And new reports on the development put a new light on the possibility of saving them.
Christchurch developer Luke Dirkzwager's company, Prista Apartments, wants to demolish the buildings, at 372-392 Princes St, and 11 Stafford St, and replace them with a five-storey building with apartments and retail space.
The plans met strong opposition at hearings last year, and the applicant was required to produce heritage and structural reports.
Those reports, including a heritage report prepared by Dr Angela Middleton, led council planner Lianne Darby to change her original position on the issue, and advise consent to demolish should be granted, as saving the facades would be prohibitively costly.
But a different view was presented by Lou Robinson, of civil and structural engineers Hadley and Robinson, in a report commissioned by the council.
Mr Robinson said the applicant's report, by structural engineer Stevenson Brown, suggested the buildings at 372-378 Princes St were an earthquake risk, "based on no internal inspection and on the state of the brickwork assessed just from the rear lane".
While some mortar and bricks were weak, it was "nowhere so poor that the facades can not be retained".
Mr Robinson told the committee of city councillors Colin Weatherall, Richard Walls and Fliss Butcher his estimate for retaining the facades was that it would cost $220,000, greater than the cost of demolishing them.
Simon Ford, counsel for the applicant, reiterated the applicant's position, and said the effects of demolishing the facades would be no more than minor, and were not contrary to the council's district plan.
But historian Peter Entwisle called for the consent to be declined in its entirety. He questioned the developer's reports, and at some length, Ms Darby's report.
He said the application asked for an exemption from the council's district plan rules on the basis of inadequate information.
"We still don't know the building's archaeological, historical and architectural significance.
"There is no evidence there are no alternatives to demolition. Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary.
"There is no evidence the subject buildings are going to simply fall down if this request isn't granted.
Mr Entwisle also called for clarification of the legal implications "for applications such as this of owners allowing protected structures to decay while in their ownership".
Heritage advocate Elizabeth Kerr questioned Dr Middleton's suggestion the facades of the buildings had been "compromised".
Changes and modifications were normal, and had taken place to buildings in George St.
"This is not a reason to demolish."
Gold rush period commercial architecture was extremely rare in Dunedin, making the retention of the buildings important.
Ms Kerr said Dr Middleton had not taken that into account, did not appear to have the competence to assess town-scape values, and did not appear to have a grasp of building technology and construction.
"To give permission to this application will be opening the floodgates to demolition by neglect."
Sue Gale, who had worked across the road from the buildings for 19 years, supported the development.
There were no tourists visiting the area to see the historic buildings. Instead, people who did visit said how run-down they were.
"We need something to set it off, to get a fresh start."
Ms Darby, responding to what she heard, said she had one day to write her report, based on the reports from the developer.
"I don't know [now] what to recommend. I honestly don't," she said.
Mr Ford said he would provide a written response to what he had heard by August 21.
Cr Weatherall said the committee would begin deliberating after that, unless it needed more information.
