Tag Archives: Waterfronts

Dezeen: W57 —West 57th Residential Building by BIG

Durst Fetner Residential commissioned Copenhagen based BIG in the spring of 2010 to introduce a new residential typology to Manhattan.

sltube7 Uploaded on Feb 10, 2011
Jacob Slevin Bjarke Ingels Is BIG in New York City with W57
(by Designer Pages)

GlessnerGroup Uploaded on Feb 15, 2011
W57 – West 57th Residential Building [no audio]
W57 is a hybrid between the European perimeter block and a traditional Manhattan high-rise, West 57th has a unique shape which combines the advantages of both: the compactness and efficiency of a courtyard building providing density, a sense of intimacy and security, with the airiness and the expansive views of a skyscraper.
©Glessner Group, Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG)

Construction is due for completion in 2016.

█ Architect: Bjarke Ingels Group

### dezeen.com Tue, 8 Feb 2011 at 12:41 pm
West 57th by BIG
By Catherine Warmann
Durst Fetner Residential (DFR) today announced the design of West 57, a 600-unit 80/20 residential building on West 57th Street between 11th and 12th Avenues. The building is designed by renowned Danish Architect firm BIG-Bjarke Ingels Group and is their inaugural North American project. The building’s program consists of over 600 residential units of different scales situated on a podium with a cultural and commercial program. The building will strive for LEED Gold Certification.

“It’s extraordinarily exciting to build a building whose architecture will attract visitors from around the globe,” said Hal Fetner, CEO of Durst Fetner Residential. “BIG’s design is innovative, evocative and unique and the building’s beauty is matched only by its efficient and functional design that preserves existing view corridors while maximizing the new building’s access to natural light and views of the Hudson River. West 57th will establish a new standard for architectural excellence and its creative design, sustainable-construction and operations, breathtaking views and distinctive amenities will make it New York’s most sought after residential address.”

dzn_West-57th-by-BIG-22dzn_West-57th-by-BIG-23

“New York is rapidly becoming an increasingly green and livable city. The transformation of the Hudson River waterfront and the Highline into green parks, the ongoing effort to plant a million trees, the pedestrianisation of Broadway and the creation of more miles of bicycle lanes than the entire city of my native Copenhagen are all evidence of urban oases appearing all over the city. With West 57th we attempt to continue this transformation into the heart of the city fabric – into the centre of a city block,” Bjarke Ingels, Founder, BIG.

“The building is conceived as a cross breed between the Copenhagen courtyard and the New York skyscraper. The communal intimacy of the central urban oasis meets the efficiency, density and panoramic views of the tall tower in a new hybrid typology. The courtyard is to architecture what Central Park is to urbanism: a giant green garden surrounded by a dense wall of spaces for living.”
Read more + Images

[view full screen]

BIG from DRKHRSE (posted 4 months ago)
An aerial view of Bjarke Ingel’s newest building in NYC, at W57

█ Drone Photography: Darkhorse

### dezeen.com Wed, 16 Sept 2015 at 11:10 am
Drone video shows progress on New York “courtscraper” by BIG
By Jenna McKnight
Communications firm Darkhorse has used a camera mounted to a drone to capture footage of Via 57 West, the residential building by Bjarke Ingels Group that is now rising in New York. Construction is underway on the tetrahedron-shaped building, which is located on West 57th Street in Midtown Manhattan. The design is pulled up at one corner, to create a 467-foot-tall (142-metre) structure. It topped out several months ago, with the addition of the final structural beam, and work is now continuing on the building’s facades. The unofficial movie by Darkhorse shows images of Via’s sloped exterior, which is punctuated with south-facing terraces that look toward the Hudson River.

dzn_West-57th-by-BIG-36BIG-West-57-project-New-York-City_dezeen_sq

Encompassing 861,00 square feet (80,000 square metres), the building will contain 709 residential units and a large central courtyard. The project also calls for retail space totalling 45,000 square feet (4,180 square metres).

“We call it a courtscraper,” Ingels told Dezeen in an interview last year. “It’s a combination of a skyscraper and a courtyard building. One side is the height of a handrail and the other side is the height of a high-rise.”

