Wellington Scoop

E-Mail 'A chance to transform Wellington' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'A chance to transform Wellington' to a friend

* Required Field

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...


  1. Andy Mellon, 22. April 2020, 18:33

    Is the business case for the convention centre public? I wonder if it’s better to lose the $80-90m now rather than run a white elephant for the next X years losing significant $$$ year on year for something no one needs any longer. I also note that the idea of repurposing the building for the central library, for instance, hasn’t been raised in this article. Good to see support for conservation initiatives though. Something I have always tended to agree with Andy Foster on.

  2. michael, 22. April 2020, 18:42

    The library was used by over a million residents per year and is clearly one of the most important public buildings in Wellington. The Wellington public have made it very clear they want it back now as is and where it is. But very few members of the public want or will use the $180 million convention centre. And, if it turns out to be the white elephant we are all expecting, we will then be required to fork out millions more to repurpose it. Why not repurpose it now. Perfect for affordable and social housing, or new council offices.

  3. Ellen, 22. April 2020, 19:11

    Great to see all the thinking going into this and really hope that the post Covid-19 world is factored into decision-making. Reputational damage to a local government entity is paltry in the long term – local government are good payers and will always be around. Let’s use this opportunity to look to the future.

  4. TrevorH, 22. April 2020, 19:12

    Repurpose the Convention Centre now if you can’t stop it; forget LGWM, it’s a joke, and cut discretionary items like the million for “International Relations.” A rates increase cannot be justified.

  5. Lance, 22. April 2020, 19:53

    Wow, upwards of $60M has already been spent on the Convention Centre. Why didn’t that come out in the last election? Meanwhile, for normal citizens, wages are cut (20% or more), housing affordability is at an all time low, and the WCC is contemplating rates increases that will double the actual rates burden every 10 years in constant dollars. Thanks WCC for raising everyone’s rent.

    And if we were worried about 800 construction jobs, perhaps they would have been better directed at actual infrastructure projects that benefit everyone rather than white elephants that benefit a select few.

  6. Peter S, 22. April 2020, 20:37

    This council is on a hiding to nothing if it dares to inflict any rates rise on the citizens of Wellington this year. It’s all very well saying that the Convention Centre is a done deal, when it is obvious that it will be a complete lemon and cost us ratepayers for decades to come. At least we are to get some news soon on our library.
    As has been hammered home on this website, the council needs to conduct a slash and burn exercise on all lame duck expenses, such as the outfit formerly known as Wreda, international relations, corporate welfare to airlines, Island Bay changes, etc. Sorry Island Bay, you’ll have to live with it the way it is for a few years, for the greater good of Wgtn.

  7. Hel, 22. April 2020, 20:56

    Ellen, Council are good payers until they start walking away from contracts. Think what you like about the merits of the convention centre, but Councils should not simply walk away from contracts. Of course they would suffer reputational damage and so they should; regrets have never been a reason for walking away from contracts.

  8. Northland, 22. April 2020, 22:04

    “The thinking today is the same thinking behind the important infrastructure projects our city created during the Great Depression…” Unfortunately for this vision, today we have massively larger bureaucracies, huge quantities of red tape, legally mandated public and iwi consultation and a background of professional consultancy fees that dwarf anything that was around in the Great Depression. Given this, I don’t believe it is possible to embark on a such a large scale program and achieve the ‘transformative’ aims. All it will end up doing is lining the pockets of the professional middle classes in Wellington whilst little is achieved. Just take a look at LGWM’s record. A better approach would be to aim for gradual change and nurture ways of working that deliver more directly and incrementally. In other words an agile mindset. What can we deliver now to make things better now.

  9. Jill Ford, 22. April 2020, 22:14

    Whilst the Old Town Hall is a historic bldg and so has to be renovated, I question the extra expense of the National Music Centre. Instead let’s get a Central Library back up and running and more social housing.

  10. Ben, 22. April 2020, 22:51

    That’s a well articulated piece, open, transparent. Might not agree with everything but I like the initiatives for the environment. [via twitter]

  11. Dave Armstrong, 22. April 2020, 22:54

    Other cities build white elephants then when they fail they repurpose them. I’m so proud that our mayor is talking about repurposing the convention center before it has even been built.

  12. Alana, 22. April 2020, 23:01

    I’d suggest the public are behind rebuilding the Library and Town Hall and St James as priorities – just behind ensuring the drains are working. Everything else – including the convention centre – should be re-evaluated. Cancelling a construction contract under these crisis circumstances would not be a detriment to WCC’s reputation – maybe Willis Bond could be a contributor to the public good in these exceptional times and just let it go.

  13. Andy Foster, 23. April 2020, 7:48

    Thank you for the comments thus far.

    Andy Mellon and others making comment on the business case – the business case and associate papers were always public. They are on the Council website here. There are a lot of crystal balls being employed at the moment. We think, from the advice we are getting, and market signals, that there will be demand for Conventions. However we don’t have to make fitout decisions yet and we will see what the world looks like in a couple of years’ time, to see if any adjustment makes sense. The Centre isn’t due to open until 2023.

