HARLEY CHAMBERS SITE | 6 STAR HOTEL | 8L | Cancelled
Thought this one deserved its own thread. Cant upload pictures sorry, anyone feel free to do so 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
HARLEY CHAMBERS 6 STAR HOTEL | 8L | Proposed
https://vimeo.com/259981386
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
ALL CONSENT DOCUMENTS CAN BE VIEWED HERE
Considerable information about this project is available on the council website regarding the consent. Confirmed as a 8 level 6-star hotel development comprising of 150 rooms and basement car parking:Looks like things are still progressing on the 6 star hotel on the corner of Cambridge and Worcester. A consultation for consent to demolish the Harley building is currently open until the 17th of April.
![]()
https://vimeo.com/259981386
ALL CONSENT DOCUMENTS CAN BE VIEWED HERE
If its gonna be an upscale hotel could the operator be someone like Hyatt?
And the heritage fanatics are at it again in the Press comments. I would encourage people here to make a submission in support of this building on the council website (it only takes only 5 mins), otherwise only the anti-development crowd will be heard.
Submission link (underneathe the document links):
https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/130
Submission link (underneathe the document links):
https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/130
^^^^^
Submitted my response to the council in support of the development.
Submitted my response to the council in support of the development.
Was just about to post about that. Are they taking the piss?? I'm all for restoring heritage buildings in Christchurch but Harley Chambers is one ugly building, and this high quality project would've been a great thing for Christchurch. I have to say the heritage opposition for this project leading to it's cancellation now has me pissed off.
Wow, the developer does not seem happy!
While I partly agree to some of the statements, there doesn't seem to be much respect for the consenting process around two heritage buildings that will obviously receive submissions and the way his disgust is expressed through a full page advertisement (really?!). The consent application is currently in pre-hearing stage and consent hasn't been denied? It seems the developer is running at the first hurdle!! Although in saying that, I've lost confidence in the consenting process after that stupid billboard was denied and its pissing me off that it may occur again with this development.
It wouldn't surprise me if the developers are lashing out because it is the easiest excuse, and have found that the reality of turning the glossy images into a successful business - heritage issues aside - were more difficult than they anticipated. Were they naive enough to think that no dissenting opinions would be submitted in the consultation, or were they just unaware of the need for consultation in New Zealand?? The article doesn't say that any decision hasn't gone their way - only that the normal and entirely predictable process has been followed. Maybe there is something else going on that hasn't been disclosed/ reported.
The consent application is still up, but it would be a massive shame to have another casualty from the resource consent process. I do think the consent process needs a major reform (or needs to be diluted down altogether), because there's something seriously messed up a process where rival companies can stall and stop someone developing their land on the basis of arbitrary excuses. I'm sure it was designed with good intentions, but in recent years it has become a vehicle for rampart NIMBYism which is simply holding up development of post-quake CHCH.
It is the easiest thing in the world to use the consenting process as an excuse when the plug is pulled on a project. It saves face. It doesn't answer back, because it is a process, not an organisation or person. You can call it any names you want. It is easily understood by the masses - "bureaucracy and NIMBY's killed another dream project for Christchurch". No difficult questions are asked, like "So you produced the glossy images and got everyone excited, but then you found the numbers didn't stack up?" Or, "So you failed to find an investor, and you don't want that failure on your record?"
Maybe the project really is a financial winner and yet the consenting process really will kill the project. It's possible, but I'm skeptical. First, as mentioned above, unless you are giving away free ice cream on a street corner, it is pretty predictable that one person somewhere (or 3) are going to object to whatever it is you are doing. Second, if the numbers really do stack up then a rational investor will find a way to make the project proceed - be it in a different configuration or site or whatever. Profit is a rather emotion-less incentive.
And because the consenting process can't speak for itself, we don't get the counter argument of what could happen if we didn't have it. But we can look back to the cowboy days of the 80s and earlier. Pretty much the entire character and fabric of central Auckland was trashed for example. We don't like blank walls and tilt slab and generally cheap buildings that are clearly inappropriate to a community, but which are profitable to the owner. The rules have saved us from many an atrocity that we will never even know about. The cons of the rules might be much easier to identify, especially with examples, than the pros!
