Wellington Scoop

PHOTOS: Big new six-storey building proposed for waterfront park near station

proposed Whitmore Plaza on Wellington waterfront - building from the wharf
Click for big version.

News from Wellington City Council
The design of a new building and public plaza proposed for the Railway Station end of the waterfront was unveiled yesterday. The council-owned Wellington Waterfront Limited is now seeking feedback about the design.

building from wharf, looking north feb12
Click for big version.

The Kumutoto Precinct is already home to the award-winning Meridian Building and Kumutoto Plaza, and the proposed new building at 10 Waterloo Quay and the new Whitmore Plaza would be an extension of this popular waterfront area. The building and plaza would occupy the site that is currently the Motor-home Park opposite the NZ Post building on Waterloo Quay, and known as Site 10 in the Wellington Waterfront Framework document.

building from Waterloo Quay, looking north feb12
Click for big version.

Ian Pike, CEO of Wellington Waterfront Ltd, said yesterday: “This will be an attractive and high quality building and public space including the unique feature of a large ground floor indoor plaza for public use, providing an all-weather environment overlooking the harbour, as well as public toilets and the facility to buy food and coffee; it would also provide a seamless flow to the new landscaped Whitmore Plaza outside.”

The Whitmore Plaza would be a continuation of the Kumutoto public space providing a landscaped area for people to relax and enjoy the waterfront; it would also complete the waterfront pedestrian promenade to the Railway Station, both on the Quay and waterfront sides of the building.

The building above the ground floor will provide five levels of premium commercial office space in line with the use outlined for this site in the Wellington Waterfront Framework, and contained within Variation 11.

The proposed building has been designed by award winning architects Studio Pacific Architecture.

Nick Barratt-Boyes, the lead architect on the project, said: “It is proposed as a sculptural, contemporary addition to this waterfront site, while being sympathetic to its historical maritime context, and taking careful consideration of critical view shafts and key views from the city and the harbour.

“The form of the building takes its cues from its maritime context and has an exo-skeletal (net-like) structure that wraps and cradles the building on three facades whilst allowing the expression of the seaward facade to be a beautiful folding crystalline form. The indoor plaza on the ground floor is seamlessly stitched into the waterfront promenade and public spaces via sheltered colonnades and walkways.”

The design is for the most seismically advanced new office building in the country – featuring base-isolated foundations. It would also achieve a minimum 5 star Green Star rating from the New Zealand Green Building Council.

Ian Pike said: “The proposed building is a project of the Newcrest Group which is very familiar with the precinct having completed the refurbishment of the adjoining Shed 21 into the Waterloo on Quay premium apartments. The company is the most awarded developer in the New Zealand Property Council Awards.” he said.

The Wellington City Council was briefed on the design yesterday and Wellington Waterfront Limited is now seeking public feedback on the design of the building and the public space development. Members of the public can make their comments until 9 March.

Those interested in providing feedback can go to the website: www.wellingtonwaterfront.co.nz, or fill in a feedback form which are available from the Wellington Waterfront Project Information Office on the ground floor of Shed 6 Queens Wharf Wellington.

Wellington Waterfront has also set up an information display in its Project Information Office and open days will be held on Saturday 18 February and Saturday 3 March 2012 between 10am and 3pm where the project team will be available to answer questions on the development.

The feedback, along with a design review by Wellington Waterfront Ltd’s Technical Advisory Group, and the commercial terms of the proposed deal, will be considered by a meeting of the Council in late March.

Resource consent applications will be informed by the Environment Court’s decision following a hearing on variation 11 to the District Plan. The hearing is scheduled to start on 12 March.

ground floor interior, looking south feb12
Click for big version.


  1. CC, 8. February 2012, 10:03

    More alienation of public asset for private gain!

  2. Sigurd Magnusson, 8. February 2012, 21:31

    Where will the motor homes be located now? I walk past the carpark each day and notice a fair quantity of use by tourists.

  3. traveller, 8. February 2012, 22:32

    There goes one of our last fabulous harbour views. The council is certainly determined to cut us off from the water.

  4. Jitterati, 9. February 2012, 2:24

    You can tell it’s a brand new building, they haven’t taken off the protective wrapping yet.

  5. Phil C, 9. February 2012, 2:34

    Brilliant use of a prime position and view on the waterfront. Next idea: a McDonalds on top of Mount Vic.

