There is, of course, some fine architecture in Auckland, to go along with their fine beaches, many islands (and Islanders), and a wonderfully convoluted motorway system, the budget of which must be the envy of many a small third world nation. And then again, there is this piece of excrement, recently erected. But the recent Auckand Architecture awards showed some excellent work in the City of Sales, as did the Wellington Architecture awards held last night in the City Gallery. According to the Arch Centre report, it was a great party, and there’s a pretty good summary of all the awards posted there. There’s even a welcome on their website to someone called Herr-Kislop or Kerr-Hislop, which sounds an unlikely name for an architect, but there you go. Sounds like those architects are all a friendly bunch in Wellington: perhaps not so much in Auckland, where at least one writer (the winner) is disgruntled, and writes frankly of Auckland, entitled:

FAILURE.
A massive all encompassing, devastating failure across the board in every way possible. That’s one way I describe Auckland, a poorly mismanaged & governed city from the very beginning and it’s still happening on a grand scale even today.

From a constant failure to invest properly in decent infrastructure, public transport, public buildings, and user friendly public facilities, let alone failing to looking after our best assets, such as the volcanic cones (most of which have been quarried from existence), the twin harbours, the beaches, lakes and natural features that abound within the Auckland region. And to top it off, the failure that is the rancid cream on the cake, are the buildings that drape themselves over Auckland like a damp mouldy blanket, rotting away at our souls and lives.

They are the truly insidious and disgusting developer driven foul leaking homes, ghetto enhancing apartment dwellings and ill conceived commercial buildings that blight our amazing landscape with their hideous forms and poorly functioning purpose. I could write volumes on how sick I feel each time I’m affronted with a new pile of shit being constructed on prime sites around Auckland.

I ask you, have you ever truly been offended by a building just by its pure ugliness and gross form, mismatched colour palate and greed hungry dollar driven templates that attempt to squeeze every last cent of rentable space out of every square metre?

Everywhere I turn, glance or sometimes, just plainly look and stare at some of the recent buildings that have been built in and around Auckland during the largest property boom this country is ever likely to see, my heart sinks because I know that yet again we’ve failed. Failed to cry outrage at the tiny apartments that force people to live like rats, failed to hold accountable, the people responsible for the thousands of leaking and sick homes that are ruining lives every day.

From the decaying Eden Quarter, to the nasty apartment blocks that blight Hobson and Nelson Streets, the Newmarket slum apartments bordering Broadway Park and let’s not forget to mention the sieve that is Sacramento in East Auckland. They are but a fraction of the thousands of homes that are claiming victims left, right & centre in Auckland. The commercial building nightmares such as the Comfort Inn in Newton Gully, the Tony Tay Building on the prime site on the corner of K Rd and Queen St, all the way to one of Auckland’s most truly grotesque forms that is the Royal Oak Mall. Have you ever been stuck in traffic at the roundabout and wondered at the surrounding hideous forms that we call building’s, that radiate out from it, like some sort of malformed ripples in a very sick stagnant pond? Does ugly form breed more ugly form around it? And, if so, how can we stop it?
..
I hope though, that one day soon, we can turn this tide of greed driven construction and malformed intent and start reshaping Auckland the way it should be. From the Ironbank to the Auckland University’s New School of Business, to the Civic and the Wilson School in Takapuna, all the way to looking after our beautiful beaches, unique landscapes and the environment. And hopefully along the way creating new urban spaces to enjoy our harbour waterfronts and inner city parks. These are what we should cry for, buildings that enhance our lives, workplaces and appeal to the landscape with better form, function and aesthetics that would make Auckland a city to be proud to live in, visit or just simply be a pleasure to transit through. We should be designing buildings that leave a positive impression by creating, approving and ultimately using in the way intended. Because these are buildings that we will have to use, look at, and live in for the rest of our lives should we choose to live in Auckland.

The winds of change are upon us, so I hope that we as Aucklanders will make the right decision in voting in a governing body that will take pride in Auckland and bring it forward out of the mire we find ourselves in.

Exceed expectations and excel in everything you set out to achieve, for you cannot fail if your heart is in it until the very end.

Under a deal announced today, the club gets ownership of the building, along with $350,000 of ratepayers’ money toward repairs, and will lease the land from the council. Mayor Kerry Prendergast said the council had heeded “the overwhelming message from the public … that the building should be saved”.