    Michael – the feedback on all three times we consulted on the Convention Centre (+hotel, + film museum, + exhibition centre) was always strongly positive, so it would have been helpful if there had been more views expressed at the times we consulted – over several years. Re the library – I agree, and have pushed for the engineering information to be made public as soon as possible. A paper is now being prepared for Council for early May.

    Hel and Ellen – Hel is, as so often, on the money. Council might be a ‘good payer’ Ellen. However if, on a political whim, we were just to pull out of contracts part way through, we would destroy being a partner of choice. Anyone doing business with us would rightly price in risk.

    Alana – If Willis Bond / LT McGuinness were to just ‘let it go’ you would be asking them, their sub-contractors, and suppliers to carry their workforce and other costs until they get them new employment on an unspecified potential future project which hasn’t even been put up for tender yet – all because the Council just changed its mind part way through a contract. Contracts matter.

    Northland – after 3 years of LGWM being a bit of a black hole talk fest, we are now getting things happening. Transport is always the minefield over which there are firmly held opposing views – we won’t satisfy everyone, but doing nothing is not an option, especially as the city grows, and as we seek to reduce our footprint on the planet.

    Kind regards, Andy

  14. Gwynneth Jansen, 23. April 2020, 8:51

    ‘Willis Bond could be a contributor to the public good’ – if only! Still not feeling the love for the Convention Centre; housing is what we desperately need. If we are contributing roughly a third to the construction of the CC, how much will ratepayers contribute in terms of operating costs and to support it through the lean times of minimal overseas travel and smaller gatherings? I’d like to see the books opened on this project (plaintive voice in the wilderness) – and a few others.

    Here’s another idea about the Central Library. How about repurposing it as the WCC’s home? Central position in the heart of Wellington, not as much stress on the building and relatively easy to contact trace if needed. We can continue with the creation of smaller libraries.

  15. Nonnita Mann, 23. April 2020, 9:25

    One priority needs to be to have high standard recycling that we can trust up and running.

  16. Iona Pannett, 23. April 2020, 9:49

    More on the Convention Centre, seems councillors are open to re-purposing but in the meantime, I don’t want to pay many millions for a broken contract or to stop people working when work is so needed. [via twitter]

  17. Sam Donald, 23. April 2020, 9:57

    The shovel-ready convention centre should be sold to the government for a National Art Gallery adjacent to Te Papa, & WCC can restrengthen the Central Library, upgrade essential infrastructure and other resilience & sustainable non-air-travel related projects. [via twitter]

  18. Gwynneth Jansen, 23. April 2020, 10:49

    Thanks Andy for the link to the papers.

  19. Traveller, 23. April 2020, 12:20

    Repurposing the Central Library as WCC offices is an idea worth considering. The council can’t stay forever paying top-of-the-scale rents on The Terrace. And it needs to return to Civic Square – if it places any value on the name of the square. But first, of course, we need to find out how the council intends to pay for all the work that’s needed on Civic Square. Nothing is budgetted as far as I can tell.

  20. Benoit Pette, 23. April 2020, 12:27

    Hi Andy, I am glad you are making a strong link between LGWM and the need to reduce our carbon footprint; it’s not something that I felt you were focused on before (biodiversity, conservation yes, climate change, less so). I am sure you will appreciate the concerns environmentalists have with the second Mt Vic tunnel. Unarguably, this would attract more cars through induced demand, and create more pollution. The answer cannot be “yes but people must be able to move.” And it can’t be “alternative modes will attract people out of their cars”, or else, why would we build the tunnel in the first place? So, since we cannot take any decision without applying a “climate change lens” (as per the climate emergency voted last year), how do we deal with this catch 22? Do we push for mass transit first, a surer way of containing emissions, while we wait for the car fleet electrification? You mention a coming article on LGWM, where I shall be looking forward to seeing these questions issues addressed.

  21. chris, 23. April 2020, 16:14

    For goodness sake focus on basics that we need – infrastructure, water and waste. Why on earth are our services not running… surely they can pick up recycling and at least take it to the tip even if it’s not sorted. Libraries can sort and sanitise books and have contactless pickup. Just think a bit outside the box.These people are all still on full pay! Frontline medics and shop workers take precautions and make it work, so should Council staff.
    Focus on basics, no rates rises, remove the frills and get on with the mahi…please.

  22. Northland, 23. April 2020, 17:28

    Hi Andy. Thanks you for taking the time and effort to peruse comments and provide feedback. This is very welcome and appreciated. I’m encouraged by your acknowledgement that LGWM has been a 3 year long black hole talk fest. Never has a truer word been spoken. My point is that this would not have occurred during the Great Depression. Action would have been far swifter and more decisive in those days.