  6. Maximus, 9. February 2012, 8:36

    Sigurd – the motor homes were only a temporary measure to use the land a fraction better than just plain old commuter parking. I certainly don’t think they should be a permanent long term solution for the site. They were put in for the Rugby World Cup – that’s been and gone and will never happen again, so they have fulfilled their purpose. What we need to think about now is the long term purpose of this land.

    CC – how many times do you go and stand down there at present, on this spit of land? Amongst the campervans, with washing hanging out between the motorhomes? Ever been there? No, I thought not.

    and Traveller, again, what absolute rot you talk. The view is still there, through the viewshaft. That is not going to be touched. If you’re driving along that stretch of road, you shouldn’t be looking at the view! If you’re walking, you should still be able to do so – and the ground floor is largely transparent, so that’s not an issue.

    This is a really important issue for Wellington, and needs a good level of commentary, not silly remarks. We collectively have a month to discuss.

  7. Clive Lewis, 9. February 2012, 11:10

    The proposed building exceeds the existing planning rules. How arrogant to propose a building when Variation 11 has not been approved. Wellington Waterfront Ltd has to continue development as they owe a lot of money to the council. They sold the OPT to developers for a possible return of approx $14million after the cost of strengthening the wharf is paid for by the developer. Part of this new wharf structure include the 80 underground car parks that the developer owns. So the developer gets a prime site for 125 years for a one off payment of around $14million. No wonder Wellington Waterfront need to lease more land to developers. The most used areas around the waterfront are open grass and paved areas, i e Waitangi Park and Frank Kitts Park. The best buildings around the waterfront are Dockside, Shed 5 and the relocated Greta point building. They are not too large and relate to human scale. The Opt development and proposed new building do not relate to human scale in the waterfront environment. Wellington City Council needs to get rid of Wellington Waterfront Ltd.

  8. Alana, 9. February 2012, 12:16

    Loss of even more open space on the waterfront. Everyone enjoys the little remaining space but WCC insists on more big-box buildings. This is truly the jewel of the city and should not be given away to more commercial interests.

  9. Polly, 9. February 2012, 16:03

    Well Maximus, I collect mail from the Postal Centre and have never seen washing yet. But from the steps of the Postal Centre and walking from the railway station it is not just a viewshaft but a wonderful panorama of the harbour and hills, Mt Victoria and the Monastery, BlueBridge ferries, fishing boats, police launch, working cranes, vessels berthed at Queens Wharf and one of the few reminders of our maritime heritage.

    Walking or riding from the southern end of Jervois Quay to Waterloo, passing Johnston, Waring Taylor and Ballance Streets (while waiting at the traffic lights) the Maritime theme once again is there for the public to enjoy – not another six storey building casting shadows and creating a wind swept canyon.

  10. Rosamund, 9. February 2012, 16:14

    Surely preparing a design (!) for a building on Site 10 is premature. There is yet to be a hearing in the Environment Court to decide whether any such buildings are permissible on our waterfront.

    The photographs show how out of scale this proposed behemoth will be and how it will diminish the recently HPT listed ferry building and allow only a glimpse of Shed 21.

    The dilemma is that if we fail to make a comment about the “design,” then it is likely that our silence will be interpreted of acceptance of this or any other bulky edifice on our waterfront.

    Hopefully our elected representatives and the Chairman of the council-controlled governance board will call a halt to this or any proposal that, however couched, seems pre-emptive of any decision of the Environment Court. I understand that the hearing will begin on 12th March.

  11. peter brooks, 9. February 2012, 22:56

    I do not agree with Rosamund that preparing a design for this site is premature. What Variation 11 will determine is how the resource consent process will proceed. If the appeal succeeds WWL will have to notify the application for consents for this building and objections would be heard by commissioners and there would be a right of appeal to the Environment Court. If the variation is approved then there will be no notification and officers could approve the application without public involvement.

    One of the criticisms of the variation is that while it determines the footprint and height of the buildings it does not indicate what they would look like, or the use to which they would be put. In respect of this site, WWL has now provided that information. Critics should be pleased not only fror those reasons, but because the sketches will have renewed public interest in the the long forgotten variation. Waterfront Watch should now find it easier to raise funds needed to fight its case before the Court next month.


  12. Maximus, 10. February 2012, 7:56

    Polly – sorry that you haven’t seen the washing – you have seen the campervans parked there, yes? Or is your eye just drawn right past them to the wonderment of the view? Its funny – I look at the site and see, at present, a windswept piece of tarmac, littered with ugly campervans (and their assorted crap), and I think : what a waste of a site.

