Yep. And this design obviously suffers from the problem that it is long and skinny – and clearly already has buildings on either side – with potentially worse to come if the neighbours also redevelop. I for the life of me cannot figure out why the developer would have opted to go down this route.

The normal pattern is, blind wall on the left property line, blind wall on the right property line, and windows in the front (the street which will remain open) and the back (your ‘backyard’ which you can choose to keep open).

That assumes your city doesn’t require side yards. If side yards come into play it shrinks the possible buildings you can build this way by a lot. (amusingly in Auckland their THAB — Terraced housing and apartment buildings zone still requires side yards.)

Excellent answer Julienz – thank you so much.

More a problem caused by the Developer than the Architect methinks, but yes. The discussion by the various parties in the Hearing is officially about whether the building is compliant with an obscure and rarely observed part of the Building Code, but a more honest appraisal might be: Is this legal or is this criminal?

There is no way people are likely to pay over $1m in today’s market for something like these, even on the upper floors,

plus there is still a reasonable wodge of units for sale at Hyde park just up the road, ( including for over $1m) The market is unlikely to be able to absorb another large building anytime soon.

https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/sale/wellington/wellington/search?search_string=hyde

Some of these apartments will cost over a $million. Presumably not the bottom storeys

That’s been one of my complaints for years – effectively the Gov takes the view that people living in medium density or high density have lesser rights than other people in suburbs. There will be a direct quote from a Minister about that – Bish, Crusher, some such. They don’t understand Density and hate the poor.