Roy Rogers and Trigger photographed recently at Dunedin

Proposed hotel (model) ODT 2.12.12
Source: ODT Online 2.12.12 [screenshot]

Peter McIntosh takes a great shot. Touching! This was just before old Trigger was led out to paddock and shot. Since processed as pet food.

Related Posts and Comments:
26.11.12 Proposed hotel, 41 Wharf Street – indicative landscape effects
20.11.12 City planner’s report recommends against consent for hotel
10.11.12 Dunedin Hotel, 41 Wharf Street (LUC 2012-212)
8.9.12 Waterfront Hotel #Dunedin (Applicant names?)
7.9.12 Waterfront hotel: DCC to notify resource consent application
16.5.12 Dunedin Hotel

Trigger led a double life:

ODT 21-11-12 screenshot (detail)Source: ODT Online 21.11.12 [screenshot - detail]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

About these ads

43 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Design, Disinformation, Economics, Events, Fun, Hot air, Media, Name, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Stupidity, Town planning, Urban design

43 responses to “Roy Rogers and Trigger photographed recently at Dunedin

  1. Elizabeth

    From the council planner’s report (an indication of height):

    [87] “The mid-summer shading diagram shows the shadow to pass through more than 180° from morning to evening but, as the sun is high in the sky, the midday shadows are quite short. Early morning and late afternoon shadows are, of course, the longest. The morning shadow reaches as far as the Warehouse in Broadway, and will impact on a number of residential properties. This, however, is relatively short lasting, and by 8am the shadow has retreated as far as Crawford Street, limiting its effects mainly to the more commercial warehouse precinct.” cont.

    Council Planning Report (PDF, 520.7 KB)
    The purpose of the report is to provide a framework for the Committee’s consideration of the application.

    The application documents plus post application information:
    http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/notified-resource-consents/current-notifieds/luc-2012-212

    • Elizabeth

      In the application and further information received from the Applicant, the landscape planting shown to screen the proposed hotel’s vehicle entrance and external visitor parking is imposed on public road reserve (Wharf St). Interesting.

      To the west of the subject site, the land and rail yard owned by [Submitter No: 301] New Zealand Railways Corporation (trading as KiwiRail) are shown in the Applicant’s renderings as being built over. Really interesting, how to win friends.

      The submitter [301] highlights reverse sensitivity as its main concern and seeks particular forms of mitigation… to which the council planner replies in her report:

      [paragraph 196] “I recommend that any ‘no complaints’ covenants or registrations be entered into between the respective parties, rather than having Council involvement in their incorporation and administration. I note that the imposition of reverse sensitivity covenants are problematic, especially where the sources of potential complaints are varied (noise, vibration or odour) and the occupants affected are numerous and temporary residents. Such covenants may also conflict with the obligations of a landowner under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to provide a safe environment for tenants.”

  2. Anonymous

    GOB: “What is this rumour I hear of your revolting citizens?”

    DCC: “Yes Master. Some do – we don’t know why. We have shown them pictures, told them what to think but still they question. What do you propose, Sir?”

    GOB: “Make them a model. Get that Lawyer to show it. That will shut them up for a while. (…More to himself than the council representative) What else do these people want from me? They have the privilege of paying for my stadium and still they moan.”

    DCC shuffles out of the room as the GOB wonders if the other GOB ever has to deal with this much insubordination in his town. Rolls up and smokes another DCC High Yield Bond. Stops and notices it tastes bitter… for a moment contemplates on this before extinguishing it in the bucket Farry gave him for Christmas.

  3. Calvin Oaten

    Not being much interested in this ‘stupid’ concept as I don’t believe it will get built. If it does, I suspect it will be the “lowest occupancy” rated hotel in the South Pacific. As a matter of interest, I believe that there are 164 up market apartments to be owner occupied. Where in the overall concept does it show accommodation for 164 vehicles?

    • Elizabeth

      ON PROPOSED PARKING….

