"A transient population and transient businesses" occupied Dunedin's Princes St, says one local building owner who backs the proposed development of an apartment and retail complex on the street in the belief it will rejuvenate the area.
Christchurch-based developer Luke Dirkzwager's project involves demolishing a row of four buildings in a protected townscape zone on Princes St and another on Stafford St.
The project brought on much debate about the idea of retaining Dunedin's historic buildings over boosting the city with new development.
Robert Gale, the owner of two buildings opposite the proposed redevelopment site, was the only submitter in support of the development.
The four opposed voiced their opinions at the second day of a resource consent hearing yesterday.
Mr Gale described the area as an "embarrassment" to the city.
He said it attracted unsavoury people, including squatters.
He believed the proposal needed to be recognised as "an opportunity to arrest the decline".
"There comes a time when you need to move on."
The "quiet majority" agreed with his view, he said.
He believed the buildings did not have as much heritage value as other areas, such as Edinburgh Way on George St, and the only reason they were still standing was "out of habit".
However, the majority of submitters believed the buildings should be saved because of their historical importance.
Much talk also arose from submitters and councillors of how other New Zealand cities had retained their historical buildings in popular areas such as Ponsonby and Parnell, in Auckland.
Historian Rory Sweetman preferred that approach "rather than coming in with a bulldozer first".
He said he fled Auckland 10 years ago because of the widespread and continual destruction of the city's historical buildings.
He described the Historic Places Trust as the "constant mourner at the funeral".
The blame for the current state of the buildings lay on the owner's shoulders and they should be being taken care of, he said.
Another historian, Peter Entwisle, had undertaken extensive research into the history of the buildings and had found a lack of detailed record about their historical significance.
"[No] 386 and 380 Princes St represent a nearly extinct species. As such they have a special significance. We should be very careful indeed about the very few of these buildings which remain," he said.
Cr Richard Walls agreed the buildings had historical significance.
"Regardless of this application, this history needs to be observed," he said.
However, he added "things evolve; you can't keep everything".
Mr Entwisle believed, if the buildings were given a facelift, it would be a "shot in the arm" for the area.
He supported the idea of retaining the facades, if done properly; or the idea of reconstructing the dilapidated buildings to look the same as they did when first built.
Elizabeth Kerr felt effort needed to be made to get people back into the area and believed if architectural design was retained, it could be used as a selling point.
She also believed there were many ways to retain the existing buildings and develop them.
"In general, buildings of this type are not immediate demolition material - with sympathetic treatment and appropriate engineering solutions they can be 'sustained'; that is, adapted for use and brought up to code compliance in a more or less straightforward manner."
Committee chairman Cr Colin Weatherall said a resource consent decision was not pending, after the day and a-half of submissions.
The committee would reconvene in either late January or early February.
