Misleading images?

                                
Professor Ken Strongman, Assistant Vice-Chancellor ( Government and Community Relations) at the University of Canterbury stated in The Press (8/9/09) that a misleading image is being reproduced which is known to be no longer representative of the proposed building (see above). A new image was submitted which is said to reflect the street profile and incorporate refinements resulting from consultations with the Historic Places Trust.

This is rather strange because apart from the fact the new image is a perspective drawing and also shows the heritage buildings to the west along Hereford Street, it clearly incorporates no change to the design from what can be seen in an elevation of the Hereford Street facade, which has been displayed on the University website since June.  

 

It would therefore be very interesting to hear from Professor Strongman exactly what recent changes and refinements have been made to the design as a result of discussions with the Historic Places Trust, because they are certainly not evident.  We  know from the public meeting held at the Employers' Chamber of Commerce that the central stairwell and the elevation at the Dux De Lux end, as seen above, were modified as a result of discussions with the Historic Places Trust before the plans were presented to the public. (The previous design has never been made public.)

What is very clear is that the "new view" is a totally misleading one.  No-one will ever see this view unless all the buildings between Hereford St and Cashel St ( or even as far as Cambridge Terrace) are removed.  I defy anyone to stand on Hereford St and see the view as presented here.  The building will appear much larger and more dominating and the buildings to either side will only be able to be viewed obliquely   On the other hand the view which Professor Strongman claims is misleading is an accurate portrayal of the oblique view anyone will see walking down Hereford St from the Botanic Gardens end.  The accuracy of the view was challenged by the University when it was first made public, but the architects confirmed that it was indeed an accurate representation.  Though there is nothing about the "new drawing" to suggest the plans have changed in any way, if they have, then let us see them presented from the same angle as the disputed drawing.  It should be noted that this same view is still seen in the flyover video presented by the University on its website.  The flyover in itself is misleading because for much of its duration it represents the building from a birds-eye perspective rather than a pedestrian perspective and therefore downplays the scale of the building.  (For some reason the elevation and the perspective have a small dormer to the left of the tower which does not appear in either the flyover or the  South-west perspective, but this discrepancy has been present from the outset.)  We await with interest Professor Strongman's further elucidation as to the nature of the changes.