Wellington Scoop

E-Mail 'The Adelaide Road solution' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'The Adelaide Road solution' 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. Claire, 3. November 2020, 10:57

    Great article Gregor yes why indeed not Adelaide Road. The question on everyone’s lips. If it had been actioned in 2008, we wouldn’t be having the spatial plan stoush.

  2. Pedge, 3. November 2020, 11:39

    Does anyone know who owns the vast piece of land on the corner of Rugby and Tasman Streets? It’s been empty for years, a forced acquisition really should be on the cards there. I can’t think of a better location for a few well designed apartment buildings. [It’s been empty for more than a decade, first to be a supermarket, then bought by the Chinese Embassy – several years ago they announced plans for a new Embassy on the site.]

  3. K, 3. November 2020, 13:51

    @Claire: If what had been actioned? The council did action it in 2008. Any new developments on Adelaide Road after that are purely the choice of private landowners, who so far haven’t done much. You can’t force people to build new high rises on their land if they don’t want to. The solution to that (as mentioned in the article) is compulsory acquisition and building by central government, or some sort of subsidy which has not been offered (instead development costs have increased dramatically). Anyone in favour of compulsory acquisition needs to realise that once that happens there is nothing stopping the same thing happening elsewhere – including Mt Victoria & Newtown (some would likely argue this is a good thing, as an opportunity to get rid of properties owned by those opposing high-density developments).

  4. Toni, 3. November 2020, 13:59

    Totally agree with the mantra that “density done well should be the ambition” and hope that Adelaide Road does not get developed the same way as Victoria St/Dixon/Willis Streets with their wall-to-wall apartments, very high density living, and no reasonable green or community spaces – a recipe for long-term problems as has happened overseas. It will be interesting to see if the WCC’s goals to be the most-liveable city, with a focus on high quality buildings and ‘greening’ the central city, start happening.

  5. Conor, 3. November 2020, 14:39

    A good place to house a small fraction of the 200,000 people expected to shift to the region in the next 30 years. Obviously we need solutions in the rest of the city too.

    Also – how many tens of millions should ratepayers set aside for compulsory acquisition of land on Adelaide Road? That seems to be the key way you’re planning on having growth happen here.

  6. Claire, 3. November 2020, 14:56

    K I guess you can’t force people in the inner suburbs to sell land either. So there may be very sporadic building there.
    People are entitled to defend history, and character, and the current pleasant environment in their home area if they choose.

  7. Brian Dawson, 4. November 2020, 16:48

    Kent and Cambridge is very tricky land for building on, especially high rise. That makes construction expensive and harder to raise money for. Adelaide Rd is far easier. [via twitter]

  8. Chris Calvi-Freeman, 4. November 2020, 17:04

    Building apartments on car sales yards along Kent/Cambridge Tces etc won’t solve the housing crisis, but it’s a damn good start. Why should some of our best, most accessible sites close to CBD be devoted to display of cars when we can house people & create communities? [via twitter]

  9. Claire, 4. November 2020, 17:47

    Thanks Brian and Chris for talking sense. Brian What is wrong with the land on Kent and Cambridge Tce? And is there a problem in parts of Newtown ie flooding and alluvial soil therefore possible liquefaction?

  10. Chris Calvi-Freeman, 4. November 2020, 18:32

    Conor: “how many tens of millions should ratepayers set aside for compulsory acquisition of land on Adelaide Road?” It needn’t cost ratepayers a cent. Just encourage existing landowners to sell to developers or, if they won’t, or if land is needed to widen the corridor for LRT & cycling, then compulsory purchase whole blocks, take what’s needed for the road corridor, then on-sell the rest to developers at a margin. QED.

  11. M, 4. November 2020, 20:24

    Ratepayers are already paying the cost of developments…which could be redirected to much needed infrastructure or keeping the yearly rate increase down.

  12. Henry Filth, 4. November 2020, 22:09

    And green space? Open space? Non-commercial, non-residential space? Recreational space? Free space? Accessible space?

    Can there be some (lots) of that, too?

  13. Peter Barber, 5. November 2020, 9:10

    North Adelaide Road is a busy street and a wind tunnel. While the land underneath isn’t as bad as Kent and Cambridge Terraces, it is still not as good as sections higher on the hills adjacent. More trees would help the ambiance.

  14. durden, 6. November 2020, 8:19

    Surely Government House can move? Or we take back the land from the Chinese govt. Or don’t we slay sacred cows, or even talk about them ??