Subscribe to RSSARC Fights Britomart Hotel Plan
The ARC is going to the environment court to try to stop a towering hotel arising amid the Britomart heritage block on Quay St.
It will appeal a decision to remove the height restriction in place around the Britomart Heritage Precinct to make way for a new waterfront development.
ARC chair Mike Lee says this proposal would see “a tall building go up slap bang on the waterfront, blocking out everything behind and severely impacting the character of the lower, heritage buildings in the precinct around it that we have worked so hard to develop in recent years.
“In addition, our waterfront has graduated buildings that start lower and get taller as we go further back inland. This is not by chance, it is by design,” he says.
A panel of independent commissioners approved plans by the Britomart developer to build a towering hotel in the block of heritage buildings that includes the Union Fish, Police Wharf and Northern Steamship Buildings.
They reject opposition from the Auckland City Council, Auckland Regional Council, Historic Places Trust and heritage campaigner Allan Matson to preserve the “low-rise, heritage-based precinct”.
The development proposal for the current Seafarers site on Quay Street from Cooper & Company. At present the height restriction here is 24 metres but the developer is seeking to have that raised to enable them to build to 55 metres.
A towering hotel arises soon the waterfront skyline soon?
ARC chair Mike Lee confirms the ARC is appealing the bulk and form of the development.
“We are in agreement with Auckland City Council here. Their staff had already turned this one down,” says Mr Lee.
25 Comments
Okay, all Councils are against it, as is the heritage trust. There is an existing height limit rule. How the FUGG can the commissioners believe they are doing the right thing by allowing the applicant to go forward with something twice as tall??? Bribery? I’d like to read their arguments. Do you know where to find them, Jon?
For the record, I have little opinion pro or contra here - but the situation, from Jon C’s summary, seems so clear, it flabbergasts me.
karl - I remember reading the same thing in the herald that all councils opposed it but that the ACC can’t do anything as it delegated its authority to the independent commissioners so only the likes of the ARC can do anything about it.
I wonder, are these the same independent commissioners that approved St Lukes?
This is so strange. Rules in place but you can break them? How can this be done? Confuses me.
Only weeks after a long struggle to preserve a century-old cargo shed on Queens Wharf, a new heritage battle is looming at the nearby Britomart precinct.
A panel of independent commissioners has approved plans by the Britomart developer to build a towering hotel in a block of heritage buildings that includes the Union Fish, Police Wharf and Northern Steamship Buildings.
They have dismissed concerns by the Auckland City Council, Auckland Regional Council, Historic Places Trust and heritage campaigner Allan Matson to preserve the “low-rise, heritage-based precinct”.
Last night, ARC chairman Mike Lee said he hoped the regional council would lodge an appeal to the Environment Court. The Historic Places Trust is disappointed at the decision and is reviewing its options.
The Auckland City Council, which appointed the commissioners to consider the proposal on its behalf, is obliged to approve the decision even though it opposed the building at the hearing stage.
Mr Lee said once the ARC received city council approval - due to be made tonight - it would decide whether to take further legal action.
“Given it [Britomart] is a special historic precinct, that needs to be respected and pressure from developers for site-specific changes should be resisted,” he said.
The commissioners - Greg Hill, Trish Fordyce and Rebecca Skidmore - said any potential effects of the building would be no more than minor.
They agreed with heritage architect Jeremy Salmond, hired by the developer Cooper and Company, that a tall building would not devalue the heritage values of the precinct.
Cooper and Company plans a stepped building made up of two heights - 55.2m and 35.4m, plus 5m for roof structures - to echo the pattern of different heights on Quay St. The allowable building height is 24m for the Quay St site, presently occupied by the Seafarers Building.
Lawyer and resource management expert Richard Brabant said the Auckland City Council had to approve the decision because the commissioners were appointed to make a decision on its behalf. The regional council, he said, could lodge an appeal as a submitter to the private plan change.
Mr Brabant said the agency setting up the Super City had asked councils not to appeal against each other, but it was possible the Auckland Transition Agency would allow the ARC to appeal it because of the issue’s importance.
I believe this is the link with a lot of information & diagrams on this, check out the submissions page…!!!
http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/Council/documents/central/updates/029.asp
“They agreed with heritage architect Jeremy Salmond, hired by the developer Cooper and Company, that a tall building would not devalue the heritage values of the precinct.”
That is barely the POINT. Even if you agree with the assessment in regards the the heritage - rules are there for a reason. The commissioners should have flexibility to allow minor breaches, but not for those that don’t make the rule become all obselete like this decision.
There’s no logical reason EXCEPT commercial gain (more hotel floorage) to break this rule - so that is all it takes to break a planning rule these days? The ability to make more money from it?
