Waterfront Watch, are you happy now? Having used the Resource Management Act to stop the Hilton Hotel project from being built on the outer T of Queen’s Wharf, the consequence is that nothing is likely to happen there for years to come, and the city council faces a huge bill to strengthen the wharf, a task the hotel promoters would have done.
Back in March, Waterfront Watch, along with councillor Helene Ritchie and the owners of the Intercontinental Hotel, which was scared of competition, successfully convinced the Environment Court to block plans to build a Hilton where a ramshackle grey shed now stands on the outer T.
A hotel on that site would have attracted 24-hour life to an area that needs it, as well as supplying more of the high-quality hotel accommodation that Wellington remains short of.
The council is due to debate the future of waterfront developments tomorrow, but according to an informative article by the DomPost’s Dave Burgess, the loss of the money the council would have got from the Hilton project means other waterfront proposals may not now go ahead for years.
If appeals against the planned redevelopment of the old Overseas Passenger Terminal also succeed, it will be even worse.
The outer T needs $7 million in strengthening work, which the council will now have to pay for. This work needs to be done. The Hilton would have done it, at no cost to ratepayers.
This and the loss of revenue now the Hilton will not happen means other planned work, including redeveloping the Taranaki St Wharf area with an extension of the Frank Kitts Park lagoon and the building of a second bridge, may not now happen for another decade.
We have the finest waterfront of any city in New Zealand in Wellington, thanks to the opening up of the former wharves to the public over the past 20 years. But much of the waterfront is crying out for facilities to attract people at night, something the Hilton would have done.
I often marvel at what a fantastic city Wellington is, given the dedicated work of individuals and organisations like Waterfront Watch to oppose everything that might make the city a better place.
26 Comments
June 17, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Scant comfort, I know, but you could console yourself with the knowledge that the Wellington Hilton would probably have followed its Auckland sibling in offering a scandalously-priced wine list and patchy fare in the restaurant …
June 17, 2008 at 5:16 pm
The trouble with Waterfront Watch is that they do not really know what they want anymore.
They claim to be the ‘checks and balances’ in the system, but they cannot stop with their mantra – ‘buildings bad – grass good’.
It is a pity.
They could be a really good organisation – questioning the whys and wherefores of development and generally improving what does happen on the waterfront through meaningful dialogue.
Instead we have a group that smacks of Nimbyism and old fashioned blue rinse.
This is where the RMA fails.
Anyone with $55 can make an application to the Environment Cort and delay a project like the Overseas Terminal and tie it up for years.
Wouldn’t it be better to sit down and talk and actually become an advocate group rather than a destructive force in the Wellington Waterfront?
We are all the poorer for them.
June 17, 2008 at 8:52 pm
they should have had a Waterfront watch in Queenstown. They may have prevented the Steamer Wharf Development. Dennis Marshall (Miniter of Conservation) ruled tht the distance from high water while not a chain was near enough and Queenstown needed more retail space for growth.
http://www.boston.com/travel/articles/2004/11/07/new_zealand_at_a_crossroads/
June 17, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Another fine example of the Kiwi disease, welcome to New Zealand in the 21st century.
Backwards to the future.
June 18, 2008 at 2:13 pm
We have a strange attitude to our water in NZ.
We claim to love it so much that the public must have access. But that public must be in exposed public open space and the public has no right to get close to the water while having a meal or a drink or even admiring the view.
The end result is a public policy that says “Don’t go near the water.”
To see how we should relate to the water take Google Earth and fly to Venice or St Petersburg. And go in close.
June 18, 2008 at 3:28 pm
In fairness, the Hilton could have had a more exciting design. But the WW NIMBYs are really suburbanites masquerading as environmentalists. It’s akin to driving a Hummer with a Greenpeace sticker on the back.
June 18, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Or, to put it another way: a developer is someone who wants to build a cabin in the woods. An environmentalist is someone who already has one. Ouch!
