Wellington Scoop
Network

E-Mail 'Two generations of support for Wellington's character areas; warning of "foolish" deregulation' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Two generations of support for Wellington's character areas; warning of "foolish" deregulation' 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 ...

8 comments:

  1. David Mackenzie, 7. August 2020, 9:24

    My villa still has sash windows. The neighbouring villas have modern casement windows. This does not to my mind compromise their essential character or invalidate them as historic homes. Why would anyone think that an artefact that is modified over time by its users is no longer that artefact? Protect the old. Do not allow buildings higher than 2 storeys. Council where are these 80, 000 arrivals coming from? Are you sure than even exist? Can we not provide for them by a more subtle and cunning adaption of our built environment?

     
  2. Tomahawk Steak, 7. August 2020, 13:36

    Part of what makes wellington the “coolest little capital” is the character of the old weatherboard houses. So why would we want to overpopulate and cram tenement blocks in all over the place, destroying the very thing that makes it appealing? We need smarter thinking, like, do we need acres of prime land in kilbirnie for a crumbling bus depot which could be located within the confines of the airport, say on bridge st where multiple houses have been demolished and is unsuitable for housing due to the noise. Then you could fit quite a lot of nice townhouses on the old bus depot site. There is a lot of space in the block between tirangi and Kingsford Smith Rd and the old Miramar school site which the airport has plans for I know. But there must be numerous sites like this around wellington that don’t require bulldozing the character and putting up housing projects.

     
  3. Dave B, 7. August 2020, 13:54

    In 1950 the population of Wellington City was a cosy little 133,000 . I wonder if people back then complained that it would be overpopulated if it grew to 415,000 by 2020. Should they have kept it at 133,000?

     
  4. Conor, 7. August 2020, 14:14

    a lot of misunderstanding here. Felicity Wong is correct that the draft spatial plan doesn’t meet the NPS. But in the opposite direction to her assertions, more of the city needs to be zoned 6 storeys, not less.

    It’s true that the character areas have housed people from all walks of life. It’s also true people from all walks of life can no longer afford them. The workers cottages of Mt Cook and Thorndon are now million dollar houses. We are no longer the egalitarian society that had workers this close to the cbd. The idea that restricting new building makes it easier to house diverse groups is not grounded in reality.

    As to Gregor Thompson, he might want to look round Newtown. He’ll see social housing from 4 to 10 stories. Newtown is what it is thanks to some of its medium and high density, not despite it.

     
  5. Leviathan, 7. August 2020, 16:30

    I’m of the opinion that some people are needlessly worrying over nothing. I may be wrong, but I maintain that the end result is not the wholesale wiping out of housing on the flanks of Mt Victoria, but more that places like Adelaide Road (on the part leading to the Basin) and Newtown (around the Hospital) and Kilbirnie (around the shopping area) are the focus of these revised targets for density. I mean, really, can anyone point to a single building in that part of Adelaide Road that is worth keeping? That whole stretch of road will change, and quite appropriately too, to buildings about 6 storeys tall. Should have already happened but the Council has been farting around and not giving any clear signals over the transport corridor down the centre.

    Meanwhile, if you are scared of slaughter of the Victorian painted ladies on Mt Vic, remember the case of Zavos Corner on the Pirie and Brougham. Originally just one old villa on a medium-sized section, the proposals for redevelopment a few years ago received an earful from the Mt Vic Residents, the Mt Vic Heritage, and many neighbours, as well as spending months or even years in Resource Consent hell. The finished result, with no less than 8 medium density units where only one house stood before, has won numerous awards, is well-liked by the locals, is now a favourite of the Council who take people there to show them what to do, and I confess that I think even the Mt Vic Painted Lady Preservation groups are possibly happy because there are pointy roofs on the finished buildings and it fits right in.

    The buildings which ARE more likely to go are not those on Elizabeth, Porritt, Austin or Claregrove; but instead are more likely to be those car yards on Kent Tce, and Hania St, where 1-2 storey high commercial dross sit, squandering land best used for inner city housing. That’s where things are planned to change – and that’s where things absolutely SHOULD change. It would be great if someone from the WCC could back me up on this, to stop the endless wailing and gnashing of teeth from ancient Victorians…

     
  6. Polly, 8. August 2020, 13:00

    I agree with David McKenzie “where are all these people coming from?” And over the years there will be a continuing farewell to our older members, with vacant apartments and homes.

     
  7. Chris Horne, 8. August 2020, 21:45

    The thought of 80,000 more people pouring into Wellington is absolutely, positively farcical. Who dreamt the figure up? Where will the throngs live? In 6-storey or 8-storey people-filing cabinets? Who will create the thousands of extra jobs in factories, offices, shops, restaurants, etc. Where will the thousands of extra school pupils and university students study?

     
  8. John Rankin, 9. August 2020, 19:39

    @Leviathan: what you say is true in theory, but it’s not a foregone conclusion. Smart cities know that to do density well, you build rapid transit lines first and use these to foster transit-oriented communities around the stations.

    But according to the Golden Mile business case, rapid transit is not scheduled for delivery until 2036. Assuming we elect a National-led government at some point between then and now, 2050 may be a more realistic date, by which time it will be far too late; the damage will be done.

    Rapid transit lines send developers a strong signal about where to build and give buyers certainty that they will be able to get around without a car. It appears to me that the planners have not yet linked the housing goal to the transport goal. If we want to be a city with density done well, we need to get on and build rapid transit to the south and east, where we want higher density to happen.

    Let’s adopt LGWM’s “more people, fewer vehicles” as the goal for housing and transport. Increasing housing density without building high-capacity rapid transit is a recipe for lots more cars. If we are serious about the 2030 mode-shift plan, which notes the eastern suburbs have the highest car use, Wellington needs rapid transit open by 2030.