I haven’t studied this proposal in particular but in my view there is way too much panic about building size over other important issues like car parking provision. Frankly because this developer is building THAT car park down the road [and through such a smartarse process] I’m happy to see him knocked back here. But I’m not sure that the height it self is such a problem, especially if it’s a good building. For example I still maintain that towers on the Soho Square site are preferable to 2000 car parks. I would like to see a trade off offered to developers of increased GFA for reduced car parking…
I actually don’t mind this building, as I don’t believe it will significantly affect these historical block, and we are a developing city, we shouldn’t stop intensification where possible. However I don’t actually know enough about it to comment further.
I would agree with Patrick R here.
If you don’t like the Council’s rules, lobby to get them changed. That is the way in a democracy. Not: We don’t like them, so lets just ignore them.
A job well done and I for one am very happy that the hotel has been approved. Britomart is not a time capsule and Auckland city centre is not a lifestyle block. Cities evolve and change over time and Auckland is no different. No heritage is being lost in the process and that is all good. If you are concerned about views and building heights get out of the city and buy yourself a lovely little plot in Huntly where you can sit and stare at the sheep all day long. I can only hope that Auckland loses it’s “city of village idiots” tag sooner rather than later but judging by some of the comments and people like Mike Lee I don’t think that it will happen in a hurry - Auckland’s loss. Here’s hoping that MIke Lee gets kicked back to 1965 along with his narrow-minded followers.
“Eye” on Auckland - you are an arrogant little person, aren’t you? Because you don’t like anyone to criticise what you like, you start calling names.
We have seen what lack of heritage protection does to Auckland. Queen Street was beautiful once, now three quarters are soulless glass cages. New development can be built where it doesn’t have to bulldoze old beautiful buildings for it - Auckland is far from that crowded that protecting our past needs to limit our future. Your “either/or” argument is a total straw man.
Further, if you had actually read the comments, you would know that height isn’t actually the primary issue for most of us - but some rather prefer our planning rules to MEAN something, and not just be broken rather casually at the whim of someone who just wants to make more money.
Juvenile name calling aside i don’t wholly disagree about this project. And while I sympathise with the urge to have the few weak heritage rules we have in Auckland actually followed, as a rule [Ha!] I prefer case by case flexibility. All things being equal that should lead to a better city than one in a straight jacket…. Furthermore, and this may not be popular here, but while I greatly admire Mike Lee’s fantastic work in many areas especially transit, I do find him to be a bit of a ‘nostalgist’ when it comes to architecture…Too much admiration for anything old. For example I so don’t want to see 50 year trams anywhere but the museum…. Still, the idea of parking buses on the disused Nelson St off ramp is pure genius, hey let’s sort that when we two-way Nelson + Hobson Sts. The traffic engineers should be pleased to see their big cock-up smoothed over [why didn't they think of it?] So on balance the guy is a dude.
@ Karl, if the shoe fits, wear it mate - yes I am arrogant, I didn’t fall on my mouth when I was born and I have a mind of my own. I am passionate about this city and sick of a few village idiots destroying this city. NO heritage buildings are being bulldozed to make way for the Britomart Hotel - I repeat (in case you missed it the first time) - NO heritage buildings will be torn down. The complete opposite is happening, the heritage buildings alongside the Seafarer’s building (which is nothing but an eye-sore) are being restored and put to get use. Also, if you read Mike Lee’s comments he is against the height .. “a tall building go up slap bang on the waterfront, blocking out everything behind and severely impacting the character of the lower, heritage buildings in the precinct around it that we have worked so hard to develop in recent years”.
If you take the time to read all the comments in the NZ Herald you will notice that it is just a bunch of village idiots, like people who want to put sheep on Queen’s Wharf so that tourists can get the “Kiwi experience”. People as far away as Vancouver call Auckland the “city of village idiots” - it is not a term that I have coined, it is the people that have lived here and experienced it first hand.
Do some research before you jump on the village idiot bandwagon and know your facts. Tall buildings get built in city centres, city centre districts are not time capsules but can be redeveloped to incorporate the heritage buildings, The Seafarer’s building is not heritage listed and neither should it be, the hotel is not much taller than The East building and/or the proposed Central building and most important of all views are never guaranteed when you live in a city.
I don’t care if you like or don’t like what I have written - the fact remains that I have written nothing but the facts.
Furthermore, you can read what I wrote to Mike Lee and The NZ Herald here:
http://eyeonauckland.blogspot.com/2010/09/project-britomart-hotel-update.html
Problem is, Mr Eye, that your needlessly aggressive tone and ad hominem approach undermines the quality of your argument. You may well have the best facts but no one will bother to read them if you insist on expressing like that.
@Karl - Developers need to make money otherwise there would be no point in developing. So they make more money than you do! - get over it. p.s. perhaps knowing what is really going on with the development would make it easier for you not to have to resort to name calling.
@Patrick - Eye’s refreshing tone has hardly stopped you from reading his replies. I doubt it will stop others.
