley, and George Biesinger, the building supervisor, also agreed on the ideal site for a temple: a hill overlooking the college project

17 February 1955 The official announcement that a temple would be built in Tiki and Temple, p249 New Zealand was made on 17 February 1955, a few days after McKay's return to Salt Lake City, following a meeting between the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve.

Tiki and Temple, p250 Following purchase of the temple land, LDS Church architect Edward O. Anderson arrived in New Zealand on 1 June to inspect

99

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

the site before preparing preliminary drawings. The temple was to be built to the same floor plan as the temple under construction in Berne, Switzerland, but of course, had to be adapted to the contours of the site and to New Zealand building regulations.

April 1955 Work is progressing satisfactorily Te Kare April1955, p113, at present. Boys' Dormitories are well under way

No. 2 classroom is nearly finished

July 1955 Edward O Anderson, architect for the LDS Church and Te Karere july1955, p199 designer of the plans for the Temple which will be built in New Zealand, arrived at Auckland June 1st for an inspection of the Temple site which was recently approved by President David O. McKay.

August 1955 In the past two weeks one of the girls' dormitory floors has been Te Kare August 1955, 257, poured Branch Pres, Joe McDonald

The temple road is well under way so that supplies can be furnished to the temple housing. It is hoped that we will be able to complete two units within the next two months.

September 1955 Just completed is the new laundry room equipped with four Te Kare September 1955, 298, washing machines Branch Pres, Joe McDonald

The painters have now completed the last home upon the hill, and it is ready for occupancy.

Also the two units and the motels will be finished within a fortnight and a big start has been made on the other ten units

The new medical clinic and canteen, barber shop and dental clinic, and Hui Tau office is well under way

The joinery, at the present time, is finishing the work for the motels, the changes in the mission office, and work for the Hastings Chapel

September 1955 the last of the first batch of faculty homes was finished, and Tiki and temple, P251 several motel-units (for the use of long-distance visitors to the temple) were begun

A medical clinic, dental clinic, canteen, and barber shop were under construction. This building was part of the complex near to the current Kai Hall.

five classroom blocks were almost finished, and the boys' and girls' dormitories were ready for roofing

1 September 1955 Temple plans completed by Anderson and blueprints mailed from Te Rongo Pai, p93 USA

100

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

September 1955 The block plant construction was started Te Rongo Pai, P138

The boys dormitories were being finished October 1955 The plans for the Temple have just Te Karere October 1955, p337 arrived

The "Matthew Cowley building plan (chapel, auditorium, gymnasium, etc.) should be here within a fortnight

The motels are well under way with two units practically completed.

Plans are now ready for the construction of the new block plant and installation of the machinery for sand.

The crews on the dormitories are making a big showing now. From all indications they will all be roofed within another month or so.

5 december 1955 Wendell B. Mendenhall returned to New Zealand on 5 December Tiki andTtemple, P251 1955 to attend the ground breaking ceremony for the temple, inspect progress on the college site.

7 December 1955 Plans produced for the Administration Building (soon to be Matthew Cowley Memorial Building) – Architect was Arnold Ehlers and the Structural Engineer was Glenn L. Enke.

21 December 1955 Ground breaking for temple. Excavation started. Te Rongo Pai, p196

December 1955 Drawings produced for Matthew Cowley Memorial Building (Administration). Architect for the project was Arnold Ehlers. The Structural Engineer was Glenn. L. Enkers.

5 January 1956 Temple foundations poured. Tiki and temple, P252

15 January1956 Poured footings on Temple-Bertie Purcell took first wheelbarrow of Te Rongo Pai, p196 cement.

January 1956 DOM Building foundations being excavated Te Rongo Pai, p138

January 1956 Surveying and setting profiles for DOM building. Te Rongo Pai, p140

1 February 1956 Boiler room, laundry and food supply room were excavated ready Te Rongo Pai, p140 to start footings.

End of February 1956 First footing pour of DOM building. Te Rongo Pai, p140

18 February 1956 Timber Treatment Plant started. Te Rongo Pai, p196

March 1956 Started engineering steel workshop. Kerbs and gutters installed. Te Rongo Pai, p196 29 March 1956 Last Hui Tau in Joinery

101

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Te Rongo Pai, p196

June 1956 the temple walls were visible in Hamilton, five miles away Tiki and Temple, P252

The David O. McKay Building and Matthew Cowley Auditorium at the college next door were also under construction. The block-making machine produced enough concrete blocks for all LDS construction projects in New Zealand, and between fifty and seventy-five tons of blocks were shipped to Samoa each month, with the capacity to produce another 200 tons for the islands had shipping space been available

14 March 1956 The Engineering Steel Fabrication and Quarry crew No.14 was Te Rongo Rai, P160 formed. First premises was the Joinery storage shed across from the garage workshops.