Which sounds like the best bit of feedback we’ve had here for a while. It’s a 50/50 deal from the Council - who have split the potential $750k cost and effectively given half to each club. Now all we need to do is get the Lyalls to think again about the design for their clubhouse, for which I suggest an alternative :-)

Lyall Bay members were aggrieved that Maranui could benefit from public funds when their request for $500,000 toward a new building had been refused. However, they have been appeased with the prospect of a grant of up to $350,000 toward the $1.8 million complex, if it includes public toilets and changing rooms. This will allow the council to demolish the existing rundown public facilities on the beachfront.

Of course, if Maranui members were being sharp, they’d whack some public toilets in the base of their clubrooms, and gain some more dollars and another chance to poke the Lyall Bay club in the eye with a blunt stick, but luckily they’re not like that. The best news is that they’ll do it themselves, and that they’ll start by Christmas, with the building back up and running within 18 months. There are a number of fine local craftsmen working and surfing at the bay, and so any concerns about a bunch of cack-handed hacks should be dispelled - the building will now be in safe hands. Just one thing guys: install a set of sprinklers this time, Ok?

Maranui Surf Club chairman Peter Clark said the club had “thought long and hard” about taking back the building, which it handed to the council 10 years ago. “It’s a big responsibility taking on a heritage building and we haven’t made this decision lightly, but we believe this gives us more control over our destiny and we have the support in the community and among our members to look after it long term.”

Her Worship, the Mayor Kerry Prendergast, is quoted as saying:

“Variation 11 aims to help transform the bleak and underutilised north Kumutoto section of the waterfront – between the Meridian building and Shed 21 opposite the Railway Station - into an area that’s busy, vibrant and attractive to the public. It aims to give certainty to the public about how the area should be developed. It’ll remove any doubts in some sections of the community that the City Council and Wellington Waterfront Ltd want to ‘privatise’ the waterfront,”

Far be it for me to disagree with the head of the city, me being just a little fish, and Kerry being the big fish in the pond, but I hardly think it will have the effect of placating people about ‘privatising’ the waterfront.
Are you telling me that this building doesn’t effectively privatise the waterfront?:

Waterfront Watch and other old fogeys are already baying at the moon with lupine distaste at the possibilities of more buildings being created, so the actual confirmation of this should send them into wild paroxysms of rage, frothing at the mouth and letter-writing once more. One day that Pauline Swann / Lindsey Shelton (I can never tell them apart) is going to lie down in front of a bulldozer to prove her point that the waterfront should be a large acreage of grass: she still doesn’t get it, that Spaces need People, and People need Places. There is no point for an empty field on the water’s edge.

However, to give the ‘independent’ commissioners their due, they have recommended some changes, which are quite bold and cheeky and may even sink any chance of at least one of the sites being developed:
• A reduction of the height limit (from 25m to 16m) on site 9 at the southern end of the Kumutoto area opposite Shed 13 to encourage an appropriate building ‘transition’ in recognition of the heritage status of this building.
• A slight height-limit reduction on site 8.
• The deletion of a proposed 15% building height discretion.
• Various wording changes to make it clear that any building development consent applications beyond the specified building height and ‘footprint’ requirements will be more likely to be publicly-notified.
• The inclusion of historic heritage rules to ensure consideration can be given to the effect of new building on all adjacent heritage buildings.
• The inclusion of enhanced policies and specific rules to achieving public accessibility to the ground floor of buildings and the provision of ‘active edges’.

“I and a majority of Councillors believe a mix of buildings and public spaces is the best way of transforming the Kumutoto area from the tarsealed wasteland that it is now. Variation 11 would recognise that buildings up to a moderate height would benefit the area and help link it to the CBD. Variation 11 would mean that buildings fitting within the rules of the variation would not have to be subject to the long, expensive and unpredictable hearings processes that have held up important projects such as the redevelopment of the Overseas Passenger Terminal.”

Actually Kerry, I’m 100% in agreement with you there on the transforming the tarsealed wasteland into a mixture of buildings and public spaces, but I think it’s an undemocratic way to do it. The current system does give the public some say, whether you think that’s a good idea or not, and that’s the crucial element we call democracy. We currently have a rule that anything over 0.0m in height needs a Resource Consent and TAG Team approval on the waterfront, and that is working well, judging by the quality landscaping results and buildings we’ve seen so far. So why change it? I appreciate that you have utmost faith in the ability of the TAG Team to control the developments, but that all occurs off-screen and under-cover and the public are shut out. And on the waterfront, shutting people out is the last thing you ever want to do.

