Public get no say on waterside skyscraper

Tuesday April 22, 2008
By Bernard Orsman

http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/tower7.jpg

The world's biggest shopping centre owner, Westfield, plans to build a 41-storey skyscraper on its Downtown site at the bottom of Queen St.

It will be one of the tallest buildings in Auckland and the tallest on the waterfront, soaring over the nearby 26-storey PricewaterhouseCoopers and 19-storey HSBC towers.

At 67 storeys, the proposed 259-unit Elliott apartment tower on the corner of Elliott, Albert and Victoria Sts will be Auckland's tallest building, almost as tall as the 328m-high Sky Tower.

Planning commissioners Greg Hill and Conway Stewart yesterday gave Westfield the nod to proceed with the tower on a non-notified basis, meaning the public will not get to have a say.

The commissioners, appointed by Auckland City Council, are expected to decide this week whether to grant resource consent for the building, which will have a two-level retail podium and 39 storeys of office/plant space. Council officers have recommended the building be granted resource consent with conditions.

Westfield NZ director Justin Lynch said the first step was to get resource consent. The company had yet to determine the timing of the project.

It has created a stir among transport agencies because it is right above a proposed $1 billion underground loop from Britomart to Mt Eden.

Westfield and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority have been discussing how to build the foundations to allow a tunnel to pass under the building.

Mr Lynch said the company was looking at engineering and geotechnical designs in conjunction with the transport authority. Authority chief Fergus Gammie said the rail loop had to be protected "and we will be ensuring that happens".

Currently, there is no designation over the planned 3.5km tunnel between Britomart and Mt Eden, which would run beneath Albert St with underground stations near Wellesley St and Karangahape Rd.

By turning Britomart into a through station, the loop would make it possible for 400,000 Aucklanders to reach the central business district within 30 minutes by rail, doubling the existing catchment.

Yay for two reasons.
1. Nice tall building !!!
2. "Joe Public" won't get an opportunity to stymie a legitimate use of this site. :)

That block will be looking rather grand once all done. Absolutely no loss with the mall getting bowled. As long as they can still build the underground loop. I'd take a tunnel over a 40 story tower on the site any day. Real cities have metros.

what a fantastic way to start the day!!

lower queen street is gonna rock soon

LOL, yep just saw this on the herald and rushed to post it but I'm beaten I see. Hopefully this one goes ahead. 41 floors should be around 140m? Give or take 5m.

That block will be looking rather grand once all done. Absolutely no loss with the mall getting bowled. As long as they can still build the underground loop. I'd take a tunnel over a 40 story tower on the site any day. Real cities have metros.

I agree, but looks like they seem confident both can go ahead. I don't see why not, I'm sure tunnels are going under half of NYC's scrapers for example.

It may have something to do with that part of the city being reclaimed land. Also I know that in NY they have incredibly solid bedrock, while in AK there is all sorts of problems due to all the volcanic activity in the area. For example my building, precinct, while really thin north to south still had serious problems. The north side went down 10 meters to hit bedrock, the south side they had to go down 65 meters and had to spend millions bringing in capable equipment from oz. Should something similar occur and affect the rail tunnel it would be a serious blow to us non car driving folk (there are some). Still, I'm no engineer. Anyone have any thoughts?

The graphic on the front page of the Herald says 41 storeys and approx 160 meters tall :)

I agree that making sure the building doesn't screw up opportunities to build that underground loop is very important. Frustratingly, there is no designation for the underground loop so we're basically relying on Westfield's goodwill to provide foundations in a suitable manner.

Goodwill? That doesn't sound good. Does the council seriously not have any teeth on this matter? And why the non-notified consent, especially given the location? Bankys back in full force I guess.

I'm smiling. :D

Good news here. Makes sense after all the news about high office occupancies. Is a bit of a looker as well. IM sure Ive read here that the current Westfield site is a bit of a dump so this should keep people more than happy. Except for readers of the Herald, expect a backlash soon.

My fingers are crossed for you guys. Want to see what this will look like on the skyline from different vantage points as well..

Love the way the Herald can make a negative out of a positive...
"Public get no say on waterside skyscraper"

I hope they use the glass shown in the renders - very swish!! :D

Should be a good addition to the skyline :banana:

It would be interesting to see how big the retail componenet of this project will be. Two levels of retail. I am wondering if that would be 100 shops or it could be on a scale like Broadway in Sydney which is over 200 shops.

Yes usually 4m for Office Floor Plates ....so 160m plus :banana:

Are there any other renders? and is that the final design?

Council only has teeth to ensure the foundations don't mess up any future rail line if there's something like a designation in place for the inner-city loop. At the moment the inner-city loop doesn't exist in any form legally, so there's nothing council can do. However, i think Westfield will probably come to the party and design things so the tunnel can be built around it. They may ask for some compensation for extra cost, which i think is fair enough.

Regarding non-notification, I think that the Elliott Tower has shown us there's nothing much to be gained through notifying skyscrapers. You just end up with stupid submissions such as Sky City's.

I'm sure they'll work around it. It would be terrible PR to screw over a major project.

maybe a bit hard to incorporate at this stage but maybe Westfield would like their own station? Or at least a station with good connections to their mall. How close exactly is Britomart Station to this place? Could it feasibly be extended into one super big platform? That would then be worthy of a city this size.

^^ That's my thinking. I think if there's an extra cost they should be somehow compensated. Or perhaps in the future some underground level of the Westfield could be incorporated into a lengthened through station. There would be decent foot-traffic at Britomart in 2015 I would guess.

Edit: Great minds think alike min chips.

It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't build a station in advance in the hope that trains would stop there. Didn't that huge ASB tower have an underground station built too?

^^ Jesus you guys are also right. Great mind do indeed think alike. we need to be on the council! :lol: I remember a link from a Sydney station (Town Hall?) to a rather cruddy shopping centre. Thought it flowed well even though the mall was pretty yukky. Now I think of it it might have been Martin Place, or possibly both. Westfield would be pretty wise to incorporate something like this into their plans. Anyways Im confused, must be lunchtime.


BTW, ice skating was way cool Jarbury! :cheers:

I like the design, but my problem lies with the height. The Herald shows it as being roughly the same size as the Vero Centre... which is huge. On the shoreline I'm not too sure about how this would work for the skyline. We have a number of 100m buildings (IAG, Old BNZ and Deloitte are all about 100m) that would be completely blocked out by Westfield. Quay West as well, probably.

Other than that, it's great that it's happening so quickly! If only Elliot, Saffron and the other one... (its name escapes me) would be so easily built :ohno:

I think the building will stand out quite a lot, and therefore its detailed design is important. Judging by the first render it seems to look OK, I wonder if we can dig up anymore information about the project.

In Syndey you can walk from Town Hall station to around the Grace Brothers department store completely underground. I think this is about 2-3 long blocks, and does include the QVB. I think Westfield might be pretty keen on at least future proofing the building so it can work with an enlarged Britomart station in the future.

Council only has teeth to ensure the foundations don't mess up any future rail line if there's something like a designation in place for the inner-city loop. At the moment the inner-city loop doesn't exist in any form legally, so there's nothing council can do. However, i think Westfield will probably come to the party and design things so the tunnel can be built around it. They may ask for some compensation for extra cost, which i think is fair enough.

Regarding non-notification, I think that the Elliott Tower has shown us there's nothing much to be gained through notifying skyscrapers. You just end up with stupid submissions such as Sky City's.

Cheers for that jarbury. I'd only imagine notified consent would be of relavence if the construction did impact on AK's public transport. And your probably right, given the number of Westfield malls in AK they would be mad to screw with Britomart.

The caption under the graphic on the website say "Herald Graphic" of proposed tower.

It might look nothing like this. It may look even better :)

It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't build a station in advance in the hope that trains would stop there. Didn't that huge ASB tower have an underground station built too?

Surely being across the road from Britomart, it doesn't need its own station - just an underground walkway/connection.

At last something new and exciting to talk about! It seems like ages since wev'e had a decent propsal to kick some life into this forum..... :banana:

...stirring up the Herald readers.

This from Contributor "CBD99" - the irony (or is it???) of that name.....

"Once again this "views" section is hijacked by members from a skyscraper enthusiasts website - skyscrapercity.com. Pretty much ensures a skewed result in the commentary.

The public has every right to participate in the design of this tower - what reasonable, democratically-based argument can be made opposing public invovlement? Once again, like the Elliot Tower (designed by the head of the Urban Design Panel, no less - conflict of interest anyone?), design and suitability to Auckland's landscape and current / historical urban landscape is thrown out the window.

But then again, John Banks has always been cosy with developers. The disaster that is the Nelson-Hobson Street ridge should be enough to ensure constant public invovlement in such projects.

When will Auckland learn?! Good design should always beat out ego, but ego reigns supreme in Auckland"

Wow a 41 levels office- retail building? :banana::banana::banana:
Sounds like 170m - 180m to me. :)

...stirring up the Herald readers.

This from Contributor "CBD99" - the irony (or is it???) of that name.....

"Once again this "views" section is hijacked by members from a skyscraper enthusiasts website - skyscrapercity.com. Pretty much ensures a skewed result in the commentary.

The public has every right to participate in the design of this tower - what reasonable, democratically-based argument can be made opposing public invovlement? Once again, like the Elliot Tower (designed by the head of the Urban Design Panel, no less - conflict of interest anyone?), design and suitability to Auckland's landscape and current / historical urban landscape is thrown out the window.

But then again, John Banks has always been cosy with developers. The disaster that is the Nelson-Hobson Street ridge should be enough to ensure constant public invovlement in such projects.

When will Auckland learn?! Good design should always beat out ego, but ego reigns supreme in Auckland"

Was this printed in the Herald or posted on the Herald website? If it was posted on the website it makes you wonder just why on earth such vitriolic people would bother reading this site.

Was this printed in the Herald or posted on the Herald website? If it was posted on the website it makes you wonder just why on earth such vitriolic people would bother reading this site.

Yeah - it was on the site, at the "Read Your Views" link attached to the story.

There are some classics......

Good news indeed. As long as they sort out something for the rail tunnel, I don't see too many problems. And its not anywhere near the Sky Tower so SkyCity can't complain this time lol!

yes! as long as its not near that skytower !! we will know in a week wether it gets consent, so thats good..no muckin around ! :)

fantastic news! Im so happy the ugly westfield mall will go!!! Enigma needs to see this! lol :cheers:

Strange that someone suggested we had bombarded the herald your views say. Thats kinda the last place on earth I would bother to air my opinion. I avoid that site like the plague. Good to know though that people are aware of our little community- maybe they feel threatened that some people actually care about urban development.

Anyways.....

Good news, as suggested somewhere here it has been in the offing for an office only building to be announced, rents getting tight and all.

Strange aint it, we get lots of proposals that lurch and stumble their way with many casualties not crossing the line. Then occassionally the odd one whacks us all on the face from outta nowhere pretty much confirmed and ready to go.

Lazy reader today might have skipped over it but can anyone advise date of construction/completion?

^^Nothing reported re: construction schedules, but if this gets consent quickly we could be looking at some action on site in a couple of months, depending on if Westfield wants to build this speculatively and get office tenants later, or if they want a certain level of pre-commitment to some of the office space from a major tenant (which shouldn't be too hard either way).

