Tag Archives: Waterfront

NZ Loan and Mercantile Building: Looking round at potential

Updated post Wed, 3 Mar 2015 at 2:39 p.m.

LM Building, detail from A Trapeznik, Dunedin's Warehouse Precinct p34 [Hocken Collections]LM Building, detail from A Trapeznik, Dunedin's Warehouse Precinct p68 [Hocken Collections] 1NZ Loan and Mercantile Building, built in stages between 1872 and 1885. Historical building and harbour views (1925) before the addition of the concrete top storey with saw-tooth roof in 1929, the space now proposed for residential use. Details from photographs reproduced in Trapeznik’s book Dunedin’s Warehouse Precinct, pp 34 & 68 [Hocken Collections]

Screenshot (193) 1Screenshot (195)31-33 Wharf Street, proximity to Steamer Basin and Chinese Garden
[Google Streetview 2013]

ODT 29.8.14 (page 12)
ODT 29.8.14 Letter to the editor Wilson p12 (1)

Chinese GardenL&M 1b IMG_6945,jpgChinese GardenL&M 1a IMG_6924Chinese GardenL&M 1a IMG_6933NZ Loan and Mercantile Building with forecourt of Chinese Garden, from Rattray Street. [Elizabeth Kerr]

### ODT Online Fri, 29 Aug 2014
DCC to foot apartments consent bill
By Debbie Porteous
The Dunedin City Council is footing the bill to process the consent required for the development of the former Loan and Mercantile Building in the harbourside area. But the chairman of the panel deciding whether to grant consent to convert the building to apartments says the historic agreement has no bearing on the decision. The no fee arrangement is the result of a council resolution dated September 2011, in which the council agreed any resource consent required for the development and use of the building at 33 Thomas Burns St should be processed at no cost to the applicant. The resolution was part of a suite of agreements resulting from the mediation process that resolved appeals to Plan Change 7: Dunedin Harbourside.
Read more

Screenshot (183) 1Screenshot (188) 1Building details [Google Streetview 2013] – The NZ Loan and Mercantile Building, originally known as the Otago Wool Stores, was built in 1872 for stock and station agents Driver Stewart and Co. Heritage New Zealand lists the construction professionals as Walter Bell, Robert Arthur Lawson, and Mason & Wales Architects Ltd. According to Trapeznik, William Mason was the architect responsible for the plainer part of the complex in the early 1870s. RA Lawson designed the right-hand corner extension in 1880, with additions in 1883 and 1885.

█ More photos here.

Related Posts and Comments:
18.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building #randomsmartphonepix (interiors)
17.8.14 Public Notices: NZ Loan and Mercantile Building… (site tour, hearing)
13.8.14 Chamber’s Own Goals —Heritage (letters)
11.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building (audio)
8.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd Building…
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development
21.10.13 Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin has public backing

█ For more on Dunedin’s Harbourside and Plan Change 7, enter the term *harbourside* in the search box at right.

Screenshot (196)Screenshot (197) 1NZ Loan and Mercantile Building (b. 1872-85), next to the former W. Gregg & Co. coffee factory (b. 1878) and the Wharf Hotel established circa 1880
[Google Streetview 2013]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

● NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co. Ltd Building – mention by Alexander Trapeznik in Dunedin’s Warehouse Precinct at http://www.genrebooks.co.nz/ebooks/DunedinsWarehousePrecinct.pdf (2014) pp66-71

● W. Gregg & Co. coffee factory and store, Fryatt St – mention by blogger David Murray at http://builtindunedin.com/2014/02/17/thomas-bedford-cameron-architect/

● Wharf Hotel – mention by Frank Tod in Pubs Galore: History of Dunedin Hotels 1848-1984 (Dunedin: Historical Publications, 1984) p61

Peter Entwisle recently researched the history and significance of the NZ Loan and Mercantile Building, and presented his findings in evidence to hearing for the application (scanned):
LUC-2014-259 History and Heritage Significance of the NZL&MA Building 19.8.14 (PDF, 2 MB)

7 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Heritage, Heritage NZ, Innovation, Inspiration, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, ORFU, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

Hotel MOU: DCC #fail

dcc-betterways-mou-detail1

Hotel Memorandum of Understanding (PDF, 297 KB)

Comment received from Rob Hamlin
Submitted on 2014/03/11 at 10:54 am

Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about this is the precedent that it sets. The MOU essentially commits the Council to make it happen by whatever means and by whatever council costs are necessary. The ludicrous conflict of interest that this sets up between the Council as developer regulator and Council as developer agent is breezily dismissed early on. If the DCC fails to deliver what the developer wants, then they (we) get to pay all the developer’s costs too. Thereby setting up a situation with considerable motive for the developer to increase the toxicity of this regulatory ‘poison pill’ by inflating these costs a la Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust.