      The council’s planner says:

      [7] The application plans have been revised as part of the applicant’s response to a further information request from the Council, so there is a discrepancy between the number of hotel rooms and apartments within the written documentation and the plans submitted. There is also some variation in the numbers within the application report, but it is accepted that the written documentation indicates that the building will contain 215 bedrooms, 164 self-contained apartments, two restaurants, two bars, a swimming pool for in-house use, 182 on-site parking spaces, and a drop off/pick up area for two coaches. The plans suggest that there will be fewer apartments (approximately 140) and more hotel rooms (approximately 254). The dimensions of the building, however, remain constant regardless of the actual number of rooms and apartments.

      [8] The basement and first three floors extend across approximately 2300m2 of the subject site. The basement will be reserved primarily for parking, using a stacked parking arrangement to maximise parking provision. 134 parking spaces are to be provided at this level. A vehicle lift will connect the floor to the upper parking level and the exit.

      [9] Approximately 40% of the Ground Floor will be parking area. Again, a stacked parking arrangement will maximise parking provision, with there being 46 parking spaces proposed for this level. There will be a vehicle exit from this parking area out onto the parking forecourt in front of the building. Access to the site will be from the outside lane of Wharf Street heading northeast, entering the site at its southern end. The access will extend along the Wharf Street frontage of the site, providing limited parking in front of the apartment entrance, a stopping area in front of the main doors of the hotel, and a small parking forecourt in front of the internal parking facilities, before exiting back onto Wharf Street at the Wharf Street/Fryatt Street intersection.

      [20] The proposed hotel operation, including the parking facilities, is considered to be a commercial residential activity. Such an activity is not provided for in the Industrial 1 zone, and accordingly, is considered to be a non-complying activity pursuant to Rule 10.5.5(ii).

      [26] Overall, the proposed development is considered to be a non-complying activity.

      [27] The performance criteria for permitted activities in the Industrial 1 zone, as listed by Rule 10.5.2, do not strictly apply for non-complying activities but do provide guidance for the determination of effects and acceptable development on these sites. The following performance criteria are relevant:

      • Rule 10.5.2(ii)(g)(i) specifies that parking shall be provided at a rate of one car park per residential unit up to 150m2 in area, and two parking spaces for larger units, plus visitor parking at one park per five residential units. These parking requirements are for residential activity within a specific area of the Industrial 1 zone, and this area does not include the subject site. Even so, this parking requirement is not unlike that specified for residential activity in almost all residential zones, and therefore has some value as a yard stick for what parking provision is appropriate. Using the plans as the basis for the internal division of the proposed building, I calculate that there is a requirement of 165 parking spaces for the units, plus 28 for visitors. There will be 180 parking spaces on-site, therefore falling short by 13 parking spaces. This does not take into account parking needs for the hotel or restaurant as the District Plan does not specify any requirements for these activities within the Industrial 1 zone.

      • Rule 10.5.2(ii) and 10.5.2(iii) respectively specify that the car parking, and provision for access, must comply with the performance standards of Section 20 (Transportation). These standards include requirements for the dimensions and layout of parking areas, and the number, design and location of access points onto Roads.

      • Rule 20.5.5(iii) requires parking provision for disabled person at a rate of one park for ten parking spaces, two for 100 parking spaces, plus one for every additional 50 parking spaces. I calculate a requirement for four disabled parking spaces. No such parking spaces have been identified on the application plans.

      [42] Existing consents which have not yet been given effect also form part of the permitted baseline. A certificate of compliance COC-2007-5 was issued in July 2007 for a biotechnology complex to be established at the subject site. Following this, land use consent, LUC-2007-775, was issued for another use of the subject site. LUC-2007-775 provided for the construction of a three-storey building on-site, to be used for commercial offices and a three-bedroom apartment. Included in the design are approximately 65 car parking spaces and eleven truck parks. The access arrangements are similar to those proposed as part of this application, in that there will be a single direction driveway from south to north along the site’s frontage. LUC-2007-775 was issued on 30 June 2008. The consent decision was appealed, but resolved on 9 February 2009, making the effective lapse date 9 February 2014. COC-2007-5 lapsed in July this year but, as it is for a current permitted activity, could be re-issued if required. A copy of the decisions of LUC-2007-775 and COC-2007-5 are attached to this report as Appendix C.

