Tag Archives: Ports

When Life as we know it erupts into Scale, Manufacturing and Transit

Productivity is a measure of how efficiently production inputs are being used within the economy to produce output. Growth in productivity is a key determinant in improving a nation’s long-term material standard of living. —Statistics NZ ….[yawn]

Since March 2006, Statistics NZ has produced a yearly release of official measures of annual productivity for the measured sector. These measures are vital to better understanding improvements in New Zealand’s living standards, economic performance, and international competitiveness over the long term. Productivity is often defined as a ratio between economic output and the inputs, such as labour and capital, which go into producing that output.

Productivity Statistics – information releases ….[ZzzZzzzz…………..]

****

Viddsee Published on May 18, 2016
Changing Batteries – A Robot “Son” Couldn’t Replace The Emptiness In Her Heart // Viddsee.com
‘Changing Batteries’ is a final year animation production made in Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Malaysia. The story tells of an old lady who lives alone and receives a robot one day. Based on the theme ‘Change’, our story tells about their relationship development with one another through time.

Viddsee Published on Feb 23, 2016
Alarm – Relatable Animation For The Mornings // Viddsee.com
The story is about a salaryman living in a single apartment. But he has a problem getting up early in the morning. He would rather die than wake up early. He decides to set many alarm clocks everywhere in his apartment so he can get to work on time. The next morning, after struggling with his alarm clocks, he barely finishes preparing for work.

****

WIRED UK Published on Jul 5, 2016
Shenzhen: The Silicon Valley of Hardware (Full Documentary) | Future Cities | WIRED
Future Cities, a full-length documentary strand from WIRED Video, takes us inside the bustling Chinese city of Shenzhen. We examine the unique manufacturing ecosystem that has emerged, gaining access to the world’s leading hardware-prototyping culture whilst challenging misconceptions from the west. The film looks at how the evolution of “Shanzhai” – or copycat manufacturing – has transformed traditional models of business, distribution and innovation, and asks what the rest of the world can learn from this so-called “Silicon Valley of hardware”. Directed by: Jim Demuth

Future Cities is part of a new flagship documentary strand from WIRED Video that explores the technologies, trends and ideas that are changing our world.

BBC aired the documentary in November, with the following descriptor:

Best Documentary 2016 Shenzhen: The Silicon Valley of Hardware gives us an insider’s perspective on a system of creative collaboration that ultimately informs all of our lives.

The centre of the technology world may not lie in California’s Silicon Valley, but in the bustling marketplace of Huaqiangbei, a subdistrict of Shenzhen in China. This is where curious consumers and industry insiders gather to feast their eyes and wallets on the latest software, hardware, gadgetry, and assorted electronic goods. At the very start the film sets the scene to this fascinating technology mecca. A city populated by 20 million people, Shenzhen is the setting where advancement is most likely to originate at speeds that can’t be replicated in the States. The city’s vibrant and inventive tech work force takes over when the innovations of Silicon Valley become stagnant. The revolution may have started in the States, but its evolution is occurring in China. Working in collaboration, Shenzhen labourers craft unique upgrades and modifications to everything from laptops to cell phones. Their efforts then immigrate and influence the adoption of new products in other regions of the world. The infrastructure by which this is made possible is known as the ‘Maker movement’. In developer conferences and Maker exhibition fairs, tech geeks are encouraged to share their ideas freely with colleagues in the hopes that more open collaborations will form grander innovations. The film highlights how these attitudes stand in sharp contrast to the Western world where communications are secretive, monopolies are the norm and proprietorship is sacred. However, there are challenges faced by Shenzhen in maintaining their edge in the industry. While widely acknowledged as pioneers, Shenzhen’s prominence has faltered as the remainder of China has proven successful in their attempts to catch up. Adding to the frustrations, the government has interceded and moved manufacturing bases outside of the city. Meanwhile, figures from the world of investment financing have moved into the equation, and threatened to stifle creativity by imposing a more closed and impenetrable mode of operations.

****

### dailymail.co.uk 30 Oct 2013
Ever wondered how everything you buy from China gets here? Welcome to the port of Shanghai – the size of 470 football pitches
By Daily Mail Reporter
Whether it’s the car you drove to work in, the computer at your desk or your children’s toys strewn across their bedroom floor, there’s a very good chance they have come from here. This is the world’s busiest trading port which handles a staggering 32million containers a year carrying 736million tonnes of goods to far-flung places around the globe. Stretching as far as the eye can see, rows upon rows of containers lie stacked up at the Port of Shanghai waiting to be shipped abroad and bringing in trillions of pounds to the Chinese economy in the process. It’s this fearsome capacity that has helped China become the world’s largest trading nation when it leapfrogged the United States last year.
The port has an area of 3.94 square kilometres – the equivalent of 470 football pitches. China’s breakneck growth rate in recent years has been driven by exports and manufacturing as well as government spending on infrastructure. In the last eight years alone, capacity at the Port of Shanghai has ballooned from 14million TEUs (a unit which is roughly the volume of a 20ft-long container) in 2004 to more than 32million last year. The rapid expansion was largely thanks to the construction of the Yangshan Deepwater Port, which opened in 2005 and can handle the world’s largest container vessels. That port alone can now shift around 12million containers a year.
Shanghai’s location at the mouth of the Yangtze River made it a key area of development for coastal trade during the Qing dynasty from 1644 to 1912. In 1842, Shanghai became a treaty port, which opened it up to foreign trade, and by the early 20th Century it became the largest in the Far East. Trade became stifled after 1949, however, when the economic policies of the People’s Republic crippled infrastructure and development. But after economic reforms in 1991, the port was able to expand exponentially.
Read more

shanghai-yangshan-port-01-topchinatravel-comdonghai-bridge-1-topchinatravel-comyangshan-deepwater-port-meretmarine-comyangshan-deepwater-port-embed-lyyangshan-deepwater-port-via-reddit-com

****

David Carrier Published on Jan 13, 2017
World’s Biggest and Busiest Port Ever Made – Full Documentary
The Yangshan Deepwater Port is connected to the mainland by the Donghai Bridge, the world’s longest sea bridge.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

*Images: (from top) Shanghai Map – topchinatravel.com, Donghai Bridge – topchinatravel.com, Yangshan Deepwater Port – meretmarine.com, embed.ly, reddit-com

2 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Design, Economics, Education, Finance, Geography, Infrastructure, Innovation, Leading edge, Media, People, Politics, Project management, Public interest, Structural engineering, Technology, Town planning, Transportation

Harbourside: Official information request to Dunedin City Council

Note: LGOIMA official information requests can be emailed direct to officialinformation @dcc.govt.nz

DCC Webmap - Upper Harbour Central Dunedin JanFeb 2013DCC Webmap – Upper Harbour Central Dunedin JanFeb 2013

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Monday, 7 September 2015 2:30 p.m.
To: Sandy Graham [DCC]
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr; Grace Ockwell [DCC]; Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: LGOIMA Information Request