There is nothing in this document that indicates why it is a special case or anything that defines it as a ‘one off’. This means that the next time a large developer wants to carve up rural zoned land on the Taieri or build an exclusive shooting resort next to the Albatross Colony all they have to do is download the .pdf of this MOU from McPravda’s website, replace Jing Song’s name with their own and present it to Cull and Bidrose with a request to ‘please sign this forthwith’. I can see no legal grounds on the basis of equity of treatment of development proposals by the territorial authority upon which Cull and Bidrose could reasonably refuse to do so. Refusal would therefore promptly lead to court action.

[ends]

Related Posts and Comments:
10.3.14 Hotel: DCC and COC sell out Dunedin community to Chinese trojans
26.2.14 Hotel: Rosemary McQueen on consent decision LUC 2012-212
14.2.14 Hotel: The height of arrogance
25.6.13 Hotel/Apartment Tower decision to be appealed

█ For more, enter *hotel* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

16 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

Hotel: DCC and COC sell out Dunedin community to Chinese trojans

‘Perceived’ Conflict of Interest:
Dave Cull (also Mayor of Dunedin) has used Steve Rodgers (partner in Rodgers Law; also a director of Betterways Advisory Ltd) as his personal solicitor in recent times. The mayor is welcome to confirm or deny this in order to set the record straight.

Dunedin Hotel proposed [via newstalkzb.co.nz]Dunedin’s Old-Boy CARGO CULT is disabling your City

ODT 21-12-12 screenshotODT Online 21.12.12 (screenshot)

DCC Betterways MOU (detail)

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Next Step for Waterfront Hotel Proposal

This item was published on 10 Mar 2014

Mayor of Dunedin Dave Cull and Betterways Advisory Limited have today announced the signing of an agreement to work together to try to achieve the construction of a five-star hotel for Dunedin.

The parties have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that establishes a framework and a process to address issues raised by an earlier resource consent application.

Betterways’ application to build a 27-storey, five-star hotel at 41 Wharf Street was declined resource consent in June last year.

Mr Cull says, “Since that time, the DCC has worked extensively with Betterways to find whether a hotel can be constructed on this site that both realises Betterways’ investment ambitions and benefits the city.”

The DCC and Betterways agree that connectivity issues are a major focus going forward and have committed to work together to seek solutions.

If solutions can be found, the DCC will set up an urban design panel to provide independent design review and subsequent advice. Their focus will be on sustainable development and the creation of a design that contributes to a safe, healthy and attractive urban environment.

The panel will encourage best practice approaches to development, specific to the hotel’s site. This process provides an independent peer review from leaders in a variety of relevant professional institutes, including the development sector, practitioners and academics.

“Urban design panels are widely used in other centres. We’re really delighted to have an opportunity to use this successful formula here in Dunedin, and on such an important project for the city,” Mr Cull says.

Once the design panel and DCC staff members were satisfied the new hotel proposal had resolved the issues, the DCC would initiate a District Plan Change process to change the zoning of the Wharf Street site from industrial so a panel-approved design could be built on the site.

Any development proposal would still be subject to the Resource Management Act.

One of Betterways’ owners, Jing Song, says, “After a very challenging two years, we are delighted that the Council has shown a commitment to our investment in this beautiful city. We know our hotel plans are exciting for Dunedin and we are very pleased to have established a framework to deliver a hotel that meets the desires of the local community.”

The Council agreed to sign the MoU during the non-public part of its meeting on 24 February.

Betterways will make a decision about whether to pursue its appeal when the process agreed through the MoU has advanced enough to show that the proposal will be supported by the Council.

Hotel MOU (PDF, 297 KB)

Contact Mayor of Dunedin on 03 477 4000.

DCC Link

Related Posts and Comments:
26.2.14 Hotel: Rosemary McQueen on consent decision LUC 2012-212
14.2.14 Hotel: The height of arrogance
25.6.13 Hotel/Apartment Tower decision to be appealed

█ For more, enter *hotel* in the search box at right.

ODT 10.3.14: Agreement signed over waterfront hotel

Ch39 Cull Rodgers 10.3.14 (2)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

48 Comments

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

‘Hotel’ Hucksters wanna spend $60M at Dunedin

That’s the news or THE MONEY on tonight’s Channel 39 as ODT sprayed saliva over what’s in the newspaper tomorrow. You got it. The Jing-Song-Pings, post-teenagers from hell. HONEY, THEY’RE BACK.