      [57] In this environment, the site coverage of the proposed development, at 2286m2 or 58%, is not an issue. Any implications arising from the proposed footprint of the building will be in regard to the need for external space around the structure, for landscaping and to allow vehicles to manoeuvre and temporarily stop when calling at the complex (the great majority of parking is internal or off-site).

      {see Integrated Transport Assessment prepared by Abley Transportation Consultants for the Applicant}
      [107] …The public parking area at Thomas Burns Street was surveyed in March 2012, and was shown to be no more than 62% full at any time. This equates to about 100 free parking spaces at the busiest of times. The report also discusses the provision of public transport within Cumberland Street, and the crash history of the area.

      [118] The District Plan does not specify parking requirements for an activity of this nature in this zone. As the proposal is a non-complying activity, the appropriate parking provision is largely at Council’s discretion. The figures contained within the applicant’s Transportation Assessment have been revised since that report was completed, and the proposal will now have 182 car parking spaces. This change, combined with alterations to the internal layout of the hotel and apartment block (resulting in different numbers of rooms to that originally proposed), means Council’s Transportation Planner is also working with out-dated figures.

      [119] The nearby Harbourside zone provides some indication of parking requirements for similar activities. For hotels, one parking space is required per three guest rooms up to 60 rooms, and one parking space per five guest rooms thereafter. For 254 hotel rooms (my count), this equates to 59 parking spaces. Staff parking is required at a rate of one parking space per 20 rooms. This is another 13 parking spaces. The same rules specify one parking space for each residential apartment having up to four habitable rooms. For 165 apartments, this is 165 parking spaces, plus 28 visitor parks. Using Harbourside zone rules as a guide for parking requirements, I calculate that 265 parking spaces are required to accommodate the parking demand that may be expected for the hotel operation and apartments. There is no additional provision for visiting restaurant patrons or staff. On the basis of this assessment, there is an overall shortfall in on-site parking provision of approximately 83 parking spaces. Further, two coach parking spaces are proposed whereas the Harbourside rules would suggest five are appropriate.

      [120] The applicant considers that the available parking will be assigned firstly to the apartment use, but does not expect that demand will be as high as that calculated because apartment owners will not all have cars, and not all apartments will be occupied at all times. It is impossible to know whether or not this will prove to be true until the apartments are built and sold or leased. In any case, the applicant proposes that the hotel and apartment block will utilise valet parking. This will be needed if a stacked parking system is used, but it will also allow for vehicles to be parked off-site with minimum inconvenience to the guests or residents should there be a shortfall in parking provision.

      [121] As the person parking or fetching the car must walk between the subject site and the vehicle, the parking location needs to be close to the proposed hotel and apartment block. The application identifies the public Thomas Burns Street car park as being suitable for this purpose, and notes that peak daytime demand for public parking will differ from peak hotel demand for parking. The two activities are, in this sense, compatible.

      [122] Disadvantages with this parking system is the fact that this involves a public parking area being used as overflow parking provision for a private business. Transportation Operations is normally uncomfortable in allowing for leased parking to be used in a significant way for resource consent purposes, given that it cannot be guaranteed in perpetuity. There may be some room for the applicant to use leased parks in extraordinary circumstances. No information is available as to whether this car park is open 24 hours a day, or how it will operate if the hotel is to have special privileges for access. Of more concern is the fact that a significant portion of this parking area is designated for a future Harbour Arterial route project. While this Harbour Arterial route is not envisaged in the near future, the parking cannot be relied on long term for the proposed hotel and apartment block. Alternative parking on the street cannot be accessed safely by pedestrians as it involves crossing Wharf Street.

