Ghuznee Buildings

• 1929 - 1929
• construction (00056:81:B7739)
• 1968 - 1968
• building alterations - partitioning (00058:583:C27640)
• 1978 - 1978
• building alterations - partitioning, level 2 - Scripture Union of New Zealand (00058:1173:C50500)
• 1990 - 1990
• office building alterations and additions – remedial works to dockway gate and main entrance, and toilets on levels 1 and 2 (00059:423:E21324)
• 2000 - 2000
• conversion to apartments - levels 1-3 and additional rooftop storeys added (00078:500:62512)
• 2008 - 2008
• The building owner applied to WCC to replace the windows on level three at east elevation rear of the building (WCC Records 1041-06-GHU62).

• unknown
• Whitehead and Pears themselves did not use the building, however it was connected via a door to their Cuba Street premises. A retail space was provided on the ground floor.
• unknown - 1955
• Lambert Pharmaceutical Company
• 1931 - c.1970
• Stone, Son & Co Limited
• unknown - c.1960
• The building was dominated by clothing manufacturers
• unknown
• It is not clear which businesses occupied the retail space – it may have been the clothing firms.
• unknown
• The internal spaces were probably partitioned to cater for a different type of occupant, which included: New Zealand Air Force Association, Lands and Survey Department photographic workshop, New Zealand Society for the Intellectually Handicapped, Scripture Union of New Zealand

Not assessed

The public appearance of this building remains much as it was when it first opened for business in 1929 despite a recent ungainly apartment addition to the roof-top.

This building is part of an important group of low-rise buildings on Ghuznee Street, in both the immediate context and in the broader area and has high group and townscape value for that. Williams was both an architect and engineer and often generated innovative structural solutions for his buildings. He favoured a predominantly Chicago style of design, with symmetrical compositions of classical vertical proportions and the use of simple moulded detail and relief to enliven the building; this building is a good example of his work.

The building appears to be constructed entirely in reinforced concrete, although the primary structure may be Williams’ preferred concrete-encased structural steel. It is four principal storeys in height (plus a modern roof-top addition), is very long in plan and originally was conjoined with one or more of the neighbouring buildings to service the requirements of the original owners, Whitehead & Pears. The principal visible element is the front façade, which remains almost entirely original. There is little to be seen of the other elevations, which are almost entirely obscured by adjoining buildings.

The front façade is only lightly detailed with simple mouldings, but is patterned to considerable effect and has slightly Art Deco overtones informing the proportions and decorations. It is arranged symmetrically into three vertical framed bays by the use of columns and a flat pediment area (which bears the painted name “Ghuznee Buildings”).

Above the verandah, the outer two bays are of equal width and the centre of greater width. Each bay is recessed slightly from the outer plane of the façade and contains three windows for each floor level; each window is separated from its neighbour with and further recessed between square secondary pilasters which run the height of the window bays. In the vertical plane, the windows are separated between floors with moulded spandrel panels and trims. The spandrels of the two side bays have a panel of diaper-work below the window sill and a blank panel to the head of the next window. The spandrels of the central bay have a recessed moulded panel occupying the whole space between the windows. A similar but smaller horizontal panel trims the heads of the very top windows.

A low parapet, trimmed with a Deco-inspired moulded cornice consisting of triangular forms, conceals the roof and apartment beyond. From certain angles on the street, the awkward apartment addition, which, although painted in like colours, in form and detail has nothing to do with the building itself, can be seen peering uncertainly over the parapet.

A broad but slender verandah separates the upper part of the façade from the street level. This verandah is the original structure, although it has lost the ornament originally applied to the front edge and the soffit appears to have been relined, although it is unknown what the original finish was to this area.

Below the verandah, the central bay of the building still contains the original timber shop-front window; the original iron-work gate on the left side has been replaced with a more modern timber gate, and the original solid timber panelled doors have been replaced with modern glazed aluminium doors.

The interior was not inspected. It is unknown if any original interior fabric remains, but is considered unlikely given the history of different uses the building has been put to over the years.