June 18, 2008 at 4:56 pm
To be fair, none of the above reasons are good enough to warrant an inappropriate development, which would be there for much longer than a decade…
The argument (whether valid or not) was that the Hilton proposal was not up to scratch in that it viloated principles of the Waterfront Framework – this is exactly what the environment Court ruled on – not that it shouldn’t be there, or that it should be green space. A little perspective (and accuracy) on the matter would be useful.
It should be noted that the Waterfront Framework was a document produced by the WCC with substantial PUBLIC INPUT, and is upheld as the guiding plan for Waterfront developments. The Framework itself arose after the previous master plan (the best I have seen for this area) was overturned by popular opinion (it would be almost be complete by now – public consultation be-damned I say).
So, the Environment Court ruled in favour of the people, but the people complain. sigh. Gaining public buyin is the reason for tardy development on the Waterfront. Nothing else.
June 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Woah! Wait a minute – don’t you think its high time that Madame Mayor’s headlong rush to destroy the Wellington so many of us know and love was arrested? Look at the mess that has been made of Courtney Place – wasn’t the latest loonie proposal to ban through traffic? (How do you stop traffic going through when all parking is either occupied or clogged by cabs?). As it is we’re saddled with that tatty multi-architectural style Museum for the foreseeable future – and is the new area opposite Cable Street anything like the smart artist’s impressions we saw? And don’t even start me on the ‘Events Centre’ .When I came to live in Wgtn in 1974 it needed a smartening up, but, my word, you can have too much of a (so-called) good thing y’know!!
June 18, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Poneke
As we neared the end of that bottle of Veuve at Shed 5 several months ago, I do believe we had the answer:
- a cleansing fire.
June 18, 2008 at 5:56 pm
a cleansing fire.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful!?
June 19, 2008 at 9:24 am
Oh – and it should be noted that the appeal cost in the tens of thousands of dollars, not $55. The WW case was partnered with the community organisation Wellington Civic Trust – who are pro responsible waterfront development (just not any crappy proposal), as well as MfE grant for community groups, and more cynically, rival commercial businesses. Nevertheless, the court case represented the direct mandate (and financial backing) of hundreds of Wellington citizens – not the small activist group that you seem to imply – a case of democracy for better or worse – whereas the Council position violated its own public mandate (represented in the Framework).
In any case, you should be blaming the Environment Court judges – do you really think they made an inappropriate legal decision? Would you have the Waterfront open to any development, whether it violated agreed plans or not?
Anyway, rumour has it that the Wellington Civic Trust are intending to sponsor a competition for a worthwhile development of the Outer Tee – they just regather (in terms of morale and finances) after the court case…
June 19, 2008 at 10:14 am
Sam – yes, that Design for the Hilton may not be the most appropriate for the site and could have been done a bit better, but a good place for a hotel – no?
… and if you answer is ‘no’, what would you like to see there?
(I am not sure also that I said that WW thought that there should be green space on this site – but that this was their mantra which was blocking rational thinking and effective dialogue…..)
Also, I’m not sure that the solution for the Overseas Terminal is “an inappropriate development”. I personally think that is a fantastic design and use of the site.
Waterfront Watch have, once again, with their small mindedness, appealed against this.
It is not so much a case of “Madame Mayor’s headlong rush to destroy the Wellington …” but finding proper solutions to problems which exist (Overseas Terminal near-falling over, strengthening of various wharfs, enhancing the waterfront experience etc).
My earlier point was we need effective dialogue for that to happen. Not kneejerk reactions by closed minded “individuals”.
$55 is the application fee.
Not the actual cost of the appeal. That, as you correctly point out, is in the tens of thousands.
But you can put in an application (using the $55 fee) and then withdraw your appeal prior to it going to trial, delaying the project for some time.
June 19, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Mobsta,
“I am not sure also that I said that WW thought that there should be green space on this site – but that this was their mantra which was blocking rational thinking and effective dialogue…..”
