And so it starts. Fears of the Mt Victoria Residents Association, much bandied about as the end of the world, have now actually been put on the table. Is this the beginning of the end? Or merely a logical outcome to a much discussed situation?
I’m referring, of course, to the proposal by Quinn / Forma to build a 7 storey high medium density block of 32 apartments on the edge of the Town Belt at the very top of the residential part of Mt Victoria. This is exactly the sort of proposal that the city wanted to see, by freeing up the heigh restrictions, and also, coincidentally, exactly the sort of proposal that MVRA never wanted to see. Will it have much of an effect on Affordability? Almost none – these are going to be top end, bloody expensive apartments I’m guessing, as the site will be a bugger to get to and to work on – set amongst a matrix of tiny dwellings, cheek to cheek. Mt Vic is everyone’s favourite suburb, except the houses are so close together that you can hear your neighbours fart – or in my experience, have the neighbours cat come and visit you in bed each night, as cats do not respect property boundaries. Damn cute cat, but an absolute slut, visiting all us neighbours every evening.
Thirty-two apartments is an awful lot however, especially fitting onto the site of one single house. There must be some pretty clever architects involved, to be able to do the gymnastics that this will take! And thirty-two cars as well! I thought that the argument for MDH close to town was that you don’t need to provide car parks on site – so that argument has been shot down at the first hurdle. Must be at least one basement floor I guess, which then would make this an eight storey building overall? Basement, Ground, and six Upper Floors? I don’t think there is any way you could squeeze 36 cars onto the ground floor without going down some more?!
The other main argument is, of course, the overshading of the neighbours. Restriction of sunlight to those on the South side of the site presumably, and I’m sure that those people will be protesting loudly. But does that just affect one neighbour, or two? The neighbours to the North will not be affected too much, except for cutting out of the harsh southerly wind. To the East, there is only trees in the Town Belt, and to the West, they will already only get sunshine in the afternoon, so it may affect them only a little. No doubt some people will think this is all just too much – but the right to daylight is not a law in this country, and certainly the right to sunlight, or right to views, are completely not a thing. Pity though…
The Post says: “The first cab off the ranks in Wellington’s newly allowed housing intensification will see an 1800s home bowled to make way for a high-end apartment block towering over the central suburb of Mount Victoria. Wellington City Council spokesman Richard MacLean said the six-storey complex, backing onto the Town Belt in the central suburb of Mount Victoria, was set to be the first built under increased height allowances permitted under a new council district plan. The council had received the resource consent and was still deciding how to handle it, including whether it would be publicly notified, he said. While opposition to the “Mayfair” block – complete with outdoor heated pool, sauna, wellness centre and in-house cafe – is already under way, developer Mark Quinn saw it as a step towards rejuvenation of a city that had suffered a lot of recent bad news. He hoped to start development in the second half of next year for an 18-month build and said being considerate of neighbours was forefront of mind. The building did not use the maximum land it could and he had taken the “rare” step of volunteering that four immediate neighbours be notified and could object.”
So what do you think? Is this the end of the world? Or just squabbling by rich people who live in a far nicer location than you or I ? Interested to hear your views!
“To the East, there is only trees in the Town Belt”
Not true,
It backs right onto the Mt Vic Bowling Club aka the Cathedral of Despair :)
https://whatwedointheshadows.fandom.com/wiki/Unholy_Masquerade?file=Cathedral_of_Despair.jpg
It will certainly shade their greens, and the new apartment dwellers might complain about some of the noisy parties that occur there…
Ha !! Vampires at the doorstep – or a continuous supply of fresh blood for the bowlers…?
Looks nice
I’m sure lots of people will oppose it but I suspect that they will be very NIMBY
Construction is just crickets right now so either a few of these or a damn big earthquake please
If not there, then where?
No chance further down the hill with Nimbies to the left, right and centre…
Is the Mt Vic Character overlay still in place? I’ve lost track of what the current / proposed District Plan says now, but the Design Guidelines used to say that anything on Mt Vic had to have pointy roofs, not flat roofed, small scale etc. Looking forward to seeing how this is evaluated ! For the sake of all Wellington the entire process should be played out in public. We all need to build up some faith in the Council process, which I believe is at rock bottom right now.
No, there is no character overlay in this particular area. ‘Overlays’ (design guidance) were in the original spatial plan but later abandoned. Now in Mt Vic we have character areas (where resource consent is needed to demolish a pre-1930s house, and it’s zoned for 3 stories, or high density areas (demolish at will, zoned 6 stories). If the version of the District Plan recommended by commissioners had been accepted by council then Austin St and Westbourne Grove would have been a character area. But the council rejected the recommendations and it ended up high density. Thus the developer has very little stopping him.
re your comment: “the council rejected the recommendations and it ended up high density.”
Such things are seldom left to chance. I reckon that this particular developer probably put in a submission to the Council when they were deliberating, hence the Council rejected the recommendations. Is money likely to have passed hands? Yes, probably. Are we really as pure as the driven snow? No, those days are long gone. Developers have been bribing Councillors for centuries to get what they want. I’m sure that our city is no different from others around the globe.
The real problem therefore, Jane, is that you did not bribe the Councillors enough.
There is still a character overlay but it looks a little like swiss cheese right now. I’m sure projects like this, over time will complete the gentrification cycle for Mt. Vic. and push out the last few hold outs. The biggest complaints will come from the neighbours directly to the south who are about to lose a lot of their sun access.