      [123] After discussing the anticipated travel patterns, transportation effects, and the compliance of the project with the policy framework, the applicant’s Transportation Assessment concludes:

      ‘Overall … the proposed hotel can be supported from a traffic and transportation perspective and it is considered that there are no traffic and transportation reasons why consent could not be granted.’

      [124] Council’s Consultant Transportation Planner is less positive about the assessment. He has identified three significant transport related issues: parking shortfall and the lack of appropriate parking provision to make up the shortfall; the limited pedestrian connectivity to the site; and the potential traffic implications of vehicles undertaking U-turns. These three issues are enough for the Transportation Planner to recommend that the application be declined. In addition to these matters, there follows a long list of information that the Consultant Transportation Planner would like to see provided as part of a fuller assessment.

      • Elizabeth

        MAGIC
        Betterways Advisory Ltd advised the hearing today all hotel car parking will be ON SITE. No longer any need to hit up DCC for a share of the public Thomas Burns Car Park (earmarked for possible realignment of the harbourside arterial).

        • Elizabeth

          By the way, the applicant said NO BUSINESS FEASIBILITY has been undertaken yet for the hotel/apartment block – do we believe them. Theory goes: we want consent so we can talk to the major 5 star international hotel chains…

          Horwath HTL Ltd gave evidence on hotels and the tourism industry – this has nothing to do with the RMA – a space filler, but it sure gave the feel goods to the panel… did we imagine it or were the questions from the panel and council staff more or less weak and ineffectual – this became largely illuminating when the wee girl from Truescape spoke to the simulations (landscape perspectives) and the methodology used… locations chosen by Donny Osmond Anderson, we were told.

          And we all got to view the Animation Research video shown at the launch on 11 May – but only up to the point where Michael Hill began speaking, it was then smartly stopped ~!!! (no need to see the “ad”, they said)

  4. Hype O'Thermia

    “[Shadow cast as far as The Warehouse in Broadway], however, is relatively short lasting, and by 8am the shadow has retreated as far as Crawford Street” I wonder what effect this will have in winter when streets and footpaths are slippery with frost, ice or occasionally snow.

  5. Peter

    Calvin
    They built the stadium. That didn’t make economic sense. Why not try an OTT hotel this time? This is what you do when you are a visionary.

    • Elizabeth

      Or, Peter – when you’re a visionary sort and you’ve blown all your cash on J. Farry-inspired investment funds, or like the idea of having foreign capital do your dirty work (legacy for your own kids, no-one else’s) because you’re fat (metaphorically), lazy and thick, and have no wish to roll up your sleeves and invest in local research and development for export-led recovery (services and manufacturing).

      • Elizabeth

        Reference via Duke of Ban Phai at ODT Online:

        ### guardian.co.uk Sunday, 2 December 2012
        The Observer: Art and Design
        How a high-rise craze is ruining London’s skyline
        By Rowan Moore
        Ken Livingstone ushered in a new skyscraper era during his time as London mayor. But the dash for height has continued under Boris Johnson. Most of the 20-plus towers being built or breaking ground are of inferior quality and fail to meet guidelines, argues our architecture critic. What has happened to the planning system… and where is all the money coming from?

        London skyline (Observer 2.12.12)
        Is London’s skyline going down the tube? Illustration: Nick Brown

        There is no nice way of putting this, but the skyline of London is being screwed. There are now, built and in the pipeline, at least 30 towers, typically in a height range of 150-200 metres (or 490-650 feet. The BT tower is 177 metres high and more slender than anything now proposed). They are the fulfilment of the desires of investors and of the policies of Ken Livingstone, pursued with equal vigour by Boris Johnson, even though he once promised to take a tougher line on height.

        With minimum discussion, proposals are being waved through the planning system – and while both the mayor of London and the communities secretary, Eric Pickles, have the power to intervene in major decisions, neither has done so. A decade ago, plans for buildings such as the Shard and the Gherkin were widely publicised, provoked debate and were the subject of public inquiries. Now, developers and architects hold modest public exhibitions in the immediate neighbourhood of their proposals and are not overanxious that they should be more widely known about.