Mayor Prendergast adds that the experience with the Meridian building and the public areas around it – and the fact it has proven highly popular with the public – and the fact that fewer than 50 submissions were received on the proposed Variation 11, “gives me great confidence that in terms of the ongoing development of the waterfront we’re on the right track and that we have the backing of the vast majority of Wellingtonians”.

Chris Moller is an architect, an urban designer, an industrial designer, and quite probably a raconteur, and a flaneur. He’s been popping up in discussions around town for the last few weeks, and popped up into our discussion yesterday. One of the sharpest minds around, he has evidently lived in Europe for a while, and brings a European eye to our antipodian situation.

But for now, here’s Chris Moller’s comment in full, unedited.

“WOW, wonderful writing, I’m in hysterics reading all of this….. it certainly makes entertaining reading. The sad looser is the quality of architecture and design. And the deep lack of understanding or experience as to what it really takes to create the conditions to allow brave, original, lonely ideas to emerge.
Having won a series of major international competitions and also having been an international jury member it is interesting to reflect on New Zealand’s current dilemma.
There is certainly a lack of serious commitment and respect for the work designers, architects and engineers and the enormous amount of passion, ideas and investment made by them in such a competition process.
Being asked to do such work in three weeks is simply absurd, while the brief itself leaves much to be desired.
For clarity for a project of this size it normally takes about a month to distill really good original ideas especially amongst a good multi-disciplinary team, before then really testing them out and developing them up into a well thought through and resolved design which often takes another month. But then there is the very different task of how best to present the design, and the production of the drawings, models, perspectives and text takes another good two to three weeks at least. In Utzon’s case it took him about six months to really distill his underlying idea - which is even now extremely radical and brilliantly appropriate to its site. But of course Auckland didn’t have time for that - or did it? An enormous amount of time and effort was spent discussing and debating how the competition should be set up, and of course it took about six months to do all of that….. interesting !

But I have only commented on the production process of an architect or designer, which assumes that the brief is clear well set up, fair, anonymous and transparent - including a clear statement of the judging criteria and the identity of the judges (neither were mentioned in the QW competition). Next, it is critical that a really good jury is chosen with the appropriate experience and knowledge, and that their decision is final - this must be taken very seriously - and can not be left to politicians. Auckland did not have a jury, their status was only as advisers who only reported to the heads of the various organisations involved who in turn then referred on to the politicians - this quite frankly is a complete sham. A professional Jury needs to be taken seriously !

Both competitions were not at all well organised or run, both mixed together a call for ideas from the public (in itself very good to do separately) only to confuse it with the very different task of choosing well resolved design proposals by designers.

Both cities should reflect deeply on the lessons that we need to learn from these two competitions, and think more deeply about what it really takes to produce outstanding work, on really important public sites.
It is clear that neither have unlocked the necessary conditions for a process in which something special, something original and truely uplifting could emerge.

I was very fortunate to find this kind of environment that allowed the realisation of my own work in the Netherlands - the winning result of a major international europan competition in 1993 which was finally completed in 2003. The example that the Europan organisation together with the commitment of the municipality has set is quite extraordinary - and a good one to learn from. However there are many other good examples too, essentially it is all about how to create a nurturing environment that is committed deeply first and foremost in a wonderful, special and unique idea, which is then defended and supported through to its realisation. It is this kind of total commitment that has enabled the realisation of great works of architecture in the past such as the work of Antonio Gaudi, or Louis Kahn, or Alva Aalto, or Jorn Utzon’s brilliant Sydney Opera House, or Renzo Piano & Richard Rogers Pompidou Center in Paris, or Norman Fosters Hong Kong Shanghai Bank, or Foreign Office Architects Yokohama Terminal in Japan.

In fact we have a much better and more accessible example which is much closer to home. As any parent knows their own kid needs to be supported and nurtured in order to flourish, in order to grow, and in order to have a chance in the world. Really good architecture is just like this - its not a quick fix, or something that is whipped up in a couple of weeks - as the ongoing work on the Sagrada Familiar church in Barcelona shows - the brilliant genius of both Barcelona’s Antonio Gaudi, and New Zealand’s Mark Bury have combined into a work of deep significance and originality.