The project is being constructed in an area with a mix of building types. W57 is sandwiched between a power plant, a sanitation garage and a highway. The building’s amenities will include a pool, fitness centre, basketball court, golf simulator, library and screening room. Residents will also be able to reserve “living rooms” for entertaining that feature fireplaces, chef’s kitchens, dining rooms and large terraces.
Read more + Images

dzn_West-57th-by-BIG-401dzn_West-57th-by-BIG-38

█ Other residential projects now underway in New York include 152 Elizabeth Street by Tadao Ando in the Nolita neighbourhood, 520 West 28th Street by Zaha Hadid near the High Line, and a luxury condo building by Alvaro Siza that is slated to rise near BIG’s Via 57 West.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

2 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Coolness, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Innovation, Inspiration, Leading edge, Media, Name, Project management, Property, Resource management, Site, Structural engineering, Town planning, 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

Hotel: The height of arrogance

Don’t care how much you’ve spent on slapping Dunedin’s face, chook.
GO AWAY —give your ‘Swarovski crystal’ to some other place.

Bored housewife syndrome:
If you’ve spent a million already your consultants are out of control.

### ODT Online Fri, 14 Feb 2014
Harbour hotel now ‘a long shot’
By Chris Morris
The woman behind the plan to build a $100 million waterfront hotel in Dunedin says the proposal is now “a long shot”. Betterways Advisory Ltd director Jing Song, of Queenstown, told the Otago Daily Times she was frustrated by the delays and cost involved, after spending more than $1 million so far on pursuing the project at 41 Wharf St.
Read more

DEPLORABLY, Mayor Cull has held several meetings with the developers in Auckland “to try to advance the project”. The Mayor deliberately mixes HIS politics with a resource management matter, SHAME.

*Mr Rodgers is Mr Cull’s personal solicitor.

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

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

36 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Heritage, Hot air, Hotel, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Queenstown Lakes, Site, Town planning, Urban design

Shane McGrath —Gelber LuftBallon (Dunedin Research Project)

Shane McGrath 15-4-13 IMG_2892bArtist sculptor Shane McGrath successfully built and flew, with the help of friends, a helium-filled yellow blimp today at Customhouse Quay in Dunedin.
Relatively still air conditions twice allowed the ‘friendly’ LuftBallon to gain maximum height – simulating, indirectly, the proposed height (96.3 metres) of the hotel and apartment tower planned for the vacant site across the road at 41 Wharf Street.
McGrath had earlier made sure the planned flight received CAA clearance.
The blimp contained smaller balloons filled with the gas to guard against a sudden downing. A small team of men, including McGrath, coordinated the length and position of the guide-lines, keeping the blimp off surrounding buildings and roads, and out of harbour waters.
The bright photogenic structure – alternately Lemon, Zeppelin, Chrysalis – hovered impressively overhead for half a day, long enough for professional photographers and camera people to take stills and recordings from the site and prominent vantage points around the city.

Shane McGrath (about to launch) 15-4-13 IMG_2894alr

Media 15-4-13 IMG_3108a

Shane McGrath (Monarch albatross) 15-4-13 IMG_3059alr

Shane McGrath 15-4-13 IMG_3199a1lr

Shane McGrath (Linesmen) 15-4-13 IMG_3283a

Shane McGrath 15-4-13 (quay lamps) IMG_3092alr

Shane McGrath (max height over Customhouse) 15-4-13 IMG_3246alr

Shane McGrath (yellow blimp) 15-4-13 IMG_3188alr

Shane McGrath (yellow blimp fins) 15-4-13 IMG_3308alr

Shane McGrath (yellow chrysalis) 15-4-13 IMG_3305

Shane McGrath (blimp in eddy) 15-4-13 IMG_3322alr

Shane McGrath (yellow blimp rear) 15-4-13 IMG_3316alr

Shane McGrath (blimp side on) 15-4-13 IMG_2924alr

Shane McGrath (rising blimp customhouse) 15-4-13 IMG_3313alr

Shane McGrath (maxheight customhouse) 15-4-13 IMG_3183alr

Shane McGrath (blimp rising) 15-4-13  IMG_2908alr

Shane McGrath (blimp retrieved) 15-4-13 IMG_3361alrImages: Elizabeth Kerr

Gerard O’Brien’s outstanding photographs place the Gelber LuftBallon in the city context – see tomorrow’s Otago Daily Times.