Non-notified consents "should" be processed within 4 weeks of lodgement. I imagine that this consent was lodged a while ago, with a few Section 92 requests etc., but yes flyin' is right things shouldn't drag on very long because of the non-notification. I think the applicant is the only person who can appeal to the environment court, and they're only likely to do so if they end up having overly harsh conditions or if council declines consent... which I suppose is possible, although pretty unlikely if they're not even going to notify.

Therefore, if my calculations are correct:

Kiwiscrapers = :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Correct? :P

This forum is actually very well known for some reason. I've been to a couple of totally unrelated forums (gaming, sport) and I've seen this forum mentioned lots of times. Weird.

I reckon lots of people have a secret obession with scrapers, and most of them are just too embarrassed to admit it. Well, we're not! Lurkers, sign up and post!

Sexy time!

I know I've craped on about SSC to many folk. Usually I'll be chatting to someone about (insert development/urban issue here) and they will look at me rather strange and ask how on earth I know so much. To which I respond, SSC, it's the badest. :cheers:

I was visiting this site for a least 2 years before I actually posted anything. Since 2005 I think so I'm sure there must be many people reading these pages but not actually commenting. Come to think of it I read it everyday and still hardly say anything! :lol:

^^Yea just shows that kiwiscrapers is the shiznitz ;) lol

thats what happened to me to lol, i was reading this thread for about a year before anything hehehe

i'd love to see what it looks like

Well unless ARTA can convince them to make the foundations stable for the tunnel we will be getting completely screwed by this one. Who's to say Westfield doesn't want to build ten levels of underground car parking? They really have the council over a barrel, and can basically ask for whatever they want compensation wise. The council needs to get their act together and put in a hold over the land through which the tunnel will eventually be built. Transit was about to book the land under the tank farm for the new tunnel there, and that won't be built for another 20-30 years. Realistically, if this was a tunnel for cars we wouldn't be worrying about this, as it is we may soon be kissing an underground rail loop goodbye.

I wouldn't count on any sort of sympathy from Westfield, they're not the world's biggetst mall owner by just giving away rights to prime downtown carparking land....and if they refuse, aside from the few PT people who care, everyone else will have forgotten about it by lunchtime....

Great to see Westfield UPDATE there current *dowdy* building:)...expected start date??????

http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/tower7.jpg
So by looking at this picture, is the tower going to go up on the corner of Albert and Customs Streets, or is it Albert and Quay Streets??

More for the Albert Canyon! Who would have thought? lol
I am expecting another announcement by West Plaza once it is refurbished from the inside :banana:

Bala (Auckland Central)

Those of us who have apartments south of the Britomart complex have had to accept a slow but steady loss of view of the harbour due to new building. At least we knew beforehand how tall these buildings were going to be. Now the Bluewater Group wants to increase its planned hotel on the old Seafarers site on Quay Street from 10 stories to no less than 21 stories! They are pleading that only 21 stories would be financially viable. Yeah right! Corporate greed rules with no regard for the loss of amenity. Auckland City Council made a big thing about keeping all building in Britomart within very strict limits & we applauded them for that. This new application, if allowed, would grossly violate that promise. Please ACC, don't allow this application.



From NZ Herald "Your Views" Section :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Another suburban mum stuck in the city? lol

^^ lol must be..

http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/tower7.jpg
So by looking at this picture, is the tower going to go up on the corner of Albert and Customs Streets, or is it Albert and Quay Streets??



Im pretty sure by looking at it its the Customs and Albert Corner

^^Yep that's it. Would be keen to see the design from other perspectives.

I think it looks great! The blue glass is nice although I dont understand the white glass :nuts:

^^lol yea must be 'feature glass'.

From NZ Herald "Your Views" Section :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Another suburban mum stuck in the city? lol

I really don't understand these people. What do they expect? They live in the CBD! The Central BUSINESS District. The area is zoned thus, and that means there will be lots of high rises. Do they really expect their apartment to be forever protected from future development?

I really don't understand these people. What do they expect? They live in the CBD! The Central BUSINESS District. The area is zoned thus, and that means there will be lots of high rises. Do they really expect their apartment to be forever protected from future development?

No, they obviously dont expect their views to be protected forever, but If the council made promises or plans that the britomart area would not go over a certain height then a few people may have bought in a particular building based on those promises. Ofcourse, normally, if you buy in the city , you expect to be built in front of, but if the council made promises then I would be rather dissapointed too.


Anyway, back to this building, the design seems quite good, although yellow pillars are not exactly the most attractive addition.

Im reasonably impressed, although a little lower may have been better( preparing for backlash) , but anything is better than what is there currently.

It is pretty impressive! I think it looks better than Vero and possibly taller/same height?

it looks way better than vero, but thats only the heralds image of it isnt it?

No I'm sure thats the image of the real building. Im also sure that the Herald wouldn't employ Computer Specialists and Architects specifically to make graphics of new building? :nuts:

Anyway, back to this building, the design seems quite good, although yellow pillars are not exactly the most attractive addition.


:lol:

Yeah, I feel similarly ill-disposed towards yellow pillars. Totally in favour of the rest of the building though, including height. Better than I had ever hoped from Westfield!:cheers:

No I'm sure thats the image of the real building. Im also sure that the Herald wouldn't employ Computer Specialists and Architects specifically to make graphics of new building? :nuts:

lol bluff man ... who knows these days eh ;) good old herald :nuts:

dont you just love westfields
ive added it in monthly diagrams
buffmaster told me about it
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2299/2450273303_c6a075daf1_o.jpg

^^ Gee-wiz, does he get paid for this ... how sad :ohno:

HELLO !! WESTFIELD ? I want this instead (I am so bored with average) .... average stadium, average 5 star hotel, average office tower, average street scapes, average, average, average ... when are we ever going to embrace WOW !!

http://www.archiedu.com/home/downloads/Uploads/c03-0910-%5BLow_Rez%5D.jpg

http://www.archiedu.com/home/downloads/Uploads/c08(09-07)-%5BLow_Rez%5D.jpg

^^ Where is that being built, Syd?

^^ Where is that being built, Syd?

Prishtina (of all places) ... I hope that I have the correct spelling ?

Wow, Kosovo is obviously doing all right for itself. In saying that I'd still rather have what we have here than to live in Albania!

A lot of these formerly poor countries are attracting a lot of investment as they have cheap labour, fewer building regulations, and untapped markets for developments.

Wow, Kosovo is obviously doing all right for itself. In saying that I'd still rather have what we have here than to live in Albania!

A lot of these formerly poor countries are attracting a lot of investment as they have cheap labour, fewer building regulations, and untapped markets for developments.

I am not saying that I want to live in Kosovo ... I am saying that we need to up our game ... there is no if or but, we are lagging waaaaaaay behind when it comes to design .... fuck average, I don't want it and I am not going to tolerate it either.

Some of the shit that is proposed for Auckland was built in the f'ing 80's .... NZ/Auckland is NOT a poor country/city, the quicker that mentality goes the better it will be for NZ and all that sail in her :) ... The good ship D-Zina is leaving port for ever.

I agree that some of the designs are conservative to say the least, but baby steps of improvement in design are being taken! Elliott is a great tower, and some of our heritage buildings are being given nice little facelifts too.

From a design point of view, Auckland has come a long way since the last Banks Reign of Terror (TM). :lol:

You and I differ a lot on what we look for in a design. I tend to view things as functional entities first and aesthetically second, which is why I tend to like the simplicity of a lot of Japanese design.

I agree that some of the designs are conservative to say the least, but baby steps of improvement in design are being taken! Elliott is a great tower, and some of our heritage buildings are being given nice little facelifts too.

From a design point of view, Auckland has come a long way since the last Banks Reign of Terror (TM). :lol:

You and I differ a lot on what we look for in a design. I tend to view things as functional entities first and aesthetically second, which is why I tend to like the simplicity of a lot of Japanese design.

I love simplicity as well - Mies van der Rohe is my hero ... but boring, lack of creativity and regression is not on my party list. Oh well, just three more years, let's hope that I don't burst a coronary before that and God help me when I start working in an architectural practice next year .. I may have to take a box of pins with me and see how many ways there is to stick pins in my eyes - any form of creativity should help to keep me sane.

HELLO !! WESTFIELD ? I want this instead (I am so bored with average) .... average stadium, average 5 star hotel, average office tower, average street scapes, average, average, average ... when are we ever going to embrace WOW !!



I agree although I wouldn't regard the '5 star hotel' as "Average"...Its disgusting :ohno:

I agree although I wouldn't regard the '5 star hotel' as "Average"...Its disgusting :ohno:

:lol: I was being nice ... the stadium is also below average but Auckland gets what it deserves ....

:lol: I was being nice ... the stadium is also below average but Auckland gets what it deserves ....

Well, I'll agree with you 100% about the Stadium that's for sure!

WOW! Awesome Architecture.....Go Kosovo:cheers:

***

Maybe after The Chancery developers realised there was no point in proposing beautiful towers for this city as no one appreciated them? :lol:

On the good news side I estimate once this tower is complete I will no longer be able to see Harbour Residences (that's the really tall, ugly, white one, right?) when taking the ferry (from Birkenhead.) That is good news indeed.:banana:

For the record, I think the Herald Graphic design looks good. It's very small, but a better render could surprise you.

No point basing our opinions on a small low quality picture presented to the Herald. From what I see I dont mind the design. Im obsessed with height and density though so happy for this one to go ahead. What I really want is to see how this one will look on the skyline, then I can start salivating.

Im sure Westfield will produce the goods on this one. The retail component alone should look impressive, they will be starting with a blank slate and wont have too many restrictions regarding space.

The Priština building is OK, would love to see something like that too, but dont in anyway think that is a normal building there, its their Skytower, Empire state, Swiss RE Gherkin, Beijing Airport, etc all rolled in one. Dont want to Balkanize this thread but they NEED to make a bold statement.

^^ Auckland has ....... mmmmmm ...... Sky Tower :) We also NEED to make a bold statement, no good sitting on our laurels and chilling (it reminds me of that ad where they are handing out gold, diamonds, oil etc and NZ takes the pineapple lumps, very proud of itself :lol:) ... then there is the ad with the actor going on about how NZ said no to this and no to that but he should say that NZ says NO to everything ;)

This could also work for me .....

http://www.skyscrapers.cn/forum/attachments/20080501_b2283921e9c4f9adcc77ZFk58htCol20.jpg

^^ That building is okay... I'm actually not a huge fan, but then it could always be a bad render (bit like the current Westfield).

^^ That building is okay... I'm actually not a huge fan, but then it could always be a bad render (bit like the current Westfield).

Here's one for you ... you did say that you like commie-blocks ;) Function over form/aesthetics ... Don't say that I don't think about you :)

http://images.apartments.com/propimages/127571/001/BL010164.JPG

^^Looks like the Auckland Council building to me!

Hahaha! Only some commieblocks! That one isn't that terrible (compared to some of the British ones like Trelleck tower and those down Nelson St/Hobson St area)!

I think the biggest problem I have with the building you posted, Syd is the ever decreasing size of the triangles. It makes the building look unharmonious in my humble opinion.

Here is one example of commieblocks I quite like.

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn38/aledemmer/Berlin%20II/ber37.jpg
Photographed by Schmidt (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=613175)

Horses for courses, Syd!