Updated post.

THAT was the fear. Please, not the tasteless cardboard box crew again! Their idea of architecture is merely ‘building’ and gross affrontery to Dunedin’s cultural heritage landscape, not SYMPATHETIC CONTEXTUAL DESIGN.

So, yeah maybe it’s another anonymous bunch who are too conniving or stupid to front to the good people of this small town. Obviously, they’re known to DCC and the Chamber and those who share their pillows, as it turns out. Lovely! Dunedin’s public treated with ignore by our civic leaders and their honkies yet again. Look how that turned with the stadium project. And why the media release ahead of faces, why do that? Why be so crass, desperate and manipulative? —it feeds directly into the deep distrust held for Dunedin City Council by this community. This is no democracy. Where is the openness and transparency we’ve been promised for SO LONG, and not had delivered ??!!

The (blind) Channel 39 announcement came on the heels of a good number of searches at this site lately, in both Jing Song’s, Cao Ping’s and her father’s name — a man known to Michael Hill of Eiontown — no wonder we’re completely off the scent, or was it MISINFORMED.

Chinese plans for Dunedin school
Chinese investors with plans for a $60 million international school have chosen Dunedin as their preferred location, and hope to open a facility within three years.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/290486/chinese-plans-school

But let’s refresh on the horrific notification and resource consenting process followed by the Jing-Song-Pings for the proposed waterfront hotel (via posts and comments) as a check on what happens for the proposed “school” with Daaave and Ali’s (Jinty got bounced) lack of red tape. Carpet, anyone?

Related Posts and Comments:
12.1.14 Dunedin (apartments) Hotel: Better ways to lipstick a pig
7.1.14 Dunedin Hotel (apartments): Who ARE the developers?
27.8.13 41 Wharf Street —DCC ends debacle
24.7.13 Tauranga: Office leases to cover potential losses from hotel
25.6.13 Hotel/Apartment Tower decision to be appealed
18.6.13 Hotel: COC’s greasy spoon race. Ugh!
5.6.13 Hotel decision . . . (the vacuum)
4.6.13 WATERFRONT HOTEL #DUNEDIN
24.5.13 41 Wharf Street —consent renewed, with HOTEL decision pending
18.5.13 Waterfront hotel investigation II
18.4.13 ‘Heartbreak Hotel’ —Grahame Sydney
18.4.13 Hotel: Grahame Sydney on tenants for 164 apartments
15.4.13 University buys LivingSpace Dunedin
15.4.13 Shane McGrath —Gelber LuftBallon (Dunedin Research Project)
14.4.13 Ballooning! —playing off Betterways
12.4.13 Christchurch: HOTELS with Chinese investment pending
4.4.13 Towering inferno: Fire engulfs luxury apartments and 5-star hotel
16.3.13 Hotel: COC jollies and sweet cherry pie
23.1.13 Proposed hotel: Council and submitters await detailed information
28.12.12 ‘Low-rises are great for the community and the residents’
24.12.12 A Christmas Tale
21.12.12 Proposed hotel – ODT graphic indicates building height
19.12.12 Hearing for proposed hotel – competencies, conflicts of interest?
16.12.12 Proposed Dunedin Hotel #height
10.12.12 Proposed hotel, 41 Wharf St – “LEARNING FROM LAS VEGAS”
7.12.12 Proposed hotel – Truescape shenanigans
6.12.12 Dunedin Hotel – revised design
2.12.12 Roy Rogers and Trigger photographed recently at Dunedin
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)
4.10.12 DUNEDIN: We’re short(!) but here is some UK nous…
8.9.12 Waterfront Hotel #Dunedin (Applicant names?)
7.9.12 Waterfront hotel: DCC to notify resource consent application
23.6.12 Mis(t)apprehension: website visits, not bookings?
16.5.12 Dunedin Hotel

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

39 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Hot air, Hotel, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site

Dunedin Hotel (apartments): Who ARE the developers?

“I’m pretty sure that Ping and Jing and the developers want some conclusions too … they don’t want to be still working through this in six months’ or a year’s time.” –Mayor Cull (ODT)

An interesting statement – any names? Who are the developers? All we heard in evidence, name-wise (not fully explained), was the source of the building plans at China (“tweaked” by some unimaginative pasty sell-out hailing from Auckland).
Jing Song, left, and Ping Cao - Nelson, 2011 [stuff.co.nz Nelson Mail] 3In the argybargy over resource consent Jing Song always came across as a naive young woman (of potential wealth) with no real idea of how she was being used by the circling sharks of Dunedin and elsewhere.
Despite fronting at hearing she certainly had no idea about the standard of information required for the application process, seemingly duped by legal advisers to play dumb, who maybe weren’t that clear either. The youthful husband never turned up.
Still, “they” might surprise us with something that is well designed and sensitively scaled —but that would cost. To be erected in Queenstown or Christchurch. Given the state of our airport and its relative disconnection with the country’s major international gateways, would it be any wonder.