    Contrary to some other views here, I think a second Mount Vic Tunnel is essential to connect the eastern suburbs and airport to the city and routes north. Hopefully LGWM has done enough of its talking and can now move swiftly into delivery mode. That is what Wellington needs.

  23. John M, 23. April 2020, 21:51

    Andy, please sort out that LGWM outfit, it’s been absolutely hopeless to say the least. We desperately need to address our transport issues and stop this endless procrastination. While you are looking at that, I think it is more than worthwhile pointing out in this new “social distancing” world we live in that public transport is not going to be a great look. Who wants to step on to a crowded bus or train? No one I pick! Bad news I know for the anti car brigade but nonetheless reality! And while you are about it Andy please don’t fall for all that “wildly” nonsense coming out of WREDA/WellingtonNZ – it is millions of ratepayer dollars straight down the drain.

  24. Dave B, 24. April 2020, 9:58

    John, I don’t think cars will be a “great look” in terms of social-distancing either. Only able to carry passengers from your “extended bubble”, no-one else, unless some form of virus-screen arrangement between seats can be viably rolled out.
    Failing this, the effect of a large-scale return to car-travel including necessary social-distancing will be a big increase in the proportion of single-occupant journeys, thereby catapulting us into congestion that will likely be worse than before.
    Train and bus travel will be subject to the same distancing requirements as air-travel. The larger the vehicle, the more possible it is to spread everyone out. Not ideal for efficient throughput, but better than everyone trying to go by car.

  25. michael, 24. April 2020, 10:28

    Why not start repurposing the convention centre now for the council offices, and leave the Central Library where it is = central!

  26. Guy M, 24. April 2020, 11:55

    michael, you’re not thinking this through very clearly. The Convention Centre has been designed specifically for its purpose as a large internally-focussed room with little in the way of external windows, with very large spans between columns and very high floor to floor heights suitable for mass gatherings. It is certainly not the sort of structure that could ever be repurposed as “perfect for affordable and social housing, or new council offices.”

    It would be absolutely totally immensely impractical and impossible ever as any form of housing, certainly not affordable housing, not at all social housing, and also totally unsuited to council offices. Please – leave it to the architects and engineers to design the building. There may be some other possible uses for the building, but any form of housing is not one of them.

  27. Dave B, 24. April 2020, 12:55

    Guy – simple answer – change the design. Sure, this will mean re-work, loss, penalties etc, but this is the price of making a wrong decision to proceed with a convention centre in the first place. And probably far better value in the long term. It’s a pity ratepayers can’t extract damages from whoever signed-off on this to start with.

  28. Guy M, 24. April 2020, 14:08

    Dave B – I’m sure that the architects and engineers have already designed a structure that is as flexible as possible, but the foundations are already in the ground, ready for the columns to go ahead soon. It would be completely the wrong place to have council social housing – it would be a really bad idea to change to that – but certainly, if the Convention Centre does not work out then the site could still work equally well for a number of other uses, probably mainly concerned with Te Papa. But never housing.

    As for who signed it off, surely that would be Lavery and Lester?

    There are a lot of the commenters saying No Convention Centre – but consider this. The City has been crying out for years now for a medium-large venue with a flat floor. The ASB Indoor Arena is one answer, but was designed specifically for sport and is not in the centre city. Shed 6 is really pretty poor. There have been many proposals over the years to have an Arena near the CakeTin, on the concourse, or last year near the Bluebridge Ferry Terminal. Wellington has a large number of events, and currently we have the Town Hall, the St James and the Opera House all out of action, and none of them are large enough. I would assume that although the name says Convention Centre on the box, the building will be readily adapted for other uses like those currently queuing up for the MFC, Shed 6 and the old Town Hall. I reckon this building will end up being well utilised – and certainly, Auckland doesn’t have at present, and won’t have for a few years yet, a venue capable of carrying the load. Wellington’s building might be perfectly placed to take the lead…

  29. Andrew, 24. April 2020, 17:33

    Re the contracts around the convention centre (and not arguing either way on merits), surely there are Force Majeure provisions that can be invoked?
    The ultimate dollar impact of Covid could easily be on par with war, natural disaster etc.

  30. Pam, 25. April 2020, 20:56

    The WCC business case for constructing a large building at Zealandia was wildly inaccurate and required a large ratepayer bailout. I remain skeptical of the projected attendance figures for the conference centre. It was generally accepted, prior to the pandemic, that international attendees prefer either Auckland or Queenstown as conference locations.

  31. Tony Corlett, 27. April 2020, 12:20

    The Island Bay Cycleway has been finished for several years. Stop picking at the scab, thus fuelling the few remaining anti-cycle anything complainers in the suburb. The continuation of the cycleway to the city does need to be completed, but not on Adelaide Road. It needs to go across the back of Wakefield and MacAlister Parks, joining with Hansen Street, thus separating cyclists from motor vehicles for a crucial portion of the way, and avoiding conflict with residents and businesses on Adelaide Road.