Hahaha! Only some commieblocks! That one isn't that terrible (compared to some of the British ones like Trelleck tower and those down Nelson St/Hobson St area)!

I think the biggest problem I have with the building you posted, Syd is the ever decreasing size of the triangles. It makes the building look unharmonious in my humble opinion.

Horses for courses, Syd!

I think that it is regular, I can't seem to find a better render but I am willing to bet that the play of light and shadow effects will make that building look alive and very sexy ;) ... the commie-block that you posted reminds me of Le Corbusier's "Unite d' Habitation" ..


^^Looks like the Auckland Council building to me!

:lol: You are so right

Not quite as brutalist as Le Corbusier's visions, but of a similar sort of vein (but not dirty, run down and afflicted with concrete cancer). The thing I like about them is the cladding which sets them apart from the regular bare concrete blocks.

Not quite as brutalist as Le Corbusier's visions, but of a similar sort of vein (but not dirty, run down and afflicted with concrete cancer). The thing I like about them is the cladding which sets them apart from the regular bare concrete blocks.

Mmmmmmm ... as you say - horses for courses ;)

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/project/uploaded_files/2154_Prima385.jpg
This would be perfect for Nelson/Hobson Street area! :)
http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/2232_1_Warsaw1.jpg
And something like this wouldnt be too bad ;)




Back to topic...When is this going to be approved? and when are more renders gonna become available?

Brian Rudman: Rubber-stamp for Westfield's 41-storey monstrosity beggars belief
5:00AM Monday May 05, 2008
By Brian Rudman

I'm rather an agnostic when it comes to the merits of the proposed 41-storey skyscraper opposite the Britomart train station. The existing Westfield shopping centre is such a manky dog's breakfast that it's hard to imagine anything going there being worse.

What does beggar belief is that Auckland City, in persuading its planning commissioners to rubber-stamp the resource consent application, has made no effort to protect the crucial rail tunnel, which is planned to pass through the site a few metres underground.

Only in Auckland could one branch of officialdom calmly give the nod to a vast above-ground development seemingly oblivious that, just down the corridor, their colleagues were finalising plans for a giant transport tunnel right where the skyscraper's foundation pillars need to go. The irony, if one can find any humour in this, is that the Waitemata Harbour Crossing Study, which revealed its latest plans last Friday just as the resource consent decision became public, was commissioned last year to ensure such a clash did not occur.

In the case of the harbour crossing study, the task was to ensure any future harbour tunnel or bridge project did not clash with redevelopment plans for the Wynyard Quarter Tank Farm. This has been achieved in the new recommended options, with proposed road and rail tunnels now skirting under or around the Tank Farm, instead of popping up in the middle as originally planned. But one of the new tunnels is supposed to carry passenger rail under the harbour then under the proposed skyscraper site into Britomart.

Even if this North Shore rail tunnel seems an unlikely proposition, the proposed 3.5km tunnel west out of Britomart running under Albert St south to Mt Eden is not. It is a vital link in the region's long-term plans to put 400,000 Aucklanders within 30 minutes of the CBD by rail.

Yet the Auckland City bureaucracy, which has been intimately involved both in the harbour crossing study and overall rail planning, recommended to the commissioners hearing the Westfield application that the consent should go through on a non-notified basis. That any adverse effects it might have would be at worst "minor".

Hearing commissioners Greg Hill and Conway Stewart went along with this. They noted that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority had advised Auckland City that "it intends to lodge a notice of requirement (NOR) for a CBD rail tunnel which, according to ARTA, will affect this site", but that "no NOR had been lodged at the time of determining this application". The commissioners said that "accordingly, while acknowledging that any proposed CBD rail tunnel is a significant strategic issue for the city/region, it has had no influence in the commissioners' determination of this application". If ever one needed further evidence for governance reform of Auckland, this nonsensical decision to turn a judicial blind eye to the obvious impact this building will have on the future traffic artery is it.

Auckland Regional Council chairman Mike Lee, a leader in the fight for better public transport, says the decision is "outrageous", "irresponsible" and "absolutely arrogant". He says the visual impact of such a building on the waterfront is going to be significant enough alone to entitle people to comment. "But the fact it's going to severely compromise the future rail tunnel is another reason why you would let it go through proper open process. What's the rush? Who are they working for, the public or the Australian property developers?"

Mr Lee said Auckland City planning general manager John Duthie had been "intimately involved in the harbour crossing work. Why the hell would you do this?"

The ARC and ARTA will now have to seek a judicial review of the resource consent decision and also begin the process of placing a designation, or NOR, over the tunnel site to protect the route.

Just to complicate the issues more, ARTA, the independent transport authority, has no power to place a designation over the transport corridor, but the ARC can.

How long all this will take is anyone's guess. But thanks to Auckland City, one thing is certain: glass tower lawyers will again enrich themselves at the expense of city and regional ratepayers. Many of us will fund both sides of this pointless battle, which only makes it worse.

Wow Rudman echoes my thoughts on the project completely. So utterly stupid that there isn't already a Notice of Requirement for the CBD loop, but surely the commissioners could have taken the proposed route somewhat into account. I certainly hope there's a way of resolving this without screwing up the rail line.

For fuck sake. I though i was being overly paranoid worrying about this issue. The depth of ineptitude in the council halls is breathtaking.

I obviously haven't read this proposal closely enough. I didn't realise that the CBD rail loop may be affected by this development. I wish I could say I was surprised that the rail link would be overlooked, but unfortunately I can't.

Lets hope that the developer has enough common sense not to do anything that may jeopardise the CBD loop (and harbour crossing).

I would imagine Westfield would not want to impede the City Loop in any way.

Direct subway access from the tower is a huge selling point, they would be mad to jeopardize this.

^^ Yes but what if it's really difficult to build the tower and protect the rail route? What if it costs a few more million? Will Westfield be keen to stump up this extra money if there's nothing saying that they have to?

i love how mike lee is worried about the visual impact of the new building and yet he presides over the ugly port of auckland

what rubbish!! I hate how Aucklanders are so quick to label certain areas of the city as 'waterfront'...Its quite stupid! The proposed tower is well off the waterfront and is right in the middle of the core commercial district. Theres plenty of other buildings of the same size and height in the same area! Why weren't they so controversial?


What Views???
Whose Views???...People just make assumptions without reason! :gaah::gaah:

:bash:

^^ There aren't really that many buildings as tall as Westfield by the waterfront. Westfield's about as tall as Vero.

But still, people arre putting too much emphasis on views! I dont understand whose views this new tower will block. Anything is better than what currently sits at the site...an almost derelict looking, lowrise, 70's suburbia style mall.

And what if it is as tall as Vero? Its in the middle of a commercial area-the CBD! We need some tall office towers now that there is demand.

I don't think Mike Lee is saying that the visual impact of the project warrants it to not go ahead, he's just saying that notification would be a good idea based on the fact that it will be really really obvious. Personally I would quite like to have a say on the building IF I didn't like the design. As it is, we haven't seen any confirmed design of the building so IF it turns out to be an ugly monster I'm sure we will all have wished we had the opportunity to make a submission.

This is quite short sighted from the Auckland City Council, surely they should have put conditions on the consent notice that provision must be made for a future rail tunnel. While I want this tower to go ahead, I don't want it to stop the future development of the CBD rail loop. As you (Jarbury) said, echo Rudman's point that this is surely a major reason why Auckland needs a single city authority.

To be honest flyin, without a designation in place or at the very least a notice of requirement (consent application), I don't think a consent condition like that could hold up well against the law.

It's kind of like stopping anyone in the vicinity of the Waterview Connection building anything throughout the past 5-10 years because they MIGHT eventually conflict with a motorway. Without anything set in place, the CBD rail loop just doesn't exist in the eye of the law. So I think the Council's hands were a bit forced in this situation.

Yea good point. I guess I was thinking more of a sort of non-legal directive form the Council to the developer to keep the option for a rail tunnel there, as a goodwill thing. But then goodwill hardly exists these days does it? lol

^^ Looks like we're going to rely on goodwill so the tunnel isn't stuffed up. Maybe Westfield might end up wanting ARTA to pay any required extra cost for ensuring the foundations don't conflict with any future tunnel. That's a solution that could work for everyone.

^^Yea, I can see ARTA would probably like to future proof it at (almost) any cost because of the significance of the rail tunnel to future PT passenger growth.

Heck yes. It's not only part of the CBD loop, but any future northern rail line is likely to pass underneath it too.

I don't think Mike Lee is saying that the visual impact of the project warrants it to not go ahead, he's just saying that notification would be a good idea based on the fact that it will be really really obvious. Personally I would quite like to have a say on the building IF I didn't like the design. As it is, we haven't seen any confirmed design of the building so IF it turns out to be an ugly monster I'm sure we will all have wished we had the opportunity to make a submission

jarbury - question

is it normal for public notification submissions etc etc in other cities around the world , and how much does weight does it really hold in the final analysis?

This proposal has a ring of "all-the-past-mistakes" to it.

The tower would be exceptionally tall for the area and will block out afternoon sun into what's left of QE2 Square. Meanwhile, the building itself appears totally devoid of imagination and doesn't seem to really utilise the unique 'L' shape of the footprint.

I always hoped there would be a redevelopment here, but in the nature of a hotel or the like, that curves to take advantage of the footprint and add some relief to the rigid box-style around downtown. And if it's going to be what Westfield proposes, it would be fantastic to have a public open space on top of what is now the foodcourt overlooking QE2 Sqaure, or even the sunnier part looking out to Princes Wharf.

So I think Brian Rudman has it right on this one. This is a bit of a monstrosity in the making. Maybe they should relocate the Chancery design here - now that would be brilliant.

I'm really interested to see a more detailed design of this one. The only thing we've seen so far is a Herald render that I am sure differs somewhat from what is actually going to be built.

Wont this absolutly destroy anyones view who lives in Quay west ?
(yes people actually live in it)

to be expected, city dwellers ;)

to be expected, city dwellers ;)


not fair though is it ? auckland is sooooooooo bakwards

^^ You are backwards! Who cares about residents at quay west! Why would anyone be so arrogant to live in the CBD thinking that their view will stay the same, yet knowing that its an area that changes all the time. One would have to expect new high rises to be built in the city! Its just like Eden park, why buy a house near a stadium if you dont want shadows cast on your house. People must have known when they bought their house near Eden park that it would eventually be re-developed! Its people who think like you who stop Auckland progressing into a world class city.

^^ You are backwards! Who cares about residents at quay west! Why would anyone be so arrogant to live in the CBD thinking that their view will stay the same, yet knowing that its an area that changes all the time. One would have to expect new high rises to be built in the city! Its just like Eden park, why buy a house near a stadium if you dont want shadows cast on your house. People must have known when they bought their house near Eden park that it would eventually be re-developed! Its people who think like you who stop Auckland progressing into a world class city.

so you'd be happy if you lived in quay west ? hmmm i dont think so

^^. I think the point is that it would seem silly to stop a development just because it partially blocks views, being the CBD and all. Being an apartment owner myself I went about checking what potential developments could go up and hinder my view and factored it in to my decision. No biggie really. I am interested as to why you consider such an outcome "backward". I could probably name a city or two that has had similar scenarios eventuate. Would the same label apply there?

i just think its irresponsible and dishonest that flats are marketted as having sea views and there is no law to preserve that view that people have paid for.

Look at the scene apartments, they could be some nice slim towers which would effect the view less and create less of a shadow on beach road and for anyone living opposite.

I wouldnt mind if the tallest buildings were all stuck on the waterfront i reckon it would look better but whats the point in having tall buildings facing the water and having no height restiction infront of it ? get what i mean ?

Arent they going to have another tall building on Fort street where that crappy carpark is ? That is going to totally ruin the view for people at the metroplis. There's reasons why the Met is expensive and a desireable place to live, It looks good, its in a great location, and they have an uniterupted view out to sea.

In the long run i see that placing tall buildings infront of other tall buildings and blocking their view brings down the value and apeal of a building

I bought in an appartment tower (precinct) that was marketed as having certain views (north) as being indefinate. Were they to market the building and lie about that fact then yeah, I'd be more than a little pissed. That said I'm not sure many people would buy an apartment in a city not expecting subsequent urban development. Seems a tad silly.

I do get your point thou, especially with regards to the Scene development. While buildings are an inevitability certain design criteria should be implemented to ensure at least some preservation of views. Just look at those shockingly crappy developements Hobson st, where you look straight into a concrete wall. No gaps at all. Disgusting.

I bought in an appartment tower (precinct) that was marketed as having certain views (north) as being indefinate. Were they to market the building and lie about that fact then yeah, I'd be more than a little pissed. That said I'm not sure many people would buy an apartment in a city not expecting subsequent urban development. Seems a tad silly.

I do get your point thou, especially with regards to the Scene development. While buildings are an inevitability certain design criteria should be implemented to ensure at least some preservation of views. Just look at those shockingly crappy developements Hobson st, where you look straight into a concrete wall. No gaps at all. Disgusting.

There are some really crappy flats in my home city, similar to hobson st but not as tall. TBH i wouldnt be worried about those as i reckon in 15-20 years they'll be knocked down, just like the ones back home will, then that whole area will be opened up again :)

It' all about getting rid of nanny state, encourage people to think for themselves. It is so obvious that a cbd is going to have development. Someone didnt just stick their fingers up their arse and pull out the existing cbd, nor did it fall out of the sky and lay flat on the shores of the Waitemata. haha. A cbd is ever evolving.
And chances are, those who live in those apartments, were at one stage the ones blocking other peoples views.

Also, as each individual building is the product of an individual developer and built entirely with the motivation of profit in mind, there should be no burden of responsibilty fall on anyone else to maintain the value of it. It is up to the developer to anticipate future changes around the building and to try and negate them as much as possible in their design, and for purchasers to make an intelligent and informed decision.

That said, it seems some sort of view preservation law exists for Scene, because I've heard it mentioned a couple of times in reference to that hotel development in Britomart. Quite ironic, considering how renowned Scene's own sins in this regard are.

Is this mixed use ? like retail/office and apartments ? sorry couldnt be arsed going through the thread lol

Also does this mean that the Westfield downtown will be completly demolished ? or is it just a corner of it ? I know a few of the shops have recently been refitted out thats all

^^lazy lol

No it's all office as far as we know, and yes it will probably mean substantial demolition of parts of downtown mall.

I disagree about the nanny state - regulation of what is being built, how it looks and where it is built lead to liveable cities. The Hobson street disaster is an example of letting the market do what it wants - and there are many cities worldwide that are examples of what disasters cities are when no one is controlling the cowboys.

Unfortunately we will be stuck with the Hobson street blocks for a long long time, considering the hundreds of units and that each has a separate private title, buying them all to knock the building down would be near to impossible. The only way I can see it happening is if Transit said they were building a motorway and everyone was forced to sell up - baring that then those buildings are here to stay!

I disagree about the nanny state - regulation of what is being built, how it looks and where it is built lead to liveable cities. The Hobson street disaster is an example of letting the market do what it wants - and there are many cities worldwide that are examples of what disasters cities are when no one is controlling the cowboys.

Unfortunately we will be stuck with the Hobson street blocks for a long long time, considering the hundreds of units and that each has a separate private title, buying them all to knock the building down would be near to impossible. The only way I can see it happening is if Transit said they were building a motorway and everyone was forced to sell up - baring that then those buildings are here to stay!

You seem to forget that Hobson Street was a disaster before those apartment blocks went up - just a strip-mall of two-storied warehouses and retail outlets with rows of car parks facing the street. So in that sense the apartments have not deteriorated the area, only maintained the shitty standard it already was.

I personally believe that it is the council's childish height restrictions and zonings (which appear to be following no greater strategy than acheiving a smooth line of gradient between the CBD and the surrounding ocean of suburbs) that is too blame. Given the restrictions in place, what was ever going to go up there but cheaply built apartment blocks? And you can see that nobody has learnt anything from this, because the viability of the Victoria Depot there (which has the potential to be supurb) is being suffocated by an insistence that no building transcend a certain height. In fact, the whole area around Victoria Park has the ability to be a really thriving hub, but the regulations in place at the moment make sure this will never happen. They'll fuck up the Tank Farm as well for a similiar reason. Just wait and see.

Look, it is as obvious to me as anyone else that what the whole area needs is a street-level interface of shops and facilities rather than blank walls and grills and car parks in order to make the place a pleasant environment to walk through, but without surrounding density then these facilities will not be able to survive and all that will be left is glass windows with 'For Lease' signs up. So how can you blame the developers for that?

My point is (and this might not be the right place for it) that Auckland suffers from a density-crisis and it is only the resolution of this that can lead the city out of the mire it is in. Constantly focusing on aesthetics is a like an alcoholic blaming bad luck for all his failed relationships. And constantly blaming developers is letting the real culprits off the hook: those ridiculous men (highly trained experts in urban-planning for God's sake!) who sit within the council and concoct unrealizable utopias of world-class CBDs, but at a human scale of development that Kiwis will be comfortable with.

Yeah lol its kind of ridiculous how there's height limits in the Victoria Quarter....If you see behind the Sky Tower, theres endless rows of low rise warehouses.
If the height regulations were a bit leniant, then Im sure we would have seen more developers buying up land and developing it (to the best standard hopefully)

um thank god they built those hideous appartments on hobson.. atleast i can walk down that street and not feel like im in an alleyway lol :cheers:

has this one been given the resource consent?

^^Yes lol, weren't you following this just a few pages back?
It's basically up to Westfield now when/if they go ahead with the project.

well i wasnt really sure...There isnt much info on this one anywhere!
It hasnt been covered by BD Central...no project website either

Just a couple of articles by Brian Rudman!

Nothing on ACC website either

P.S. if its approved then shouldnt you change the title? :D

^^Yea but it was posted all over this thread lol. Anyway, it would be nice to see some proper renders of the bldg. The Herald graphic was fairly small.

P.S. if its approved then shouldnt you change the title? :D
Yea I may as well do that ;) Although I still feel that it's just a proposal, because we haven't heard anything concrete about it.

lol exactly!

^^An approved proposal at that hehe. :D

I thought that it had been declared ¨non-notified¨ but hadn´t actually been approved yet? I guess that things might have changed whilst on the other side of the world. I agree with everyone above saying that it´s stupid to expect to maintain a view from an apartment unless there is a particularly exceptional circumstance. I think the biggest issue with the Scene Apartments is how they blocked views from public places, such as Anzac Street, rather than blocking out the views of private owners.

Seeing vibrant high density cities such as London, Paris and Barcelona really makes me realise how much we have to gain from intensifying. It´s such a shame that ¨joe average¨ does not realise this. Don´t blame the council too much, planners and urban design experts generally get any far out ideas shot down incredibly quickly by conversative elected officials or disgruntled Nanas with nothing better to do with their time than trying to protect the Auckland they remember from the 1960s.

Man, everything goes so slowely in NZ. I've been staring at the same "proposed" threads for years it seems. The Elliot Tower (an older variation) was being discussed when I first started posting here in 2002 for goodness sake!

How big will the retail component be?

^^The article says retail will take up the first two levels of the bldg.

I thought that it had been declared ¨non-notified¨ but hadn´t actually been approved yet? I guess that things might have changed whilst on the other side of the world. I agree with everyone above saying that it´s stupid to expect to maintain a view from an apartment unless there is a particularly exceptional circumstance. I think the biggest issue with the Scene Apartments is how they blocked views from public places, such as Anzac Street, rather than blocking out the views of private owners.

Seeing vibrant high density cities such as London, Paris and Barcelona really makes me realise how much we have to gain from intensifying. It´s such a shame that ¨joe average¨ does not realise this. Don´t blame the council too much, planners and urban design experts generally get any far out ideas shot down incredibly quickly by conversative elected officials or disgruntled Nanas with nothing better to do with their time than trying to protect the Auckland they remember from the 1960s.

Yea it has been approved. It was considered as a non-notified application, and the planning commissioners approved it a week or so later at a Council meeting. No idea on when it would start though...i'm guessing Westfield would want a certain level of tenant pre-commitment before going ahead on a large project like this. Would be nice if they gave us some decent renders too.

And yea...Auckland does move so s l o w compared to alot of cities around the world. I think part of that could be attributed to the more laid-back Kiwi lifestyle (after all thats why alot of people come here).

Ahh the great Kiwi lifestyle!
She'll be alright matie! :cheers:

:lol:

Found it on someones Blog :lol: Nothing really new !

Westfield’s response

“Westfield New Zealand has been in consultation with Auckland City Council with plans for the Westfield Downtown asset.

Preliminary plans have been prepared for the redevelopment of the site into an office tower comprising 36 levels of lettable office space, sitting above a two level retail podium.

The proposed development is still at the Resource Consent approval stage and will incorporate car parking for the office tower and retail space. Auckland City Council has recommended that the Resource Consent be granted with conditions.

In regards to ARTA’s recently announced plans for a proposed inner rail loop, Westfield is working collaboratively with ARTA to accommodate future rail requirements. This extends to the Group engaging engineering and geotechnical designs in conjunction with ARTA to establish a design solution.

Westfield has yet to determine the timing for the commencement of the project - the shopping centre remains open for trade.

The first step for us is to be granted a Resource Consent from Council, prior to working through a program for this proposed development, said Mr Justin Lynch Director, Westfield NZ.

Attribute comments to Mr Justin Lynch, Director, Westfield NZ

^^ Good news about their accomodation of ARTA, thanks Marky!

http://www.barfoot.co.nz/scripts/db.dll/details?sid=300&ref=37741

Im sure this is about the new westfield tower...no pictures :(
been like that for months now...hopefully we'll get pictures sooon

http://www.barfoot.co.nz/scripts/db.dll/details?sid=300&ref=37741

Im sure this is about the new westfield tower...no pictures :(
been like that for months now...hopefully we'll get pictures sooon:cheers:

Anyone wanna email the guy??

Good news that they´re working collaboratively with ARTA. I really thought Westfield would be stupid to prevent construction of the CBD rail loop. I thought the notice of requirement for the rail loops was due some time this month... nobody´s heard anything?

Auckland city's design watchdog Urban Auckland, is firmly against the project saying it lacks consideration of vital social issues. Urban Auckland is a trust that monitors and comments on the quality of urban and architectural design in central Auckland. It is not attached to a private company or professional body.

They have this to say about the planned project;

The Auckland City Council has granted a Resource Consent without notification for a multi-storey building for Westfield on their Downtown Store site at the corner of Customs West and Albert St. The building has been designed by the well known Australian architectural firm Denton Corker Marshall.

Urban Auckland is concerned that the Auckland City Council has not learnt from the "St James Apartments" Judicial Review by the High Court. The Judge, in that case, agreed with Urban Auckland that the ACC had not taken all aspects required into account particularly Design and revoked the Resource Consent. The Auckland City Council is again open to have another request for Judicial Review in the High Court because they have not considered vital social aspects for future underground rail connections from the Britomart rail station to the west under the proposed site. The public of Auckland deserve better. They should be consulted.

Tall buildings in Auckland are jinxed! :(

This development is far superior design wise to the utter shocker that was the original St James plan. That would have been a huge scar on Queen st so I'm overjoyed that the original consent was pulled. Consequently the new design is a vast improvement. Personally I don't mind the design of this tower, from what I can see of it anyway. And as long as the loop is unaffected then no worries. Build the bloody thing.

The problem with 'Urban Auckland' is that it too represents the views of a select group of people. Too often it has sounded like they are simply against high rise proposals for the mere fact they are high rise/large. Of course their efforts are on the whole applaudable, ilike you (Neitzsche) said with the review of the first St James tower proposal.

For god's sake...they opposed the PriceWaterHouseCoopers Tower lol

The RMA sounds like an overly litigious piece of legislation. I agree with some form of rules to control urban design and protect the environment etc, but the current legislation is rather tedious.

Internationally the RMA is very legalistic, which I think is a negative as it can often be ¨those with the most patience and biggest legal budget win¨. The St James decision was important as it allowed urban design to actually be considered when processing an application. However, I do agree that design is often quite subjective, and those with the power often have some strange points of view.

I can´t really have an opinion on this building as we´ve seen bugger all that would indicate how it´s going to look. Surely someone´s got more detailed pictures somewhere?????

I can´t really have an opinion on this building as we´ve seen bugger all that would indicate how it´s going to look. Surely someone´s got more detailed pictures somewhere?????


Isn't this kind of the point that Urban Auckland is trying to make? No one knows what this huge tower will look like, but ti's been approved anyway. Time and time again we've seen atrociously designed towers approved (eg. Residences@HarbourCity), yet the argument of "pay lip service to design issues, just build the damn thing!" seems to persist, often by people on here who then seem to entirely forget recent examples, such as the Barclay.

If you want a city of enormous, hideous buildings, then I suppose that attitued is entirely logical. But I suspect most Aucklanders would rather a city of well designed and appealing buildings. And they do have a right to be heard.

Isn't this kind of the point that Urban Auckland is trying to make? No one knows what this huge tower will look like, but ti's been approved anyway. Time and time again we've seen atrociously designed towers approved (eg. Residences@HarbourCity), yet the argument of "pay lip service to design issues, just build the damn thing!" seems to persist, often by people on here who then seem to entirely forget recent examples, such as the Barclay.

If you want a city of enormous, hideous buildings, then I suppose that attitued is entirely logical. But I suspect most Aucklanders would rather a city of well designed and appealing buildings. And they do have a right to be heard.

It is not that people want better design, they don't want ANY development and especially not any skyscrapers. There is no council for better design - it DOESN'T exist, the proof is in the pudding. Let's face facts here - Auckland doesn't know good design if it bit them in the arses and when they are given something great eg. Chancery Tower, Elliott, Saffron, Waterfront Stadium etc. then it is so wrought with red-tape that by the time it is built it is no longer viable or the developer pulls out or the nimbys (backed by the NZ Herald) win again and again and again.

Auckland is in the dark ages filled with a bunch of Village idiots. Since coming back from Oz I can quite honestly say that this city in particular is one HUGE embarrassment and here is the good news - it is NEVER ever going to change - time for a party ;). As long as there is this kind of repressed mentality that exists in New Zealand I am afraid that the city will be stuck with what it deserves. I don't care what any of you think about how I view things here, facts are facts.

P.S. Even when the public get the opportunity to have their whinge, it is either to expensive or they choose the most boring design (Te Wero Bridge) and what are we left with in the end ? the THIRD best option and a truck load of problems in the the not so distant future when they realise that it would have actually been better to pay a little more and be prepared for future growth.

P.S.S. I was rolling on the floor with laughter when I returned and read all the complaints regarding Auckland's spend on the RWC 2011. One woman even went as far as to say what a waste of money if The All Blacks don't win - and the best part - she was serious :lol: Forget about the positive spin-offs from the games, what if the All Blacks don't win :lol: I rest my case ... Auckland: City of Village IDIOTS :nuts: and that makes me one too - damn !!

Auckland: City of Village IDIOTS :nuts:

What happened to your whole plethora about keeping this forum positive? Shouldn't you be practising what you so irritatingly preached?

What happened to your whole plethora about keeping this forum positive? Shouldn't you be practising what you so irritatingly preached?

Oooooh I hit a nerve ... the truth always hurts but time does heal the wounded - you will recover in good time. Let's just say that my eyes have been opened and I have to face and deal with the reality.

Oooooh I hit a nerve ... the truth always hurts but time does heal the wounded - you will recover in good time. Let's just say that my eyes have been opened and I have to face and deal with the reality.


Your opinion is not fact. No matter how big you think your ego is. Auckland isn't the only place in the world where proposals arn't approved.

Your opinion is not fact. No matter how big you think your ego is. Auckland isn't the only place in the world where proposals arn't approved.

I am sorry - I must have lost you. I don't recall saying that Auckland was the only city on the world where proposals aren't approved ? My argument is way deeper than that (and besides, this has always been my argument, the only difference is that in my opinion it is justifiable). You are clutching at straws in the dark my friend ......

I am sorry - I must have lost you. I don't recall saying that Auckland was the only city on the world where proposals aren't approved ?

I know you didn't say that, I never said that you said that. I just think that it's silly to pigeonhole Aucklanders/New Zealanders as 'nimbys' just because there have been proposals that havn't been approved, as Auckland isn't the only place in the world where there are proposals have not been approved or have been delayed.

My argument is way deeper than that (You are clutching at straws in the dark my friend ......

I am not clutching at straws. Please tell me, how exactly do you consider your argument to be 'deep'? You don't like the design of a bridge or stadium, so you label Aucklanders/New Zealanders are 'nimby's. Yeah, real deep....

I know you didn't say that, I never said that you said that. I just think that it's silly to pigeonhole Aucklanders/New Zealanders as 'nimbys' just because there have been proposals that havn't been approved, as Auckland isn't the only place in the world where there are proposals have not been approved or have been delayed. I am not clutching at straws. Please tell me, how exactly do you consider your argument to be 'deep'? You don't like the design of a bridge or stadium, so you label Aucklanders/New Zealanders are 'nimby's. Yeah, real deep....

You need to go and read my statement again - properly this time. Besides that this can go on and on and on and I am waaaaay over it already. Just consider that you are right and I will consider that I am right.

Oh God help me, I really couldn't have been that bad in my past life :ohno:

Auckland is in the dark ages filled with a bunch of Village idiots.

Tad harsh perhaps. Correct me here, are you saying Aucklanders per se are village idiots or just in terms of urban design? I think you'll find NIMBY's are everywhere, they just happen to be a highly annoying vocal minority here in AK. They'll die out eventually, so perhaps there is some hope for the city.

As for many of the better developments being held back I think that's largely due to high costs imposed by the council. Strange seeing as I expected them to be dropped once Banksie got back in.

I think some of the conflict comes from our expectations of a "world city" in terms of design and urbinity, and the views of NZ as a whole. In some cases, perhaps it is our perception that needs to be altered as to what is "good" for the city and what isn't.

The only clear cut things that need to be improved are infrastructure related things (water supply, drainage systems, hospitals, roads and of course public transport) as these are quantifiable areas which Auckland does indeed perform badly in and therefore need improvement.

Buildings, architecture, and design are purely subjective things that aren't readily quanitifiable and therefore as soon as a debate rages on these subjects, it all comes down to purely subjective arguments rather than arguments based upon fact.

It is not that people want better design, they don't want ANY development and especially not any skyscrapers. There is no council for better design - it DOESN'T exist, the proof is in the pudding. Let's face facts here - Auckland doesn't know good design if it bit them in the arses and when they are given something great eg. Chancery Tower, Elliott, Saffron, Waterfront Stadium etc. then it is so wrought with red-tape that by the time it is built it is no longer viable or the developer pulls out or the nimbys (backed by the NZ Herald) win again and again and again.

Auckland is in the dark ages filled with a bunch of Village idiots. Since coming back from Oz I can quite honestly say that this city in particular is one HUGE embarrassment and here is the good news - it is NEVER ever going to change - time for a party ;). As long as there is this kind of repressed mentality that exists in New Zealand I am afraid that the city will be stuck with what it deserves. I don't care what any of you think about how I view things here, facts are facts.

P.S. Even when the public get the opportunity to have their whinge, it is either to expensive or they choose the most boring design (Te Wero Bridge) and what are we left with in the end ? the THIRD best option and a truck load of problems in the the not so distant future when they realise that it would have actually been better to pay a little more and be prepared for future growth.

P.S.S. I was rolling on the floor with laughter when I returned and read all the complaints regarding Auckland's spend on the RWC 2011. One woman even went as far as to say what a waste of money if The All Blacks don't win - and the best part - she was serious :lol: Forget about the positive spin-offs from the games, what if the All Blacks don't win :lol: I rest my case ... Auckland: City of Village IDIOTS :nuts: and that makes me one too - damn !!

Well, I agree with you mate. And let's be honest - that's all that matters. :lol:

But yeah, too many narrow minded short sighted people in positions of power in jafaland. Hell, in NZ in general. Look what happened to the bloody motorways in the 60's. Half arsed jobs because short sighted old codgers didn't have enough vision to prepare for future growth.

I am NOT saying that everybody is Village idiots but hell we have MORE than our fair share here. I just cannot understand the mentality of some of these people. To be honest, I have NEVER experienced anything like it in my life. It is beyond comprehension. I am also sorry if I come across aggressive but I don't beat around the bush. It may also have to do with the shock of coming back from Cities like Melbourne and Sydney. I knew that Melbourne is good but hell I didn't know that it was that good. Everything seems rather mediocre and irrelevant to me now ... what a shit feeling ! Auckland is capable of so much more and it is blessed with a great setting but that isn't enough. I just think that if cities like Liverpool, Melbourne, Wellington etc can do it we can .... really people, if you want to live on some lifestyle block - fuck off out of the city and go and live on one. Go and work on your cabbage patch, dress in your welly's and let us get on with it ... as for the powers that be, they are long past their expiry date, give us some fresh meat please :) but I guess that is hard to do when the best leave for Australia or Europe and now I fully understand why they leave.

I am NOT saying that everybody is Village idiots but hell we have MORE than our fair share here. I just cannot understand the mentality of some of these people. To be honest, I have NEVER experienced anything like it in my life. It is beyond comprehension. I am also sorry if I come across aggressive but I don't beat around the bush. It may also have to do with the shock of coming back from Cities like Melbourne and Sydney. I knew that Melbourne is good but hell I didn't know that it was that good. Everything seems rather mediocre and irrelevant to me now ... what a shit feeling ! Auckland is capable of so much more and it is blessed with a great setting but that isn't enough. I just think that if cities like Liverpool, Melbourne, Wellington etc can do it we can .... really people, if you want to live on some lifestyle block - fuck off out of the city and go and live on one. Go and work on your cabbage patch, dress in your welly's and let us get on with it ... as for the powers that be, they are long past their expiry date, give us some fresh meat please :) but I guess that is hard to do when the best leave for Australia or Europe.

