Comments on: the 5th Scenario http://eyeofthefish.org/the-5th-scenario/ A wide-angle view of architecture, urban design and life in Wellington Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:14:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: gareth http://eyeofthefish.org/the-5th-scenario/#comment-13005 gareth Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:16:42 +0000 http://eyeofthefish.org/?p=1257#comment-13005 Ok, well assuming all of the sudden surf lovers get their way and the council agrees to rebuild the shed (sorry cafe) I would like to bid $231 a week for the right to operate as a commercial cafe. I am prepared to pay MORE than the commercial rate - This is to ensure that I do my bit for the ratepayers of Wellington. I make this offer in the spirit of humble altruism, and my desire to support the important lifesaving services of the Maranui Surf lifesaving club. I will even pay $0.02 from the cost of every latte towards sponsoring Club activities. What more can I say. But in exchange for this generosity, I will need the Council to agree to my 3am license. Ok, well assuming all of the sudden surf lovers get their way and the council agrees to rebuild the shed (sorry cafe)

I would like to bid $231 a week for the right to operate as a commercial cafe. I am prepared to pay MORE than the commercial rate – This is to ensure that I do my bit for the ratepayers of Wellington.

I make this offer in the spirit of humble altruism, and my desire to support the important lifesaving services of the Maranui Surf lifesaving club.

I will even pay $0.02 from the cost of every latte towards sponsoring Club activities. What more can I say. But in exchange for this generosity, I will need the Council to agree to my 3am license.

]]> By: richardmaclean http://eyeofthefish.org/the-5th-scenario/#comment-12989 richardmaclean Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:48:45 +0000 http://eyeofthefish.org/?p=1257#comment-12989 I think the report's being written for a meeting in the week beginning 16 November. But I'll double-check that and get back to you. cheers R MacLean - WCC Ext Comms I think the report’s being written for a meeting in the week beginning 16 November. But I’ll double-check that and get back to you.
cheers
R MacLean – WCC Ext Comms

]]> By: Maximus http://eyeofthefish.org/the-5th-scenario/#comment-12939 Maximus Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:06:58 +0000 http://eyeofthefish.org/?p=1257#comment-12939 Thanks for the clarification Richard – that makes more sense. Any idea on the length of time that Council will need to make a decision? After the Strategy and Policy meeting presumably – on 3rd November? I don’t see it on the agenda yet:
Report 1 – Portfolio: Governance
Report of the Council Controlled Organisation Performance Subcommittee Meeting of Friday 23 October 2009

Report 2 – Portfolio: Governance
Policy Programme 2010/12 and Improvements for Advice Delivery

Report 3 – Portfolio: Organisational
Forward Programme

Report 4 – Portfolio: Environment
Resolution to classify land vested in the Council through subdivision as reserve land

Report 5 – Portfolio: Urban Development and Transport
Traffic Resolutions

Report 6 – Portfolio: Urban Development and Transport
Oral Hearings – Resident Parking and Coupon Parking Schemes

Report 7 – Portfolio: Urban Development and Transport
Oral Hearings – 2009/10 Draft Waterfront Development Plan

]]> By: richardmaclean http://eyeofthefish.org/the-5th-scenario/#comment-12927 richardmaclean Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:19:59 +0000 http://eyeofthefish.org/?p=1257#comment-12927 Just a point of clarification from the happy, snappy and well-connected Council. I may be proven wrong in detail but as far as I know the Maranui building has always been 'owned' by the Council. I think the 'hand-over' by the club to the Council a few years ago was based more on changing the terms of the lease to give the Council more responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the building. I'm no expert on sticking links to other sites - but there's quite a bit about Maranui on the Council's website here - my attempt at a link is below. It appears much of the design of the various phases of the building over the years was handled by the Council City Engineer's Department. http://www.wellington.govt.nz/services/heritage/details.php?id=157&m=search&street=lyall%20bay cheers Richard MacLean - WCC Ext Comms Just a point of clarification from the happy, snappy and well-connected Council. I may be proven wrong in detail but as far as I know the Maranui building has always been ‘owned’ by the Council. I think the ‘hand-over’ by the club to the Council a few years ago was based more on changing the terms of the lease to give the Council more responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the building. I’m no expert on sticking links to other sites – but there’s quite a bit about Maranui on the Council’s website here – my attempt at a link is below. It appears much of the design of the various phases of the building over the years was handled by the Council City Engineer’s Department.

http://www.wellington.govt.nz/services/heritage/details.php?id=157&m=search&street=lyall%20bay

cheers
Richard MacLean – WCC Ext Comms

]]> By: Kaihuia http://eyeofthefish.org/the-5th-scenario/#comment-12923 Kaihuia Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:24:09 +0000 http://eyeofthefish.org/?p=1257#comment-12923 Bang on, Gareth. Harsh but true. I liked the cafe, very much. But the fire has rather cruelly exposed how much it and the club were cushioned by the public purse. If the building had been privately insured, the cost would have been reflected in the rent. But they avoided that cost by having it underwritten by the council. As for rent, a council committee report from May 2008 recommends renewing the lease for 10 years at a rental of $8000 a year + GST. It also refers to a maintenance fee of $2393 + GST/yr and a compliance fee of $1593 + GST/yr. So apparently the occupancy cost was $11986/yr, or $230 a week. Would any competing cafe operators go a little green at that, I wonder? This isn't to say that restoring the building would be wrong, it wouldn't be good to have the cafe back, etc. But I think it means the debate should be exactly as Gareth suggests: is this a building, a club and a business that merits continuing public subsidy, and the capital injection necessary to keep it going? It's not about whether the council is a miserable, bureaucratic outfit disconnected from the community, because in this case that charge is, well, a bit harsh. Bang on, Gareth. Harsh but true. I liked the cafe, very much. But the fire has rather cruelly exposed how much it and the club were cushioned by the public purse. If the building had been privately insured, the cost would have been reflected in the rent. But they avoided that cost by having it underwritten by the council. As for rent, a council committee report from May 2008 recommends renewing the lease for 10 years at a rental of $8000 a year + GST. It also refers to a maintenance fee of $2393 + GST/yr and a compliance fee of $1593 + GST/yr. So apparently the occupancy cost was $11986/yr, or $230 a week. Would any competing cafe operators go a little green at that, I wonder?