I totally agree that the consenting rules are an issue however. The difficulty in my mind is to put them in perspective. I believe we absolutely need rules. But maybe they need to be modified - and to what extent is unclear. Even the need for any modification is not clear to me. It is the effectiveness of the rules and the efficiency of them that is in question. For example, if it genuinely (truly) is the consenting rules that will scupper this particular project, then how come the developers were unable to foresee that? Regardless of whether scuppering is right or wrong --- big question, and put that aside for a moment (I for one would like to see the project go ahead) --- the issue they seem to have run into is separate: it is that a small number of people came along and objected. Now surely that could not have been a big surprise, and surely they had an understanding of what rules would apply in that circumstance. So what exactly is it they are saying now? - that they in fact didn't understand the consequences of objectors, that they didn't expect any objectors (naive if either of these two things is the case), that they didn't understand the rules? If they didn't understand the consequences of the rules but the rules were clear, then that is on them. If they didn't understand the consequences of the rules because they are opaque or misleading, then yes - we should fix the rules. But it is not at all clear to me at least what the situation is in the case of this particular project!
Maybe the project really is a financial winner and yet the consenting process really will kill the project. It's possible, but I'm skeptical. First, as mentioned above, unless you are giving away free ice cream on a street corner, it is pretty predictable that one person somewhere (or 3) are going to object to whatever it is you are doing. Second, if the numbers really do stack up then a rational investor will find a way to make the project proceed - be it in a different configuration or site or whatever. Profit is a rather emotion-less incentive.
And because the consenting process can't speak for itself, we don't get the counter argument of what could happen if we didn't have it. But we can look back to the cowboy days of the 80s and earlier. Pretty much the entire character and fabric of central Auckland was trashed for example. We don't like blank walls and tilt slab and generally cheap buildings that are clearly inappropriate to a community, but which are profitable to the owner. The rules have saved us from many an atrocity that we will never even know about. The cons of the rules might be much easier to identify, especially with examples, than the pros!
I totally agree that the consenting rules are an issue however. The difficulty in my mind is to put them in perspective. I believe we absolutely need rules. But maybe they need to be modified - and to what extent is unclear. Even the need for any modification is not clear to me. It is the effectiveness of the rules and the efficiency of them that is in question. For example, if it genuinely (truly) is the consenting rules that will scupper this particular project, then how come the developers were unable to foresee that? Regardless of whether scuppering is right or wrong --- big question, and put that aside for a moment (I for one would like to see the project go ahead) --- the issue they seem to have run into is separate: it is that a small number of people came along and objected. Now surely that could not have been a big surprise, and surely they had an understanding of what rules would apply in that circumstance. So what exactly is it they are saying now? - that they in fact didn't understand the consequences of objectors, that they didn't expect any objectors (naive if either of these two things is the case), that they didn't understand the rules? If they didn't understand the consequences of the rules but the rules were clear, then that is on them. If they didn't understand the consequences of the rules because they are opaque or misleading, then yes - we should fix the rules. But it is not at all clear to me at least what the situation is in the case of this particular project!
I just want it to go ahead, its pretty close to perfect for the site, it will cover up the tilt slab wall from the lane neave building, seems highly likely to have a rooftop bar overlooking the avon, that would be rad and it still incorporates a heritage building and takes the design of harley chambers into a modern reinterpretation at street level. Sometimes I hate democracy, its always the dumbest people who bark the loudest, and society moves at the rate of the slowest person.
Some extra info from The Press article this morning, hopefully we get a more clear update on the status of this project after the Friday meeting:
I hope the developer presses on!
So looks like Heritage New Zealand is fine with the plan, which is a huge plus. Ross Gray just seems to love holding up every new building in Christchurch in the name of heritage. Didn't know that the George Hotel was so concerned about the heritage of Christchurch, probably has nothing to do with the fact this proposed hotel will be their biggest competitor for the 5 star/6 star market surely? And Lane Neave don't want any work done on that site because of construction noise (WELCOME TO CHRISTCHURCH!!).
I hope the developer presses on!
Why wouldn't they?? The company owner is a Kiwi and his wife...
http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/business-and-law/contact-us/people/gerard-mccoy.html
Their decision is very disappointing but I can understand how they feel. They are expecting many years of endless litigation costing many millions in legal fees fighting opposition groups to no avail. Can't blame them from pulling the plug on the project. They seem very upset by the situation that they find themselves in. A very sad ending to what was to be a very excellent development for a run down prominent corner site.
Woah jumping the gun a bit? The project isn't dead yet, the developer may well indeed press on. Also just because a few groups are against the development in the submission process doesn't mean that they are willing to spend tens of thousands in a legal fight. The developer may however be using the consent process to hide behind other issues, which seems more likely.
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