This quality that I am talking about which every parent invests in their own children is what it takes to open the possibility for this fragile miracle to emerge, to grow and to flourish - It is what Kevin Roberts of Saatchi and Saatchi refers to as ‘Loyalty Beyond Reason’ .

This is what New Zealand needs now …
we know what it takes to give this precious gift to our kids,
we know what it takes for such a small country to excel in depth and breadth in sport,
it is now time to take architecture seriously.
It is time to give the precious fragile gift of architecture a chance
just as we would our own child

So, what has happened in Auckland? How can the whole process have gone so swiftly off the tracks? How can one set of judges have chosen 8 contenders for the crown of Queens Wharf, only to have the whole process thrown out with no ceremony today?

Auckland Mayor John Banks says the submissions were sub-standard.
“We have decided after listening to the people of Auckland, and after going through this process and competition, that what we’ve ended up with is simply not good enough.”

Auckland Regional Council chairman Mike Lee is also disappointed at the outcome of the design contest.
“What we’ve seen so far doesn’t make the standard, it’s not good enough,” he says.
“Queens’ Wharf deserves better, the people of Auckland deserve better.”

Yes, part of the problem is the retarded nature of the initial competition itself. In exactly the same manner as the Te Wero bridge competition they held 2 years ago, which was a disaster and came to nothing, some munchkin in charge of the process decided to repeat the whole deluded process. The whole 2 stage process is clearly part of the problem, instead of being a useful safeguard as was intended. If you want carefully considered, go for this. If you want iconic world symbol, go for something else.

But there is more to it than that. The brief was also muddled. What exactly was wanted?
Yes, we want an iconic building.
Yes, we want a long term Cruise ship terminal.
Yes, we also want to keep some old sheds that are boring and ugly, but gosh, in terms of Auckland architecture, they’re not from the 1980s so they must be old.
Yes, we want a place for drunken Poms to party in 2011 without upsetting the rich snobs in the Viaduct Basin.
Yes, we want a cheap quick fix for about $20million, but also, yes, we want somewhere that Auckland will be proud of and can show off to the world.
Yes, we forgot to tell you that, and yes, we might change the rules and the budget later.
Yes, we want something big and pretty, and yes, ooh, don’t forget, it should have some maori and pasifika stuff in it as well cos we just remembered that we’re the biggest polynesian city in the world.
Yes, we forgot to tell you about the iconic bit, but I mean, like, really, wasn’t that like, obvious?
No, we won’t pay you for your work in the competition and we’ll lump the professional designers in with the school kids and the random nutters.
Iconic symbols, coming up:

and many, many more….

The last thing in this story: listen to the comments from Aucklanders on the NZ Herald website:

RichieRich (Te Atatu South)
Some of the best architects in the country, and all they could come up with was this crap? I agree with Banks and co - if the city is going to do something, do it properly and make it worthy. Get some overseas architects in to design it as all of ours lack vision - just have a look at the crappy glass, concrete, plaster and plywood examples in downtown.

Paul (Mt Eden)
It’s surely an interesting turn of phrase from the Mayor that Auckland is in danger of “inheriting” yet another mediocre design. It hasn’t actually been built yet, so we can’t possibly be inheriting anything. This is instead, the deliberate future planning for mediocrity, not the accidental inheritance of it. If a suitable long-term design cannot be built within the budget and timeframe available prior to the Rugby World Cup, then surely the best course of action would be to erect temporary structures for that event, and defer the long-term investment until a better solution can be found. I am sure that for the purposes of the Rugby World Cup, a suitable “Party Central” could be made using Big-Tops, Superdomes, Marquees, and temporary grandstands etc, as is done for most one-off shows in Auckland such as the Easter Show, Ellerlie Flower Shows etc, all of which cater for huge numbers of patrons at relatively modest cost. Then sit down and re-think the budget and brief for the longer-term option, without the unneccessary time-pressure imposed by the Rugby World Cup.