Dear Sandy

Re: Urban Design and Envisioning for Dunedin Harbourside

I note the following media items:

● ODT (19.8.15) Cull to push for more city hotels [hotel accommodation]
● ODT (20.8.15) Under-fire Cull stands by comments [hotel accommodation]
● ODT (26.8.15) – A Mackay, Opinion Harbourside development adds vibrancy
● ODT (31.8.15) – P Entwisle, Opinion Extraordinary works inspired by nature [Van Brandenburg]
● ODT (5.9.15) Waterfront the next big thing? [bridge, aquarium, ORC headquarters, hotels etc]
● ODT (5.9.15) Harbourside views in conflict
● ODT (5.9.15) ORC denies hindering development
● ODT (7.9.15) Vogel Street Party spreads its wings [Van Brandenburg ‘hotel’ model]
● ODT (7.9.15) Conferences ‘great’ boost for city

●● DCC media release (27.8.15) Building stronger local government connections with China

●● Indications are that DCC wants Otago Rowing Club to relocate from their premises to a site of the DCC’s choosing.

I wish to formally request ALL reports and visionary/guiding documents and or statements/statements of proposal or intent that are currently being used by Dunedin City Council in consultation with other parties (real and potential – local, national and international) be they:

focus groups, steering groups, working parties, development partners, surveyors, designers/architects, resource management specialists, investors, project facilitators, project managers, University of Otago, Otago Polytechnic, Otago Chamber of Commerce and or other – to ‘shape and envision’ the future development of Dunedin Harbourside in the urban area that extends from:

Otago Boat Harbour and its vicinity (includes Industrial 1 zone, Stadium zone, Port 2 zone) to the area zoned for mixed use south of Dunedin’s Steamer Basin (Harbourside zone) and further south to Portsmouth Drive (Industrial 1 zone); including connections to existing precincts TH12, TH13, TH05, TH04, TH03 and TH02.

Any corresponding information and explanation that derives from the, to be publicly notified (this month?), second generation plan (2GP) for these city blocks and foreshore area is also requested.

I look forward to prompt receipt of all available information in electronic format.

Regards

Elizabeth Kerr
[Dunedin North]

——————

From: Sandy Graham [DCC]
Sent: Monday, 7 September 2015 2:42 p.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Cc: Grace Ockwell [DCC]; Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA Information Request

Dear Elizabeth

Thanks for your very detailed LGOIMA request which I have forwarded to the officialinformation @dcc.govt.nz. Your request will be processed under the terms of LGOIMA and a response will be provided as soon as practicable but in any event within 20 working days.

Regards
Sandy

[DCC Group Manager Corporate Services]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
[it’s OK, not holding my breath for too much public disclosure]

26 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, COC (Otago), Construction, CST, Cycle network, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Democracy, Design, Economics, Enterprise Dunedin, Events, Geography, Heritage, Highlanders, Hotel, KiwiRail, Media, Museums, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, NZTA, Offshore drilling, ORC, ORFU, Otago Polytechnic, People, POL, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, University of Otago, Urban design

DCC explains Harbourside subdivision in reply to Vandervis

Received from Sandy Graham, DCC Group Manager Corporate Services
Friday, 16 January 2015 5:06 p.m.

From: Sue Bidrose
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 3:59 p.m.
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Council 2013-2016 (Elected Members); Sandy Graham
Subject: FW: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Hi Lee

Here is the Planner’s discussion about the Chalmers subdivision in the paper today. They have given generic information about how such decisions are made (to be notified or non-notified) and then how those principles stacked up in this specific case. They have then also addressed each of your specific attributes for this particular subdivision (size, political interest, transparency etc.) and how much impact that each of these can/can’t have on their decision-making around making the application notified/non-notified. I know you know much of this background Lee, but as you cc’d all Councillors, I wanted a generic response for Councillors who are not Hearings Panel members, so forgive my ‘teaching Granny to suck eggs’ approach.

Attached is also a couple of sketches that the planner (Lianne) made for herself showing the subdivision at the start of the process, and then at the end, just for your information for those of you who are interested in knowing exactly which lots were affected.

Regards
Sue

Dr Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive Officer
Dunedin City Council

[click to enlarge or view PDF immediately below]
DCC Lianne Darby CPL subdivision - sketchmap 1
DCC Lianne Darby CPL subdivision - sketchmap 2

█ Download: Chalmers subdivision diagrams (PDF, 1.0 MB)

——————————

From: Jeremy Grey [DCC]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 3:36 p.m.
To: Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: FW: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Hi Sue,

Please see below an email that Lianne has prepared in response to your query. I will also be sending some diagrams.

Please let me know if you need anything further.

Regards,
Jeremy

——————————

From: Lianne Darby [DCC]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 2:03 p.m.
To: Jeremy Grey [DCC]
Subject: RE: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Hi Jeremy

In response to Sue’s questions:

1. All subdivisions require resource consent. This is not a suggestion that there is a fault with subdivision, but is simply a matter whereby Council maintains control i.e. makes sure there is access, servicing, the land is geotechnically stable, etc.

The District Plan sets out the criteria for subdivision within the different zones, and where a subdivision meets the criteria, it is usually processed non-notified. In the case of the Port 2 and Industrial 1 zones, subdivisions are expected to comply with Rules 18.5.3 (access), 18.5.4 & 18.5.4 (requirements for esplanade strips or reserves), 18.5.6 (service connections), 18.5.9 ( a rule which has since been deleted and no long applies), 18.5.10 (lots in unserviced areas) and 18.5.12 (structure plans). Some/most of these rules will not be relevant to specific proposals. It should be noted that there is no minimum area or frontage requirements for lots in these zones. A subdivision meeting all these rules is a restricted discretionary proposal. It is worth noting the final paragraph of Rule 18.5.1 which states:

“… any application for subdivision consent involving a discretionary activity (restricted), the written approval of affected persons need not be obtained.”

… that is, a land owner may subdivide in accordance with the expectations of the District Plan for the zoning without needing to consider others as affected parties.

Subdivisions which do not meet the above rules (unrestricted discretionary and non-notified activities) are often processed non-notified as well if the proposal involves no change in land use, the non-compliance can be mitigated, or there are no consequences for neighbours, the general public or the District Plan integrity. For example, in the residential zones, new lots require frontage. Many lots do not have any frontage at all and the subdivision is a non-complying subdivision as a result. However, these lots will have rights of way providing them with legal and physical access, so the lack of frontage is not considered of any consequence. We do not notify these applications.

As a general rule, subdivisions are notified when there is a breach of density i.e. the new lots are undersized and will result in development at a greater density than the zoning would anticipate. This has the potential to change the wider amenity of an area or overload Council’s services, among other matters. However, if the land is already developed, then the subdivision of the land into lots smaller than anticipated is not usually considered a matter of concern as there will be no actual change occurring except on paper. For example, a lot with two houses could be subdivided into two undersized lots, each containing a house, without the subdivision being notified.

