Auckland blogger Stef the Ex-Expat believes the New Zealand Parliament is a shit-hole, an embarrassment to the nation, that even the poorest countries have better parliamentary buildings. She wishes the original 1911 grand design had been built rather than the modest, cut-down version of it that stands today as the centrepiece of our parliamentary complex.
I think she’s being unfair. I quite like our Parliament, and not just because I’ve worked there three times. But before explaining why, let’s quote some of Stef’s criticisms.
“I have often wondered what dignitaries from foreign lands think when they are ushered to Parliament to meet our politicians,” she writes. “Upon first inspection, I suspect the answer is ‘what a shit-hole.’ In even the poorest countries I’ve visited, a nation’s parliamentary building has always been something that its citizens can be proud of.”
Stef thinks we would be prouder of the original design, which she says would have been comparable to the parliaments of Singapore, Australia and Canada.
“And first impressions do count. A law firm based in a garage where legal advice is dispensed by a guy wearing a tank top and plumber pants is hardly going to instill confidence from big corporate clients…Unfortunately, most New Zealanders do not appreciate the importance of investing in institutions of the state and there is no more glaring example of our short-sightedness than the parliamentary complex.”
Well, any number of impoverished Third World countries, as well as virtually all the authoritarian dictatorships of the post-World War II Soviet Bloc, built grandiose parliaments of the kind Stef admired while overseas. Does a grandiose parliament equal a functioning democracy, or even a democracy? I think not.
While our parliament buildings are not grandiose, they are elegant, readily accessible to the public, and functional. They serve our vigorously functioning democracy well.
Parliament has been on today’s attractively landscaped site at the north end of Lambton Quay since 1865, the year New Zealand’s capital was moved from Auckland to the more-central Wellington. None of the original buildings survive. The oldest is the Parliamentary Library, opened in 1899. In 1907, all the others were destroyed in a disastrous fire.
The fire led to a competition in 1911 to design a new Parliament Buildings, which attracted 37 entries, the winning one by Government Architect John Campbell. This was the grandiose design admired by Stef. It was to be twice the size of the present main Parliament House, with the existing front steps marking the half-way point of the design. The costs of World War I and its aftermath meant the building went ahead, but only half of it was built, minus also the intended roof domes and other ornaments. It was completed in 1922.
The 1922 building contains the debating chamber of the House of Representatives, as well as the chamber of the former Legislative Council (the unelected upper house abolished in 1951), now used for state openings of Parliament and other functions; the rooms used for most select committee hearings; the offices of many backbench MPs; and, occupying the third floor, the office of the Leader of the Opposition and many opposition MPs. The building was extensively rebuilt in the 1990s and is elegant and functional inside and out.
On one side of the 1922 building is the Parliamentary Library, also modernised in the 1990s and stunningly beautiful inside. On the other is the Beehive, or Executive Wing, completed in 1981. The cabinet room is on its 10th floor, the prime minister’s offices are on the ninth and eight, with other ministers’ offices from floors seven to four. Bellamy’s, the parliamentary restaurant, and its associated Banquet Hall are on floors one to three. The Beehive was designed in 1964 by the noted British architect Sir Basil Spence, and the urban myth that he sketched it on a paper napkin while visiting Wellington is actually true – Archives NZ even has the napkin in its collections. The fourth and newest building in the parliamentary complex is Bowen House, across Bowen St on the corner of Lambton Quay (connected to the Beehive basement via a tunnel under Bowen St). It was built as the temporary home for Parliament and MPs while the main building was being refurbished, but such has been the expansion of MP and staff numbers under MMP that it is still very much needed, accommodating a number of ministers as well as MPs and parliamentary staff.
In 1997, there were serious proposals to move the Beehive back to where the old Broadcasting House stood on the site of the grassy area fronting Bowen St now colloquially known as Sculpture Park. Had that happened, the main building would have been extended over the Beehive’s site, to the 1911 plans and completing them. Public uproar over the cost stopped that and I am glad. I like the Beehive. It is a striking building, one of the most distinctive architectural features of Wellington and a symbol of our democracy. It was designed for the site, and moving it would have created an architectural abomination.
Anyone can visit Parliament. Tours of the main building, the library and the Beehive are conducted throughout the day, seven days a week. When the House is sitting, usually from 2pm on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays about three weeks in each month (but not in school holidays), anyone can watch the frequently entertaining proceedings from the public galleries above the floor of the debating chamber.