█ Enter *hotel* in the search box at right to learn more about the proposed hotel and apartment building for 41 Wharf Street.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

27 Comments

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

Ballooning! —playing off Betterways

While the DCC ‘red carpet’ gets gazumped by Christchurch mayor Bob Parker’s trip to Sister Cities exploring joint ventures with Chinese investors to build HOTELS (and more!) . . .

. . . independent artist sculptor Shane McGrath has a crack at ‘height indications’ down at the Dunedin waterfront on ● MONDAY

Gelber LuftBallon- McGrath (14 April 2013)

Originally from Melbourne, McGrath completed his Master’s in Fine Arts at Massey University in 2009 and is establishing a trans-Tasman practice. In March 2012 he completed a major new public art work for a park in central Wellington, was an artist in residence at the Yarra Sculpture Gallery in Melbourne and had work included in the Sculpture by the Sea in Sydney.

29.11.10 3News — The focal point of Shane McGrath’s Fight or Flight exhibition is a phallic-shaped zeppelin. Video

Shane McGrath

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

10 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Design, Economics, Events, Fun, Hot air, Innovation, Inspiration, Name, People, Politics, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design

Proposed hotel, 41 Wharf Street – indicative landscape effects

The following images (scans of scans…) were supplied by Madeleine Lamont in submission on application LUC-2012-212. The text of Madeleine’s submission has been lightly edited for posting. Her submission as lodged (No. 422) can be viewed here: Submissions 401 to 509 (PDF, 6.9 MB).

1. View from Mornington Park, off Eglinton Rd between Stafford and High Sts

2. (zoom) View from Mornington Park, off Eglinton Rd

3. View from Bellevue St, Belleknowes, just below Highgate

4. View from Adam St, near Russell St, City Rise

Submission to Dunedin City Council
Re: Public Notice of application for Resource Consent Section 95A Resource Management Act 1991
Resource Consent Application No: LUC-2012-212
Name of Applicant: Betterways Advisory Limited
Location of Site: 41 Wharf Street, Dunedin, being the land legally described as
Lot 3 Deposited Plan 25158, held in Computer Freehold
Register OT17A/1107.

I submit in the strongest terms, that resource consent for the building of the proposed hotel structure on the above site, NOT BE GRANTED because of the structure’s significant, detrimental effects on the city landscape.

If the applicant had had the courtesy to supply comprehensive spatial design drawings of this structure in the context of the whole city, it would be obvious to all how inappropriate in SCALE this structure is. At 96m in elevation, the structure overbears the entire city and harbour basin, obstructing the entire city centre’s experience of the harbour, the peninsula and Dunedin’s nestling hills, offering an absurd conflict with the human scale and nature of both the historic and current character of city structures and city activities.

Of greatest concern are the western and eastern elevations of the structure. I submit Photo 1 taken from the lookout in Mornington Park, a view celebrated by Dunedin artists numerous times over the years, by visitors to the city and of course, by the hundreds of Dunedin households. The approximate silhouette of the proposed structure is drawn in to show the obstructive nature and ‘selfish’ size and position of the hotel. The scale of the building is completely inappropriate. Photo 2 is from the same position, zoomed in and marked with the Wharf St railway lighting tower measured at 35m used to indicate the dominance of the proposed 96.3m hotel structure. The eastern elevation from the peninsula suburbs too, will experience the overscale of the building against the city and hill suburbs.

Photo 3 taken, on zoom from Bellevue Street, Belleknowes, again includes the structure’s silhouette scaled off the marked rail light tower. If the cladding of the proposed tower is mainly glass, with it being so high above the city, the western sun will create issues of sun strike on roads leading down from the suburbs, and obviously, serious effects and obstruction to the views enjoyed by thousands of households.