Large subdivisions are not notified simply because they are large. If the subdivision is in accordance with the District Plan expectations, i.e. meets the relevant rules, it will not be notified. For example, the large Mosgiel residential subdivisions currently underway have not been notified except for Heathfield which involved a lot of undersized lots.

Planning does not take into account political or commercial interests when processing resource consents.

2. The subdivision of Chalmers Properties was non-notified for several reasons.
a) It meets the necessary requirements for subdivision in the Port 2 and Industrial 1 zone. Any deficiencies there may be in servicing (e.g. the need for individual water connections) will be addressed as part of the consent conditions, as is typical.
b) There is no new development proposed. The subdivision is not for the purpose of creating vacant sites for new development. This does not mean that the new lots cannot be redeveloped, but this is not the purpose of the subdivision; nor is redevelopment dependent on the subdivision. The existing sites can be redeveloped at any time should the property owner desire.
c) The subdivision is not so much a large subdivision as a number of small subdivisions all being put on the same plan. We are starting with 15 existing titles and finishing with 34.
d) The new lots have, by my understanding, been selected mainly to coincide with existing leases. Council does not have access to lease information and does not know who the leaseholders are (barring door-knocking). Council does not normally consider lessees or property renters as affected parties as the tenancies are private agreements. The subdivision of the freehold parcels should not have implications for the terms of any leases or leasehold titles.
e) Many of the existing titles are comprised of multiple sections. The original subdivision created many small parcels, and these have been grouped into freehold titles to give the 15 subject sites. Section 226 of the RMA allows a property owner to separate these parcels onto separate freehold titles if certain conditions are met. This is not a subdivision, and Council does not have discretion to say ‘no’ if the conditions are satisfied. Many of the new lots follow existing parcel boundaries and could arguably have been dealt with using s226. Given the number of titles being dealt with and the fact that some buildings might actually, when checked by survey, be over boundaries, the applicant decided to deal with them all by a formal subdivision at once; a one step process whereby any breaches of buildings over existing parcel boundaries will not cause the project to stall.

3. As noted above:
a) Size. The size of the subdivision is not a deciding factor in notification if the subdivision rules are met. In this case, the subdivision is not so much a large subdivision as a number of small subdivisions dealt with together. There is no change in land use anticipated as a direct result of this subdivision as there are already established land uses for the new sites.
b) Political implications: Council does not take into account political implications when processing resource consents. Consents are assessed on their merits and not according to who the applicant is or where it is situated. The zone is the relevant factor, not the neighbourhood or the history of the area.
c) Planning implications: There are no planning implications associated with this subdivision. The subdivision meets the necessary rules as set out by Rule 18.5.1(iv) for the Port and Industrial zones. There is no minimum site size set for the zones, so there are no undersized lots. All lots are serviced and have access. They are already developed with lawfully established activities. Any existing encroachments of buildings over boundaries will be resolved by this subdivision. The subdivision is a restricted discretionary activity.
d) Public interest: It is difficult to see how public interest is relevant in this case. The subdivision does not challenge the integrity of the District Plan in any way, and this is the public planning document being applied. The terms of all existing leases should not be affected (and this is a matter between the property owner and tenants anyway, not Council). There is no change to the sites occurring as a direct result of the subdivision. While the new lots may be sold and/or redeveloped, the land is in private ownership and can already be sold and/or redeveloped. Council does not decide whether or not a property owner can sell their land. Redevelopment proposals will be assessed by Council if and when they arise.
e) Commercial interest: Council does not take into account commercial interests when processing resource consents. The RMA sections 74(3) and 95D(d) instructs a consent authority to disregard trade completion or the effects of trade competition.
f) Transparency: The applicant is a private land owner who is entitled by the District Plan to undertake certain activities on their land. While subdivision is not a permitted activity, Council does not decline subdivision applications where the proposal is in accordance with the relevant subdivision requirements and the land is stable (i.e. section 106 of the RMA is not triggered). This is not Council land, nor Council’s project. The resource consent application and decision are public documents available for anyone to view, and in this regard, there is transparency about the proposal. It was decided for the above reasons that the proposal did not need to be notified.

The consent decision makes evident that there are a large number of addresses involved. In a nutshell, the property owner has a large number of addresses which do not fully align with leases, which do not fully align with freehold titles, which do not fully align with buildings on-site. The subdivision seeks to tidy up, or rationalise, the landholdings for ease of the property owner’s administration, as noted in today’s Otago Daily Times paper.

Regards

Lianne

——————————

From: Jeremy Grey [DCC]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 8:43 a.m.
To: Lianne Darby [DCC]
Subject: FW: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

FYI…

From: Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 8:11 a.m.
To: Jeremy Grey [DCC]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC]
Subject: FW: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Hi Jeremy
Please read the Councillor email below about why the subdivision in today’s paper was done on a non-notified basis. I need details on this – is it possible (please read the details below) to do this today?

I need the details about:
1. Generically: how a planner decides notified vs non-notified – the things you are legally allowed to take into consideration generically, not specifically this case – what are the RULES and steps for making that decision
2. Specifically: how those rules were applied and steps taken in this specific case

Given my response to the Councillors is quite likely be shared reasonably widely, it might be useful in answering that first dotpoint for you to imagine you are writing a sort of ‘guide to the notification decision-making process’.

Thirdly, it would be also useful if you could tell me specifically on how each of the following issues is allowed to have weight in that decision of notification:
Size (of subdivision/change)
Political implications
Planning implications
Public interest
Commercial interest
Transparency.

Jeremy, if you could cc Sandy in your response please, as we will disseminate the answer and all relevant emails the way we do with LGOIMAs – and I suspect we could well get LGOIMAs about this also.

Thanks
Sue

Dr Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive Officer
Dunedin City Council

From: [name redacted on forwarding to council staff]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 7:53 a.m.
To: Sue Bidrose [DCC]; Sandy Graham [DCC]
Cc: (all councillors)
Subject: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Dear Sue,
Why has the massive subdivision of 15 ORC properties into 34 lots [today’s ODT p4] been processed on a non-notified basis, given the size, political and planning implications, and public and commercial interest in this range of properties?
Notification is surely a necessary prerequisite for such a large range of subdivisions to be carried out in a transparent manner is it not?
Kind regards,
[name redacted]

[ends]

Related Posts and Comments:
9.1.15 DCC: Non-notified decision for harbourside subdivision
27.12.14 Port Otago Ltd + Chalmers Properties
17.11.14 Bradken keen to sell Tewsley Street premises
12.6.14 Dunedin’s industrial land
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

3 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Heritage NZ, Name, New Zealand, ORC, People, Pics, POL, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design

DCC: Non-notified decision for Harbourside subdivision

Updated post 13.1.15 at 1:25 a.m. Map added.