    Let’s go through this step by step. The site had a building there before, from around 1910 until 1980s/90s. It was a large waterfront Harbour Board shed. Then the building was torn down and became asphalt for car parking. It stayed like that for years – a tragic waste of a site with great potential. The site is windswept, always, and cold, especially in the afternoon shadow of Shed 21 and the Post Office Building. Shed 21 is a lovely old building but has been badly butchered into a bunch of elitist apartments, and has a ratty windswept tunnel / colonnade along the smelly traffic side. It doesn’t give back much to Wellington.

    The site is not somewhere like Waitangi Park, which sits on solid ground, has a natural waterway running through it (well, ok, not an entirely natural waterway – it is assisted), and basks in sun all day (except for the shadow of the old Herd St Post Office). This site, by comparison, is not such a nice place to sit outside. But wouldn’t it be a nice place to sit inside?

    WIth this building, there is a possibility for a new space for Wellingtonians – something that is badly needed. A public, open place where we can sit and be protected from the northerly and the southerly. Yes, that is funded by the building of a building upstairs, but it would be something new for Wellington – a new type of place.

  13. Ron Oliver, 10. February 2012, 14:25

    Not a very attractive building. From the side it looks more like an old fashioned detention centre without the barbwire fence around it. I notice there is a small lean-to two-story wooden building that looks as if it is about to collapse just in front of it. If the building is to be built, perhaps some where in the future (if it lasts that long) it will be a good place to incarcerate greedy and corrupted property investors to remind them of their part in making a mess of the Wellington landscape.

  14. peter brooks, 10. February 2012, 14:42

    I agree with Maximus that site 10 is not a prime open space site. My understanding from viewing old photographs is that most of the area was the site of the old Customhouse building, four storeys high with a pitched roof and viewing tower. The Ferry building was built in its shadow in 1912. The critics are right to point out that if the six storey office block is erected there will be some loss of views from the Quay of ships and port activities (although even Waterfront Watch had been prepared to lose those views when they proposed lower level buildings on the site). The issue is one of the balance between pros and cons. The revenue from the site lease is one which has to be considered, unless one is quite unconcerned about the city’s cash position.

    The ground floor ‘winter garden’ will be a public asset (but not an open space as Maximus suggests). It is not clear what form it will take – will it just be another coffee/restaurant outlet or a true public space for people to use without commitment to any commercial service? The public will need to watch carefully that public access is secured in the long term. Recently WWL moved to have some retail public access areas at Waitangi converted to private use because retail outlets proved unsuccessful.

    Variation 11 includes two other sites destined for new buildings. Both would be much better open space sites. Site 8, fronting the promenade and next to the Meridian building, ought to be the focus for those who want to defend high quality public open space from new building construction.

  15. Elaine Hampton, 10. February 2012, 21:38

    You know – just because we have the coolest little capital in the world (and speculators want a piece of the action) doesn’t mean it can’t be ruined by another UGLY building. And whatever the debonaire mock ups look like, the real thing is nothing like it.

    This is awful – the Waka was bad but this is just appalling. Who was it said it was just a piece of ‘waste land’? I think these inner city camp sites / open spaces are what give Wellington its human scale.

    The waterfront land was donated to the city, and should remain open space for residents and visitors, not leased to speculators at effectively peppercorn rents. Tthere are already too many buildings on the waterfront. Some people do not think we are a city unless we look like a mini New York, never mind how hard it is to live in for most people. We may be the 99% but the 1% appear to have the law bent to their benefit

  16. watersider, 12. February 2012, 9:08

    Looks like a poor imitation of the Macquarie Bank building in Sydney.

    The main thing though is the placement and height – it will destroy the much-loved Whitmore St viewshaft. Whose building is it to be anyway? What is wrong with more modest structures such as Meridian’s?

  17. Trish, 13. February 2012, 9:24

    I am with Peter Brooks on this one. If we are going to have a building anywhere, this is the place. It would only block the view from the NZ Post building that blocks everyone else’s view. The view through the gates is the most important thing. I suggest we ask WCC to modify Variation 11 to forget about putting two more buildings between this one and the Meridian building, and we agree to this building now. Considering the legal and expert fees on both sides for appeals over Var 11 and for this new building, WCC would be saving at least $500,000.