July 1956 Brickies start Tamaki Chapel Te Rongo Rai, P196

Winter of 1956 Kai Hall was remodelled. Te Rongo Rai, P140g

October 1956 The Cowley (Administration) building was completed. Te Rongo Rai, P135

November 1956 Machine Shop completed and ready for occupation Te Rongo Rai, P161

December 1956 Temple walls almost completed. Te Rongo Pai, p85

December 1956 Corner Stone Ceremony held for Temple. Tiki and temple, P252

29 March 1956 Temple cornerstone laying-Elder Hugh B. Brown officiating. Te Rongo Pai, p197

Mid January 1957 the temple walls reached the third storey Tiki and Temple, P253 the college cafeteria was roofed, and the gymnasium was far enough advanced to make it possible to plan to hold April hui tau sessions there

The classrooms and girls' dormitories were almost finished.

February 1957 The Temple crew is completing the walls on the third floor above Te Karere February 1957,65, ground

The David O. McKay building (auditorium) crew has just completed roofing the cafeteria and corridor section and are determined to have the gymnasium ready for Hui Tau.

The classrooms are rapidly reaching the' completion stage with all the different finishing departments in full swing in that area; the same can be said for the girls' dormitories as they will be completed in the near future.

102

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

May 1957 Edward o Anderson visited project. Te Rongo Rai, P197 June 1957 roof on the temple and David O. McKay building Te Karere June 1957, p209 The temple is almost ready for the outside to be painted as the plasterers have nearly finished the outside columns

17 July 1957 Last pour on Temple building Te Rongo Rai, P197

26 August 1957 Spire placed on Temple Te Rongo Rai, P197

September 1957 the bronze spire on the .Temple Tower was erected Te Karere October 1957 p356/7

27 September 1957 Graves on temple hill uncovered while landscaping grounds. Te Rongo Rai, P197

October 1957 DOM building - The chapel and auditorium walls are up and the Te Karere October 1957 roof is on. The men are now working on the front entrance p356/7

The swimming- pool is walled up and roofed over and is ready for the boys to pour the concrete.

The Boys' Dormitories and the Classroom Buildings are three- fourths completed with most of the painting and finishing woodwork done; however, the finishing carpentry and paint crews are working to complete these two jobs

The construction crew has moved across the road to·begin the Headmaster's home.

October 1957 Plans produced detailing the President’s Residence.

The sheet metal work for the air conditioning and heating- is being done in the Bureau of information. They are ready for the completion of the metal lathing so the plastering can begin.

The sparkies are now busy preparing the outside lighting at the Temple which will light the tower and spire

By the time this article has gone to press the rest of the tower will be painted and all the scaffolding taken down.

Inside the Temple we see the plastering progress and some actual walls take shape.

The plastering will be completed within the next sixty days

All the kitchen equipment(stainless steel) for the Temple and David O McKay Buildings has been ordered, 2 November 1957 Boiler Room completed

103

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

Te Rongo Pai, P197

5 November 1957 Work began on Temple President’s House and College Te Rongo Pai, P183 President’s House. c.1957 Six Maori graves discovered during Temple site excavations. Te Rongo Pai, P96

10 February 1958 Opening day for the College Te Rongo Pai, P186

At Some Stage pre The garages in the faculty houses were converted to apartments. April 1958 Te Rongo Pai, P137

At Some Stage pre The Project Engineering Crew under Elder Lyman’s direction April 1958 designed the: Te Rongo Pai, P155 Engineering Shop Saw Dust Incinerator Timber Stacking Building Structural Steel for Temple Bureau of Information Sawmill c 1958 Green House demolished to make way for the GRB. Pers Comms – Emily with Adam

November 1958 Plans produced for a Sick Bay by Garry & Clapp the local Hamilton Architects.

11 June 1959 Site plan produced showing existing underground services. Outline of proposed additional Boys Dormitory shown.

1961 New library constructed. c.1963 West side of Tuhikaramea Road sub-divided Pers Comms – Emily with Adam

12 October 1970 Plans produced for new Boys Dormitory car ports

1972 Plans produced for Automotive Workshop extension c. Mid 70s Kai Hall used as construction warehouse?? Pers Comms – Emily with Block Plant used for school warehouse?? Adam

1977/1978 Reroofing of the administration block. school blocks and 1978 Yearbook, Mission dormitories. Over a period of 4 months, the approximate cost Training School of $350,000.

Carpeting of the David O' McKay Auditorium, the administration block, the library and dormitory lounges. It took over' three weeks with the approximate cost being $50,000.

Refurnishing of the seats in the David O’ McKay Auditorium. The time taken to do this was 6 weeks and its approximate cost

104

2016-10-26_david o mckay_aee_heritage

was $40,000

Painting of all school buildings. This was done through the summer months

Maintenance The upkeep of our school campus. Approximately $100,000 was spent covering one whole year

Gardens are turned over regularly with new creations of garden ornaments and assortments of all designs.

Doors are being replaced with modern easy-to-stay-open doors after 20 years service.

1985 Library extension plans drawn up. c.1990 Alterations and additions to Emma Dormitory. c.1993/1994 Addition of 5 classrooms to Mission Training Centre. Facsimile from Graham Sully to Howard Jeffree, 10 February 1993

105