I am certainly not defending WW, I am just pointing out that the issues are wider than their case alone, and certainly more complex than the superficial criticism levelled in the original post.
A hotel on the Outer Tee? I’m not against it, but it needs to be something rather more special than what was proposed in my view, and one that does not interfere with public enjoyment of the wider Waterfront, which this one threatened to do with its vehicular access (it is bad enough currently around the south and eastern sides of the TSB Arena)…
And, it should be noted that it was the Hilton that rejected the option of ammending their design so as not to violate the principles in the Framework. The appeal did not come to the conclusion that a Hotel was inappropriate for the site.
“My earlier point was we need effective dialogue for that to happen. Not kneejerk reactions by closed minded “individuals”
Much public dialogue happened, hence the Waterfront Framework, as well as in the consultation stages. Further dialogue was held between the interested parties outside of the court case, the court cases themselves were dialogue. What more could you ask for. As for it being effective, well, the Framework is pretty clear, the Hilton stepped over the mark and failed to redress that – there is the crux of the breakdown. That WCC supported this is ludicrous – they should have at least attempted to ammend the Framework first (passing a bit of validating legislation seems fashionable these days after all…)
And regarding the ‘reaction’, as I pointed out earlier, it was neither knee-jerk, nor individual. i am sure it would not have won an appeal on that basis.
“But you can put in an application (using the $55 fee) and then withdraw your appeal prior to it going to trial, delaying the project for some time.
Has that actually ever been exercised on a Waterfront Development project?
What I find intriguing about all of this is that if you take WW out of the equation, the case still would have gone ahead. You can hardly define WCT as knee-jerk reactionists, or individuals, and their case was rational and solid (obviously). They have long had an interest in Waterfront development, and in fact were founded to promote the development of the Waterfront as a mixed-use public space way back when it was disused port land. They would like to see the site developed (not necessarily without buildings, but a development that integrates both arms of the Tee, it should be added).
So where should your criticisms really be levelled? Why, at the Environment Court itself, which upheld the appeal. Implicit in the whinging about the outcome is the dismissal of the Environment Court as an effective independant authority – perhaps this is where the debate (hopefully one not founded upon ill-informed generalisations) should be centred?
ps – I’m in favour of OPT too, as it does set out to “enhance the waterfront experience”. The Hilton, otoh, proposed severe adverse effects to the public experience…
[Poneke: You keep on saying one should blame the court and its judges. That is bizarre. The court can only judge a case brought before it, based on the relevant legislation. The judges did not bring the case. WW did, as well as a competing hotel and some others. It is thus the nimbys (or should that be the "not evers" and the Intercontinental that should be blamed. And hence I do blame them.]
June 19, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Poneke – What I am saying is that you if you are stating that WW were out of line, then you are implying that the Environment Court, who upheld their view, ruled incorrectly.
If, otoh, you agree that the Court decision was a valid one, then you have to accept that the initial appeal was valid. If that is the case, then you would be agreeing with the WW and others that the Hilton proposal was not suitable under current legislation…
Perhaps though, your issue is with the legislation itself (also criticised by the Court). If this is the case, then you should be levelling criticism there as well (or in fact primarily, rather than shooting the messenger) – and this is an area that you can actually do something about – especially with a public forum that could promote alternatives/ammendments, rather than engaging in the very same superficial knee-jerk reaction that you accuse others of being guilty of.
That development is being held up is because the Court has pushed the WCC into developing more robust legislation – this was not the intention of those who put forward the appeal at all, and is an issue with WCC management more than anyone else.
June 19, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Sam, you and I are on the same page on most issues.
My initial comment, (and I possibly should be more clear about these things….), is that I think that WW are not the organisation they should be.
I think you are being extremely generous when you say “[WW] would like to see the site developed (not necessarily without buildings), but a development…”
I’ve been to meetings where a space for a proposed building is shown on a drawing and the WW people look at each other, purse their lips, tut tut under their breath, and then sit there with furrowed brows….
Until proven otherwise I will not change my mind that they go to bed at night dreaming “grass good, buildings bad…. grass good, buildings bad….”
June 19, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Mobsta – you mised the fact that I was referring to WCT (Wellington Civic Trust), not WW.
They were, in fact, rather strange bedfellows for the case (especially with the Intercontinental, and other businesses thrown in for good measure).
June 19, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Would it be possible to subvert Waterfront Watch from the inside?
i.e. join it, and argue in favour of development.
You’d still be ‘watching’ the waterfront…
June 19, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Would it be possible to subvert Waterfront Watch from the inside? i.e. join it, and argue in favour of development. You’d still be ‘watching’ the waterfront…
Being a subversive from way back, I like the idea!
I’d also like to join some pro-public transport group, and also support improved roads, as I believe we need both.
June 19, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I remember a number of years back an Architect from Arizona who came to Wellington to talk to the NZIA conference.
He is a rather prominent Architect by the name of Will Bruder.
He joined Waterfront Watch in the three days he was here in town and went along to one of their meetings.
WW was apparently very chuffed that this esteemed Architect would join the cause.
He was asked to speak.
Imagine their surprise when he spoke about the need for buildings to draw people to the waterfront, make it vibrant and give it soul. He spoke about the need for good architecture.
It was not what they wanted to hear.
Subversion indeed.
June 20, 2008 at 8:39 am
It would require a critical mass to change the tide – I’ll join it if you will too…
June 20, 2008 at 12:43 pm
That area already has plenty of “24-hour life” doesn’t it? What with Dockside & Shed 5 and the rest by night, and the events centre, the helicopters and the kayaks by day…
I’m sure the Auckland Hilton is lovely if you’re staying in it. But at wharf level it is still just a big lifeless building, albeit a nice new white one rather than an old grey one!
June 20, 2008 at 12:57 pm
But why not more people?
Who cares that there is already “life” there…. that is a red herring.
Also the Auckland Hilton is massive.
Takes ages to walk around it.
I personally don’t think that it is well done with the public interface.
The Wellington one would have been different.
It is much smaller and the Framework provides for a lot more public interaction. Auckland (when the Hilton was built) did not have any guiding documents to ensure this.
All moot anyway….
The question is now – what does go on the site?
I have not seen a single idea from critics (or otherwise) about the use of this tatty T.
June 21, 2008 at 9:34 pm
What goes on the site ? ..What goes on the site ???!! Must something always GO on the site?
What should not go is another bloody hotel. Think about the space, the people who live in the city. Where do they GO when another public area gets privatised?
June 23, 2008 at 10:10 am
The space?
The people who live in the city?
Are they the same people that flock to Dockside (public area privatised?) Shed 5 (public area privatised?), any of the restaurants / bars under Herd St (public area privatised?).
These are all areas that the public heads to that have been developed for the enjoyment of the public.
Even Waitangi Park would not be the park that it is without the peripheral activities (childrens park, skate park, restaurants etc…)
At present the wharf and buildings on the T need to be upgraded. If a developer (not necessarily a dirty word) doesn’t do it, then it gets left to us, the ratepayers to do it….
January 2, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Waterfront Watch may have started out with some egalatarian ideals to promote a better waterfront however they have descended into a myopic group that are against what over 80% of the people of Wellington want. They have become the group that wants no development at all, no Meridian building with its award wining public space development, no Overseas Passenger Terminal Development, they seemingly would rather the Council footed the $20 odd million refurbishment of the wharf structure with additional rates.
The development undertaken since the framework document was completed has been outstanding. The buildings tasteful and the public space development brings favourable comments from all of the overwhelming majority of people in Wellington.
What has Waterfront Watch contributed to this. Sadly not that much that is positive but they have ensured significant additional cost it would seem as they try to drag every good project through a Resource Management appeals process.