        The results of these shoddy processes will be visible all over the capital, in the background of famous buildings, from hills and parks, down the ends of streets. They will change the Thames, bringing a completely different scale to its banks. None of which need be a problem, if they conformed to the official planning line that tall buildings should be well designed and in the right place. Or, to quote Johnson’s policy, that they should form “cohesive building groups”, “contribute positively to the image and built environment of London” and be “resisted in areas that will be particularly sensitive to their impacts.” What is a world heritage site if not the latter?

        There is no vision, concept or thought as to what their total effect might be on London, except that it will be great. In planning a kitchen, it is usual to envisage the totality before you start, but a great city has not been granted this courtesy. The onus should be on those who want to make such large changes, and to profit from them, to demonstrate their quality – the more conspicuous a building the more important it is that it is well-designed. As it is, they would rather we didn’t notice them until it’s too late.
        Read more

  6. Peter

    Yes, Elizabeth, it amazes me when people put their money, time and again, with people who continue to pop up offering new financial services and schemes despite their recorded history of failure…or worse.
    Think the likes of JF, or Forsyth Barr, and I’d run a mile. Better to do your homework by finding someone or institution reputable or, failing that, keep your money under a mattress.

  7. wirehunt

    That 8 on the list could be interesting, is that the parking spaces below the basement way below sea level? The level that scares every other business off Dunners and would in fact be the first of its kind here? FI.

    Now we had how many years and how many dollars of our money spent on the late version of a motel here, yet the post office sits as it did still. FI

    • Elizabeth

      The council planner rightly says in her report:
      (*sighs all round)

      [paragraph 168] “The former Chief Post Office in Princes Street was also mentioned regularly in submissions. The general feeling of the submitters was that it was more desirable to renovate and reuse the post office as a hotel than to build a new hotel of the nature proposed. Some submitters are concerned that the opening of the proposed hotel will make the post office redevelopment no longer feasible, while many requested that the applicants progress the post office development instead. Again, this is indicative of how Dunedin people generally value their older buildings and resources. However, the Committee is not able to consider the financial implications of granting consent to the hotel on other developments and like activities. Furthermore, the Resource Management Act 1991 excludes consideration of effect on trade competitors. Nor is the Council able to direct the applicant to spend their money elsewhere, especially when the other property in question is not in the applicant’s ownership. These matters are irrelevant to the consideration of the resource consent application.”

  8. Phil

    HypeOThermia has picked up on the classic developer tactic which has served well to fool previous panels. It should not have fooled the Senior Planner, mind, so shame on her. Developers only show shadow diagrams which give the least negative impact on the surrounding area. For the obvious reason. That’s why they only pick the middle of summer for their reference dates, when the sun is at its highest. What the hearings panel should be asking for, if they are up to the task, are shadow diagrams between May and August. That’s when the effects are greatest, not in the middle of summer. The stadium architects tried the same tactics when trying to convince the purse holders that the sun would shine on the turf. It worked then so probably worth a shot again with this application.

  9. Phil

    Street parking should not be accepted when assessing long term parking capabilities for the hotel. Public parking is at the whim of the DCC. It can be removed at a moments notice, or be restricted to local factories, workshops etc. It could get changed to 60 minute parking, or to metered parking. If the parking is not in the ownership of the hotel then the hotel operator cannot count on that parking being available to the hotel.

  10. Anonymous

    They have found a use for the 50m of foundations then…?
    10 floors of underground car parking!

    • Elizabeth

      Well, those foundations have not been detailed, we hear. Because we want resource consent first. Before we spend any huge money on detail design.

      Structon of Auckland are the engineers we’re told.

      If approved, watch all the paperwork and construction go to out of town sorts. Oh, a two-year build, they say.

      Last of Roy Rogers’ written evidence (3.12.12):
      “A reduction in height will not change any of the visual intrusion issues raised by the submitters but it will compromise the design aesthetics and the economies of the hotel. The application is for 28 stories(sic) (including 1 level below ground) and from the applicants(sic) perspective there is no compromise on that.”

