It goes on to note: “…Cooper will now build only a gym and carpark on the site…”
 The 7464 sq metre site is located in front of the three Scene apartment blocks, and was once home to Oriental Markets. I understand the site is 140 metres long, and 40 metres deep. It is on the corner of Britomart Place and Quay Street. The longest frontage is along Quay Street – across the road from the waterfront.The location and the sheer number of carparks tweaked my interest and concern. How can it be so easy to get consent to build a five story high carparking building, 140 metres long, fronting Auckland’s downtown waterfront, and pretty much in your face from Queens Wharf? |
Some Planning History
 It appears the original consent for a building on this site – granted in early 2008 - included 1208 carparks (a lot), within the shell of a building containing apartments and other mixed uses – plus the cinema. Activated at the ground floor. I understand that about 3 levels of carparks were to be underground (basement), and 10 split levels above ground, to a total height of 17 metres. The above ground carparks would be behind the outer layer of apartments and other uses (these being 5 storys). From the street (Britomart Place and Quay Street) you would see apartments, shops, and other active uses. |
Before that, in 2004, Bluewater applied for a carparking building on the site. This got totally knocked back by Auckland City Council.
In 2006 Bluewater sought, and got, consent for an at-grade carpark on the site. This included some landscaping and shade cloth mitigation for those viewing the carpark from the Scene buildings. It hasn’t been built yet. Currently, the site is used informally for a carpark. Cars on gravel.
Building plans for the site show between 1208 and 1263 carparks being provided. I understand Bluewater has an obligation to provide carparking for users of Britomart site. The total obligation – over time – is 500 car parks. Some of these will be needed for the Westpac building – presently nearing completion. I further understand that Auckland City Council has rights to some 400 of the carparks in the site – it has rights to charge for their use by visitors and suchlike. And that leaves around 300 bonus carparks which will be owned by Bluewater, which appears to consider each carpark to be worth around $50,000!
Recent Planning
 As the Herald Newspaper article notes, Bluewater decided the market had changed, so decided to seek some changes to its consent. Apparently it successfully persuaded Auckland City Council that its s.127 application to change the conditions of consent for the proposed building, could be non-notified. It appears that evidence from Clinton Bird was instrumental. This was to the effect that the effects of a parking building on the site (with activation only at ground level), were much the same as the consented development. |
I have obtained a copy of the commissioners decision in regard to the change sought in conditions, and of the planners report. Para 16 of the commissioners decision states: “….this is not to say that these commissioners favour a parking building on this prime waterfront site: we do not. Given our conclusion on this particular issue, we believe the ‘horse has bolted’ on that point….” Commissioners were: Mr G Hill (Chair), Miss L McGregor, Mr L Simmons, Ms R Skidmore. I believe independents were used because of Auckland City Council’s interest in the 400 car parks.
Broadly, it appears that commissioners granted consent to the changed conditions which means that no longer will there be 3 basement levels of carparking, and no longer will there be activated edges to the building in levels 2 to 5. Instead carparking will start at ground level, and go up to the top, and out to edge of the building shell from levels 2 to 5. A small amount of activation will occur at ground level – presumably to accommodate the proposed gym.
The application was at pains to mention that this was a temporary activity. That the proposed carparking all the way to the edge of the building was temporary. And that the intention is to deliver the spirit of the original consent. But not today.
Interestingly, information that accompanied the application mentioned “sacrificial floors”. These are floors that can be taken out later – to enable the subsequent construction of apartments or other uses which need higher ceiling levels than carparks. Doubt has been cast on the truthfulness of some of these assertions because of the apparent absence of plans for the provision of infrastructure that would be needed subsequently for apartments (like sewers and other services).
Conclusion
This all seems to be a bit of a con.
Auckland will get “…a parking building on this prime waterfront site…” despite the protestations and hand-wringing of the commissioners.
Auckland’s public realm will be the loser in this. When you look up at this building from the pavement outside on Quay Street, you will see the grills and lights etc of layers of carparks going up 5 stories high. And this along a 140 metre frontage.
Because the matter was not notified, the only legal challenge would be a judicial review of Auckland City Council’s decision not to notify.
In my view Auckland City Council should be shamed.
BTW: I have only recently caught up with the discussion running on skyscrapercity about this (and other stuff), you can see it at:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=461940&page=41
PS: Now we see Coopers and Co advocating a public promenade on Port land, inside the red fence. I am a little cynical about this move - even though I support opening up much more of the Port to public use. This proposal ignores the fact that Quay Street needs to be changed. Its use as a traffic artery (feeding carparks like Cooper's 300 bonus carparks) has to be cut back. One lane each way, prioritise buses, redirect car traffic away from the waterfront. Open up more and more to public pedestrian and cycling, and generally hanging out by the CBD waterfront.
No comments:
Post a Comment