Image: Jing Song, left, and Ping Cao were married at the Grand Mercure Nelson Monaco resort (Nelson Mail, 10.9.11) Story via stuff.co.nz.

How much has DCC spent on schmoozing the ‘wealthy’ Chinese?
Any New Zealand finance going in (to the ‘university hostel’)?

### ODT Online Tue, 7 Jan 2014
Talks on hotel bid ongoing
By Chris Morris
The fate of Dunedin’s proposed $100 million waterfront hotel hangs in the balance, but a decision on whether to proceed – or abandon the project – could be just weeks away, it has been confirmed. Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull told the Otago Daily Times all parties were working to address “complex” issues but he could offer no guarantees a way forward could be found.
Read more

To learn more, enter the term *hotel* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

13 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Hot air, Hotel, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Queenstown Lakes, 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

DUNEDIN: We’re short(!) but here is some UK nous…

Dunedin City has New Zealand’s largest historic heritage resource.

The following is taken from three pages of the English Heritage HELM Historic Environment Local Management website:

1. Tall Buildings
2. Regeneration
3. Building in Context

****

TALL BUILDINGS

Guidance on tall buildings update
The English Heritage and Design Council CABE 2007 joint Guidance on tall buildings is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications for tall buildings.

Guidance on tall buildings
Guidance on Tall Buildings sets out how English Heritage and Design Council CABE evaluate and consider proposals for tall buildings. It also offers advice on good practice in relation to tall buildings in the planning process. Both organisations recommend that local planning authorities use it to inform policy making and to evaluate planning applications for tall buildings where the appropriate policies are not yet in place and the Government has endorsed this guidance.

This revised version was endorsed by Government on 26 July 2007. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr. Iain Wright) said:
“In conjunction with my colleague the Minister for Culture, Creative Industries and Tourism, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the guidance note on tall buildings prepared jointly by English Heritage and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), which is published today. This updates and supersedes previous guidance published in 2003 and reflects changes to the planning system since that time.

The Government’s aim is to ensure local planning authorities are getting the right developments in the right places, which we consider to be a fundamental part of creating places where people will want to live and work, now and in the future. Recent reforms to the planning system have helped to reinforce this message, making clear that all new development should be of good quality and designed in full appreciation of its surroundings and context. Tall buildings, in the right places and appropriately designed, can make positive contributions to our cities.

The Government therefore welcome this updated guidance, which will assist local planning authorities when evaluating planning applications for tall buildings, including, importantly, the need for effective engagement with local communities. It also places a greater emphasis on the contribution that design can make to improving the character and quality of an area. It offers good practice guidance to a range of stakeholders in relation to tall buildings in the planning process, provides practical advice on achieving well-designed solutions in the right places, and is capable of being material to the determination of planning applications. Copies of the documents are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.”

The Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework
The approach set out in the Guidance is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). At the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of “sustainable development”. Pursuing sustainable development involves seeking improvements to the quality of the built and historic environment (paragraph 9) as well as economic, social and environmental progress generally. Paragraph 17 identifies 12 core principles that should underpin both plan making and decision taking, including securing high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings, taking account of the different roles and character of different areas; conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.

The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions (paragraphs 56 and 64). Planning decisions should ensure amongst other things that developments respond to local character and history (paragraph 58). Planning decisions should also address connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the historic environment (paragraph 61).

Local Planning Authorities should set out their strategic priorities for the area which should include strategic policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape (paragraph 156). Crucially, local plans should identify land where development would be inappropriate, for instance because of its environmental or historic significance. They need to contain a clear strategy for enhancing the natural, built and historic environment where they have been identified. – paragraph 157. This follows on from the requirement that local plans should set out the opportunities for development and clear policies on what will or will not be permitted and where (paragraph 154).

It is also important to note that local planning authorities should have up to date evidence about the historic environment in their area and use it to assess the significance of heritage assets and the contribution they make to their environment (paragraph 169).
Link

Download
Guidance on tall buildings 2007 (71 KB)

****

REGENERATION

The historic environment is the context within which new development happens. Major inner city renewal, rural diversification, edge of village development, traffic calming measures: all have the potential to enhance or degrade the existing environment and to generate time- and resource-hungry conflict. An early understanding of the character and value of the historic environment prevents conflict and maximises the contribution historic assets can make to future economic growth and community well-being.