I think that's more on the money to be honest. It's very difficult for people, on the whole, to draw from anything but their own experiences. For many in power their experiences don't stretch far beyond these shores and thus looking for examples of how things are done well and badly abroad are not necessarily their first thoughts when it comes to planning, urban design et al.

Liverpool and Melbourne both went through really tough times recently too. In the 80's, both cities were regarded as dumps, especially Melbourne! The whole state of Victoria went through a massive recession with rather dire consequences for Melbourne with it being labelled as "the bleak city" etc etc. If anything, these tough times refocused and rejuvinated the cities more than words from critics could ever do and it gave them both a new life and a direction for the future, with Liverpool currently being the European Culture Capital and Melbourne being regarded as "Australia's Hip City". Berlin is another city which has risen from the ashes. From being a divided city only 18 years ago it has currently become one of Europe's most hip and alternative cities with a strong artistic and cultural flair that appeals to those with alternative lifestyles. Trouble and strife tend to do that to a place though.

Perhaps for any meaningful change to occur in Auckland, we actually need a slump to rekindle the desire for change as we are rather too comfortable with riding the waves of recognition that NZ has had recently internationally.

Hey Sydney I did at first think you were being rather brutal about Auckland, but I do agree with some of what you are saying. Auckland is a good place to live but it could be so much better. I think there have been some abominations of design and pillage of heritage which has been replaced with utter crap. THings have improved in Auckland I think, sometimes changes that are made do not show immediate effect and are often more long term. In saying this some of the powers that be seem to not give a shit about the long term and are politically expedient and play to peoples fears, just to get into power. One day I would love to see the Harbour Bridge gone(after the harbour tunnels are built), I think it is boring and the natural beauty of the harbour could be showcased in a better way.

Svartmetall, I think your point about being too comfortable with riding on the waves of recognition is interesting, I think NZ has in the past been too happy to do things, such as the macroeconic reforms of the 80's and 90's and then sitting back and not working hard to further NZ's interests.

I think that's more on the money to be honest. It's very difficult for people, on the whole, to draw from anything but their own experiences. For many in power their experiences don't stretch far beyond these shores and thus looking for examples of how things are done well and badly abroad are not necessarily their first thoughts when it comes to planning, urban design et al.

Liverpool and Melbourne both went through really tough times recently too. In the 80's, both cities were regarded as dumps, especially Melbourne! The whole state of Victoria went through a massive recession with rather dire consequences for Melbourne with it being labelled as "the bleak city" etc etc. If anything, these tough times refocused and rejuvinated the cities more than words from critics could ever do and it gave them both a new life and a direction for the future, with Liverpool currently being the European Culture Capital and Melbourne being regarded as "Australia's Hip City". Berlin is another city which has risen from the ashes. From being a divided city only 18 years ago it has currently become one of Europe's most hip and alternative cities with a strong artistic and cultural flair that appeals to those with alternative lifestyles. Trouble and strife tend to do that to a place though.

Perhaps for any meaningful change to occur in Auckland, we actually need a slump to rekindle the desire for change as we are rather too comfortable with riding the waves of recognition that NZ has had recently internationally.

Well said, I heard that Melbourne was quite a sad city a couple of years back and I know that Liverpool was not so flash either :) Auckland is faced with a big, big hurdle - to change the current mind-set here is going to take more than just money, it is going to be one-helluva battle ... something that I can't see changing very soon or in the near future (I will pray for a miracle in the meantime). Instead the perception is that there is a growing back-lash to change .... Aucklander's don't want it (generally speaking) and many people share my views .... too bad and too sad :ohno:

Hey Sydney I did at first think you were being rather brutal about Auckland, but I do agree with some of what you are saying. Auckland is a good place to live but it could be so much better. I think there have been some abominations of design and pillage of heritage which has been replaced with utter crap. THings have improved in Auckland I think, sometimes changes that are made do not show immediate effect and are often more long term. In saying this some of the powers that be seem to not give a shit about the long term and are politically expedient and play to peoples fears, just to get into power. One day I would love to see the Harbour Bridge gone(after the harbour tunnels are built), I think it is boring and the natural beauty of the harbour could be showcased in a better way.

Svartmetall, I think your point about being too comfortable with riding on the waves of recognition is interesting, I think NZ has in the past been too happy to do things, such as the macroeconic reforms of the 80's and 90's and then sitting back and not working hard to further NZ's interests.

I agree fully - there is no attention to detail - have you ever walked around Melbourne at night ? a feast for sore eyes. They have those flames that shoot out every hour along the waterfront (some might consider that kitsch but it draws the crowds and enlightens the senses - if any city should have that we should - it is so relevant to the volcanic history of the city) .... I see that they have also unveiled the new glass box cafe in QE2 square -MAN ! another great opportunity lost - BORING !!! just look at what Melbourne has done with the same concept ... pic follows


http://www.pbase.com/enigma35/image/97544658.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/enigma35/image/97544654.jpg

http://craigsyd.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p75214389.jpg

Twas me ora Luvee's :lol:

Twas me ora Luvee's :lol:

Well in that case - get your ass back to Auckland Bitch ! ;) :lol: you traitor, maybe you can do the same for us :)

Well in that case - get your ass back to Auckland Bitch ! ;) :lol: you traitor, maybe you can do the same for us :)

I wish every Kiwi would return ....with all their Knowledge and help Build New Zealand into what it could be ...BETTER ........ Nah I shall stay and absorb Melbourne's architectual wonders that are announced one week and start the next :cheers: BTW You guys certainly got around .............Photos are Fab .............:cheers:

I wish every Kiwi would return ....with all their Knowledge and help Build New Zealand into what it could be ...BETTER ........ Nah I shall stay and absorb Melbourne's architectual wonders that are announced one week and start the next :cheers: BTW You guys certainly got around .............Photos are Fab .............:cheers:

Rub it in, LUCKY bugger :) Craig and I need to marry some Aussies (if it was legal) so that we can move to Melbourne - damn !!

Thanks Marky - we walked our butts off ... woke up at 6 in the morning and returned to the hotel at 8pm. There is still so much to see, you can spend 5 days in the CBD alone. MARVELOUS ! It is everything that I want in a city - alas, we have found home.

We are planning our return trip and it will be sooner rather than later :cheers:

^^

Have to agree with you guys - I have recently been harassing both Dr Nick Smith and Trevor Mallard (respecitve ministers for the environment) with letters and emails from here in London regarding urban design as an election issue and that it does have an effect on the so-called 'brain-drain' when people are making choices about where to live.

Hopefully I get a response in the short-term otherwise I will go Shawshank Redemption style and send a letter every-day!!! :lol:

One thing that always made me giggle was when a kiwi girl said it to me over here that we shouldn't get to despaired afterall

"New Zealand is the little country that could!"

stay positive about change and we should be right!

:cheers:

EDIT

While not wanting to prolong this semi-off topic discussion, it is a good one, so we will just continue it here.
One of the hardest things in the world to do is to change people mindsets. In Auckland, as you say Syd, we have alot of people who don't want any kind of change (the older folk) or are only interested in short term benefits (many developers). Things are getting better though, it is just taking ages for it to show through, and there is still alot to do for Auckland. Ie; sustainability issues etc. Aesthetic design is only scratching the surface.

Hey welcome back Sydney. Now this isn't really the thread for it but I wanna weigh in here too. From my perspective I agree with what you are saying. No one should read it as negativity on your part because Im assuming I know you well enough to know you are fired up. Moaning for the sake of moaning is something you do not do. Anyone only has to look at the photo threads you and your fella have put so much of your time and effort into to realise you guys are huge marketers of all that is good within Auckland and its people.

Hey Auckland is a great city. But I reckon its more to do with the topography, climate, and a few talented charged up souls etc than the general masses who live there. When you live somewhere it is easy to get used to what surrounds you- see it as great as it is not needing to be changed. Theres a danger in doing this though while other cities in the world with fire in their bellies surge forward.

Now I dont believe Akl runs the risk of being left for dead, I just think for a city of 1millionplus it should have so much more going for it in the civic stakes.

I have said it before and been shouted down for being proAust antiKiwi but try and see this without being offended guys. IMO NZ is full to the brim of people who love what they see when on holidays in Australia- the Gold Coast with its theme parks, urban icons like the Opera House and Harbor Bridge, central city vibe shopping/urban vitality brought on by the SoEuropeans/ extensive PT network/nightlife critical mass in say somewhere like Melbourne. Yet if you propose those very same things here in NZ, those same people will quash it for a multitude of reasons. "Its not the Kiwi way, we arent brash like Australians, the money is better spent on education, a stadium on the Harbor will be a white elephant, we dont have enough people/ that building is too tall/ugly/exciting for us." Im sure you guys get what Im putting across here.

Its obvious that Sydney is just like me and a number of others who are firmly in the other camp. New Zealand shouldnt rest on its laurels. Whether you are born here and have never left your province let alone your island, or if came here by choice from the other side of the world or the Tasman (or dragged kicking and screaming by family -gday Svarty! :)) then know we can make a difference here.

This forum is a grassroots incubator for ideas. We need to use this as a vehicle to let others know (and remind each other when its needed) that we reckon this country can do plenty better. Its obviously not all bad, god knows how we have absolute gems of cities like Wellington or Christchurch, Dunedin. Somehow Auckland even managed among other things to build the likes of the Edge, Skytower and is trying hard to get a sustainable rail network in place. So again- its not all bad.

However, let me finish by saying. Even in Australia we have a place where people were relatively happy with their lot and shouted down bold exciting new ideas. That place is Adelaide. Its the Australian city that the world never got a chance to forget because noone ever even heard of it. Even now though, the good citizens there realise they have to start jumping up and down making some noise and going forward with big ideas. If they dont do it they will become a total backwater. Theyve done it in a number of ways- but heres an example- Step one- spend an 8 figure sum on your downtown shopping thoroughfare, get the streets lit and safe, upgrade your (rather minimal) tourist facilites. Step two- build a new international airport terminal with good link into the city centre and parts beyond. Step three- promote yourself to the world as a viable place to holiday- youve all seen the ads. Step four- await the arrival of the masses and enjoy taking the Kiwi Dollars, Malaysian Ringgit, Chinese Yuan out of their wallets.

Ive just used tourism example here. There are other things Adelaide is doing/proposing to make their cities voice be heard over Melbourne/Sydney etc. Auckland, although its in a different country- has to do the exact same thing- AND THEN SOME.

This rant has gone on long enough. Im going to post this in the city development thread because its a better place for this debate.

^^ :applause: you read my mind ... :) I am an extremely passionate person and I say it as it is. Probably not always effective but I think that shock treatment is always the best resolve ;)

P.S. Thanks for rolling out the welcome mat

The 'island mentality' prevails in New Zealand...everyone thinks New Zealand is the centre of the world's attention and that we are a very rich country! Everything we do is "world class" or the best in the "southern hemisphere", even best in the "South Pacific"....From recycling bins, to some shitty new building lol
It makes me laugh because I wonder how many developed countries there are in the Southern Hempishere, or the Pacific for that matter
Most of the people fail to imagine anything further than a holiday on the Gold Coast or Fiji...