Notice:

20 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 32 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 36 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 8 Bombay Street Dunedin, 10 Bombay Street Dunedin, 14 Tewsley Street Dunedin, 47 Willis Street Dunedin, 59 Willis Street Dunedin, 34 Mason Street Dunedin, 44 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 47 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 56 Willis Street Dunedin (SUB-2014-149)

This consent was an application to/for subdivision at 20 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 32 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 36 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 8 Bombay Street Dunedin, 10 Bombay Street Dunedin, 14 Tewsley Street Dunedin, 47 Willis Street Dunedin, 59 Willis Street Dunedin, 34 Mason Street Dunedin, 44 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 47 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 56 Willis Street Dunedin.

This was considered by the Council’s Senior Planner (Consents) on 25 November 2014.

http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/services/planning/browse-non-notified-decisions?result_146838_result_page=3

Information obtained from City Planning 12.1.15

Harbourside subdivision (SUB-2014-149)
Applicant: Chalmers Properties Ltd

“The proposed subdivision is to be undertaken in one stage, and will not create any vacant sites intended for development. Nor is any redevelopment of the new lots anticipated.” (from the Decision) ??? Are we sure….

SUB-2014-149 Decision (DOCX, 1.62 MB)

SUB-2014-149 Application 2014-10-30 (PDF, 9.33 MB)

Plan. Lots 1 - 34 Subdivision of Land in Industrial Precinct. PatersonPitts for CPLDecision (final page) – Copy of Plan: Not to Scale. [click to enlarge]

DCC Webmap - Dunedin Harbourside (detail)DCC Webmap – Dunedin Harbourside [click to enlarge]

Dunedin City District Plan - Harbourside zones (detail 1)Dunedin City District Plan – Harbourside zones (detail) via Map 35 and Map 49

nzhpt-dunedin-harbourside-historic-area-1Heritage New Zealand – Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area # List No. 7767

DCC Ratepayers:

● 20 Cresswell Street Dunedin – Anzide Properties Ltd
● 32 Cresswell Street Dunedin – Anzide Properties Ltd
● 36 Cresswell Street Dunedin – McCormick Carrying Properties Ltd
● 8 Bombay Street Dunedin – Ross D Matheson, Mary K O’Hara Matheson
● 10 Bombay Street Dunedin – Nicen Ltd
● 14 Tewsley Street Dunedin – Ewen W Heather, Leanne M Kent, Russell S Melville
● 47 Willis Street Dunedin – Steel and Tube Holdings Ltd, Pacific Oriental Holdings Ltd
● 59 Willis Street Dunedin – Christie Paper Ltd
● 34 Mason Street Dunedin – Otago Daily Times Ltd
● 44 Cresswell Street Dunedin* – Graeme M Crosbie, Gillian K Crosbie
● 47 Cresswell Street Dunedin – Hyde Park Industrial Developments Ltd
● 56 Willis Street Dunedin – Development Six Ltd

*Note: Conflicting DCC mapping information for 44 Cresswell Street, Dunedin. Property adjoins 14 Tewsley Street, does not include 14 Tewsley Street.

Related Posts and Comments:
16.1.14 DCC explains Harbourside subdivision in reply to Vandervis
27.12.14 Port Otago Ltd + Chalmers Properties
17.11.14 Bradken keen to sell Tewsley Street premises
12.6.14 Dunedin’s industrial land
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

28 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Name, New Zealand, POL, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design

Industrial Heritage Save: Cowes Hammerhead crane

Cowes Hammerhead Crane [cowes.co.uk] 2Cowes Hammerhead Crane 17.11.04 [iwradio.co.uk]Cowes Hammerhead crane at J S White Shipyard, Thetis Road

The 80 ton giant cantilever crane built of cast iron with a square tower of three stages with its base embedded in concrete was completed in 1911 by British firm Babcock and Wilcox.

via Twitter

Cowes Isle of Wight @cowesofficial Long over-due repairs to the iconic Cowes Hammerhead crane have been announced by the Isle of Wight Council. fb.me/1qTwdPn6v 24/12/14 12:38:54 a.m.

IOWCouncil Official @iwight Repair works to Cowes Hammerhead Crane to begin in March. Full details at iwight.com/news/Hammerhead-Crane-repair-works-to-begin pic.twitter.com/K57leaER1h 23/12/14 10:24:23 p.m.

TheVictorianSociety @thevicsoc Cowes Hammerhead crane named in Victorian Society’s Top Ten List of Most Endangered Buildings shar.es/1moLcS 9/10/14 4:12:22 a.m.

Cowes Hammerhead Crane 6938825525_abb3906851_z [staticflickr.com]

### onthewight.com Tuesday, 23 Dec 2014 9:35am
Isle of Wight News
Council make active moves to save important Island heritage
By Sally Perry
Repair works to secure the long-term future of the Cowes Hammerhead Crane are to begin in the new year after funding was received from English Heritage. Well done to all involved in moving this forward. The Cowes Hammerhead Crane is on English Heritage’s ‘at risk’ register and the organisation has put forward £76,000 to cover the costs of repairs to the famous structure. The council has appointed a specialist firm to carry out the works, which are due to begin in March 2015. The works will mainly see the corroded sections of steel from the crane’s tower replaced, with all new steel receiving a coat of paint. […] Clare Charlesworth, heritage at risk principal advisor for English Heritage, said: “Our grant towards the repair of the Hammerhead Crane means this nationally important piece of industrial heritage is one step closer to coming off the at risk register.”
Read more

****

Only remaining pre-WWI hammerhead crane
The giant cantilever crane was built within the first decade of these cranes’ development and is the only remaining pre-WWI hammerhead crane in England.

### onthewight.com Wednesday, 8 Oct 2014 8:07am
Isle of Wight News
Cowes Hammerhead crane named in Victorian Society’s Top Ten List of Most Endangered Buildings
By Joe O’Donnell
Last year the iconic giant cantilever crane in Cowes – used for the production of naval warships – was named Most at Risk by English Heritage, today it has been added to the Victorian Society’s Top Ten List of Most Endangered Buildings. […] Cowes’ industrial past is epitomised by shipbuilder J.S. White’s 80 ton hammerhead crane – installed to increase capacity for the production of naval warships. One of these, HMS Cavalier, is preserved at Chatham Dockyard as a memorial to the 143 British destroyers and over 11,000 men lost at sea during WWII. […] Earlier this year, Isle of Wight Council issued an urgent works notice to the crane’s owner after the crane was found to be structurally unsound. The owner is now disputing the urgent works notice but we urge the Council to continue to press to secure the future of this industrial landmark.
Read more

Cowes Hammerhead crane at J S White Shipyard [woottonbridgeiow.org.uk] 1Cowes Hammerhead crane (caption - cowes_floating_bridge_1950) [cowes.shalfleet.net][click to enlarge]

█ English Heritage List entry – No. 1390949 (history and description)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images: Cowes Hammerhead crane – (from top) cowes.co.uk | iwradio.co.uk | staticflickr.com [6938825525_abb3906851_z] | woottonbridgeiow.org.uk (mixed media to b/w by whatifdunedin) | cowes.shalfleet.net (1950)