Photo 4 is from lower down the Belleknowes spur, from Adam Street, with an estimated, but conservative profile (photo lacks a known structure to measure off) drawn. Again the aesthetic values and scale of the harbour basin are entirely offended by an ill considered structure.

What concerns me most about this application for resource consent to build an inappropriate structure (by position and scale), is the inadequacy of the supplied application documents to present the structure in the context of the city. Widely published images are fantasy, such as an elevated, high angle view from well above the harbour, attempting to diminish the perceived size of the structure. The only humans to view the structure from this angle, position and elevation may be those wealthy enough to, by helicopter. These images are notable for their lack of contextual structures that make, in fact, the character of Dunedin. Buildings of 2, 3 or more storeys set the scale appropriate for development and are absent from the application documents precisely to obscure the real affect this structure will have on the city’s landscape and its aesthetic values. Design consultancy information only focuses on the very immediate surroundings and contains no spatial plan for this giant structure in the context of the city. I have attempted to show how 120 degrees of the city centre and its hill suburbs will have their harbour and peninsula views and joy of place seriously obstructed. The peninsula suburbs will view a structure absurdly contradicting the city structures and rounded hill suburbs. All incoming transport links, as a special feature of this city, enjoy delightful revelation of the ‘great little city’, its harbour and the waters of the Pacific. These heartening views enjoyed by all, citizen and visitor, will be irretrievable spoiled and dominated by a tower designed (and possibly built) for a city the scale of Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur or Singapore.

Lastly, the attempt at this sort of inappropriate development is an affront to the careful planning [of] the city’s forefathers to create an egalitarian community enjoying the delightful natural environment Dunedin offers. The proposed structure stands at 96m. This is only a matter of metres below the elevation of much of the Green Belt. Jubilee Park is at a 100m elevation. The Green Belt designed and implemented so long ago and maintained for the benefit of all, is carefully placed so that wherever a person stands in the city centre they can look up the hills to the skyline and see only green, the suburbs beyond obscured by the angle of view. This creates a very special intimate city, a human scaled city, for the benefit and edification of those living or visiting here. This, in conjunction with historical character (now lost in Christchurch), a rich, intelligent, creative and industrious community is what makes Dunedin a destination, a special, memorable place that with sympathetic development will continue to attract visitors and citizens who will not find the likes, elsewhere in the world. Structures like the proposed hotel are notable for being the same the world over. In being built it will change the very character of the place visitors will be seeking to experience.

I submit in the strongest terms that the Dunedin City Council turn down this application for resource consent and I suggest that the non compliance of this application to the requirements of the Resource Management Act to protect the amenity, aesthetic and cultural values and wellbeing of the people of Dunedin will bring this matter to the Environment Court.

Yours sincerely

Madeleine Lamont
B. Landscape Architecture (Hons), Lincoln University

Compare these indicative images to those prepared by Truescape of Christchurch for the Applicant:

LUC-2012-212 12. Viewpoint booklet
(PDF, 3.4MB)
This document is a scanned copy of the application for resource consent

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

The Applicant, Betterways Advisory Limited, gets one and a half days for presentation to the hearing committee (Cr Colin Weatherall, Cr Andrew Noone, Cr Kate Wilson, and independent commissioner John Lumsden). Submitters have been allowed ten minutes each. Written communication from City Planning makes no time allowance for submitters wishing to use experts.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

13 Comments

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

City planner’s report recommends against consent for hotel

UPDATED 21.11.12

See comments at this thread:

Ro https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/dunedin-hotel-41-wharf-street-luc-2012-212/#comment-29089

Elizabeth https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/dunedin-hotel-41-wharf-street-luc-2012-212/#comment-29090

“What Heydary found came as a shock, especially to some buyers who readily admit they were so blinded by the flash and cash of Donald Trump that they didn’t do proper due diligence: Buyers weren’t purchasing so much a condo as a share in a high-end hotel that, so far at least, is losing money.”

Trump Tower developer suing 7 disgruntled investors to close deals they now regret

Anonymous provided this edifying read. It ‘trumps’ what happened with the first tower built at Orewa, and the Spencer on Byron at Takapuna (referred to elsewhere at What if?, or google) – as far as 41 Wharf Street, Dunedin is concerned the tower-scam model is the same. So here we are, naive and wide open to the wiles of our own ‘good old boys’ and their unsavoury quest for a share of dirty-quick money from fickle overseas ‘connections’, and your life savings too.