New Zealand still enjoys a small, intimate democracy, in which anyone who wants to can still get to see their local MP, and an intimate parliament which the public can easily visit and watch the debates. Unlike some parliaments, ours is not remote from the public on some distant hill or in a distant capital, it is in the very heart of New Zealand’s most thriving city centre. The grounds are open 24 hours a day and enjoyed by staff, visitors and the throngs of Wellingtonians who take their lunch and other breaks on the lawns. In keeping with the kind of democracy we enjoy, they are also often the destination and rallying point of any number of political protest marches.
Despite what Stef implies with her “shit-hole” comments, there is nothing ramshackle about our parliamentary buildings. The 1990s refurbishment brought them into the present structurally and functionally while retaining the elegance of the era when they were built. To label them a “shit-hole” is unbecoming, totally unfair. They may not be grandiose in the style of a Stalinist palace, or of one in a country dominated by an Idi Amin or a Kim Il-sung, but they are a special place, they are our place.
18 Comments
March 14, 2008 at 9:07 am
Well written Poneke.
Recently going on another tour of Parliament since coming back from the UK, I still think it is up there with the best of them, whilst not being overpretentious (as such buildings can be).
I would be interested to know if Stef has stepped foot inside and been on the tour.
In saying that – one woman’s trash is another man’s treasure. She has probably travelled more widely than I so would be in a better place to compare such things. I still like them though.
March 14, 2008 at 9:22 am
I must agree with Steph. While the older buildings are good, the Beehive is appalling.
Externally, it does not fit with the rest of the Parliament. It is, IMO, “Art ah la Concrete” and not even good art at that. Close up it gives none of the grandeur the refurbished marble building has in spades.
Internally, I understand it is a horrible building in which to work. The lifts are tiny, working out which way to go is confusing and they cannot get the air conditioning to work correctly. One staff member told me “After building the Beehive, they worked out why you don’t build round buildings”.
I, for one, would be more than happy to demolish the Beehive and go back to the original plans.
March 14, 2008 at 9:32 am
While the older buildings are good, the Beehive is appalling.
I’ve worked in both the Beehive and the 1922 building. The Beehive has been totally refurbished and works very well these days. The issues you raised were flaws in its original design.
As for how it looks, I suppose that is in the eye of the beholder, but to me it looks simply stunning sitting on its plinth above Bowen St there.
March 14, 2008 at 9:38 am
Nice one
It may not be the best in some eyes but it is ours
And it is distinctive
March 14, 2008 at 9:40 am
Yup, I’ve been inside which I’ll admit is quite nice however my comments are based mostly on the outside impression, which is a horrible mish-mash of buildings and the ghastly-looking Beehive (just because it is iconic doesn’t mean it’s pretty). Even the parliamentary library was subject to cost cutting, when one of the level of building was literally lopped off in order to save on costs.
As far as some of the poorer nations, I was thinking about Laos and Cambodia which both have beauitful buildings which aren’t completly over the top like the ones you mention.
But if I had my way, I wouldn’t go for the original design and look for something new.
March 14, 2008 at 9:54 am
I’ve always felt the modest, adhoc collection of buildings we have is a truthful rendition of the national character. Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing I can’t say…
March 14, 2008 at 10:29 am
Having just been to Cambodia, the effect of the nice National Assembly building in Phnom Penh is somewhat diminished by the ruddy great hotel and casino that is being built right next door to it. Still, it does demonstrate the close relationship between money and politicos there…
March 14, 2008 at 10:50 am
Stef:
I adore the Palace of Westminster — which might just deserve the much-abused label ‘iconic’. But even at the time it was being constructed, the Gothic Revival style of Barry and Pugin (or the cost of realising their ornate designs) was not universally popular. And its long been a complaint that once you pass through the sumptuous public and semi-public areas, Messers Barry and Pugin weren’t overly concerned about practicalities like toilets or sufficient working space for members and staff.
And like it or not, architechture is as prone to fads, fashions and changing tastes as any other area of design.
March 14, 2008 at 11:11 am
I also like the Beehive, and in many ways it is more in keeping with the old Parliament buildings than the Parliamentary Library is. The fins follow the rhythms of the colonnade, and Modernism actually has much more in common with Classicism than Gothic style does (thus the “battle of the styles”). If you see some of Spence’s original drawings (the sketch on the “napkin” exists, but he had already done most of the design by that stage, so it wasn’t as if it was dashed off on a whim), the continuity of cornice lines and colonnades are very clear.
What does need to change is the quality of the architecture and public space throughout the rest of the “capital precinct”. Govt departments are aiming very low in design quality, and while there’s a gradual move towards defined streets and a mixture of uses rather than windswept plazas, most of the resent designs (Defence, Vogel, Bowen) don’t even aspire to mediocrity as architecture.
March 14, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Malcolm Fraser, perhaps the leading advocate for the present grandiose Federal parliament building in Canberra, is on record as saying it was his greatest mistake:
“It is not a building, it is not a parliament building. It is not a building for communication. It is a building for non-communication. Members are able to get in it through secret ways or ways that are protected from the public or the press; so can ministers. The press are shut off from ministers and from the government and you have to get special permission to go to certain places. Members’ offices are so large that for a lot of them, they are more luxuriant than anything that they could ever afford or want in their previous private lives. Now, you go into the American Congress and look at the cramped and busy offices of American congressmen and American senators, and then you look at the spacious luxury – I think it’s set very bad standards and I don’t think people are better represented.”
http://www.australianbiography.gov.au/fraser/interview9.html
March 14, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“…most of the resent (sic) designs (Defence, Vogel, Bowen) don’t even aspire to mediocrity as architecture.”
Is it any coincidence that the developer of those 3 buildings is AMPCapital, a developer (more than any other) whose primary concern is NLA?… and further – that the architect on all 3 was Craig Craig Moller….
I quite like the strange conglomeration of buildings that comprise our Parliamentary Buildings.
I like the fact that you can wander around them and have your lunch on the lawn or the steps.
It works for me.
p.s as Poneke states the Beehive has been refurbished and works very well now, although planning in round buildings is generally hellish to do…..
March 14, 2008 at 1:39 pm
>as well as virtually all the authoritarian dictatorships of the post-World War II Soviet Bloc, built grandiose parliaments of the kind Stef admired while overseas
The East Germans certainly didn’t. Their orange parliament is hideous: http://www.danielrieck.de/c9guy/palast.jpg
I like the NT state parliament, which is just perfect for the tropics and overlooks Darwin Harbour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Darwin_Legislative_Assembly_DSC03592.jpg
March 14, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Slightly off topic, but does anybody else miss Broadcasting House?
March 14, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Oh how I miss the wonderful red and black of Broadcasting House. Countless times I passed it on the bus, and much of my ill-spent youth was spent running around the offices. Gee, it may have been divisive, but it was a damn sight better than joining the monoliths on the Terrace (for shame RNZ, for shame).
March 20, 2008 at 2:29 am
I visited the Australian Parliament a couple of years ago. Due to some (anti-terror!) construction work, I missed the entrance and ended up walking all the way around the back. I knew I’d reached the back of the building because there was a sign proclaiming that the entrance was one kilometre in either direction. That’s right – a building with a 2km circumference. I’m glad the NZ Parliament is so accessible.
And as for the Beehive, what I like the best is that it very much looks like a building of its era. If the original 1911 plans were completed, it would be a strange mix of an old design built with modern materials and it just wouldn’t quite feel right – kind of a pastiche. The Beehive, however, is a happy slice of the 1970s, sitting nicely alongside its 1922 grandfather.
September 22, 2009 at 1:40 am
The Beehive is super-ugly. All of this talk about it being unique is about as embarrassing as this false ‘kiwiana’ we revel in as a cop out. If I ever become a billionaire I will donate to the NZ govt money to demolish this canker sore and have the parliament completed to the glorious Edwardian design.
And BTW, the postmodernist, not built for the future Beehive was designed in the 50’s, built in the 60’s, is a sick building and cost more than completing the original would have!!!
September 22, 2009 at 3:34 pm
the postmodernist, not built for the future Beehive was designed in the 50’s, built in the 60’s, is a sick building
Umm, Basil Spence designed it in 1964. The table napkin he drew it on is not an urban myth, it is held at Archives NZ and can be inspected — I have done so.
It was built during the 1970s and opened in stages, with the three lower floors opening first, and the final moves into the upper floors about 1980 or so.
Following the major refurbishment several years ago, it is today a fabulous working building that can in no way be called sick. I found it a pleasure to work in.
September 22, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Okay poneke, so I was wrong with the dates.
But I know for a fact the elevators and air conditioning used to regularly break down and Labour MP’s after the 1990 result joked that at least they’d go back to the nice offices in the old parliament building or Bowen house. The fact they’ve had to spend all this money refurbishing it less than 30 years after it was completed underlines just what a horrid and dysfunctional design it was.
And none of this contrived affection you’ve adopted changes the fact that for the rest of mankind it gives off a bad impression, as though NZ is a laughing stock. I can’t see how anyone can find any aesthetic appeal in this pretentious little piece of bric-a-brac architecture.