This just in, quite interesting, and relevant to the subject being discussed previously, namely – how much daylight do you need in a building?
Ben McNulty (a WCC Councillor) has today posted:
One last stupid hurrah for the Resource Management Act in Wellington.
While the government was amending rules to remove height limits in the Auckland CBD this week, in Wellington an Independent Commissioner (acting on advice from council planners) said no to allowing an additional 5.6 metres on a new apartment building on Wakefield Street due to “adverse effects on the historic heritage values of the Courtenay Place Heritage Area”.
At a time when our local economy is in the toilet, we cannot afford these types of rulings that are absolutely chilling for new investment in our city.
The Lido Apartments aren’t boutique, luxury spaces only a small section of buyers can afford. They’re directly targeted to first-home buyers with $10,000 deposits and units starting from $450k.
If we can’t build tall in Te Aro, where the hell are we meant to build?
He’s talking about this building (above), which from this street view looks quite nice, from the front. But you’ll notice that the building not only has apartments facing north (pictured here), but also has apartments facing East and West, while the building is oriented North and South. Unfortunately that means that apartments on the lower floors re facing directly into a hole, several stories deep, looking out at a neighbouring building boundary.
There’s not much daylight down there, and bugger all sunlight – in fact, artificial light is all you’re likely to be able to get from now until the end of time. Have a look at where the neighbouring buildings are, as they are allowed to be, and expected to be, almost right up to the side boundary. Doesn’t leave much room for air when looking out the window. Certainly not much room for daylight. Maybe it allows for the possibility of the neighbouring balconies forming a very close friendship?
Two lovers kissing under the tranquility of solitude? Two lovers at midnight over the back fence? You decide. Close-up:
Sure, once you get up higher, there is the probability of decent views out over the top of the neighbouring buildings. But only for so long. There is nothing to stop the neighbours from demolishing their buildings and building their new buildings to the same new height, and continuing to block out any possible views. So it seems like a pretty dumb idea to build a building that leaves you open to problems like this.
Has it been done before? Sure has! And it was a disaster last time, and it is highly likely to be a disaster again this time. You may remember that last time there was an almighty battle between two developers, one possibly Merv Quirke, the other Terry Serepisos (thanks to Kumara Republic for the info!) with one putting up a building smack in front of the other.
Queue complaints of dumbscullery and massive site blocking, reducing the value of apartments drastically, as the Council then ruled that some could only be sold on as Storage Units, rather than the deluxe Apartments they had initially been designed (and paid) for. So, thankfully to the highly intelligent and astute independent Commissioner, the revised, taller Lido has been turned down. I’m not sure if that means the lower height, former Lido will still be allowed to go ahead.
Some of the Ground floor apartments of Lido have, I believe, been abandoned from being sold as living / habitable spaces, and instead are going to be storage. Honestly, that should happen to more of these. But on the upper floors (levels 1 to 7, or 8, or 9, or whatever the hell the developer calls it this week), it is apartments all the way. Tiny, tiny, tiny apartments, many with really poor daylight. I’m still searching for the BXG Report.
Three cheers!@ A good decision from the last of the RMA.
Unfortunately I am wrong. The Terrible Building has not been avoided, it is still going ahead – just not the taller version. The short version is proceeding, apparently, as the Planner notes:
369 – “This application is not a choice between an undeveloped site and a new 37.6m building. A substantial 32m mixed-use building is already consented, is likely to be implemented and forms part of the receiving environment. The correct effects comparison is therefore between that lawful outcome and the proposed building, with the assessment focused on the incremental consequences of the additional 5.6m and the associated design changes.”
I am also wrong again, apparently, as what I mistook for a Bad building is, apparently, a fantastic piece of architecture, and the planner notes that:
371 – “The residential-amenity concerns also do not justify refusal. The most constrained
outlook remains limited to three apartments across Levels 1–3, as in the consented
scheme. Although six east-facing apartments have a reduced numerical outlook depth,
the revised apartments are wider and shallower, provide substantially greater external
frontage and glazing, and have direct external windows to living rooms and bedrooms.
Assessed functionally, the outlook and internal-amenity outcome is comparable with,
and in important respects improved from, the consented layout. BXG confirms a clear
pathway to Clause G7 compliance for every apartment, and the volunteered condition
secures that outcome. Residents will also have meaningful access to the communal
terrace, private balconies, shared desks and work areas, the residents’ gym, storage
and cycle facilities, Waitangi Park, the waterfront and the full range of City Centre
services and amenities.”