CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL | COLOMBO AND ARMAGH ST CNR | 17L | 70 Metres | Refurbishment Completed

Mods we can change the title of this thread to Crown Plaza Hotel thanks.

jarden said:

Just got to get Rydges and Millenium fixed up as well. Four years on and still no agreement with repairs for the latter one not underway it must be under- insured dispute so as not enough payout to cover all the cost of the repairs they should just bite the bullet and finance the repairs and get their hotels back open to create some income off their properties again.

Click to expand...

I heard over a year ago that the Millennium was fixable at relatively low cost, but the owners were doing whatever they could to get the building declared a write-off and demolished because they'd rather take the insurance money than get a functioning hotel back which they didn't want any more.

I think they do want a hotel in ChCh, but a part of their thinking is that if the Anglicans don't allow the cathedral to be restored then Cathedral Square won't be a draw and they'd rather locate elsewhere

yes it really is time for action with the heap of rubble that is the cathedral. It is ridiculous that years on from the earthquake the focal point of the city is still as it was the day after the quake. It is going to get to the point (as stated above) where investment and opportunities look elsewhere because of the eye-sore that is the cathedral. The time for action is well overdue. Get rid of it or repair!:bash:

HavanaClub said:

I heard over a year ago that the Millennium was fixable at relatively low cost, but the owners were doing whatever they could to get the building declared a write-off and demolished because they'd rather take the insurance money than get a functioning hotel back which they didn't want any more.

I think they do want a hotel in ChCh, but a part of their thinking is that if the Anglicans don't allow the cathedral to be restored then Cathedral Square won't be a draw and they'd rather locate elsewhere

Click to expand...

I dunno, I do recall the owners getting the buildings status changed from write off to repairable. But if they don't want the building then they should sell it after insurance is worked out. Instead of doing what those idiots at the heritage hotel tower did and demolish it and then sell it.

But in terms of the cathedral I just hate seeing it now, yes it was a nice building but now it is a pile of rubble that is holding up the rebuild of the square. Commercial tenants don't want to look down on the thing and every office building in the square (apart from ASB House) has been cancelled because of lack of tenants.

can the mayor/council/government not demand action on the cathedral tidy up? where exactly is it at now? what are we waiting for??? surely there comes a time when it must be declared environmentally a risk? what about health/rats/squattors/vandels etc You wouldnt be allowed to dump a pile of bricks in the middle of queen street in AUCKland so why is this situation allowed to exist...

honeybear said:

can the mayor/council/government not demand action on the cathedral tidy up? where exactly is it at now? what are we waiting for??? surely there comes a time when it must be declared environmentally a risk? what about health/rats/squattors/vandels etc You wouldnt be allowed to dump a pile of bricks in the middle of queen street in AUCKland so why is this situation allowed to exist...

Click to expand...

I really don't get it, I mean Anderton isn't in the way now so I wish the they would just get on with it and bowl it over.

honeybear said:

can the mayor/council/government not demand action on the cathedral tidy up? where exactly is it at now? what are we waiting for??? surely there comes a time when it must be declared environmentally a risk? what about health/rats/squattors/vandels etc You wouldnt be allowed to dump a pile of bricks in the middle of queen street in AUCKland so why is this situation allowed to exist...

Click to expand...

Well I have exactly the opposite view (and perhaps my post was unclear).

In my view, pretty much all hope for Cathedral Square is lost unless the cathedral is restored. I'm glad it is still there in the shape it is, because that's the only hope for the Square as I see it. If the anglicans build their modest town-hall equivalent, then goodbye any prospect for serious investment in the Square. We'll get a few modest gap fillers populating the edges with time I suppose. My perception and some anecdotal evidence is that the reason we haven't had serious investment in the Square is because serious investors are holding off to see if the cathedral will be restored. If it won't they'll go somewhere else; to the new heart of the city.

Let's demolish it and move on doesn't work in my book. We get the demolition, and then moving on is a paddock or, worse, some cheap tilt-slab concoction.

I don't want to see the Square become a soul-less waste land. I'd honestly support using it for parking to support vibrancy elsewhere in the city if a half-arsed effort of a church hall with anything that follows that ends up getting built. I'm concerned that the convention centre is leading down that path because, although the renders look attractive, a convention centre is the diametric opposite of "vibrancy".

I may be a dreamer, but I still live in hope that the cathedral is going to be saved!

It would be nice, but there is one question all heritage advocates fail to recognize. Who's going to pay for it?
If it goes I don't think it will be the end of the square, if anything its existence currently is holding everything up. Absolutely sick of coming down past the river or into the square and seeing that pile of rubble looming over everything and acting as a reminder of the quakes, so much for trying to move on. If they can't afford the repair than get rid of the damn thing. I think the reason investors are holding off is because none of the perspective tenants want to look down at it all day, the minute they finally do something about it than that area will see a big improvement.

Just my 2 cents.

voyager8907 said:

It would be nice, but there is one question all heritage advocates fail to recognize. Who's going to pay for it?
If it goes I don't think it will be the end of the square, if anything its existence currently is holding everything up. Absolutely sick of coming down past the river or into the square and seeing that pile of rubble looming over everything and acting as a reminder of the quakes, so much for trying to move on. If they can't afford the repair than get rid of the damn thing. I think the reason investors are holding off is because none of the perspective tenants want to look down at it all day, the minute they finally do something about it than that area will see a big improvement.

Just my 2 cents.

Click to expand...

I don't think there's a failure to recognise cost by heritage advocates - kinda the opposite actually. I believe its been reasonably well established that the money can be found to pay for it - just not from the anglican church. (This has been a discussion in other threads.) The problem is they've never offered that they will release the site (e.g. in exchange for another) if someone wants to take it on. Hence, there has never been the opportunity to put the theory that no one will pay for it to the test, hence stalemate.