  18. Peter Brooks, 13. February 2012, 13:52

    If the new building did destroy the Whitmore Street viewshaft as Watersider asserts, then it would not comply with the conditions of Variation 11, or indeed with the waterfront framework principles. It would not get resource consents. It seems clear to me that it does not intrude into the viewshaft and, as far as I know, that is not Waterfront Watch’s objection. Their concern is that it would obstruct wider views outside the shaft area of shipping at the port wharves and of the Mount Victoria area. One of the long standing criticisms of the waterfront development is that TAG and WWL place too much emphasis on protected viewshafts (and other ‘framed views’) and not enough on panoramic views.

    If, as Watersider suggests, a more modest building, about the size of the four-storey Meridian, were approved for the site, those wider views would still be obstructed, although no doubt those on the upper floors of the NZ Post building would be well pleased.

  19. Maximus, 13. February 2012, 23:43

    Perhaps I might remind commenters that the developers will have instructed the design team to work within the parameters set up for the site. Those parameters will be: to comply with the Wellington Waterfront Framework. That framework sets out some principles: Do Not Block the Viewshafts is one of those strong principles.

    It also sets out that a building around 6 stories tall is suitable for that site – its exact words are “North Queens Wharf has a strong connection to the city’s Central Business District. This will be reflected with a stronger sense of the city form being developed in this area through a higher proportion of buildings than on the rest of the waterfront.
    The character of the area will be of squares, lanes and new buildings in scale with the heritage buildings, such as Shed 21 at the northern end”and “New buildings could include a colonnade on the quay edge to continue the line of the colonnade proposed at Shed 21.”

    My guess is that those words will have been a guiding principle for the development on that site. Waterfront Watch have been banging on for years about how the Council and WWL must adhere to the Waterfront Framework. Seems to me that if this building meets the Framework, then the Watchers should pull their heads in…

  20. Pauline Swann, 14. February 2012, 10:41

    With a court case pending in the Environment Court, I am unable to take part in this debate. But for those contributors who do not understand our policy since first formed in 1996, I suggest you go on to our website http://www.waterfrontwatch.org.nz where you will see we have not been anti buildings but pro public participation in the planning process for any new waterfront buildings. We have been to the Environment Court three times with two successes so must be doing something right. In the case that we lost, the judge made this statement: “The Wellington Waterfront is a place people are passionate about”.

    Pauline Swann – Waterfront Watch Inc

  21. peter brooks, 14. February 2012, 12:50

    The Framework does envisage more buildings in the Kumutoto area, but it does not suggest or imply that a six storey building is what is needed on site 10 – only that any building should be in scale with the neighbouring heritage buildings. What is ‘in scale’ is a matter for debate and judgement – which is what happened before the Environment Court over the Hilton Hotel. In that case the court supported Waterfront Watch’s judgement not WWL’s.

    The Waterfront Framework is not the last word on what should go on site 10 – Variation 11 is much more precise. The design team will have had to comply with the standards set out in that Variation which apply to both height and to footprint and they appear to have done that. The height of Shed 21 above MSL is, I understand, 24m – the limit set under Variation 11 for site 10 is 30m. The other adjacent heritage building is the tiny Ferry Building , just two storeys high. Apparently the NZ Historic Places Trust saw some problems in terms of scale.

    I do not agree with Waterfront Watch’s approach to site 10, but they speak for a significant number of people who are concerned about new buildings on the waterfront and the organisation is now challenging the provisions of the Variation before the Environment Court. It is right and proper that significant developments on public land get a thorough public examination.

  22. Elaine Hampton, 14. February 2012, 13:15

    Peter: So this site is more suitable than two others also designated for new buildings? Is this an either / or situation? What guarantee is there that if we allow this (and there is a lot of pure opinion in these comments) that we can save the other two sites which are in your opinion more suitable as open space? Seems an ongoing steamroller to me.
    The waterfront has lost a lot since I moved here 18 years ago.

  23. peter brooks, 14. February 2012, 19:14

    My position is that I think that site 10 is better suited for a building than public open space. As a ratepayer I would welcome the funds from the sale of the lease (I do not think it will be at peppercorn rates). It will help WWL pay back the money it owes the council – over $11m. I believe that site 8 would be much better used as public open space than for a building. It would be an awkward triangular building site, but being adjacent to the waterfront promenade it would be a great public open space.
    We are unlikely to convince WWL, or the majority of councillors, that this should happen. The Civic Trust tried to persuade the council, WWL and the Variation 11 hearing commissioners that site 8 should be saved for public use. They failed, but the argument is not lost until WWL decides to let a contract for the site and it is quite possible that they will find the market is not interested.

  24. andy foster, 15. February 2012, 22:24

    The proposed building is within the height limit and within the footprint limitations in Variation 11, precisely to avoid restricting the viewshaft.

    Peter is as usual correct that it will be financially beneficial to ratepayers. The Waterfront Framework is predicated on income from building development being used to offset some of the costs of public space development and waterfront maintenance. Often building development also means ratepayers avoid costs too (eg the very substantial cost of fixing the Overseas Passenger Terminal Wharf would have fallen on ratepayers had not a development proceeded, or alternately the wharf itself would fairly shortly have been closed as piles continued to deterioriate).
    Buildings have tended to be on long term leases paid up front by the developer, and certainly not peppercorn!
    Peter is also right about the Waterfront Framework plans for Kumutoto (lanes, squares, new buildings). That is quite different for the plans for any other part of the waterfront where open spaces are much larger and dominant. The Framework is a mix and a balance.
    On that count I personally would be interested in what happens on Site 8 (small building/close to the sea – should it be a square?) and on comments on the proposed site 10 building design. Is the roofline for example adequately broken up? Could the wintergarden include more greenery? Please don’t assume that councillors won’t think carefully about the feedback on issues such as these.

    Warmest regards
    Andy Foster
    City Councillor

  25. Maximus, 16. February 2012, 7:36

    Elaine – your comment “the waterfront has lost a lot since I moved here 18 years ago” is provocative, and, i think, completely wrong. Can I take you for a walk down on the waterfront, and maybe take you out to lunch or dinner at one of the many new places to go ? Waitangi Park, Taranaki Lagoon, Frank Kitts for an icecream, Kumutoto for a fantastic choice of some lovely landscaped areas and excellent bars and restaurants. Your choice. My offer. You keen?

  26. Elaine Hampton, 16. February 2012, 12:52

    Certainly, one evening next week, a stroll along the waterfront after work would be wonderful. Not Monday or Tuesday – over to you – we can discuss gains and losses!

  27. Pauline Swann, 16. February 2012, 16:29

    Maximus and Elaine: before you go on your walk, would you like a copy of the Waterfront Watch “Stop the Wall” leaflet which was produced to stop Variation 17 which had plans for 20 more buildings including twin towers of up to 12 storeys at Taranaki Street. We can also thank Mary Varnham’s Chaffers Make it Happen as the Chaffers housing development was scrapped and thanks to thousands of Wellingtonians the hotel and casino planned for Taranaki Wharf was also scrapped.

    As you stroll along the waterfront with plenty of real open spaces and panoramic views (not viewshafts) and admire the restored buildings on Taranaki Wharf, don’t forget the Environment Court appeal which stopped the Ambulance Building being moved and replaced by a 30m building/car park. Next continue on to Frank Kitts Park which would have been walled off by a five storey building (12,000 people signed a petition to stop that) plus a 24m building at the entrance to the Event Centre car park next to the Museum of City and Sea. While you have an ice cream under the sails, rememberthe appeal to the Environment Court which stopped privatisation of the Outer T.

    Continue on to Kumutoto where there could have been 8 more buildings ranging from 21 m to 34 m. So over the coffee stop, say thank you to Waterfront Watch, Civic Trust, Action for the Environment, NZHPT and the thousands of Wellingtonians who packed the Town Hall, wrote submissions, and signed petitions which resulted in the demise of Variation 17. As a result we have a waterfront which is open to the city, not walled off.

    Pauline Swann
    Waterfront Watch

  28. a, 17. February 2012, 11:00

    Funny, but when I walk along the waterfront, I walk adjacent to the water – not along the streets. Most (if not all) of the “wall” that Pauline mentioned would block my view of the city, not the harbour.

    Walking to the Phoenix game on Sunday, it was the bit by the campervan carpark which was the ugliest part of my stroll.