6 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Inspiration, Media, Name, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, Urban design

Port Otago Ltd + Chalmers Properties

Port Otago container stack [theblackthornorphans.com] 1

Port Otago has been chosen as the Otago Daily Times Business of the Year

###ODT Online Sat, 27 Dec 2014
Buoyant through the changing tides
By Simon Hartley
Undeterred by the 2007-09 global financial crisis, Port Otago has successfully navigated its way through tough times to deliver 100% owner the Otago Regional Council more than $50 million in dividends during the past five years alone. Simon Hartley talks to Port Otago chief executive Geoff Plunket about its performance and contribution during the past decade.
Port Otago goes into 2015 in fine financial shape, with tens of millions of dollars in development under way, staff numbers increasing and the company optimistic about new developments.
Its subsidiary Chalmers Properties, which oversees a portfolio valued at $260 million, has $20 million to invest, and a separate “inland port” at Mosgiel could be up and running by 2017, as could more Sawyers Bay warehousing – all in all, an average annual capital expenditure of $10 million for each year over the next decade.
Read more

Inland port by 2017, Sawyers Bay developments – TIME TO GET SHUNTING OFF THE SECTION OF MAIN TRUNK LINE THAT PREVENTS HARBOUR ACCESS via Rattray and Fryatt Streets. Restore the controlled pedestrian, cycle and vehicle crossing at grade.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images: theblackthornorphans.com – container stack, Port Otago; staticflickr.com – container terminal

5 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORC, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design

Chamber’s Own Goals —Heritage

Peter McIntyre and John Christie from the Otago Chamber of Commerce had lots to say about the rejuvenation of Dunedin’s heritage fabric and the city’s “vibrancy” after their trip to Portland, Oregon in 2011. What they said then is directly contradicted by the Chamber’s submission on the application for resource consent to redevelop the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Building (31-33 Thomas Burns Street) for residential use.

ODT 8.10.11 Otago Chamber of Commerce [odt.co.nz] rip

Full annotated copy | CoC Own Goals – Heritage (PDF 1.51 MB)

Related Posts and Comments:
11.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building (audio)
8.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd Building…

█ For more, enter the terms *loan and mercantile* or *harbourside* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

26 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, COC (Otago), Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Innovation, Inspiration, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development

By properly and logically establishing the significance of a historic port, plans can be laid that enhance and build on that significance and that incorporate difficult heritage buildings and structures.
–Simon Thurley, English Heritage

Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area
The New Zealand Historic Places Trust registered the Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area on 4 April 2008 (List No. 7767). The historic area takes in properties at 25, 31-33 Thomas Burns Street, Birch Street, Fryatt Street, Fish Street, Willis Street, Cresswell Street, Tewsley Street, Wharf Street, Roberts Street and Mason Street.

nzhpt-dunedin-harbourside-historic-area-2 copyImage: Heritage New Zealand

The Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area is made up of the core of the port operations and associated businesses surrounding the steamer basin at the Upper Harbour in Dunedin which had developed by the first decades of the twentieth century. It includes a major portion of the land in Rattray, Willis and Cresswell Streets which was reclaimed by the end of the nineteenth century. It also includes the Fryatt Street and Cross Wharves, including the wharf sheds on Fryatt Street Wharf, as well as the former Otago Harbour Board Administration Building at the Junction of Birch Street and Cross Wharves, the former British Sailors’ Society Seafarers’ Centre, and the former Briscoe’s Wharf Store and Works on the corner of Birch, Wharf and Roberts Streets [since lost to fire], and the walls and bridge abutment on Roberts Street which are the remnants of the bridge which linked that Street to the city.
Read Registration report here.

Dunedin City Council has refused to list the Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area in the District Plan.

Harbour Basin aerialImage: ODT [screenshot]

### ODT Online Sat, 15 Mar 2014
‘Potential new harbourside developments ‘exciting’
By Chris Morris
Excitement is growing about the potential for fresh development of Dunedin’s harbourside, including a new marine science institute featuring a public aquarium being considered by the University of Otago. The Otago Daily Times understands university staff have already held preliminary talks with Dunedin City Council staff about a possible new marine science institute in the harbourside zone, on the south side of steamer basin. The Otago Regional Council has also met Betterways Advisory Ltd, which wants to build a waterfront hotel in the city, to discuss the ORC’s vacant waterfront site, it has been confirmed.
Read more

Potential for contemporary reuse – Fryatt Street wharfsheds
Dunedin wharf sheds [4.bp.blogspot.com] 1Dunedin wharf sheds [m1.behance.net] 1Images: 4.bp.blogspot.com; m1.behance.net

Historic ports are places that need intelligent interrogation before we start to reinvent them for the future: understanding their heritage significance is the first step.

On the waterfront: culture, heritage and regeneration of port cities

HERITAGE IN REGENERATION: INSPIRATION OR IRRELEVANCE?
By Dr Simon Thurley, Chief Executive, English Heritage

I had better come clean at the start. I live in a port. As it happens, it is a port which was, in its time, and on a different scale, as successful as Liverpool was in its heyday. But that time is rather a long time ago now, in fact over four hundred years. In 1600 my home town of King’s Lynn was amongst Britain’s leading ports, bigger than Bristol in numbers of ships and with trading tentacles reaching into the Baltic and far into the Mediterranean. Lynn’s position as a port was destroyed by the railways and although it still has working docks today the tonnage that passes through is very small. Yet anyone visiting it can instantly see that this was once a port; the customs house, the old quays, the merchants houses, the big market places and the fishermen’s houses all add immeasurably to Lynn’s sense of place.

We not only ask developers to build new structures that respect the old, but we also require them to incorporate old ones that have value.

It is this sense of place, this character, that we at English Heritage will always say that needs to be understood. For us the first and most important thing is that any developer and the relevant local authority should have a full understanding of the place in which major change is are planned. Various tools have been invented over the years to try and help that process. These include characterisation, historical studies, view studies, urban analysis and more. But does this actually make any difference? What happens to the richly illustrated historical reports produced by consultants? Are they handed to architects who then use them as their bible? Are they taken up by the planners and turned into supplementary planning guidance? Or do they just get put on a shelf?

There can be a broad consensus about what constitutes successful development that preserves aesthetic values. The trick for planning authorities is finding a way to capture it.