Conservation-led regeneration encourages private-sector investment both by retaining businesses in an area and by providing an incentive to relocate to it. Putting resources into a neighbourhood because of the value of what is already there, rather than labelling it as deprived, builds community and business confidence. So do works to improve the maintenance of the public realm of streetscape and public parks and gardens.

Understanding how places change, what makes them distinctive and the significance of their history is the key to regeneration. The historic environment is part of successful regeneration because it contributes to:

Investment: Historic places attract companies to locate, people to live, businesses to invest and tourists to visit. Market values in historic areas are higher than elsewhere.

Sense of place: People enjoy living in historic places. There is often greater community cohesion.

Sustainability: Re-use of historic buildings minimises the exploitation of resources. There is evidence of lower maintenance costs for older houses.

Quality of life: The historic environment contributes to quality of life and enriches people’s understanding of the diversity and changing nature of their community.

Planning for regeneration and renewal requires strong, effective partnerships at local and regional level. Local authorities play a central part in the management of the historic environment. The Local Authority Historic Environment Services pages give more information about the role of local authorities.

Conservation-led regeneration is successful because places matter to people. Neighbourhood renewal works because the quality of the places in which people live directly affects their quality of life. When communities are helped to develop their own sense of what matters for them, and why, the results can transform a neighbourhood and act as a catalyst for further private- and public-sector investment.
Link

Further reading
Regeneration and the Historic Environment
Heritage & Spin-off benefits
Heritage Works
Regeneration in Coastal Towns

Websites
English Heritage Regeneration Policy
The Heritage Dynamo: how the voluntary sector drives regeneration
Prince’s Trust Regeneration Through Heritage Handbook

****

BUILDING IN CONTEXT

Building in Context was published jointly by English Heritage and CABE (the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) in 2001. It aims to stimulate a high standard of design when development takes place in historically sensitive contexts. It aims to do this by example, showing a series of case studies in which achievement is far above the ordinary. As a result, it is hoped that people will be encouraged to emulate the commitment and dedication shown by the clients, architects, planning officers and committee members involved in the projects illustrated and be able to learn from their experience.

The belief underlying the publication is that the right approach is to be found in examining the context for any proposed development in great detail and relating the new building to its surroundings through an informed character appraisal. This does not imply that any one architectural approach is, by its nature, more likely to succeed than any other. On the contrary, it means that as soon as the application of a simple formula is attempted a project is likely to fail, whether that formula consists of ‘fitting in’ or ‘contrasting the new with the old’.

A successful project will:

● Relate well to the geography and history of the place and the lie of the land
● Sit happily in the pattern of existing development and routes through and around it
● Respect important views
● Respect the scale of neighbouring buildings
● Use materials and building methods which are as high in quality as those used in existing buildings
● Create new views and juxtapositions which add to the variety and texture of the setting.

The right approach involves a whole process in addition to the work of design, from deciding what is needed, through appointing the architect, to early discussions with and eventual approval by the planning authority.

Collaboration, mutual respect and a shared commitment to the vision embodied in the project will be needed if the outcome is to be successful. The report came to a number of conclusions:

● All successful design solutions depend on allowing time for a thorough site analysis and careful character appraisal of the context
● The best buildings result from the creative dialogue between the architect, client, local planning authority and others; pre-application discussions are essential
● The local planning authority and other consultees can insist upon good architecture and help to achieve it
● Difficult sites should generate good architecture, and are not an excuse for not achieving it
● With skill and care, it is possible to accommodate large modern uses within the grain of historic settings
● High environmental standards can help generate good architecture
● Sensitivity to context and the use of traditional materials are not incompatible with contemporary architecture
● Good design does not stop at the front door, but extends into public areas beyond the building
● High-density housing does not necessarily involve building high or disrupting the urban grain and it can be commercially highly successful
● Successful architecture can be produced either by following precedents closely, by adapting them or by contrasting with them
● In a diverse context a contemporary building may be less visually intrusive than one making a failed attempt to follow historic precedents

The above are extracts from the document, which was written by Francis Golding. The case studies were chosen to cover a wide range of different uses, locations, architectural approaches and processes. Each case study looks at the project as a whole, the site, the problems, the solutions and the lessons learnt.

The full text of Building in Context and its case studies are available on-line from the PDF version of the document.
Link

Download
Building in context: New development in historic areas (2.94 MB)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

31 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Inspiration, Name, People, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium