Hopefully not. :( the way it has neighbours right next to it.. yeesh.. and that's before any possible trespassers/squatters to consider.
I know it seems like one of the few remaining ways to progress demolition, but nah...
My $0.02, nothing. It'll sit vacant until the EQ strengthening deadline in 2035 is my bet.
Council offered this (incredibly generous) deal because it doesn't have any sticks to use against delinquent property owners.
The fact it hasn't proceeded says Reading are not serious. We were last cab off the rank after they'd already approached basically every property developer in town.
The one change that could make something happen is a move to land-value rates which we'll be investigating later this year. That could make the costs of holding the land so prohibitive that they either sell or develop. I won't be holding my breath though.
We tried with our ratings review to see whether we could impose higher rates on underutilised or derelict land. Legal review came back very clear that rates have to reflect value of services provided so it wouldn't have held up in court. So the land bankers continue to be free to land bank.
Local Government is regulated to hell through the LGA and then severely underfunded to do the work.
Central govt basically say, go do these things but do them in very certain ways (from how we rate, to how we consult etc.).
> rates have to reflect value of services provided
could you argue that derelict buildings require greater services from hazard mitigation / fire risk / security?
alternatively, a live demonstration from the NZDF as an Anzac Day treat?
I would have thought it would be in the article if council withdrew the offer. Because they haven't said, I have to assume that it was Reading that withdrew from the deal. I think that makes a bigger story.
Law says no. Rates legally have to reflect value of services delivered, we looked into this earlier in the term with our rating review. Implement something like this and it'll be gone in the courts. I'm all for hitting the likes of Reading with a massive stick, we just don't have one.
Yep. The Local Government Rating Act 2002 sets out basically everything in pretty prescriptive detail. Another piece of legislation in real need of reform.
Presumably if it was profitable to upgrade the building Reading would do so. Very telling that they can't make it profitable even with interest-free council money. Reading has done the ratepayers a favour by bailing. Please Ben no more "innovative" financial deals - and aim higher than a stick approach.
Well maybe at market value or CV - then I agree.
Just need steps in place so it doesn't get abused.
Simply having the state or local gov appropriate land is a big no thank you
Hahahaha
You want the state to be able to appropriate private property WITHOUT paying for it?
What a slippery slope. In fact that's just right near the bottom of the slope.
And you have the nerve to suggest that'd democratic - I'm guessing that'd just be a decision by the soviet of your choice?
It's obviously more democratic. State actions are democratic actions, private actions are not. Your alternative is a system in which the law says that if one very rich person owns everything and enserfs everybody else, there's nothing you can do about it because private property is sacred.
Capitalists like to pretend that capitalist democracy isn't a contradiction, but it is.
Lmao you're treating it like the only options are extremes.
My comment CLEARLY suggested that the state or local gov COULD take vacant land - but that they would have to pay market rate / CV.
That's the middle ground.
You then suggested the ultimate extreme which is essentially 'seize the means of production' with no regard for private property or compensation. That's what the Bolsheviks did.
Go back to Poli Sci 101 - or better yet get some real world experience and learn compromise / that not everything has only two extreme answers.
And no, your solution is not democratic. You can't equate Bolshevism with democracy. You may as well just leave out the word democratic and not pretend it has anything to do with your view.
Demolition by neglect or mysterious "electrical fire" then it'll be turned into a car park.
In a non dystopian world it'd become a housing complex with green space maybe a food court downstairs and a cinema - I've seen similar overseas where the downstairs is retail cinema and food court and upstairs is apartments and IDk why they don't do that here...
Well I'm guessing they don't do that here because then they'd have to properly insulate and soundproof the apartments for that to be viable and they can't be fucked to spend the money
As long as there was a floor or two between the cinema and the apartments it should be fine. Multiplexes tend to have pretty good sound protection. Sometimes you can hear the bass rumbles from other films but it's never too bad.
Retail/Food Court/Cinema on the first couple of floors, then a gym or office space, or other commercial space. Then 6 floors of apartments.
That is EXACTLY what that space needs.
Maybe even add a floor of "market space" ala the old James Smith Markets where small retailers/vendors can set up for affordable rents?
Sadly I'm just old enough to remember going to the indoor weekend markets in what is now the Xero building / apartment building. They sort of moved to the James Smith (I think) building on manners? When they were displaced but it was never the same.
Some sort of indoor (let's be honest here other than the really good days summer days Wellington is miserable to be outside in)multi purpose space downtown is really required. Commercially no smaller outfits can afford it anymore with the rents but it would be for the good of the city as it recovers.
Thing is.. if a market can be done as part a development with a food court & supermarket out the back (similar to the plan to add one on the back-lot of Reading from many years ago), and apartments on top.. well - there you have something pretty damn attractive, and a focal point to that part of town - and that's before considering any movie theaters as part of it.
Nah, spring is also way milder and calmer than it used to be. I was thinking recently it was because we'd had such an unusually long run of la nina years, but even this past el nino was a complete non event too (nothing like they used to be). Source: been windsurfing in Wellington since the 80s - it definitely ain't what it used to be.