The answer is that normally it just gets forgotten because for most developers and many local authorities heritage is just a hindrance. If a report on heritage is commissioned they will have ticked off a process that they need to say they have done, but once completed it can be set aside and everyone can get on with the business of making money. Ipswich is an example of this. Like many ports, it has refocused its commercial hub away from the historic centre leaving a lot of land in the historic trading heart for regeneration. The city decided to prepare what it called an Area Action Plan for the redevelopment of the historic port. This included some work on the history, archaeology and development of the area: all very useful. The process was then to take this forward to create a series of planning briefs and master plans to inform individual developments. This would reinforce general points in the action plan about storey heights, vistas and through routes as well as issues about historic character. Regrettably, this latter part was not done and what Ipswich got was lots of poorly designed high-rise flats built on a budget. And they got it with the heritage studies still sitting on a shelf.
Read more

Tobacco Warehouse, Stanley Dock, Liverpool (1903) 1Image: English Heritage – Tobacco Warehouse 1903, Stanley Dock LP

Liverpool World Heritage Site
Liverpool was inscribed as a World Heritage Site as the supreme example of a maritime city and its docks are testimony to that claim. Jesse Hartley’s Albert Dock, opened in 1845, is the finest example of a nineteenth century wet dock in the world while the nearby Canning Graving Docks and Waterloo and Wapping Warehouses are also of note. North of Pier Head with its magnificent ‘Three Graces’, Stanley Dock, Victoria Clock Tower and Salisbury Dock lie derelict, awaiting re-use. Link

Contemporary development — Shed 10 and The Cloud, Queens Wharf, Auckland
Queens Wharf - The Cloud Shed [conventionsnz.co.nz] 1Shed 10, Auckland [queens-wharf.co.nz] 1The Cloud Auckland CBD [queens-wharf.co.nz] 1The Cloud Auckland CBD June 2012 [upload.wikimedia.org] 2Images: (from top) conventionsnz.co.nz; queens_wharf.co.nz; queens_wharf.co.nz; upload.wikimedia.org

█ For more, enter the terms *loan and mercantile* or *harbourside* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

23 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Hotel, Innovation, Inspiration, Name, New Zealand, NZHPT, ORC, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design

Draft Dunedin City Transport Strategy

Read the draft strategy here. [DCC webpage and links]

Comment received.

BlueBottle
Submitted on 2013/09/03 at 1:28 pm

Lee Vandervis was very impressive at the transport strategy hearing on Monday. Lee challenged all the ridiculous assumptions that the strategy is based on. He did this using factual well researched arguments. Council staff were forced to back down on many points because there was no factual basis for their conclusions. Lee’s performance was remarkable because there was one of him against 4 Councillors and the Transport Planning/City Development staff who had a whole weekend to find ways to respond to Lee’s challenges. Although Lee helped to make some improvements to the strategy, the thing is still deeply flawed and will be harmful for Dunedin if it is accepted by the whole Council.
The Network Operating Plan (fig. 24) has been kept quiet by the DCC and the ODT. The plan is to make a big chunk of the CBD either car-less or mostly car-less. The methods of hindering motor vehicles haven’t been described but will be achieved with total bans from some streets as well as removing parking and restrictions on turning and entry. Another plan is to fiddle with the timing of traffic lights so as to cause intolerable delays to motorists. Have a look to see which streets are affected. While in their vision they see hoards of cyclists and pedestrians, more likely the CBD will become empty and turned into an economic dead-zone. The Network Operating Plan and the rest of the Transport Strategy are among the biggest threats that Dunedin faces.

Developing a Network Operating Plan [DCC]

Figure 24. Draft Network Operating Plan for the central cityFigure 24. Draft Network Operating Plan for the central city

Email received.
Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:05 PM

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 09:06:00 +1200
To: Wendy Collard, Sarah Connolly, Emerson Yeoman, Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham, Paul Orders
Cc: Kate Wilson, Andrew Noone, Jinty MacTavish, Teresa Stevenson
Conversation: Draft Transport Strategy Hearing additional data requested.
Subject: Re: Draft Transport Strategy Hearing additional data requested.

Ta Wendy,

Questions as follows:

Can I see Data to justify claims of:

1 – significant car ownership increase in the last 15 years/many Dunedin households now do not have access to a car. [A graph would be ideal]
2 – reduced fatalities and serious accidents [increasing safety] when transferring from automobile to pedestrian and cycling modes of transport [Elvik’s opinion on safety in numbers is not data and suggests only possibility with very large numbers of transfer not possible in a hilly city]
3 – increasing fossil fuel prices since 1974 “rising fuel costs” “Rising fuel prices are likely to lead to changes not only in travel behaviour and people’s choice of transport mode” “Assumption 1: The cost of fuel will continue to increase”
4 – increasing fuel efficiency of cars since 1974
5 – “much of car travel in Dunedin [or anywhere else] is non-essential”
6 – “other options are available for most trips”
7 – “deaths/serious injury of vulnerable road users [cyclists pedestrians] around schools” and “Safety problems at the school gate” “The research highlights that the transitory nature of traffic around schools has tended to hide the risks this situation presents to all users, but especially to children.”
8 – “poor provision for other modes and little congestion has led to high crash rates”
9 – “In part due to wide, high-speed urban street environments (such as the one-way system, Andersons Bay Road, Princes Street, and Hillside Road) and poor provision for other modes (such as buses, walking and cycling), road safety has suffered in Dunedin”
10 – “provision for private motor vehicles has also meant amenity, pedestrian connectivity and, in some instances, surrounding land use value has suffered”
11 – “Demand for cheap, convenient, and consistent on and off-street parking availability is no longer a realistic expectation with Dunedin’s modern high level of car use”
12 – “despite the fact that many children would prefer to cycle, scooter or walk to school”
13 – “it appears the cost of transport fuel will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. This is already having an effect on the way people are choosing to travel.”?

If reliable supporting data is not available, then these unsubstantiated claims and resultant aim to spend $47 million on cycling infrastructure should be removed from the Draft.

Kind regards,
Lee

——————————–

On 30/08/13 5:44 PM, “Wendy Collard” wrote:

Hi Lee

The deliberations have now finished. Kate has asked if you could please have the questions that you require to be answered be [sic] to staff by 12 noon on Sunday.

The hearing is going to carry on at 1pm on Monday as Public Forum has now been cancelled.

Regards

Wendy Collard
Governance Support Officer
Dunedin City Council
50 The Octagon, Dunedin; PO Box 5045, Moray Place, Dunedin 9058, New Zealand
Telephone: 03 474 3374, Fax: 03 474 3594

Related Posts and Comments:
30.8.13 Transport Strategy: Is this responsible local government?
29.8.13 The Don, imagines . . .
4.8.13 World War I memorial project
24.11.11 Dunedin buses: ORC or DCC
8.7.13 Bloody $tupid cycleways and Cull’s electioneering . . .
28.3.13 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2013/14: Portobello Harington Point…
8.3.13 Stupid bid for two-way highway ditched for now #DCC

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

239 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORC, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

Transport Strategy: Is this responsible local government?

DRAFT Dunedin City Transport Strategy (2013)

The Otago Chamber of Commerce (COC) gets brownie points for taking a stick to Dunedin City Council and the politicised ‘sustainability crew’, this week… A crew primed with council staff, (spuriously-appointed) leadership and steering groups, university academics (with their little students in tow, aww) receiving substantial research funds into energy research, and the like; but let’s not forget the undue influence of Greater Dunedin and its two councillors, MacTavish and Wilson (paid $250 a day, was it?), sitting on the strategy panel – who, having spruced up their images lately (cutesy dyed haircuts, necklaces and dresses in adornment – closely resembling the old ‘pearl and cardy set’), will find the clobber just too awkward for bike riding.