Tracey (Balmoral)
Monday October 5, 2009 I just dont get that we could be paying someone in China to design this. We are in a recession and ought to be supporting New Zealand talent. Also, in sport, it is devilishly hard to get funding for anything which requires payment overseas. The reasoning being the money should support new Zealand companies and economy. Remember the Craig Ross debacle with Rowing? It doesnt matter how much cheaper we can get something overseas if we are getting certain grant money in sport we must use NZ companies. The same goes for such a hugely public thing as this. Was the Sydney Harbour bridge designed in the USA?

hey you (Waiotaiki Bay)
Thursday October 1, 2009 So once again instead of something unique and appealing, we, the rate payers of Auckland once again find ourselves on the end of a commitee designed horse.ie a camel, is this possibly a ruse and sop to the north shore community who were lumbered with a similar wharf masterpiece in the early ninties to ease them into the supercity thing with an “ours is worse than yours” type syndrome.

Juan Molina (Ponsonby)
Thursday October 1, 2009 Have you noticed?
The eight shortlisted entries include architects.
None of the comments of the jury panel includes the word Architecture.
None of the 13 requisits for stage 2 of the competition includes the word Architecture.
Really, was never about Architecture. Shame

sanity (Glendowie)
Thursday October 1, 2009 Will be interesting to see the views from the architecture community. No doubt they will be very political about it, and a couple of the bigwigs are there in the finalists so no doubt they will all be happy.

I agree with Geoff - it is clear that in the end keeping at least one of the sheds was fundamental, and as others have said this is such a mediocre but typcially shortsighted approach.

The submission time for the Manners Mall has just closed, and I have a suspicion that the Council will have been swamped with submissions both for and against it. The next big submission requests are for Wellington 2040 (now extended till the end of November), as well as submissions on Thorndon and Newlands due today ? - and soon the whole city with both Plan Change 73: Suburban Centres and Plan Change 72: Residential. Today, of course, it is just time for some Fire Works!

But in the mean time of course there is one other major ghoul stalking our streets: that of the Earthquake Strengthening project. So far, no one seems to be making much of a big deal out of it, but a recent development could see some action - not always in a good way.

Council have started issuing notices to people with unsafe buildings, requiring them to be upgraded or else demolished. Not much of a choice really, especially if you have a Heritage building. There’s always two sides to any story: why would anyone want to insist on retaining their building if it is an earthquake risk (all that death and destruction is sooo last century), and on the other hand, how can you afford to renovate and make it quake safe if the Council grants for upgrading are so small?

The cut off points for upgrading are reasonably clear: if your building is new, it will meet the current code and therefore can withstand a decent shake. But if, on the other hand, your building is old, it will only meet a certain percentage of the current code.
If it is above 66% of the current code, you should be OK.
If below 66% but above 33% then you’re in a grey zone, and need a clever engineer to help you. May as well get a clever architect at the same time, because you’ve got some renovations coming!
If below 33% then your building is an earthquake risk and needs to be demolished or strengthened, relatively immediately. You may have already had a notice served upon you. The buildings most at risk are those of unreinforced brick masonry, whereby in a big jolt, the bricks will revert to their natural format of rubble and dried mud: and you’ll go out with a big bang. But then you knew that already, didn’t you?

How do I love thee?: let me count thy ways.
Well, bogan mash-up of Rev King and big Willy aside, the obvious one is the fresh food and drink, alongside the bulk purchasing of rice and jelly-beans (no, not cooked together, but thanks for asking). But I’m not here to review the food, tempting as that may be. What about the architecture?

The original external facade with its monster mural of vegemite and other semi-edibles still survives - although who knows for how much longer - it is faded and looks far from its 80s best. This building was an absolute icon of Kiwi Post-Modernism when it was built - the ironic ‘crack’ in the facade, the lopsided mirror glass cube in the corner, the giant be-columned mural on the high rise part - I’m surprised this hasn’t be listed by our ever-vigilant heritage brigade at the Council as it is such an 80s classic. My, how we laughed. It was James Wine of Site and Best wrapped into one, Rob Krier and Athfield and Stanley Tigerman combined into one great unholy menage-a-trois. Despite being a good example of terrible planning (all the entry points are padlocked shut, the only entry really is by car, so whoa betide you if you’re one of those poor people on foot), it still brings a smile to my face as I walk by the mural of foodstuffs from a mostly by-gone era.