My 2 cents worth :2cents:

A shame this thread is no longer about the proposed development by Westfield. SYDNEY, whoever you are, it seems rather odd that while you freely express your opinion on this website, you argue that others expressing theirs by insisting on appropriate and innovative urban design be silenced. You even manage to blanket label them as NIMBYS, when a lot of the time it's just citizens trying to prticipate in the development of their city, after decades of leaving it to developers and bureaucrats to decide.

I agree that there is no real forum or process in place to allow, and even encourage, this. But if you're going to dump on Auckland then claim you're a straight talker, or whatever, and somehow use that self-proclamation to legitmize your disdain for locals, then don't be surprised if people take offence and argue back. I've found during my time in London that often the loudest people are often the greatest bores.

Melbourne is an entirely different city to Auckland. I love Melbourne, but I can appreciate this fact and accept that what has been achieved there may simply not fit with Auckland. They have an awful lot of clunkers in Melbourne too, don't forget. Council blocks, their own docklands development. Quite awful. The former plonked in the middle of otherwise pleasant suburbs, the latter a sterile indictment on the lack of creativity by modern developers.

And I think you'll find that most large scale projects are canned because of prevailing economic conditions. Blaming the public is just a convenient face-saver for the massive egos of property developers.

Mr Luka, well said up there. And Sydney I know where your coming from and share your frustration, although I don't have quite as dire prognosis.

IMO while there the village mentality in AK is neither as bad as it appears, nor is it endemic. Personally I think it is just a natural phase cities go through. Auckland is a good 50 - 60 years behind Melbourne and Sydney development wise. In the 60's there was huge public debate and nimbyism in Sydney over their "virgin" skyline in the face of the initial high rise developments, now the public just see it as a inherent trait of their city. Auckland does have a particularly strong streak of this, shall we call it a disease? Syd you hit the nail on the head as to why, AK must have one of the largest ex-pat communities in the developed world. The large bulk of these people being talented and (potentially) tasteful individuals. So instead of putting their energies into improving their home environment they just upped and left. Had more stayed I am sure they would have had a positive impact on AK development.

Another problem, some chap once said (i paraphrase) nature did nothing for Melbourne, man did everything. Nature did everything for Sydney, man did nothing. An exaggeration to be sure but it makes a good point. I think AK has a similar, yet more acutely felt issue of having such a stunning natural setting that a general apathy pervades urban design. No need to seek refuge in urbanity if you've got the beach on your doorstep. - yeah nah?

For a brief moment i did see hope in regards to AK's "world class future". As much as he was maligned Hubbard did have a vision and instigated change along such lines. He got sunk by being an utter greenhorn politically and being surrounded by idiots. He's been replaced by someone who appeals to ratepayers wallets - hardly inspiring, transmogrified or not.

Personally I don't fear for Ak's future. I do have some faith in Aucklander's to eventually sort it out. The low point svarty referred to hopefully can be see on Hobson st. Subsequent developments have most certainly been of far higher quality, some potentially world class. Once they are up the public like em, just look at Skytower and metropolis . And in all likely hood a nasty winter bug is likely to come thru sooner or later and wipe out most opposition. I will say that the tank farm deveopment and the public transport issue will make or break the city's world class aspirations. we shall see.

Also if events globally keep going the way they are we can expect to see an increasing stream of ex-pats and immigrants moving to AK. no doubt they will help foster a "world class" attitude in the city.

Apologies for the rant and keeping the tread off topic. i just happen to be an AK native who, while well aware of its faults, loves the city regardless. Thou that has more to do with the people, the attitudes (ironically) and the ridiculously stunning location.

I miss Hubbard. Sure, he was a bit of a dork, but I think his heart was reasonably pure. Banks will jump on any issue if he thinks he can get political mileage out of it. Let's hope that impending winter flu carries him away as well.

Well said Neitzsche. I do agree muchly.

Any news on this! I want this project to go ahead, but NOT at the expense of the tunnle beneathe its foundation. From what i hear it is possible to do both because the tunnels are not that big. Remember there are 2 key tunnels and possibly a junction site which may be a problem. The north shore line, passing directly beneath and heading towards Viaduct Harbour (a station at Wynard) and one veering off south undernearth Albert street to form the CBD tunnle. It is anticipated that both lines will have 2 tracks.

If i was Westfield I would love for rail projects to be right beside my building so that my staff could get to work on time via public transport. Offices and business are waking up to rising oil costs and how locating near rail stations/ bus interchanges could be a huge advantage.

Yeah I have heard that ARTA and Westfield have sorted things out so both the tower and the tunnels can co-exist OK. Still waiting for the CBD loop Notice of Requirement though.

^^really? where did u hear this?

Call for regional body to tackle transport planning
5:00AM Friday June 20, 2008
By Bernard Orsman

Auckland needs a single regional transport body with the power to plan, fund and implement the number one issue on people's minds, the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Auckland Governance heard yesterday.

Auckland Regional Transport Authority chief executive Fergus Gammie said his organisation was a good start but further steps were needed to address Auckland's transport needs.

ARTA was established in 2004 with limited powers to plan, fund and develop a successful transport system for the Auckland region.

Mr Gammie said the current multiple agency/council approach was hampering progress and leading to inconsistencies and delays.

He gave examples where the system was failing, including ARTA having to step in to protect the proposed inner city rail loop from a 41-storey tower over its route, problems protecting rail access to the airport and the inability to co-ordinate cycleways across the city.

He said the regional transport authority would have the power to develop a co-ordinated transport strategy for roads, motorways and public transport with funding from local and central government. Mr Gammie envisaged the regional transport agency would be run by a board, whose members would be appointed at a political level by the regional council.

Commission chairman Peter Salmon, QC, queried the political input into the transport agency.

Mr Gammie said it could work like Translink in Vancouver where that body submitted a three-year plan to the regional council for approval.

The transport plan would have to take account of the regional growth strategy, he said.

Another commissioner, David Shand, wondered how regional and central government would feel about handing over billions of dollars to a single transport body. Mr Gammie said the way to obtain Government buy-in was to have a plan that made sense and could be delivered on.

Ideally, the region should have a three-to-five-year funding agreement with central government. At the moment, Auckland had to go to Wellington to get funding for transport projects on a case-by-case basis.

"One of the clear benefits of having an empowered regional agency is it would be able to bring one view to the table in negotiations and discussions with the Government," Mr Gammie said. Bernard Orsman
There was something else too....

^^ I definitely agree with Mr Gammie on this (for a change). We need an umbrella approach to transport planning rather than this horrific divided and scattered approach.

I think he's basically proposing "ARTA with some real teeth", which makes sense. Something that integrated ARTA and ONTRACK so the angency responsible for running the trains and planning for improvement actually owns the system too. I just hope it's not another agency in the mix just confusing issues.

from todays article in business section of the Weekend Herald...Sorry the article is too big to be scanned lol

Got the pic though!

Will be about 168 metres...taller than Vero

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg87/akashr/Westfield.jpg?t=1214617801

:banana: I Don't mind the design at all .....with Lots of Glass and Height beggars can't be chosers :nuts:

theres a light box feature at the top...but the 'white' glass bit s quirky :nuts:

But I like it...

It will do me....Anythings! better than the *shit* that's there right now.

It's cool, except for those fuckin yellow pillars

Hmm...They look pretty cool to me! lol

only gunna see them if u r at ground level anyway lol.. the tower will look good on the skyline anyhow..!

The article said the plans would incorporate 2 levels of shopping around a central atrium, an underground car park for 500 cars and they have also proposed a subway station beneath the tower. Can't really tell what that "roof top light box" feature will look like, I guess we will have to wait until more design details are released. They said it would be completed in 2012 with a 3 year build time - guess we will see a 2009 start, they should start demolition this year I would imagine.

Overall you can bet your bottom dollar this one is going ahead - good thing as according to the article demand for premium office space is very high and there will be a 2 year lag between the completion of Deloitte and this one, compounding the demand while this is completed.

what we have right now: a 2 level shithole mall is disgusting and a HUGE and underuntilisation of prime space. CAN'T WAIT

Looks like a vast improvement to me too. Not groundbreaking but definitely better than the status quo!

Looks good. Bring on 2012!

^^ time to change to 168 metres? :colgate:

^^167.64 ;) :D

Lol yea 168 it is! :)

Fantastic height ! but I need to see better/clearer renders before I voice my opinion on this one .... from what I can see, it looks very 80's (post-modern).

It does look a bit 1980s. It just feels so typical that such a fuss is made about a building's height rather than its design and its final appearance. Maybe developers should release detailed renders of the building before anything else, and only publicise the actual height at the last possible moment. That way everyone will be thinking "geez that's a nice building" as their first response rather than "OMG it's going to block my view and block the sun and you'll be able to see it from Devonport!!!"

It does look a bit 1980s. It just feels so typical that such a fuss is made about a building's height rather than its design and its final appearance. Maybe developers should release detailed renders of the building before anything else, and only publicise the actual height at the last possible moment. That way everyone will be thinking "geez that's a nice building" as their first response rather than "OMG it's going to block my view and block the sun and you'll be able to see it from Devonport!!!"

I couldn't agree more ... some renders of the interior of the shopping area - a render or two of some public art outside the foyer ..... small things amuse small minds ;) But no thanks to ARSE-HOLES NZ Herald it is all sensationalized .... DRAMA, SHOCK, HORROR. I don't even look at NZ Herald anymore, the BASTARDS !

The NZ Herald hasn't sensationalised this one at all. The height is clearly a major feature, given it will likely be the largest office block in Auckland.

But I agree that the design aspects should be focused on too. I like the blue glass, contrasting against the white - I'd hope the blue is represented on the south side too. Otherwise, it's a pretty bland design. The "box" on the top is fairly horrid, but roof features seem to have become superfluous in Auckland's tower construction of late. Why not something interesting like the Majestic Tower's roof feature in Wellington?

And yeah - yellow pillars? I'd lump that in the early-nineties category. A shame it will block the Quay West - I always liked seeing that tower from the Harbour (with a roof feature, albeit fairly basic).

Its a fairly symmetrical design with the blue glass facade on south side as well. As you can kind of tell below, although that white box roof top feature only covers the back half of the roof..

http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/tower7.jpg

The NZ Herald hasn't sensationalised this one at all.

The height is clearly a major feature, given it will likely be the largest office block in Auckland.

Oh really - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10505470 ... shock, horror, the public have no say - I can't think of a better title to get the Kiwi's backs up. Why not "Great investment for downtown Auckland" "Confidence in Auckland's CBD grows" ....

So what if it is tall ? - it is the city centre, a place where tall buildings rise. It is NOT some suburb where lords of the bach rule. For fuck's sake people, smell the coffee.

Oh really - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10505470 ... shock, horror, the public have no say - I can't think of a better title to get the Kiwi's backs up. Why not "Great investment for downtown Auckland" "Confidence in Auckland's CBD grows" ....

My apologies I thought you were referring to the article that was scanned in above and I read online.

