Site fences went up around (part of) the Arena Hotel shortly before Easter. 20170422 Arena Hotel by John Polkinghorne, on Flickr
The building's overdue for a cleaning up. The owner applied for resource consent for student apartments in 2016, so presumably that's what they're moving ahead with. Looks for now like they're focusing on the two-storey building, the liquor store in the old hotel is still open.
UNILODGE ANZAC AVE | 122 Anzac Avenue | Under Construction
Unilodge have engaged Arrow to plan the program and cost for a 21-level student accommodation complex to be built between Beach Road and Anzac Avenue in the Auckland CBD.
This project will add another 488 beds to Unilodge’s central portfolio in Auckland. The project will include a large communal kitchen, TV/theatre room, study room, gymnasium, lap pool, communal lounge and BBQ area on a roof deck overlooking the Hauraki Gulf.
Demolition is well underway (some photos in the next post). This is a very narrow site which runs between Beach Rd and Anzac Ave, situated in between the existing Unilodge complex and the heritage-listed Station Hotel building. The height difference between Beach and Anzac must be about 15-20 metres, so a pretty challenging site.
Well it definitely has windows on one side, maybe both. In their defense, the left hand side (looking from the sea) has windows and the building is hard up against their neighbour. It appears they have bought air space rights - finally! - someone is doing this in Auckland! Otherwise that would have been a *massive* blank wall looking from further down either Beach Rd or Anzac Ave back towards the city.
(Looking at the higher of the 2 podiums, at the back, where the windows are in a set-back, I would guess they haven't bought the air rights there and it is a separate neighbour. But good on them for going with windows anyway (maybe the rooms are so pokey they have to!) even though they in theory might be built out one day leaving a 1 metre view
Less blurry photo, but focusing on the Station Hotel which I thought was part of the development (it isn't - different owner): 20170529_082837 by John Polkinghorne, on Flickr
It appears they've done soft/interior demo including the roof. Now just concrete structure remaining.
Access for diggers and trucks to get in there will be tricky. They'll probably end up taking more of the footpath. Can't imagine they'll be able to get access from Anzac ave down to demolish this
Auckland really is an architectural black hole. Shitty ugly buildings with cheap looking materials sitting cheek by jowl next to each other on elongated narrow lots not fit for high rises.
Good on them for going with windows? :lol: That says it all...
How does it result in more efficient use of scare resources? If anything you could argue the opposite. By buying out the air rights of a neighbouring site you've just prevented the construction of another high rise.
Developers will only purchase air rights to protect views, not for more attractive buildings. Blank walls are an issue in most cities with tall buildings.
The (ob)scenes are a good example of this, they bought the air rights above the row of rubbish that now sits in front, being a carpark and a carpark with a supermarket on top.
The obscenes are also an example of how height limits dictate the eventual forms of buildings - 3 giant horizontal slabs that wall off the eastern part of the CBD. One of them of the signature 'L' shape to cover over as much of the site as possible.
If they were taller buildings that stood on podiums with enough space between them to allow natural light into the surrounding neighbourhood as well as the non-north facing parts of the building, the end result would have been much better.
I remember 100% of the blame was directed towards the developer but he was adamant that it was the council regulations that were to blame. I agree with him and I don't think the council, it's planners and Joe public understand the damage these regulations have done and continue to do.
What we got:
Example of distinctive buildings on the waterfront with enough space between them and no blank walls (yes, another Vancouver example)
Views - of something other than a tilt-slab wall - are a scarce resource.
Putting high-value buildings on prime waterfront sites - rather than el cheapo, minimise the $/sqm, tilt-slab view-killers - is better use of a scarce land resource.
Narrower, taller buildings with airspace reserved between them should be encouraged. They are more expensive per sqm, but the city is worth it. The Scene should have been taller and narrower, or varied in height. I'm going to go with both parties being at fault. The developer had options - he appeared to go for one end of the price (per sqm) vs. quality trade-off curve.
Vancouver does many things well, and particularly in this respect (although in fairness it's not difficult to be better than Auckland in this respect) but having spent some time in Vancouver I really hope Auckland doesn't end up as cookie-cutter as that.
The truth is 99% of people don't like tall buildings. I realise this website is for people who do but we are the exception. Experts and the public in general look at places like Barcelona as the model to follow and Barcelona has many apartments that are far worse than anything in NZ once you get outside the main CBD.
Depends on what you see as cookie cutter I guess - when most new buildings are the same shape (plattenbau inspired 'L' with a breezeway), material (tilt slab or alucobond at best), colour (grey, beige, white), height (12-15 storeys/60metres) shoved in next to each other with a monolithic wall/facade of balconies facing the street I think we're already pretty cookie cutter.
I don't see anything wrong with many recent developments. I would also argue that most of the great cities have what you describe as walls of buildings like what you see on Anzac Ave etc. New buildings like Commercial Bay and Customs Residential are contributing to a big wall along Customs St.
Gotta hope those piles are deep enough, right on a cliff edge there. This one and the other student accomo tower are on very steep sites. I also wonder how they're going to get material to the lower portion of the site without closing the cycle way. They must have a plan with lots of cones.
They usually close one of the lanes to cars and move the cycleway out when they need access to the site, it's happened several times to me as I use the cycleway daily here.
They are below road level on the beach road side of the site, flat out doing steel work. My count is approx 30 people on this part of the site. Lots of action
very cool - and they've seemingly made a deal with their neighbours giving themselves airspace. And some setback for the windows. Seems like good and interesting design went into this
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
SkyscraperCity Forum
139.4M posts
1.1M members
Since 2002
A truly global community dedicated to skyscrapers, cities, urban development, and the metropolitan environment. Join us to share news, views and fun about architecture, construction, transport, skylines, and much more!