      Gee. Sounds like they’ve done some feasibility after all.

      ### Radio New Zealand National Monday 3 December 2012
      Morning Report with Simon Mercep & Patrick O’Meara
      http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport

      08:38 Dunedin luxury hotel developer will not compromise on height
      The developers of a luxury 28-storey hotel proposed for Dunedin’s waterfront say they will not compromise on the building’s height. 150 people have asked to be heard during the two weeks of public hearings on the hotel’s resource consent application which begins today. (3′31″)
      Audio | Download: Ogg Vorbis MP3 | Embed

      ### Radio New Zealand National Monday 3 December 2012
      Checkpoint with Mary Wilson
      http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint

      17:25 Luxury hotel a rare opportunity for Dunedin- expert
      A hearing panel has been told to embrace the opportunity for Dunedin’s first luxury hotel because it might not come again for decades. (2′58″)
      Audio | Download: Ogg Vorbis MP3 | Embed

      • Elizabeth

        For the on site car parking they’re adding more (vertical) stackers.

        • Elizabeth

          Here’s a Christmas present:

          Jeremy Whelan, Architect – evidence 3.12.12 (PDF, 649 KB)

          You will be pleased that a “local architect” will be delivering evidence later today at hearing, in support of Betterways Advisory Ltd’s application. I have his evidence in my hot hand — it be Francis Whitaker, no less. Now why should that surprise. You’ll remember Mason & Wales, his firm, did the concept work for the failed ORC waterfront head offices, er just round the corner off Birch St wharf.

          Meanwhile, architect Tim Heath will be heading NZIA Southern’s submission, opposing the application.

          Oh dear, the architects’ camp divided — again.
          All the best, Tim and NZIA Southern colleagues!

  11. Rob Hamlin

    Interesting model. What’s with the trees and water in front of this thing? Is the plan to create a ‘Venetian themed’ area around the hotel?

    I can see it now – Cars and trucks will be embarked on gondola pastiche rafts at either end of the ‘dry’ parts of the arterial route, and then punted gently past the hotel guests by redeployed Hillside engineers in fancy dress – Accompanied by canned excerpts from ‘Tunes of Hoffman’.

    Crazy? Let’s not forget: 1) The plans to roof over the quarry with ETFE, refrigerate the place and then keep penguins in it. 2) The plans to build a cruise ship terminal eight kilometres inland from the nearest cruise ship navigable part of the ocean – Yes the CST’s initial report did propose both these things in the immediate Foobar Stadium environment. They made the Stadium itself look relatively sensible – Brilliant positioning of the core proposal.

    The reality of the surrounds of this model matches the reality of the rest of this thing. I am unsurprised by the admission that no commercial feasibility has been done on it. I am not sure how this squares with their adamant position that the full twenty odd storeys is required for its commercial viability.

    Why any sane person would commit $100,000,000 of improvements to a $500,000 site under such circumstances defies any reasonable explanation. Perhaps if the investors’ grip is this fragile, they can be decoyed onto the existing penguin paradise proposal and we could get it after all. Be great for the Santa parade too.

    The commentary from the Council staff above neatly and pointedly sidelines these issues. The writing is on the wall. This thing will be approved unmodified. Only then will the miserable residents of this City discover what the true ‘business plan’ is.

  12. Hype O'Thermia

    NatRadio reporter remarked that while “views” of the proposed building from various points were shown at the hearing, none from the most popular vantage points.
    Dunedin needs this hotel, apparently, because middle class Chinese would come here readily but not if they couldn’t stay in a 5-star hotel.
    I hoped someone would ask “What would they want to come here for, what would be interesting enough to make the trip worth-while, but not attractive enough to stay anywhere except in a 5-star hotel?”
    And, something I am sure nobody would bother asking because of the extreme unlikelihood of getting a straight answer, “Would they be paying NZ attraction providers when they came here, i.e. would NZ tourism operators be getting a full whack of those tourist dollars, or were the people who were so sure about all those people travelling from China if (and only if) there was a 5-star hotel have paid a tour company for their Taieri Gorge train ride, their visit to Penguin Place and so on. Because if so, those providers would be receiving less than they would from less wealthy tourists such as backpackers because the tour operators would have to negotiate a “special price” for the Chinese tour operators. In other words this hotel would overall tend to drive Dunedin’s average incomes down, not just because the majority of those directly employed would be hospitality and cleaning, servant-class, minimum wage, casual and/or part-time workers.