The places to the South, (7,9,11) Rixon Grove are already lower and have a wall and high trees on their northern aspect, so they certainly wont lose views,
But the will likely gain more shade on their “backyards” (esp in the Winter months)
Is that where Rixon Grove is? I always thought that it was just the name of a groovy menswear shop that closed down a few years back. No idea that it was an actual real live place…
I think once you reach a certain price bracket (likely somewhere below ‘bloody expensive’), you can safely assume that every single buyer is going to want to bring their own cars, probably one per adult.
That is, unless it is really easy to freeload on free on street parking (a practice which the council should frankly just abolish).
Or maybe Mount Victoria has a thriving culture of people, even rich people, who think of taking the bus or walking as dignified ways to get around. But that is not something that I normally associate with the sort of NIMBYism you’re describing.
Or how easy is it to do all the things expected from grown ass adults without a car? Can you get a kid to a doctor or a clinic? Can you get to a supermarket in less than half an hour? Can you walk 100m without street designs making it smacking in your face obvious that you’re not supposed to do that?
I used to live on Mt Victoria myself, not far away from the redevelopment site in question, and we 5 flatmates did not have a car – walked everywhere (too steep up the top to try and bike) – or if full of grocery shopping, just got a taxi from Chaffers New World. Did that for about 10 years. I think that there are many people in Mt Vic like that, with no car, nor any possible off-street parking.
Went to the doctors on foot. Went to work on foot. Went on holiday via a taxi to the plane. Have no children, so can’t claim anything there, but I could guarantee you something 100%, that if I did ever have kids, they would be every day walking to School on foot or on a bike, like I did, every single day of my life. I find these modern parents abhorrent in their attitude to driving children to school. Pathetic.
Having said that however, I hear what you say and I agree. But apartments no longer have to construct a single off-street car park – and I agree that this does not really work. But that is the way it is…
Here’s the story on the RNZ website today:
“Residents of Wellington’s Mt Victoria say the city council has betrayed them by changing planning rules that may allow a seven-storey apartment building to go up in the neighbourhood. But the developer says the high-end residential block – named Mayfair – is the beginning of the suburb’s rejuvenation and the start of a fresh look for Wellington. Homes in Mount Victoria sit on sunny slopes between the city and the green belt. Real estate there is expensive, and features a number of heritage areas and well-kept character homes. Earlier this year, Wellington City Council voted to shrink the city’s ‘character areas’ and remove rules about what can be built in these parts of the city – including Mt Victoria. Mayfair is the first proposed development as a result of these changes.”
…
“The Mayfair development would provide executive residences which were fitting for Mt Victoria, Mark Quinn, director of the development firm Forma Group, said. “When the planning rules changed we went to our architects and said ‘let’s start again with a clean sheet of paper’.” Quinn said the architects were directed to do all they could to mitigate the impact of the building on the sun and privacy of neighbouring properties. He would be living in the building, and wanted to be a good neighbour. Mayfair was an exemplar building and proved that the district plan could be implemented responsibly, he said. The planning changes were “brave”. “In years to come, they’ll be seen as a massive gamechanger for Wellington.”
Quinn said the building would set a new standard for Mt Victoria. “It won’t look like the rest of Mt Victoria but it will enhance the area.” The proposal was out for resource consent and Quinn said he had asked the council to include the four neighbours on Westbourne Grove in the notification, so they got a fair hearing and their views taken into consideration. Forma Group was also planning a major, mid-price development in the city centre, Quinn said.”
Also quoted was a bloke who said that: “A judicial review of the district plan is due to be heard in the High Court in February. The review has been bought by advocacy group Live Wellington. Spokesperson Phil Kelliher said the Mayfair development was out of scale and out of place for Mt Victoria.”
“I can’t think of a worse possible site for this. It’s exactly what we feared would happen with the new district plan – a developer can come and put up a tall building amongst one- and two-storey housing, impacting the neighbourhood in all sorts of ways.”
Kelliher said the group was not against housing density and the thoroughfares of nearby Kent and Cambridge terraces had sites which would benefit from development. “You lose nothing but you gain so much – you don’t have to start dismantling our heritage and our character to achieve it.”
– So, Phil: “I can’t think of a worse possible site for this.” Really? I can think of many worse possible sites. This one is quite good. Only inconveniences a few people, not that many. You need to spread your wings and think a lot bigger than that !
Not quite sure how the people in these new apartments will feel if someone then builds in a way that blocks their light and sun!
Seems like the opening of a can of worms for all!
Oh, the people in the new apartments will have to be very rich, and so they will hire very expensive lawyers, so that situation will never actually happen…
What was that famous quote by the chap who is now King.
As he gazed out on Paternoster square by St Paul’s in central London he remarked along the lines that at least when the Germans bombed London they didn’t come and build concrete monstrosities in the place of what they bombed.
Something about a carbunkle on the side of an old friend? Bless him.
HM (then HRH) was referring to a proposed extension to the National Gallery, I think
This apartment hasn’t even obtained consent and already triggered lots of attention. I understand both ways. The potential buyers may not even be rich or maybe just middle class at slightly high side who wants a city pad once their children are out of high school and don’t want to live by the road front. Unfortunately apartment body corp is a mess in NZ at the moment. I have stayed at some apartments in Europe in the past. They are small( around 50-60square meters or less) but they are quite nice because of high ceilings, art decos and quality. At the moment all are speculations.