This isn’t to say that restoring the building would be wrong, it wouldn’t be good to have the cafe back, etc. But I think it means the debate should be exactly as Gareth suggests: is this a building, a club and a business that merits continuing public subsidy, and the capital injection necessary to keep it going? It’s not about whether the council is a miserable, bureaucratic outfit disconnected from the community, because in this case that charge is, well, a bit harsh.

]]> By: Maximus http://eyeofthefish.org/the-5th-scenario/#comment-12915 Maximus Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:57:52 +0000 http://eyeofthefish.org/?p=1257#comment-12915 gareth - harsh, so harsh. "The club unloaded the shed onto the Council in return for use of it at a peppercorn rental." That's a very cynical, but quite possibly true, reason - but then on the other hand, up until the Surf club handed over ownership, the building had been insured. Like I keep saying, there are 3 issues at stake here - a Club, a Building, and a Cafe. I'd say that you are getting them muddled up as well. Put the issue of the Cafe aside. Just look at the Building: If you had handed over your building to someone else, who had promised to keep insuring it, and then it burned down and it turned out someone hadn't bothered to insure it, wouldn't you be all pissed off as well? gareth – harsh, so harsh. “The club unloaded the shed onto the Council in return for use of it at a peppercorn rental.” That’s a very cynical, but quite possibly true, reason – but then on the other hand, up until the Surf club handed over ownership, the building had been insured.

Like I keep saying, there are 3 issues at stake here – a Club, a Building, and a Cafe.
I’d say that you are getting them muddled up as well. Put the issue of the Cafe aside. Just look at the Building: If you had handed over your building to someone else, who had promised to keep insuring it, and then it burned down and it turned out someone hadn’t bothered to insure it, wouldn’t you be all pissed off as well?

]]> By: gareth http://eyeofthefish.org/the-5th-scenario/#comment-12906 gareth Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:05:20 +0000 http://eyeofthefish.org/?p=1257#comment-12906 Not really that impressed by the debate here. A scruffy old shed owned by a moribund surf club. The club unloaded the shed onto the Council in return for use of it at a peppercorn rental. At some much later stage the council agreed to let a commercial concern (the cafe) occupy the building. The space was never intended for a cafe,was never built or wired to a commercial standard and surprise surprise it burned down. Now ratepayers have to pay $750,000 so a happy bunch of campers can continue to enjoy their lattes, because apparently the cafe paid a "commercial" rate for the space. I don't think so. I have no issue with inviting a commercial business to bid for a 20 year lease over the site and fund a commercial build for commercial purposes - I like beachfront cafes too, but I fail to see why ratepayers need to be in the business of bankrolling them. Not really that impressed by the debate here.

A scruffy old shed owned by a moribund surf club.

The club unloaded the shed onto the Council in return for use of it at a peppercorn rental.

At some much later stage the council agreed to let a commercial concern (the cafe) occupy the building.

The space was never intended for a cafe,was never built or wired to a commercial standard and surprise surprise it burned down.

Now ratepayers have to pay $750,000 so a happy bunch of campers can continue to enjoy their lattes, because apparently the cafe paid a “commercial” rate for the space.

I don’t think so. I have no issue with inviting a commercial business to bid for a 20 year lease over the site and fund a commercial build for commercial purposes – I like beachfront cafes too, but I fail to see why ratepayers need to be in the business of bankrolling them.

]]> By: DayOut http://eyeofthefish.org/the-5th-scenario/#comment-12879 DayOut Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:10:40 +0000 http://eyeofthefish.org/?p=1257#comment-12879 No one who has the temerity to build on Wellington's South Coast has any right to imagine their creation will survive to have heritage status. No one who has the temerity to build on Wellington’s South Coast has any right to imagine their creation will survive to have heritage status.

]]> By: Maximus http://eyeofthefish.org/the-5th-scenario/#comment-12877 Maximus Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:47:36 +0000 http://eyeofthefish.org/?p=1257#comment-12877 Well yes, but then so can an empty cardboard box. It IS striking, I'll agree, but it is just a simple red door and a staircase with a shadow. Not that much to it. I reckon there is a lot of care and consideration of the weatherboard cladding - as to whether the actual weatherboards are heritage items, or is it just the 3mm of paint on the outside? Well yes, but then so can an empty cardboard box.

It IS striking, I’ll agree, but it is just a simple red door and a staircase with a shadow. Not that much to it. I reckon there is a lot of care and consideration of the weatherboard cladding – as to whether the actual weatherboards are heritage items, or is it just the 3mm of paint on the outside?

]]> By: DayOut http://eyeofthefish.org/the-5th-scenario/#comment-12876 DayOut Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:36:49 +0000 http://eyeofthefish.org/?p=1257#comment-12876 The building can be eye catching in the right light. http://dayoutinnz.blogspot.com/2009/10/maranui-surf-club.html The building can be eye catching in the right light.
http://dayoutinnz.blogspot.com/2009/10/maranui-surf-club.html

]]>