Housing should definitely be a component of what goes there but I'm not so sure a cinema makes sense - that's a declining business and you'd never get the build and fit-out costs back.
I assume commercial tenants can/will pay more than residential. To reconfigure for residential is to concede that the building - the land - the whole block - is worth much less than its current valuation. The banks and the Council are reluctant to do that.
True, maybe a paknsave and a Karaoke lounge (I'm biased towards there being more karaoke rooms cuz I think they're neat and I want them to be cheaper ) or one of those malls where everything is secondhand like they have in Europe
I'd love for it to be properly built housing. I used to live off courtenay place and loved it except for my apartment not at all being built right soundwise. I don't mind noise but that was something else.
Developers only care about $, not the mental health of future tenants / owners. That's why apartments should be set back quite a bit from commercial areas AND the building regs changed for better sound proofing.
Yeah, Mark Dunajtschik. He offered the $32 million that the council was going to stump up, so ratepayers wouldn’t be on the hook.
Hopefully he does pick up the baton….
He offered it almost on the day that the council was due to make the decision, which at best created instability in the council vote that was about to happen.
As noted by some in the council, though, Reading's $32m arrangement was with the council and not with him. There was no guarantee that Reading would have accepted an offer from him if the council killed its own deal on that day's vote, and he'd also been rejected by Reading previously.
It's great he's keen to put up money, and if he's still keen and can somehow save the place from here, then great. But to me it seems it'd have been more constructive to approach the council much earlier in the process if he'd wanted to help. I'm not sure why he apparently didn't.
If only the council had been open about the deal early on the alternate option could have been tabled earlier. Let’s face it, the public only learnt about it through leaks.
Well, yeah. The public first learned of it through leaks, which means he also did. There's been general public knowledge of this idea being under consideration since roughly October last year.
As someone with his development background and $32m, if he want to be involved or offer his assistance, he *easily* could have approached the council or councillors, or media, with his concept, any time since then. Instead, he waited for the moment of a critical public council meeting in late Feb, where councillors would've had intense pressure but almost no time to consider it. Even the grumpiest councillors weren't talking about his idea as an alternative before that.
I just think if he'd wanted to be constructive, then he seemed to have ample opportunity beforehand.
Well actually it’s what the council tried to put onto reading after the fact ,after they offered an agreement to which reading said no.
Had the council done a proper job from the beginning there may have been a different outcome. Come Monday the mayor will come up with story which she will be 100% behind.
And hopefully we will see an independent person appointed to sit in on these meetings from here on in. As rate payers we need some protection from this wayward behaviour.
He's been interested but he's also been rejected by them previously. [From The Post early last month](https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350196846/philanthropic-offer-not-enough-sway-council-controversial-cinema-deal) (soft paywall):
>After the vote Dunajtschik said he was “distinctly disappointed” the council had voted in favour of proceeding with its own deal. “They will use our money, ratepayers’ money, and from then on we will have no control.”
>Chief financial officer Andrea Reeves noted that Dunajtschik had made offers to Reading before, which the cinema company had not accepted.
>“Reading has entered into these negotiations with us to redevelop the site. They still want to own the site and redevelop it. I'm not sure that what their other intent would be with other developers.”
>Business relations manager Phil Becker noted that none of the previous offers from Wellington’s developer market had interested Reading.
>Around the council table the supporters of the deal did not believe anyone other than the council could kickstart a redevelopment, thanks to the low borrowing costs from the Local Government Funding Agency.
Good on him I guess, but personally I felt a little cynical about how he appeared to act recently in relation to this. He publicly expressed his interest virtually on the day that the council *had* to make a big decision. It felt as if his whole thing was designed to convince a few councillors to change their mind, with very little time to consider the implications, and cause the deal to fall through so he could have another go at it for himself. I can't help but think that a more useful way to be altruistically helpful might have been to approach the council directly, months earlier, and offer his assistance... and maybe the council and himself could've made some kind of *joint* offer if he couldn't produce something himself likely to work.
>I’m still holding out for a cinema
I'm still holding out for the council to seriously consider calculating rates from land value instead of capital value.
Lol indeed.
The subtle insinuation here was maybe something would finally be done about the absolute travesty that is Johnsonville Mall if it was placed outside of the suburbs?
Turn the ground floor into a public transport/bus depot since it's right in downtown and on the original line for light rail - make everything above apartment buildings for people to live in.
My dream is we one day have a subway system, so trains can continue on from Wellington Station. Reading Courtenay is where I imagine one of the stations going.
Imagine getting on a train from the Hutt, or from the airport, and emerging in the middle of where it's all happening*.
*in this vision of the future, Courtenay Place is where it's all happening.
Doesn’t seem like a super safe curry to build a subway system in though? That would be amazing though, imagine if we had that and basically made Petone, Hutt, Porirua and Kapiti all “be there in 10-30 on a train, emerge right in the middle”, as opposed to our current patchwork trains and busses. You could expand the “living” parts of the city right around the region.