It’s recognised the Chamber can’t hope to represent the wide breadth of Dunedinites – but it’s fair to say the Chamber’s focus and agendas (collectively and personally) are experienced as being unbearably narrow at times and slant at others – for example, its handling of the Dunedin harbourside plan change appeal, and its support for the new stadium (knife to the throat of Dunedin’s economy) and the proposed apartment and hotel development at 41 Wharf Street (cheap bling, with strings). All up, the Chamber is a mysterious if not loose male-order assembly of ‘business minds’.

Nevertheless, DCC, give your dog a bone…
But don’t think the Chamber will accept more stupidity from your transportation planners and general managers controlling the whole (desktop) strategic exercise —or from the ‘mission’ of idealistic ‘non-business’ greenies who lack the commonsense, experience, resilience and determination of Dunedin companies (the ones who actually make the dollars happen!), and which greenies will surely fail if pitted hard against Otago’s most successful export earners!!

The Transport Strategy is not a statutory document – but where it attempts to flow into District Plan changes, well, let’s wait for all the costly appeals to Environment Court. The council can hardly afford more legal battles – it can’t fund the challenges it’s already immured by.

The worst fear with the transport strategy revolves around pending changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) which could see council-driven and developer-driven projects bulldozed through without public consultation; with few benefits to anyone or the environment, except to the proponents. The new legislation will mean even less accountability and transparency in local government than ever before – thanks to the National-led government. You know who to vote for in 2014.

Do you know who to vote for in 2013?

### ODT Online Fri, 30 Aug 2013
Attack on transport strategy
By Chris Morris
The Otago Chamber of Commerce has launched an attack on Dunedin’s draft transport strategy, saying it pushed a ”questionable agenda” of sustainability while ignoring major transport issues. The strongly-worded rebuke came in the chamber’s submission on the Dunedin City Council’s draft strategy, presented on the first day of a two-day public hearing yesterday.
However, Prof Herbert Harris, a member of the chamber’s logistics committee, also offered an olive branch at the hearing by suggesting a joint working party be formed to fix the document’s flaws.

Prof Harris said the strategy was of ”major concern” because it ignored the inadequate arterial route through the city, a lack of commuter parking and the significance of the road link to Port Otago.

The draft strategy sought to identify and address key transport challenges facing the city over the next 30 years, beginning with improving the city’s poor road safety record. Initiatives proposed included everything from a multimillion-dollar central-city upgrade, to improved cycleways, bus services and a new eastern freight bypass. Prof Harris said the strategy was of ”major concern” because it ignored the inadequate arterial route through the city, a lack of commuter parking and the significance of the road link to Port Otago.
Read more

Draft Dunedin City Transport Strategy 2013 (1)GREY AREAS… If you received this DRAFT Summary by post in late July, look no further than the grey back cover – it’s easier to read than the illegible and contrived contents, having about the same informational content.

****

### ODT Online Fri, 30 Aug 2013
Transport transfer considered
By Chris Morris
The Otago Regional Council says it will consider handing responsibility for public transport to the Dunedin City Council.
Council transportation planning manager Sarah Connolly confirmed a report on the issue was being finalised, and the chief executives of both organisations, Paul Orders and Peter Bodeker, would be briefed within weeks. Councillors from both organisations were yet to see the report, but a decision on how to proceed would be decided after the briefing, she said.
The news came two years after the Otago Daily Times reported the DCC and ORC were in talks about a possible transfer of the public transport network to the city council.
Read more

Related Posts and Comments:
29.8.13 The Don, imagines . . .
4.8.13 World War I memorial project
24.11.11 Dunedin buses: ORC or DCC
8.7.13 Bloody $tupid cycleways and Cull’s electioneering . . .
28.3.13 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2013/14: Portobello Harington Point…
8.3.13 Stupid bid for two-way highway ditched for now #DCC

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

60 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORC, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design

Tauranga: Office leases to cover potential losses from hotel

OH WOW, another $100M baby!!!!!!

Tauranga - carpark on Durham St [bayofplentytimes.co.nz] 1This council carpark on Durham St could be home to a long-awaited $100 million hotel and commercial building development.

### ODT Online Wed, 24 Jul 2013
$100m hotel plan for city
By John Cousins – Bay of Plenty Times
A massive $100 million building is proposed for council-owned land in Tauranga’s downtown after plans for an international hotel escalated into a combined hotel and commercial office development.
Mayor Stuart Crosby announced that negotiations between the council and Tainui Holdings, the Waikato iwi’s investment arm, had seen a substantial high-end office development added to the original plans for a $40 million hotel. The council’s ambitions for the block of land on Durham St are now only a week away from a firm direction being given on whether the project went ahead.
Tainui Holdings and its hotel operator partner, Accor group, had until July 17 to carry out due diligence and had kept the council abreast of progress.
Mr Crosby said the much larger project had been driven by the opportunity that the income from office leases would cover potential losses from the hotel: “Hotels are notorious for not making profits in their early years.” APNZ
Read more

Tauranga downtown’s emerging skyline

Recent Additions
$30m ANZ Building on the corner of Cameron Rd & Elizabeth St
$14m Sharpe Tudhope Building on the corner of Devonport Rd & 1st Ave
$21m police station, Monmouth St

Planned Additions
$1m-plus 3-storey retail & office building on The Strand’s Grumpy Mole site
$10m office building on the corner of Willow St & Harington St
$30m TrustPower head office
$67m tertiary and research campus
$100m international hotel and office development

PS. Dunedin is SO not Tauranga. The Bay is poised to boom as the fruit bowl of Asia. Meanwhile on the Taieri, Dunedin City Council lets a councillor and friends build speculative housing and a plant nursery turn into a gravelled ‘destination hub’ (without a legal water connection?) on high class soils, with impunity.

Recent Post and Comments:
25.6.13 Hotel/Apartment Tower decision to be appealed

For information on the proposed $100M ‘Dunedin Hotel’, enter *hotel* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Geography, Hot air, Hotel, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

Port Otago downgraded to regional status only

UPDATED

### ODT Online Tue, 17 May 2011
Maersk to drop weekly service to Australia
By Simon Hartley
Shipping giant Maersk, Port Otago’s largest customer, is dropping its weekly direct Southern Star transtasman service to Australia, the country’s largest trading partner. While the financial ramifications for Otago exporters are unclear, Port Otago will lose 10%, or about 22,000 TEUs (twenty foot equivalent container units), during the next year.
Read more

(16 May) News of Port of Otago’s downgrade filtered through on (Black) Friday.

It has yet to hit Otago Daily Times’ reporting with any force . . . we might get some analysis if we’re lucky, or interested.

Maersk. Fonterra.
Two cosy words that when read together spell no accident.

It’s been in the offing. Maersk has pulled the rugs on a number of New Zealand ports, Otago included – no doubt to ratchet lower port charges, not merely to facilitate freighting of New Zealand exports into Asia.