    {Radio NZ links at comment below. Reporter Ian Telfer. -Eds}

  13. Peter

    ‘Luxury hotel a rare opportunity for Dunedin- expert
    A hearing panel has been told to embrace the opportunity for Dunedin’s first luxury hotel because it might not come again for decades. (2′58″)’

    This is, of course, a classic selling technique. You offer a product and then threaten to take it away again if you don’t buy it NOW.
    Also, it begs the question. Is there is not really going to be hordes of top end Chinese, and other tourists, expected ‘for decades’ to come? Is this hotel,including apartments and car parks, IT? One 5 star hotel. Doesn’t sound like Dunedin tourism has a bright future.

    • Elizabeth

      ### ODT Online Tue, 4 Dec 2012
      Hotel a ‘big step’ forward
      By Chris Morris
      Dunedin could secure a lucrative slice of China’s expanding outbound tourism market by saying yes to a five-star, $100 million waterfront hotel, a hearings committee has heard. And the company behind the proposal – Betterways Advisory Ltd – has already begun talks with two potential operators who could bring international branding to the project. However, Betterways director Steve Rodgers has ruled out redeveloping the former chief post office building on Princes St, and rejected other sites around the city, saying they lacked a “five-star setting”.
      Read more

  14. Hype O'Thermia

    If they currently decide not to come to Dunedin when they find it has no 5-star hotel, does this mean “build it and they will come”? Doesn’t that sound as if they are ‘meh” about Dunedin’s attractions, Chinese Garden and all?

  15. Hype O'Thermia

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news
    POLL
    Are you in favour of Dunedin’s proposed waterfront hotel?
    Yes
    No
    Will make a decison based on the hearing

  16. Hype O'Thermia

    No industry, not enough trucks……
    Must stop driving cruise ship passengers to the Octagon and take them straight to the Halsey – Fryatt St precinct.

  17. Anonymous

    “It’s the only site available”
    “It could spark development of the whole area”

    What’s wrong with this picture?

  18. Hype O'Thermia

    Anonymous, you’re channelling St Malfarry and Jim Harland simultaneously. Call your psychic healer immediately.

  19. amanda

    Anybody interested in finding out why this city is in the pickle it is need only look at the front page of the ODT today. It is peddling the hotel while the Hillside workers are shoved back to page four. Obviously the ODT is all for the hotel, it has front page treatment, just like the ODT’s love with all things stadium. And look how that worked out. Business plan? Not important.

  20. wirehunt

    “Dunedin needs this hotel, apparently, because middle class Chinese would come here readily but not if they couldn’t stay in a 5-star hotel”.

    Interesting. Have the dealt with the Chinese tourist market much? I’ve had a bit to do with them and they are frugal to say the least……

  21. Anonymous

    Amanda, it is interesting the ODT did not want to present its hotel glorification on the same page as the Hillside story. But it’s not the only insult in the paper, some of the sell-out National ministers get a good bit of buttering up by Dene McKenzie.

    So while hardworking staff are being out-sourced over some Chinese backhander, local National yes-man Michael Woodhouse is suddenly inline for a promotion and Bill English is now deserving of some “tops” recognition. See what happened there?

    All that’s left to do is shout “yes” on the oil and some fugly hotel – and anyone and anything be damned – and he too can move to Wellington and join his windy buddy Bill “But My Farm Is In Clutha!” English.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news [SPAM] /politics/237630 [SPAM] /english-tops-southern-mp-ranks (link is broken to protect the reader’s intelligence)

  22. Anonymous

    It is good the moderated ODT forum accepted comments about the sudden cancellation of submissions today. Given the highly contentious matter, the newspaper can redeem itself by investigating why the council bent over backwards and what is was that the applicant felt was so important.