### ODT Online Wed, 21 Nov 2012
DCC report opposes city hotel
By Chris Morris
Plans for a 28-storey waterfront hotel towering over Dunedin have been dealt a blow by a Dunedin City Council report that criticises the design and recommends resource consent be declined. The report by council planner Lianne Darby, made public yesterday, identified the hotel’s height and dominant appearance as among areas of concern. A host of technical worries also raised doubts, ranging from traffic problems and shading to a lack of information about wind gusts magnified by the tower’s height. Ms Darby’s report left the door ajar by including a list of detailed conditions to impose if consent were granted, despite her recommendation.
Read more

Source: ODT Files

Note to graphic: Under the Resource Management Act (RMA) the commissioners to hear the application cannot consider the economic viability of the proposed hotel project – the matters with a red cross, at right, fall within the scope of the Act. The applicant is required to show the adverse effects of the proposed development are no more than minor.

Read Post Application Information at DCC website

‘New information’ about the hypothetical footbridge cannot be considered at hearing since it was NOT included in the notified application.

### ODT Online Tue, 20 Nov 2012
Hotel developer unveils link bridge proposal
By Chris Morris
The man promoting Dunedin’s proposed 28-storey hotel has unveiled plans for a “world class” pedestrian and cyclist bridge that could provide a missing link to the city’s waterfront. However, the idea is only the “starting point for a discussion”, with key details – including how much the sweeping structure would cost and who would pay for it – yet to be confirmed, Betterways Advisory Ltd director Steve Rodgers said.
Read more

Source: Ignite Architects Ltd (via ODT)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

15 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Heritage, Media, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design

Dunedin Hotel, 41 Wharf Street (LUC 2012-212)

All submitters received a letter dated 2 November 2012 from Dunedin City Council informing them of the dates on which the Hearings Committee will consider the Betterways Advisory Ltd’s resource consent application for 41 Wharf Street, Dunedin.

The council hearings committee is Cr Colin Weatherall (chairman), Cr Andrew Noone and Cr Kate Wilson. Submissions will be heard in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers.

Hearing dates:
Monday 3 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm
Tuesday 4 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm
Wednesday 5 December 2012 – 10am to 7.30pm
Thursday 6 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm

And if required:
Monday 17 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm
Tuesday 18 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm
Wednesday 19 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm

It is anticipated the applicant will present for the first day and part of the second day. Submitters are likely to commence their presentations from 2pm on Tuesday 4 December.

Altogether, there were 508 public submissions. Not all submitters wish to be heard. That’s right, the applicant has about a day and a half to present substantively; submitters get 10 minutes each. Such is the democratic process.

The intention must be that if the Council grants consent – red carpet – then we take it to the Environment Court on appeal.

There has been no cost benefit analysis for the proposed hotel. Given the shortcomings of the site, neither the Applicant or the Dunedin City Council have declared the potential costs, including infrastructure services costs, of this project to ratepayers. There’s quite a lot the Council isn’t saying publicly; and quite a lot it’s saying, politically, behind closed doors to the applicant, we hear.

The Application: (DCC webpages)
Current notified applications
LUC-2012-212 (Betterways Advisory Limited) – all documents


Published on May 13, 2012 by DunedinNZofficial

Dunedin lawyer Steve Rodgers said he remained convinced the hotel would be a “game-changer” for Dunedin and was “98.2%” confident it would win approval at next month’s resource consent hearing.

### ODT Online Sat, 10 Nov 2012
Hotel project spokesman confident of go-ahead
By Chris Morris
The man acting as the public face for a proposed 28-storey waterfront hotel in Dunedin says the project remains “full steam ahead” despite a public outcry. However, Dunedin lawyer Steve Rodgers – the director of Betterways Advisory Ltd, the company fronting the development – would not rule out changes to the hotel’s design, but hoped a fight through the Environment Court could be avoided.
Read more

Related Posts:
8.9.12 Waterfront Hotel #Dunedin (Applicant names?)
7.9.12 Waterfront hotel: DCC to notify resource consent application
16.5.12 Dunedin Hotel

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

49 Comments

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

New Zealand Urban Design Awards

“The importance of upfront investment in the public domain, whether by a public authority or private developer.”