It’s far from clear what the costs of reducing local ports of call (in favour of long distance trucking and rail freighting to the North Island’s port of Tauranga) will be for exporters in the Otago Southland region.

We noticed, with suspicion, it was Lyttelton that walked away from a merger with Port Otago. We knew it wasn’t all down to [pretext] #eqnz.

We note too – sadly, for the regional economy – that Otago is frightfully good at exporting raw, not processed, logs. Such a very happy picture we have left of what POL is good for, apart from calls by oil boats and cruise liners.

We lost transhipping with no warning. Wonder if ORC is ruffled or upset. Who knew.

ODT has hidden or failed to surface with the implications of the Maersk decision, preferring to run a diatribe about KiwiRail and “inland ports” for Otago. It’s not as if the subjects are not connected. We expect the local newspaper to make the major news statements and connections palpable, in a timely manner.

A whole weekend has elapsed. Further, Maersk’s decision is in no way surprising, there was ample time for ODT to research the background.

Clues. Fonterra has been using POL logistics to prototype and determine how inland ports can be rolled out across New Zealand.

Worries. Port Otago has been on an export ‘growth wave’, not of its own making, for some years. Does the port board know how to create growth of its own or diversify its activities to meet the challenge dumped on it by (cosy) Maersk and Fonterra?

Did the port company properly attend to risk management before Black Friday?

(Aside) POL chief executive Geoff Plunket reiterates – as we learned from POL’s Peter Brown a few years ago – the company is of the view that State Highway 88 (Dunedin to Port Chalmers) has sufficient capacity to take all trucking freight. Public safety didn’t come into the equation then, and it doesn’t appear to now. But how many trucks won’t be using SH88 at all in the near future.

Lots to think about. Investigation required. News media, DCC, EDU, ORC, Otago Chamber, POL, exporters, port workers, unions, KiwiRail . . . it’s your time to start digging.

****

Friday 13 May
nzherald.co.nz Maersk changes to benefit NZ exporters
voxy.co.nz Maersk Line NZ Strengthens Links With Key Regional Hub Ports

Monday 16 May
odt.co.nz KiwiRail backs inland ports

****

Related Posts and Comments:
21.2.10 So where’s the media explosion?
26.2.10 Port Otago: “Next generation” project
27.3.10 Why should Port Otago dredge?
21.4.10 SH88 realignment
21.7.10 SH88 realignment – update

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

2 Comments

Filed under Economics, Geography, People, Politics, Project management

Why should Port Otago dredge?

### ODT Online Sat, 27 Mar 2010
Fishermen oppose Port Otago’s sand, silt proposal
By Allison Rudd
Otago fishermen have formed a working party to write their formal response to Port Otago’s plans to dump more than seven million cubic metres of sand and silt off Taiaroa Head. Port Otago will soon apply for resource consent to widen the Otago Harbour shipping channel and dump 7.2 million cubic metres of dredge material 6.5km out to sea.

The Port Chalmers Fishermen’s Co-operative fears the sand and silt may create a “dead zone” along the coast, threatening fishing stocks and their income.

Read more

Related posts:
21.2.10 So where’s the media explosion?
26.2.10 Latest on Dunedin’s offshore oil and gas prospects
26.2.10 Port Otago: “Next generation” project
11.3.10 ORC: Ports merger only approved if it benefits Otago
18.3.10 Dunedin harbourside for oil base?

****

The interesting thing is, aside from port merger politics, a number of New Zealand’s major ports are dredging their channels in anticipation of larger container vessels.

Did the ports’ boards stop to ask the shipping line(s) ‘What size of boats are you planning to send us?’ So we, the port companies, can reliably assess if we need to fund expensive consenting processes and dredging?

Sometimes, the ports’ suit brigades aren’t up to managing their way out of a paper bag? That’s not the right question, or is it. After all, this is a matter of regional-national logistics and planning for sustainable business development in New Zealand.

Bottom line: port activity must be coordinated and quality controlled for the service and development of the national export economy as much as the global shipping trade.

The ports falling into into ad hoc, reactionary localised practice; attempting to do things on the cheap; not attending to maritime safety; not upskilling and training the workforce; failing to coordinate the spread of risk across our major deepwater facilities and access points; not inviting new business partnerships and supplier relationships; and so on – is not about promoting and building an efficient, flexible and sustainable freighting base for New Zealand producers.

Why encourage container traffic through the port of Lyttelton if their cranes are unsuitably old and clunky (showing the lack of major investment in that port company’s infrastructure)?

Why send (larger?) container ships to Port Otago if there’s no harbour master to oversee maritime safety? Why would we think to promote Dunedin as an oil base without a harbour master? (Hello, Otago Regional Council, owner of Port Otago Ltd, are you going to manage your responsibilities to the marine environment anytime soon? …An international vessel grounds in Otago Harbour, we haven’t systems and accountabilities in place to manage spillage and contamination – the boat’s full of high value Fonterra milk powder immediately due to China processing plants – we’ve f***ed the supply chain. Who doesn’t get their money, who is liable?)

****

Knowing and managing risks and liabilities going forward through close modelling, system analysis and quality control of New Zealand supply chains, industry processing, freight handling and haulage, transportation planning, trade diplomacy, incentive systems, international gateway ports and airports – amongst other factors – is ESSENTIAL to growing the export economy.

Not too many people know how the ports operate. We assume all the systems and risks are being professionally managed by the port companies, according to statutory requirements.

The truth is – leaving statutory responsibilities aside for a moment (by the way, it’s not all tip-top with these) – each port has been crawling along, instituting its own limited management and operating systems. A power of work at every level is urgently needed to bring industry consistency to the safe management and competitiveness of our New Zealand ports.

Why allow a bunch of ‘sailors’ (many of them accountants with no wider training or expertise), dressed as port executives, to run New Zealand port infrastructure like they know what they’re doing. They don’t.

The ports’ middle management tiers are gripped by the heavy overwhelming reality of historical cumulative logistical weakness in the New Zealand port industry.

All up, ports’ management is not well organised – or sufficiently well skilled and educated – for the practical, hardnosed ‘change management’ required in the national port sector.

The port boards and bosses are under par as strategists. Let the blood-letting begin.

Post by Elizabeth Kerr

25 Comments

Filed under Stadiums

ORC: Ports merger only approved if it benefits Otago

It would be wrong not to consult the port’s owners, the ratepayers, over merging with another port.

### ODT Online Thu, 11 Mar 2010
Public consultation over merger of ports
By Eileen Goodwin
Otago Regional councillors yesterday voted to consult the public over a possible merger between Port Otago and Lyttelton Port, despite deeming such a move to be insignificant. Port Otago is expected to make a formal recommendation on a merger proposal to the regional council this year.
Read more

Other stories:
Cairns gets in ahead of criticism
ORC toughens consents stance

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

12 Comments

Filed under Economics, Geography, Politics, Project management