That is mildly sensationalist, but is it not also true? The public is not to be given a say. And given the record of horrible developments under the last Banks administration (Hobson/Nelson Streets, Scene, Oaks), surely this is a pertinent and justified issue.

"Great investment in downtown Auckland" isn't factual but an opinion and this isn't an op-ed piece.

But why would it be relevant for the public to have a say? If the council is competent (obviously they're not, but that's another issue) then they should be able to regulate all issues of design, structure, and function. Giving the public a say on this would be about as useful as giving them a say on the issue of maintaining sewer pipes under the ground. Some things you just have to leave to the professionals.

^^Indeed, well put.

My apologies I thought you were referring to the article that was scanned in above and I read online.

That is mildly sensationalist, but is it not also true? The public is not to be given a say. And given the record of horrible developments under the last Banks administration (Hobson/Nelson Streets, Scene, Oaks), surely this is a pertinent and justified issue.

"Great investment in downtown Auckland" isn't factual but an opinion and this isn't an op-ed piece.

The problem here is that the public have far too much say and it is always NO NO NO ... why not have an efficient city council who we can trust to make the right decision - what is wrong with that ? they get paid enough don't they ?

Instead we have fossils wearing crimpalene who think that Versace is a fucking pizza and cities are bach breeding villages.

And why oh why can't we have some positive headlines from the local news ? ... must it always be doom and gloom - doom and gloom.

But why would it be relevant for the public to have a say? If the council is competent (obviously they're not, but that's another issue) then they should be able to regulate all issues of design, structure, and function. Giving the public a say on this would be about as useful as giving them a say on the issue of maintaining sewer pipes under the ground. Some things you just have to leave to the professionals.

You took the words right out of my mouth - well said :cheers:

Westfield Centrepoint, Sydney, upgrade ..... would look great here:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/151/411333878_021ca10bbd.jpg?v=0

not that i really care because i want this to go ahead, but what about the people in the quay west building?

they lose their view and all of a sudden the price of their apartments takes a fall?

i suppose they were warned about the possiblity of further construction?

Yup if you buy an inner-city apartment you must always be prepared for more buildings to be built.

not that i really care because i want this to go ahead, but what about the people in the quay west building?

they lose their view and all of a sudden the price of their apartments takes a fall?

i suppose they were warned about the possiblity of further construction?

Well unless they thought that time was going to stand still and that they bought property in Huntly Extension, they are definitely in for a rude AWAKENING. Good morning people and welcome to the 21st Century, no ! - it isn't Huntly, it is Auckland :ohno:

not that i really care because i want this to go ahead, but what about the people in the quay west building?

they lose their view and all of a sudden the price of their apartments takes a fall?

i suppose they were warned about the possiblity of further construction?

well its not like they have expansive views of the sea already...Theres 1 Queen Street (HSBC) on the northern side...Tower building (Eastern)...ANZ, west plaza, PWC, amp (west) and stamford plaza to the south of Quay west...


Nothing much to be 'blocked' I'd say!

well its not like they have expansive views of the sea already...Theres 1 Queen Street (HSBC) on the northern side...Tower building (Eastern)...ANZ, west plaza, PWC, amp (west) and stamford plaza to the south of Quay west...


Nothing much to be 'blocked' I'd say

on that herald render it certainly looks as though quite a few apartments facing towards devonport will lose views

might just be the perspective though, but as i say i dont really care - just interested

[QUOTE][/QUWell unless they thought that time was going to stand still and that they bought property in Huntly Extension, they are definitely in for a rude AWAKENING. Good morning people and welcome to the 21st Century, no ! - it isn't Huntly, it is Auckland OTE]

calm down man :)

and stop putting the great megalopolis of huntly down - i used to live on a farm near there

it has so much going for it

[QUOTE][/QUWell unless they thought that time was going to stand still and that they bought property in Huntly Extension, they are definitely in for a rude AWAKENING. Good morning people and welcome to the 21st Century, no ! - it isn't Huntly, it is Auckland OTE]

calm down man :)

and stop putting the great megalopolis of huntly down - i used to live on a farm near there

it has so much going for it

I was just stating the obvious.

I am calm :) down to my little toes Sweety, I am practically a cucumber .... you must see me when I am really worked up - it is quite a display ;) Yeah, you are right, Huntly is FABULOUS :nuts: (I must be losing my mind - where's my fix ? ) :)

well its not like they have expansive views of the sea already...Theres 1 Queen Street (HSBC) on the northern side...Tower building (Eastern)...ANZ, west plaza, PWC, amp (west) and stamford plaza to the south of Quay west...


Nothing much to be 'blocked' I'd say!

Aren't they blocking Stamford's views :lol:

Exactly...

from todays article in business section of the Weekend Herald...Sorry the article is too big to be scanned lol

Got the pic though!

Will be about 168 metres...taller than Vero

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg87/akashr/Westfield.jpg?t=1214617801



Quite nice design for Akl. Umm just wondering if that building going to be right on top of westfeild shopping mall?? because its look like that on the Pic ^^. . . Don't they need to put some sort of steel/concrete basement structure(underground) b4 building some highrise. . OR they are going to bring those existed building down first?

^^They will probably demo most of the Downtown Shopping complex when they do this, and build a whole new one along with the tower.

They will definately demolish the existing mall. Its a dump anyways. I dont think they should build another mall. We have enough suburban malls! As for the yellow pillars, they are NOT working. Oh and the design is not 80's I like the blue glass and white.

One thing I think that downtown Auckland lacks is a decent sized mall. So what if theres plenty in the burbs? Ive spent the odd rainy day trudging along Queen Street wanting somewhere large dry and expansive to escape the weather. Also if you like on Hobson or High Streets why should you have to go to Saint Lukes or Newmarket for a mall fix.

A large mall would give a boost to the CBD, especially if it is easily accessible (however spelt) ie at the front of Britomart. An expanded and modern mall would be another addition to the - this is what makes downtown Auckland great conversations. Even if it is owned by an offshore group.

AGREES ^^

thats quite an old picture to put a render into, residences@harbourcity isn't even built

^^ Yeah thats a typical herald thing to do. Theyr just lazy and dig up an archive photo probs

yellow sticks are pretty common for these architects.

generally they are pretty successful but often public reaction to them is split.

I think the most similar building they have done to what is being proposed is Brisbane Square, where the bright colours have being similarly divisive.

Very elegant building nonetheless for mine.

Their most famous yellow stick is the Melbourne Gateway (bottom pic)




http://lh3.ggpht.com/_aLM-TmynXQ8/R-nj3k4fteI/AAAAAAAAAv8/DB65EgeSyj8/img_3444.jpg

http://www.construction-innovation.info/images/articles_images/graphics/Brisbane-Square.jpg


http://www.jamesnixon.com/MelbGATEweb.jpg

^^ That is awesome ! Colour is exactly what Auckland needs but I do think that the yellow pillars aren't bold enough (the Brisbane Square look will be great for that area). Thanks for posting :)

http://www.construction-innovation.info/images/articles_images/graphics/Brisbane-Square.jpg



Isn't this building designed by the same architects that have penned Westfield?

yep same guys.

they're very good, gives me some hope, although westfield don't exactly have a reputation for looking after the city....

^^ Does that comment refer to NZ only or do they have a similar track record in Oz?

no, it's much the same in aus - they have a proven track record of screwing everyone in their way to get what they want, which means a massive concrete spaceship in lieu of any context or community contribution.

However, they do seem to be making a concerted effort in their Centrepoint Sydney redevelopment (someone posted a pic about this prior), which might hopefully signal a new direction..

no, it's much the same in aus - they have a proven track record of screwing everyone in their way to get what they want, which means a massive concrete spaceship in lieu of any context or community contribution.

However, they do seem to be making a concerted effort in their Centrepoint Sydney redevelopment (someone posted a pic about this prior), which might hopefully signal a new direction..

Westfield Albany is ok. Except for the collapsing ceilings

Any word on what compromise has been struck with ARTA/ACC/ARC with regards to allowances for the innercity rail loop?

One thing I think that downtown Auckland lacks is a decent sized mall. So what if theres plenty in the burbs? Ive spent the odd rainy day trudging along Queen Street wanting somewhere large dry and expansive to escape the weather. Also if you like on Hobson or High Streets why should you have to go to Saint Lukes or Newmarket for a mall fix.

A large mall would give a boost to the CBD, especially if it is easily accessible (however spelt) ie at the front of Britomart. An expanded and modern mall would be another addition to the - this is what makes downtown Auckland great conversations. Even if it is owned by an offshore group.

I agree with you entirely. Auckland will always be screwed as a city until it develops a lot more retail options. Not only will it limit residential development eventually but also tourism.

An important thing to remember is that tourists don't often get the chance to venture into the suburbs so they judge what we have to offer solely by the CBD; which in contrast to many other cities is not a lot.

I really hope this development maintains the same amount of retail once complete; and not deminishes what is already lacking in the city.

^^ You needn't fear. It's being developed by Westfield after all, malls happen to be their forte.

How complicated is it gonna be for them to kick out all those current retailers out of the mall??

Very simple I imagine. After all Westfield owns it and they just lease space.

http://www.barfoot.co.nz/scripts/db.dll/details?sid=300&ref=37741
when the hell is the middle of the year gonna come for these people?? :(

An important thing to remember is that tourists don't often get the chance to venture into the suburbs so they judge what we have to offer solely by the CBD; which in contrast to many other cities is not a lot.

I really hope this development maintains the same amount of retail once complete; and not diminishes what is already lacking in the city.

tourism in auckland is important, and so is retail in the CBD

but i don't think that many tourists come to new zealand for the shopping, and most of the great tourist destinations don't have huge amounts of retail as their draw card,

good cities have other things to offer, things that locals can also enjoy, that aren't just ways to suck money out of tourists - many of which have commented to me, that too much of our industry is about making money from them

too much of our industry is about making money from them

What else are we supposed to be getting from them?

^^Compliments about the scenery!

Everywhere you go as a tourist you realise that people are trying to make as much money out of you as possible. Go to Venice and see how restaurants on the touristy routes as twice as expensive as those down back-alleys. It's a fact of life that surely tourists should be used to.

tourism in auckland is important, and so is retail in the CBD

but i don't think that many tourists come to new zealand for the shopping, and most of the great tourist destinations don't have huge amounts of retail as their draw card,

good cities have other things to offer, things that locals can also enjoy, that aren't just ways to suck money out of tourists - many of which have commented to me, that too much of our industry is about making money from them

I am afraid you have got a very naive veiw of the world! Unfortunately everything in this world from a business point of veiw revolves around money; and especially the tourism industry!

You need to get out to other cities especially in Asia just to see what tourism is about; I assure you that a good proportion is made up of retail.

^^

Two things make the world go around..........

shopping and fucking !

^^

Two things make the world go around..........

shopping and fucking !

Ooooh - I am lucky, I enjoy BOTH ;)

^^
i think i may have seen u in gloria jeans on sunday arvo a few weeks back? yes?

^^
i think i may have seen u in gloria jeans on sunday arvo a few weeks back? yes?

Yes you did - why didn't u come and say hello - am I that scarey :lol:

Haha.! it was u, i knew it.. im a shy guy

Haha.! it was u, i knew it.. im a shy guy

I eat shy boys ... come and say hello next time :)

So anyways... about the Westfield tower....