  23. Anonymous

    Further to the questions likely to interest the Oddity raised at http://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/dunedin-city-council-vs-anzide-properties-decision-the-road-has-no-legal-basis/#comment-29508, the paper is very likely to investigate the following:

    > Can Eion land a helicopter on the roof?
    > Is there safe parking for a Bentley?
    > Is there sufficient transport between the Hotel and the Stadium?
    > Could the city build a gondola to connect the two?

    Inside rumour is the positions of bellboy and meet & greeter have already been reserved for Malcolm Farry and Dave Cull.

    Satire aside, even with gobs of cash being laundered through back pockets to promote this project, I wouldn’t want to be the engineer signing off a report enabling a 28 story building be built on reclaimed land – that design looks like it will just pop out at the bottom, collapse on the land behind and slide into harbour.

    • Elizabeth

      ### ch9.co.nz December 5, 2012 – 5:53pm
      Submissions opposing proposed hotel begin
      Submissions opposing the proposed 28-storey hotel on the waterfront site began today. There was strong criticism from one opponent, who says the proposal represents a huge leap in comparison to the height, scale and location of buildings which already exist in Dunedin.
      Video

  24. Ro

    Peter Attwooll: excellent letter in this morning’s ODT

    • Elizabeth

      I wish DCC would scan the submissions to hearing and make them available on the webpage for the application.

      Will scan Peter’s letter later today and upload here.

  25. Phil Cole

    Elizabeth, You could have had my submission if you wanted – not a cure for insomniacs! – but as they were running late yesterday with submissions I was quite happy to delay mine. It’s now on Tues 18th December at 9am and no doubt some of the issues I would have raised may have been covered by then. Will be happy to send a copy for you to post on Tues 18th Dec as a Christmas Present!

  26. Anonymous

    Lots of obvious things still baffle me about this build. It is a large, tall building being built on reclaimed land beside the harbour. Low lying land is already a problem from South Dunedin through to the North. Wasn’t there a major flood in the last 20 years which reached the main street? What if the water rises a little? What if there is a major flood? What if there’s an earthquake? What if there’s gale force winds against a wide, glass building? Nothing about this thing makes sense. Only that there are a few wealthy individuals, most who don’t even live in Dunedin, looking to make a quick buck. It might as well be named Hotel Domino.

  27. Alan Bec haute Normandie

    Im unsure of your metaphor. My refs are: “whose name was TRIGGER, and he pulled the fastest milk cart in The West” / “Oh Roy, Oh Roy, is that your horse?”. Late 69 to 72.

    • Elizabeth

      The verbal allusion has been superseded by a visual truth, we hear. For the applicant, Steve Rodgers, Dunedin lawyer and businessman [aka Roy], sought the powerful advocacy of “local architect” Francis Whitaker to offer, um ‘expert’ explanation on the proposed hotel. A horse for courses, Mr Whitaker made much of the anthropomorphic styling of the east facade of the building. He felt the “eye” of the facade, the detail expression (upper left cutout with its curved glazing wall), should be further developed… as an eye (?)…. We’re not sure if bringing the equine Trigger back to life this way is careless blasphemy. To this extent, all of the clever Mr Whitaker’s statements to hearing – in their agility and extremity… – might be seen as an elaborate protestation or ruse to send up the proposal (neither true or false, both exhaustive and exhausting, and not briefed by counsel Phil Page), on behalf of colleague architects expert in contemporary design, many of them award winning as indeed is Mr Whitaker. Of course, it would never do to assert this.
      So yes, milk applied as organic whitewash.

      • Alan Bec haute Normandie

        ZAP!: Not only a milk product. Your exposition evoked SOCI days, not to mention ConsumerAppSci, and a dab of AH.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s