Tag Archives: Te Whaka

Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin has public backing

Liability Cull is not 100% correct. So what’s new.

The ‘harbourside’ public consultation, including pre-plan change workshops, picked up good support for IMPROVED public access to the waterline (note, via a reinstated Rattray Street rail crossing at grade) and a REVAMPED Steamer Basin.

WE HAVE BEEN ROBBED.
Cull says the harbourside plan change was a mistake. It most surely was not a mistake! The proposed plans for how the plan change would be articulated in the area were the problem. Nearly everyone wanted historic industrial sheds and wharf sheds to remain and be redeveloped sympathetically with respect to heritage values, enhancing the land-water connection. Unfortunately, and fortunately, the Otago Chamber of Commerce with five partners appealed the plan change decision, significantly dashing the intents and purposes of the “vision”. Nonetheless, this shouldn’t stop future redevelopment of the ‘edge’ at the Steamer Basin, for greater community recreational use, with some commercial opportunities built in. We still haven’t got walk-on/walk-off access for the cruising yachts heading to subantarctic waters —embarrassing.

OK DCC’s broke at the moment, but ORC…

Cull – Crash one (PC-7), get bent on inviting the real mistake… the $100m tombstone apartment and hotel complex at 41 Wharf Street, with all inherent costs to Dunedin ratepayers and residents. That’s where Cull stands, nowhere good. Not even close.

Plan Change 7 – Harbourside

### ODT Online Mon, 21 Oct 2013
Harbour project labelled mistake
By Chris Morris
Pursuing a vision of harbourside redevelopment in Dunedin has so far cost the city’s ratepayers more than $2.6 million, it has been confirmed. The revelation, prompted by Otago Daily Times inquiries, has led the Otago Chamber of Commerce to label the Dunedin City Council’s ”grandiose” plan a mistake. It has also prompted Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull, who was an early critic of the proposal, to suggest it should never have got off the ground.
Read more

DCC’s habourside costs – $2.6m (via ODT)
• Legal costs – $401,660
• Settlement – $200,000
• Other costs – $315,633
• Capital costs – $1,697,192
• Total – $2,614,485

Capital costs of $1,697,192 comprising:

• 2005-06 – purchase of 20 Thomas Burns St – $497,500
• 2011-12 – purchase of 30 Thomas Burns St – $1,199,692

NZHPT Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area (1)NZHPT Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area

Related Posts and Comments:
3.8.13 SH88 notice of requirement
21.4.13 ‘Yellow Balloon’ —Blue Oyster invitation to (TOWER) Submitters et al
9.4.13 Dunedin: Future service town to Shell? #realitycheck
24.9.12 Stadium Councillors back coastal oil exploration
16.5.12 Dunedin Hotel
● 26.10.11 Dunedin Harbourside: DCC “caved”
17.12.10 HARBOURSIDE Announcement
17.4.10 Harbourside: more negotiation to come
16.4.10 DCC Media Release – Harbourside Stage Two
13.4.10 Dunedin – an oil base?
1.4.10 DCC Media Release – Harbourside
27.3.10 Withdraw proposed Harbourside plan change in its entirety!
18.3.10 Otago Chamber of Commerce campaigns for harbourside
18.3.10 Dunedin harbourside for oil base?
10.3.13 Plan Change 7: Harbourside – remove stage two
9.3.10 Plan Change 7: Harbourside
5.3.10 Plan Change 7 – Dunedin Harbourside
26.2.10 Latest on Dunedin’s offshore oil and gas prospects
13.2.09 HOT PRESS – Dunedin Harbourside Zone

█ For more, enter the terms *loan and mercantile*, *harbourside*, *hotel*, *balloon*, *shell*, *anadarko* or *SH88* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

ODT: Piece of maritime history moved
Another lost opportunity cut in half — Te Whaka at Birch St Wharf
Image: norsetroll.blogspot.com

Te Whaka, Birch St Wharf [norsetroll.blogspot.com]

11 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Heritage, Innovation, Inspiration, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, ORC, Otago Polytechnic, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

New stadium worries, NZ wide + a waterfront, ours

Last weekend, Sunday Star-Times (Focus, page A11) featured three stories about stadiums:

“Nothing divides New Zealand like a good stadium debate. Kiwis can’t seem to agree how much the country’s major arenas are worth or what should go on in them. The Sunday Star-Times went around the country to investigate where the battle lines are drawn.” –Kilgallon

● Steve Kilgallon
Theatres of dreams: Auckland seems to have got itself into a real mess about shuffling its sports stadiums

● Sophie Speer
Costly venue turns off top acts (Westpac)

● Michael Wright
Covered stadium will wait (Christchurch)

Related Posts and Comments:
28.9.12 ODT preamble on Davies story
5.8.12 Stadium deathwatch

A SPECIAL OLD WATERFRONT WE HAVE YET TO HOLD IN TRUST ?

[even Jim Harland, former DCC chief executive, had a strong appreciation for historic ‘regenerated’ waterfronts; he showed me his snapshots from Boston, a people-place waterfront complete with sample of old ships… an update to my visit in 1984]

Yesterday, celebrating the centenary of Aspinall Joel Lawyers, a group of us took the harbour cruise on MV Tiakina. Travelling past the Fubar edifice, it occurred to me how bad the ‘shed’ looks from the channel. Most times I see it from Waverley, and although you can read it closely from there, there’s nothing like a confrontational boat trip reveal. If this is the best we can do architecturally, Dunedin, heaven help us. Thank god international cruise ships can’t make it to the upper harbour.

Ditto that for the ’27-storey hotel’ idea for 41 Wharf St. Take the Jetty St overbridge and observe the site from the front passenger seat as you head down the off-ramp to the Steamer Basin. It’s from here the gross misjudgement hits – why didn’t ORC and or DCC buy 41 Wharf St off Tim Barnett and enter consultation with the Dunedin Community on the best possible use and development of this and the wider ‘civic’ site that includes the wharf area ???

Dunedin, this tower design effort (what design?) is pathetic. People with no aesthetic sensibility are bloody wrecking our city’s waterfront precinct potential and future!

The Community should be saving the old steam tug SS Te Whaka (a gutsy workhorse form, now up out of the water, inviting rescue one way or the other) as part of the whole harbourside experience, for peanuts–compared to the monetary grief that will unfold if DCC allows the tower to be erect-ed… the disingenuous tall building means a lot of toes, one hell of a lot of shootings.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

3 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Name, ORC, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design