People will have different perspectives and anecdotal evidence about why few developers have invested or are interested in Cathedral Square any more. But without the cathedral I think it would lose its reason for being somewhat, and I certainly understand office managers making a lease decision preferring say a river view than something sterile. I know someone who made exactly that assessment - when there was no commitment that the Cathedral was going to be there she just moved elsewhere. Of course there were other factors in the decision but that was part of it

I really don't know where they will find over 150 million dollars. But if they can, that would be pretty cool.

I'd just love to see some action.

HavanaClub said:

I don't think there's a failure to recognise cost by heritage advocates - kinda the opposite actually. I believe its been reasonably well established that the money can be found to pay for it - just not from the anglican church. (This has been a discussion in other threads.) The problem is they've never offered that they will release the site (e.g. in exchange for another) if someone wants to take it on. Hence, there has never been the opportunity to put the theory that no one will pay for it to the test, hence stalemate.

People will have different perspectives and anecdotal evidence about why few developers have invested or are interested in Cathedral Square any more. But without the cathedral I think it would lose its reason for being somewhat, and I certainly understand office managers making a lease decision preferring say a river view than something sterile. I know someone who made exactly that assessment - when there was no commitment that the Cathedral was going to be there she just moved elsewhere. Of course there were other factors in the decision but that was part of it

Click to expand...

You're partly right Havana Club... But the problem is that in fact the idea of doing a land swap "has" been entertained with the possibility the old cathedral and land being given to the City Council in an as-is-where-is basis.

The problem is that the council is probably the only entity that could be in a position to do it and they have already said they don't want it and the only rational reason I can see is because it's a potential budget-blowout liability of monster proportions.

I think we should all get used to Cathedral Square being a mess. Anglicans who will accept no help from anyone have stated that they will not build a new contemporary cathedral until they have all the monies to do so. At this point in time they are 10's of millions short. They stated 2 years ago that to raise the monies needed and to build will take at least 10 YEARS. They will not take on any loans. The real danger is that they demolish,and then years later find they cannot raise the money and can the whole show and Christchurch gets nothing,
Best option as far as I can see is to hand it over to Anderton's lot I imagine it is easier to fund raise to restore than to fund raise to build from new.
My 2 cent's worth.

birchey said:

I think we should all get used to Cathedral Square being a mess. Anglicans who will accept no help from anyone have stated that they will not build a new contemporary cathedral until they have all the monies to do so. At this point in time they are 10's of millions short. They stated 2 years ago that to raise the monies needed and to build will take at least 10 YEARS. They will not take on any loans. The real danger is that they demolish,and then years later find they cannot raise the money and can the whole show and Christchurch gets nothing,
Best option as far as I can see is to hand it over to Anderton's lot I imagine it is easier to fund raise to restore than to fund raise to build from new.
My 2 cent's worth.

Click to expand...

I think handing it over to Anderton is the worst possible thing they could do.

We are going quite off topic from the thread but here is what I think anyway:

I don't really know what the best next step is as there are definitely arguments for both replacing the current structure or restoring it. I think it would be a shame for it to be demolished if they can feasibly restore it. The middle course option discussed in this article is worth investigating. I know that a number of people around the world have said they would commit millions for it to be restored so with that in mind, I think that the Anglicans should put out a request for people to commit an amount of money to the restoration. I'm sure around the world there are enough people who would be happy to put forward money to restore it in some form.

The main thing that I am worried about with both restoration and rebuilding options is that we could end up with an ugly, kitsch or tacky building that no one is proud to have as the focal point of our city. If they end up being able to restore it, I hope that we would end up with a stunning restored building that everyone is happy with, like the Arts Centre and Isaac Theatre Royal. If they rebuild it I would hope that they build a striking and remarkable building that is so unique and interesting that it draws tourists from around the world in the way that the Re:Start mall does currently.

^^ I agree, I think Sir Miles warrens option is the obvious way to go. $67mil isn't a ridiculous price tag. Just get to it already!

TonyNZ said:

^^ I agree, I think Sir Miles warrens option is the obvious way to go. $67mil isn't a ridiculous price tag. Just get to it already!

Click to expand...

I forgot about this, it is a brilliant idea! And it is even in the cathedrals insurance budget. I hope it gets built.

We should probably get back on topic though.

Work is now underway converting the hotel. The builder/developer Lanyon & Le Compte has bought other as is where is buildings and restored them if only other firms were willing to do the same our city may not have so many holes to fill as it does today. Not much can be seen from the outside just the site fence.

jarden said:

Work is now underway converting the hotel. The builder/developer Lanyon & Le Compte has bought other as is where is buildings and restored them if only other firms were willing to do the same our city may not have so many holes to fill as it does today. Not much can be seen from the outside just the site fence.

Click to expand...

Its nice to see some of these old buildings getting a new life, a 5 story building in sydenham is being stripped down to a shell right now. I'd say most of the buildings left now that aren't in the way of CERA will be repaired, probably re-clad.

Edit: Just remembered that this starts somewhere around April so they won't have started work quite yet. Or they might have..was there anyone working in there?

Maybe gutting it back to it's shell before they put in the new rooms later.

jarden said:

Maybe gutting it back to it's shell before they put in the new rooms later.

Click to expand...

Already gutted, thats one of the reasons they were confident about selling it to hotel investors. All it needs is repairs, a new stairwell, new base and interior. Its not that badly damaged either. Oh and they are removing the old parking ramp, not sure what they're going to do to let people into the parking garage. (Which was another selling point, not many as is where is buildings have an attached 3 story carpark) This might not be the only tall as is where is building either, I think they sold the garlinge (or something like that) apartments in Merivale not that long ago, and the old strawberry fare building on peterborough st sold recently too.