### idealog.co.nz Fri, 9 Nov 2011 @ 9:24am
Auckland tops at brand new Urban Design Awards
By Design Daily team
Wynyard Quarter’s Jellicoe Precinct and the Auckland City Centre Masterplan have taken the top awards in the first-ever New Zealand Urban Design Awards, a new biennial programme that acknowledges the importance of high quality urban environments.

Jellicoe Precinct, Wynyard Quarter – Winner, Built Projects category

Wellington waterfront – Highly Commended, Built Projects category

[Images via Idealog]

Jury convenor, former New South Wales government architect Peter Mould, said they looked for projects “which established or reinforced urban initiatives and executed them with demonstrable design excellence”. “Urban design is concerned not so much with individual buildings, but with the building of a city. It’s about place making, and it’s also about the public realm.”

Mould said that if a trend emerged from the first Urban Design Awards, “it was the importance of upfront investment in the public domain, whether by a public authority or private developer. Such investment sets the agenda for excellence in the future”.

Waterfront Auckland’s Jellicoe Precinct, stage one of the development of Wynyard Quarter, was an exemplary case of agenda-setting urban design for which consultants Architectus and Taylor Cullity Leathlean and Wraight + Associates deserved congratulation as winner of the Built Projects category.

The New Zealand Urban Design Awards are supported by the New Zealand Institute of Architects, the Urban Design Forum, the New Zealand Planning Institute, the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects and the Property Council of New Zealand.

Joining Mould on the jury were planning consultant David Mead, landscape architect Sally Peake, deputy head of the University of Auckland’s School of Architecture and Planning, Lee Beattie, and property developer Patrick Fontein.
Read more + Images

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

4 Comments

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

Urban Outfitters Corporate Campus / Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle

Updated post 18.11.14 at 7:02 p.m.

Urban Outfitters urbn banner [urbn.com]

Innovation Incubator
When profits depend on employees’ ability to create cutting-edge designs, a business simply can’t survive unless its workplace is an incubator for innovation: Urban Outfitters “lives and dies in creativity”. –Richard Hayne

After relocating to an abandoned naval yard, Urban Outfitters, the retro-chic retailer sees revenue skyrocket—and once skeptical employees have embraced the gritty, but inspiring space.

Amenities such as a gym, yoga studio, dog park, and farmers’ market further add to the lively and informal atmosphere. The exterior landscaping was designed by Julie Bargmann’s D.I.R.T. studio, known for turning derelict industrial sites into vibrant public spaces.

### hq.construction.com 1 December 2009
Urban Outfitters’ Edgy Adventure
By Jenna M. McKnight and Sebastian Howard
PHILADELPHIA—Richard Hayne, chairman and president of Urban Outfitters, met stiff resistance when he initially announced plans to move his company’s headquarters from traditional high-rise offices to five dilapidated buildings in the decommissioned Philadelphia Navy Yard. “I wouldn’t say it was a mutiny,” Hayne says, recalling his colleagues’ reactions. “But there were definitely some blank stares and ‘are you kiddings?’”
The retailing giant, which sold nearly $2 billion worth of its clothing and apartment wares in 2008, for many years had been spread among six buildings in downtown Philadelphia. This physical separation was “horrible”, Hayne says, because each department was “unsure about what the other was doing”.
Increasingly, Hayne realised that to maximise performance his company needed a unified campus — and a generic office park was out of the question given the spirit and reputation of Urban Outfitters.
Founded in 1970, the retailer offers hip merchandise with a vintage twist aimed at trendy, young buyers. Most of its retail brands, which include Urban Outfitters, Anthropologie, and Free People, are housed in renovated old buildings with double-height ceilings and exposed brick, concrete and timber.
So Hayne began looking for a setting for his new corporate home that would mirror the aesthetic sensibility of his stores, and in 2004, he found what he judged to be a near-perfect spot: the naval shipyard, which the Defense Department shuttered in 1995.
Read more