Actually, my favourite part has been partly demolished. The crazy, loopy, hump-de-hump up and over ramp has been halved - split in two like a portugese olive for sale at $5.99 a can. Instead of having what must have been the most accident-potential-prone ramp in the country where you could go left, right, up and down all in one by car or by foot (along with forklifts under and through as well), it has been emasculated and just sort of goes up and down a bit, along with a standard corkscrew round and round. Boring! However now we have new Big Fun at the top, with a bridge over th fore-mentioned ramp, and not one rooftop deck, but now three separate decks, all vaguely inter-connected. I have no idea what sort of drugs the staff at Athfields are on, but the ones doing the traffic planning are definitely on some kind of freeze-dried magic shitake mushroom ($11.40 for 200 grams).

The ground floor has been sliced and diced, hung and quartered, with everything moving around, and split asunder by cars perambulating through, but at the heart of the development now sits a splendid Paul Dibble sculpture, which makes it all well, even if you can’t find your fresh asparagus tips and the Jaegermeister has moved to aisle 22.

But of course my new favourite part is the external facade, as shown in the pic at the top: it’s a simple pattern of concrete down below and perforated panels up top, with a randomised interplay of light, colour, dots and slots that plays moire with your head. If I lived opposite in the Jasmax designed Trinity apartments I’d love it even more, as it effectively caps the building at a mere 2 stories high - and as an inner city frequenter, I’d be pretty happy with the sunshine that guarantees to places like Cafe L’Affare and the Brooklyn Bakery. Never mind that the rest of the street is a dogs breakfast of architectural styles and aborted business ground floors, this facade alone makes it all worth while. Likelihood of Athfield Architects getting an NZIA award for this one at the prize-giving next week: very high, despite the spastic planning and dated 80s decor. This facade alone wins my prize for most hole-y site in Wellington in 2009.

27-30th October

is the inaugural ‘crit week’ at the Victoria School of Architecture, where the architecture, interior architecture and landscape architecture students present our final projects for the year. In addition, public lectures are running at 6pm on the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Be sure to click the image to the right for a full view of the schedule.

30th October

is the deadline for public input on the proposed Manners Mall changes. Making a submission is surprisingly easy, and can be done online.

4th November

is the date of the Humanising the City round-table discussion at the City Gallery. Myself, Penny Allan (VUW  Landscape Architecture Programme Director), Professor Philippa Howden-Chapman (Director, NZ Centre for Sustainable Cities), Mike Mellor (Vice President, Living Streets Aotearoa) will be discussing the role, processes and goals of urban design in Wellington, in a discussion chaired by Tom Beard (WCC urban designer, ex-wellurban blogger). It starts off at 12.30, so be sure to drop by then,  and to also check out both the new gallery itself, and the other exhibitions on offer.

4th November (updated)

11th November - 23 November

is the end-of-year exhibition at Victoria School of Architecture, showcasing the best work of the graduating students. The public can drop  by anytime between 9am and 5pm on weekdays.

27th November

is the deadline for public input on the proposed changes to the Wellington District Plan. Changes 72 and 73 aim to establish specific areas that will accommodate much of Wellington’s future growth. Focused on the Kilbirnie and Johnsonville , these changes have the potential to greatly affect the character of these town centers by guiding development towards medium-density housing options, and through a (presumably council-led) provision of more quality open spaces.

30th November

is the deadline for public input on the proposed Wellington 2040 development framework. The final ‘drop in’ session in which the changes can be discussed with council staff, is on the 2nd of November (between 12 and 2). Again, feedback can be submitted online.

I think thats about it. Be sure to let me know if anything I may have missed in the comments.

Probably needless to say, the sum result of that was that all 4 scenarios went down like a cup of cold sick in a burnt out shed on a cold wind-swept beachfront. A member of the crowd put the feeling into words and started the ball that we should vote for a Fifth Scenario. An immediate show of hands confirmed overwhelming support for this proposal, which was, as another crowd member succinctly put it into words: “The 5th Scenario is that we just want Maranui rebuilt, so why are we debating all this other shit?”

Scenario 5 - Rebuild Maranui, get the Club and the Cafe running again (”by Christmas!” said one voice) and leave the other buildings there until there is time and place to have a proper debate about them.

I love people power.

So: will the Council get the message? Certainly, to me and the rest of the meeting, the message was loud and clear. “The Council has a legal, moral, and spiritual obligation to rebuild the clubhouse of Maranui”, and if they chose to self insure and were stuck with a massive $500k excess, that was just tough luck. Council need to pay up, and fast.