@Eye - at last - someone with a bit of common sense about all this. Just build the hotel already.
Here is a a great article about the hotel and general area. What seems to have been long forgotten is that the developers were sold the land at a cheaper price on the condition that they developed it as a heritage area. One suggestion made is that they could be allowed to build it if they reimbursed the rate payer for the fact they got the land cheap. Another suggestion is they drop the central buildings from the plan and turn the area into a great open space in return for being allowed the extra height.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10677515
@Karl – Developers need to make money otherwise there would be no point in developing.
Thanks for stating the obvious. You seem to have forgotten that they do not, however, have a right to bend any rule which prevents them from making MORE money.
Matt L’s comment on heritage provisions is just a start - the other is that the developers KNEW they were buying an area with a height limit on it. So they were obviously either doing there calculations wrong, or they were fully aware they’d have to break existing rules to make a profit. I have no sympathy for them either way.
“So they make more money than you do! – get over it.”
Lol - lots of people make more money than me. I won’t get over it, because I dislike casino capitalism. So unlike you, I just won’t accept that making money should be the Nr 1 priority of our society, and should trump everything.
“p.s. perhaps knowing what is really going on with the development would make it easier for you not to have to resort to name calling.”
Kettle calling the mirror black? My only “name calling” was noting that Eye’s comment was exceedingly arrogant, and he and you just continue in the “idiots, all of you!” vein.
“@Patrick – Eye’s refreshing tone has hardly stopped you from reading his replies. I doubt it will stop others.”
Lovely - “KettleWatch”, nobody was saying Eye’s comments weren’t being read. Loud stuff always gets read. People will just discount his arguments more than they would normally, because he’s rude.
“@Eye – at last – someone with a bit of common sense about all this. Just build the hotel already.”
Sure - following the rules that have been created by democratic process. Not the rules that some developer wants because he can’t stand the idea of limits to his money-making.
@karl
So much written, so little said. I think getting over it would be good for you. It is not a about money, but with you it certainly appears to be so.
@ Karl - LOL ….. toughen up, the only reasons as to why your knickers are in a knot is 1. the truth is a bitter pill to swallow and 2. I am not one of the flock who blindly follows the other sheep around which is widely accepted as the norm in this country. I am broad-minded as opposed to narrow-minded. Sorry, that is just the way that it is.
Eye and Kettle – Both of you don’t actually respond to the issues that are raised but rather attack others who don’t agree with you. The issues seem to be:
1. Its not about being narrow or broad minded but or being sheep but that planning rules exist for a reason, if they didn’t there would be nothing to stop someone coming in and building a skyscraper next to your house. There might also be the potential for other developers to seek compensation for being forced to build within set limits.
2. That the developers were sold the land at a discounted price because of the planning restrictions. To date I haven’t seen anything saying they would be prepared to pay more for the land as a result of being able to build taller.
@ Matt You guys are trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. If you have not realised it by now Britomart has been raped. This however does not mean that the Seafarers site is not appropriate for a high-rise hotel. It is PERFECT for a high-rise. The issue you have is not with the height for heights sake but the fact that you don’t want it higher because some developer is going to score - so are you really responding to the issue at hand? - or are you merely pissed off for some other reason and using the height as a ‘legitimate’ excuse. You need to find clarity as to why you REALLY oppose the development.
Kettle, how about not trying to argue that people are opposing this in bad faith in order to avoid discussing the issues they raise? It’s entirely possible that people want planning rules to be applied consistently, and developers held to the conditions that they *knew* were in place when they bought the land, as reflected in the discounted price.
It doesn’t have to be about jealousy over developers’ gains, and given what’s gone into preserving the precinct as it is now it’s not really a “closing the door after the horse has bolted” situation either. The objections are trying to stop the horse from bolting, which is what the commissioners were meant to have done in the first place.
Also, who’re the sheep? The people who agree with the councils (including the council that would’ve denied the application had it had the opportunity) and other bodies that this is a bad decision, or you and Eye and your “Greed greed greed, rah rah rah” adherence to unfettered capitalism?
Kettle/Eye - you are just continuing the strawman arguments and the direct and indirect attacks, while ignoring any facts at hand.
Claiming to “not be one of the sheep” is so ridiculously self-congratulatory and gratitiously defamatory for everyone else, you are sounding like someone defending a religious viewpoint - you are the enlightened ones? Well, good on you.
Planning rules are NOT cast in stone, they change and adapt to a cities needs which is most suitable for the era that we find ourselves within.
This has been going on for decades across the globe in thousands of cities and towns - why should it be any different now and why should Auckland be any different ?
The bottom line is that there are a few people in this city who are petrified of change and cannot think outside of the square. Thank God rules change or else woman would not be able to vote and homosexuals would be stoned to death.
I have not bothered to reply to this point due to the fact that it is obvious and anybody with more than two brain cells know that there are no constants in life or city planning.