Urban Outfitters Corporate Campus, Philadelphia’s Navy Yard (2006) - Lara Swimmer PhotographyConversion of Philadelphia’s Navy Yard (2006). Photo: Lara Swimmer

### uli.org [Urban Land Institute]
Awards for Excellence: 2007 Winner
Urban Outfitters Corporate Campus
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

The Philadelphia Navy Yard, which encompasses more than 1,000 acres (405 ha), 2,000 buildings, and 2.5 miles (4 km) of riverfront, was decommissioned in 1996. In 2000, ownership was transferred to the Philadelphia Authority of Industrial Development (PAID), and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC) began developing the property on behalf of PAID and the city. The Navy Yard is rapidly becoming a dynamic and viable new business location, as evidenced by the Urban Outfitters corporate office campus, which was completed and opened in October 2006.
Read more

Meyer Scherer & Rockcastle- Urban Outfitters HeadquartersUrban Outfitters’ pioneering move has positively impacted the entire Navy Yard. A new creative district, with top advertising agencies, graphic designers, and photographers, is growing around the retailer. New coffee shops and restaurants serve workers and visitors alike. More than 4,000 jobs have been created in the Yard since the company moved.
worldarchitecturenews.com (Thursday 29 Oct 2009)

UrbanOutfitters 2 - Lara Swimmer [archdaily.com]UrbanOutfitters 1 - Lara Swimmer [archdaily.com]UrbanOutfitters 3 - Lara Swimmer [archdaily.com]More photographs of the heritage dock yard complex by Lara Swimmer at archdaily.com (1 December 2010).

█ Website: urbanoutfittersinc.com

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

1 Comment

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

European Workshop Waterfront Urban Design

@ Lisboa (Lisbon is the capital and largest city of Portugal)

### archdaily.com 27 Jan 2010
European Workshop Waterfront Urban Design
By Sebastian J
ULHT (Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias) has organised an international workshop on the theme of waterfront design (European Workshop Waterfront Urban Design) EWWUD. This event will take place between 14 and 28 March 2010 and has several international specialists in nine foreign universities.
Solutions for the relocation of port facilities and the consequent waterfront regeneration of old ports are dependent upon the capacity of both port and city to sucessfully develop the necessary means of negotiation, to work towards mutual improvements. While port representatives privilege the efficiency of maritime activity, city leaders pursue improvements to their citizens’ quality of life.

Exchange of good practices between port cities is required with two goals: to support the ports’ need to expand and relocate, and to produce urban waterfront REGENERATION that integrates rather than segregates neighbourhoods and their citizens.

Workshop objectives:
Port cities sharing similar experiences regarding projects of architecture and urban design at former port areas; discussion of the influence generated by geographic and historical factors; introduction of the cartographic culture of urban fabric’s transformation at the water edge; comparison of cultural, environmental and historical heritage solutions; port cities exchange mutual visions and common pratices, that constitute a relevant tool for the regeneration of former port areas; production of architecture and urban design sketches for publication; understanding that former industrial waterfronts are potential sites of continuity for urban morphology.
Email: ewwud @ulusofona.pt

ArchDaily Link + Workshop Poster

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Design, Economics, Events, Geography, Inspiration, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design

City waterfronts

### Radio New Zealand National 101FM 6 September 2009
Sunday Morning with Chris Laidlaw
radionz.co.nz/sunday
8:12 Insight: Waterfront Wars
Insight looks at the on-going tussle over the development of the waterfronts in Auckland and Wellington. Can new buildings re-vitalise the areas or should open space be preserved for public access?
Written and presented by Eric Frykberg
Audio | Download: Ogg MP3 (26′ 27″)

****

### RNZ National Friday, 04 September 2009 08:50
Morning Report with Geoff Robinson & Sean Plunket
Activists cautious of waterfront development
Activists remain on watch as Wellington and Auckland city authorities intensify development of their waterfronts. (duration: 3′20″)
Audio | Download: Ogg Vorbis MP3 (3′ 20″)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

4 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Hot air, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design