The building appears to be constructed entirely in reinforced concrete, although the primary structure may be Williams’ preferred concrete-encased structural steel.

The immediate setting of the building is the block in which it is embedded. To the west is an undistinguished two-storey concrete building, to the east is a string of interesting buildings, including – immediately next door, the startling No. 60 (the Cadbury Building), an Edwardian masonry building of similar proportions to the Ghuznee Buildings, Thomas Turnbull’s small Satay Village at No. 58, the remains of the Ware Press at No. 56 and the former Gear Meat building at the Cuba Street Corner. Across the road are the Krazy Lounge (132 Cuba), Albermarle Hotel, the refurbished Glover Park and other buildings.

The majority of these buildings are of a broadly similar scale to the Ghuznee Buildings and this gives the streetscape in this section of Ghuznee Street a high level of coherence that enhances and is enhanced by the heritage values of the buildings.

The wider setting includes central Te Aro, particularly Cuba Street.

• Architectural

  Does the item have architectural or artistic value for characteristics that may include its design, style, era, form, scale, materials, colour, texture, patina of age, quality of space, craftsmanship, smells, and sounds?

  This building has high architectural value as a good surviving example of the commercial work of the designer, architect Llewellyn Williams and for its elegant stripped classical façade with Art Deco overtones.

• Group

  Is the item part of a group of buildings, structures, or sites that taken together have coherence because of their age, history, style, scale, materials, or use?

  This distinctive building has high townscape value and group value with the adjoining and nearby buildings that are mostly of a similar scale, and makes a positive contribution to, and is enhanced by, this setting.

  This building makes a strong positive contribution to the Cuba Street Heritage Area.

• Townscape

  Does the item have townscape value for the part it plays in defining a space or street; providing visual interest; its role as a landmark; or the contribution it makes to the character and sense of place of Wellington?

  This distinctive building has high townscape value and group value with the adjoining and nearby buildings that are mostly of a similar scale, and makes a positive contribution to, and is enhanced by, this setting.

  This building makes a strong positive contribution to the Cuba Street Heritage Area.

• Association

  Is the item associated with an important person, group, or organisation?

  This building has historic significance as one of the earlier high-rise buildings in Te Aro and for its long association with the early drapery firm of Whitehead and Pears, for whom it was built.

  This building also has historic significance for its association with the architect Llewellyn Williams, a prominent architect of the day.

• Archaeological

  Does the item have archaeological value for its ability to provide scientific information about past human activity?

  It is known that there has been pre-1900 human activity on the site; hence this site has potential archaeological value.

• Technological

  Does the item have technological value for its innovative or important construction methods or use of materials?

  The building structure is of some technical interest.

• Identity/Sense Of Place/Continuity

  Is the item a focus of community, regional, or national identity? Does the item contribute to sense of place or continuity?

  This building is part of a group of historic commercial buildings on Ghuznee Street which contribute to the sense of place and continuity of the Cuba Street Heritage Area.

• Authentic

  Does the item have authenticity or integrity because it retains significant fabric from the time of its construction or from later periods when important additions or modifications were carried out?

  The façade of this building remains largely intact with a high level of original building fabric, despite modifications and the addition of a balcony.

• Representative

  Is the item a good example of the class it represents?

  This building has good representative value as a late 1920s commercial building.

• Importance

  Is the item important for any of the above characteristics at a local, regional, national, or international level?

  This building is of local importance, as it contributes to the Cuba Street Heritage Area.

Not assessed

• Russell Murray. Ghuznee Building, 62-64 Ghuznee Street, VIII. (Wellington City Council: Unpublished report, prepared for Plan Change 53, 2005).
• M. Hamblyn, Kei Hea To Whare? Titiro Ki Roto: John Stone’s New Zealand Directories 1884-1954 (MA Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 1995), p.21.
• Stones Wellington, Hawkes Bay and Taranaki Directory, 1930-1955.
• Wises Post Office Directory, 1967-1985.
• Archives: Building Permit 00056:81:B7739, 1929.
• Archives: 00078:500:62512, 2000.
• Archives: Land Information New Zealand, CT WN4/200

• Inventory Report

Not available