Although that’s not really the only option. I can’t believe that the cost is really $750k to rebuild, and I think Council is having the wool pulled over their eyes, or perhaps they had included a few extras (like, apparently, some working taps and basins in the WCs would not go amiss). But a community effort on the rebuilding (there were a few builders there, watching on) and community labour would certainly get the building back on track. And yes, it could be done by Christmas.

As the great goddess of running shoes once said: “Just Do It”.

Postscript:
Perhaps, provocatively, Lyall Ball SLC need to base their proposed new building on a more successful model.
What is better than one beach side cafe? Two beach side cafes!

The elevations are more resolved, more slick, although basically still unchanged: a more sophisticated rendering does bring a more mature presentation to the fore. I sometimes wonder if architects shoot themselves in the foot by releasing unresolved renders - a good old atmospheric hand drawing will give a better, more friendly result than a quick, amateurishly bad render can ever hope to. On the whole though, the development looks simple, keen and practical - not as outlandish as it did once. There has been little murmur from the uncaring public, nor of course a whimper of dissent from the architectural community, although not everyone was happy with the proposals last year - one commenter grumpily stated that:

“Am I the only person to find this design really weak and child-like? The wavering facades are as if the designer could not make their mind up, and the junction with the very dignified building that houses the Vault is oppressive and hugely clumsy. Ye gods, that’s the most insensitive junction i’ve seen since Britney was snapped getting out of that limo.”

Hmmm, there’s a visual we really don’t need reminding of. So: onwards and upwards.

At ground level, on Willis St, the carefully animated graphic shows a healthy amount of happy shoppers and joyous Telecom workers entering the building, off to develop new starburst logos or find another reason to slow down your broadband speed. It’s great to see the old building fully restored - and indeed, even the gracious old stair that formerly lead to the Vault has been retained (but we hope, a higher handrail installed as the old one was lethally low).

Again, the transparency here is enticingly see-through: I’m hoping that they manage to pull it off, so to speak. Certainly their competitor Vodafone have managed that with their Auckland building.

It’s worth looking at some plans while we’re here: we spoke last year about the desire for a public route through,

“With a bit of luck and good management by the consenting authorities, a through walkway and publicly accessible lift up to Boulcott St should also be available. That’s one of the great things about Wellington - the enforced cooperation of large commercial tenants to share their hill-climbing vertical transportation with the general public.”

and that has been carried out in the completed scheme, right from Willis St:

up to Boulcott St:

The Boulcott tower will of course (sadly) destroy the view that Antrim House has held for over a 100 years. Built for Mrs Hannah, of the shoes fame and Hannahs factory fame, Antrim House (now the home of the Historic Places Trust) has possessed a marvelous lookout over the city and through to the sea until Chews Lane and Willis Central came along. No doubt they’ll not be that impressed, although presumably they’re happy with the old building being (partially) saved down on Willis St. So, apart from them, does that mean that most people are satisfied? Maybe even me? Well, almost. But there was one other thing we spoke off last year, which the renders still do not show:

“Of interest in the finished building will be a potentially giant atrium, rising possibly 12 stories up from ground level where currently exists only deep plan gardens and retaining walls behind the existing shops.”

I’m unsure if that has made it through unscathed. There is a remnant of green right down the bottom of the northern side, with a probably overly hopeful grass lawn next to the cafe (the green patch on the plan above). The cafe is on the way to the pedestrian lift right at the back of the site, which must be in the depths of that hole we showed yesterday. But no sign of a giant atrium between the 2 office towers. We spotted it last year in this picture but have lost sight of it from the plans in the latest incarnation. And that’s a pity. Wellington needs a few more buildings with massive areas of free public space, even if it is skinny in plan - but especially if it is 12 storeys high.

Let’s hope that it is just missing off the letting plans shown here, perhaps still floating between the two towers (whereupon the tiny angled stair poised in the slipstream on the lower plan). While I’m quietly hopeful that the atrium is still there, I suspect that it may be organised for Telecom workers only, and not open to the public, who will still be sliding reluctantly along the narrow corridor to the lift at the end. Yes, the uncomfortable narrow slot that looks like a mugger’s paradise. If we could just gain some better public access along there, and get public access to that atrium, I’d be a very happy fish indeed.

I’ll leave you now with one last final picture from the team at Architecture + , yes, it’s the entry on Boulcott St.