  29. Maximus, 17. February 2012, 15:49

    Pauline, thank you for that recitation of ancient history. In more recent history however, you could also include:
    Thanks to the Wellington Waterfront Framework, produced in 2001, and the vision that it sets out on the waterfront for all of Wellington; we have had the construction of Waitangi Park, which has a hugely popular park incorporating wetland reed-bed water remediation of the Waitangi Stream, including facilities for skateboarders, basketball, children’s playground, large field for lounging, football, martial arts, etc. We also have the creation of the multi award winning Meridian building, voted by Wellingtonians as the best building in Capital Times, despite being fought heavily by yourself at Waterfront Watch. It is set in the (again) award-winning Kumutoto precinct area, with two really popular new outdoor areas, which Waterfront Watch said would be narrow and windswept alleys, but instead are warm, sunny, sheltered (because of clever design and the surrounding buildings), and lined with eateries which are hugely popular with Wellingtonians.
    There is also the relocated Steamship Wharf building, now home to Foxglove, which is one of the few buildings that Waterfront Watch did not object to, ooh, and the lobster loos – which I think I remember that you objected to as well.
    So, while you have a jaundiced view of history, portraying yourself and Waterfront Watch as a wonderful champion for the people, saving the city from a wall of buildings; sorry to say this, but others may remember the Watchers more as: incredibly interfering old busybodies who have tried to stop anything and everything – good and bad – ever happening on the waterfront.

  30. lindsay, 17. February 2012, 16:21

    Maximus. Your summary of waterfront history fails to record the fact that the city council wanted six storeys of town houses and car parks on the area that is now Waitangi Park – the campaign against this awful plan was led by Mary Varnham’s Save Chaffers Park organisation and by Waterfront Watch (yes, when I was president.). As for the last three lines of your comment (“tried to stop anything and everything”) they are wrong. And they’re uncharacteristically jaundiced too. PS Are you really an admirer of the lobster loos?

  31. Maximus, 18. February 2012, 10:36

    lindsay – you’re right – I do have jaundice (or some lurgy) at present, and so probably came across as more grumpy than i should have been. My apologies for that. Please note that I did not say that I personally feel that way, but I’d certainly say that others do !

    Lobster loos…..? You know, I’m still making up my mind. Are they brilliant or are they dumb? Are they suitable for the area, or are they a gross aberration? Are they overly expensive, or would something cheaper and more standard just look cheap and nasty? There are questions in my mind….

  32. lindsay, 18. February 2012, 11:31

    In answer to the questions about the waterfront’s lobster loos: dumb, gross, weird, ugly, unsuitable for the area, excessively expensive, pointlessly wasteful of space.
    Now some questions about the rebuilt loos which are so prominent in Courtenay Place – are they suitable for the area, or are they a gross aberration in terms of their clunky design and obtrusive positioning?

  33. peter brooks, 19. February 2012, 10:42

    Maximus is of course right in his assertion that some people consider that Waterfront Watch is a pack of interfering old busybodies trying to stop anything and everything happening on the waterfront. These people may be the same ones who would have been happy to have had a waterfront with 23 new multi-storey buildings, some ten storeys high, a hotel and casino instead of the Free Ambulance building, and a relocated wharf shed on Frank Kitts Park. As they say “it takes all sorts.” It was Waterfront Watch who made the public aware of these proposals and led a public protest which forced the council to withdraw its plans. The council has now given us a waterfront which has, in my view, a much better balance between open space and buildings and I thank Waterfront Watch for that.

    I do not see them as interfering busybodies; I see them as a dedicated organisation forcing the planners to publicly justify their proposals. It is organisations like Waterfront Watch which contribute to a lively civil society essential to this city of politicians and bureaucrats.

  34. Jack Ruben, 19. February 2012, 13:31

    Well said, Peter!. I ‘declare an interest,’ having been a member of Waterfront Watch for many years. The vast majority of Wellingtonians agree with you, and it is only the property speculators and their councillor cronies and supporters who would rather have ugly buildings blocking views of our harbour,
    Furthermore it is an ongoing disgrace that the Wellington City Council use ratepayer funds to fight the very same ratepayers who pay them! Shame on those councillors who support this travesty. The next elections are fast approaching, and we won’t forget!

  35. Alana Bowman, 21. February 2012, 20:20

    And now an historic waterfront building – Shed 5 – is on the block and apparently without Wellington Waterfront Ltd or WCC being involved in the transfer of the remaining 25 years of the lease or approval of the next leaseholder?

    From the commercial property notice:

    About the property
    Shed 5 is a timber framed maritime building dating back to 1886. It was significantly refurbished and converted to a restaurant and bar in 1992.

    This character building offers an astute hospitality operator the opportunity to stamp their mark on Wellington waterfront with a stylish bar/restaurant concept(s). The premises could also suit an alternative use.

    Key Details
    Ground Floor – 767.9m²
    First Floor – 67.6m²
    Tenure – 25 year lease commencing Nov 2012
    Price – Secure this iconic premises for twenty-five years with one upfront capitalised rental payment. Alternative lease proposals may be considered.
    Alternative lease proposals may be considered