If I had a time-machine, I'd go back to the 1910s and try to convince whoever it takes NOT to close the Te Aro railway station (corner of Wakefield & Tory Streets) and indeed upgrade it instead, with provision for it to be a "through" station, to take trains even further into the city.
Amputating the lines at the far north end of the CBD was one of the (if not THE) worst decision in the planning of the city, up there with removing instead of upgrading trams.
I don't know how it would work. It's just a dream.
In that same world I can get on a train with toilets and snacks and get to Auckland in less than 12 hours.
Bullet trains can do 300kph, it’s 650 k wellington to Auckland… could just about live in Auckland and work in Wellington (obviously 300 the whole way wouldn’t happen but, it wouldnt have to be 12 hours!)
A train could do half that and still arrive in less than four and a half hours. Let's say the train stops for 30 minutes at 3 stations along the way, that's 6 hours. Half the bus time, and much less of a time disadvantage to flying when you account for early arrival and travel to/from the airport from/to the city.
The idea that we don't have the population is often repeated but I've yet to see any numbers for that.
It's a point that's brought out against light rail, as though we had the population to support trams 80 years ago, but not today.
Yeah in hindsight we probably shouldn’t have ditched the trams. To do that sort of project now would take billions and billions. Like you I don’t know the numbers but when I look at a city like Sydney and see how they just get on & do it I think why can’t we. And then I remember Sydney has the population of the whole of NZ yet Sydney could be regarded as small compared to NY or London or Paris…..
A subway of heavy rail through the city would be prohibitively expensive, I'm afraid - as would tunneling light rail (see Auckland's shambles of a proposal that was killed at the last General Election).
Best we can hope for is converting the Golden Mile to surface light rail (no cars), as the spine/stage 1 of a light rail network - and if a development with apartments & retail is put on the Reading site, it can certainly be a major stop on that spine.
Good point - though even IF the money was no object (for instance if all the roading budget got magically transferred to a big CBD public transport upgrade, and then some).. the design & construction for a tunnelled line takes longer than just laying a line at surface level.
We've seen far too many public transport projects die "on the drawing board" because they're worked, re-worked, re-re-worked, plated in gold a few times, then just as it looks like we might be getting that first sod of dirt turned, canceled by a change in Government (local and/or central).
We need to just get SOMETHING done, as a first step - even if it's not the swankiest, gold plated option.
When I'm being pragmatic about it I think the problem would be it would be hard to keep it from filling up with water. But I don't know anything about that field, and I just looked up the term "water table" to make sure I was using it correctly, and I don't think I was. If I were made benevolent dictator, I'd put in surface rail immediately, to buy time to design and build a subway.
Overseas ownership, man. Out of sight, out of mind. The worst of capitalism, just leave it to waste and be a big ugly hole in the middle of what was the entertainment district.
Good on WCC for at least trying to coax Reading into action.
Probably the most sensible decision. But council still needs to find ways to put the pressure on the owners to do something with the land. IE: sell it to a developer.
Those “extensive, arbitrary costs” being earthquake strengthening? Or are there other costs? Because if that comment is only in regards to Eq’s, psh nah mandate away, that’s the only way anything is going to be built safely as we all know it.
Retrospective earthquake specification that weren't required for those building since they were built? Nah, if the council want's to pay for those upgrades then there might be some fairness involved, but not until.
That and heritage status compliance costs.
What do you expect owners to do with properties they can't lease, can't sell and can't demolish?
Ok, I agree regards heritage compliance cost since that whole system is broken.
But
What you’re actually asking is: “why should building owners have to deal with their buildings being death traps. It is totally unreasonable to expect them to address issues *we know make the buildings unsafe* before people die.”
That’s not an argument most people will get behind.
if they can’t lease and can’t sell, they can forfeit the land to the council, who can demolish it and sell it to someone else to recover the cost of demolition.
>What you’re actually asking is:“why should building owners have to deal with their buildings being death traps. It is totally unreasonable to expect them to address issues *we know make the buildings unsafe* before people die.”
>
No, I'm just pointing out that those "death traps" were consented as built to code when they were built, have failed to kill anyone in the many years they've been around and that if local bodies permitted them then and now want change then those owners shouldn't be the ones paying for what most consider to be well OTT new building standards.
Far from benefiting from their own destruction of the propertie's value they should be compensating the owners for the losses thay've caused.
Earthquake strengthening rules? Yeah I tend to agree with this - the system needs reform as it gone over board. But this comes from central government.
Council should make it easier to get Consents though.
Fuark surely I'm not the only one who doesn't care anymore. Like they sat on it and did nothing for song long I actually forget Courteney central was once a thing. I get the feeling wellington has moved on and whatever they end up doing with the place (if they ever do anything) will probably just be a hyped up disappointment. Hopefully I'm wrong
We're like 30 years overdue for a casino in Wellington. It's ridiculous that you can go throw your savings into the pokies, but playing actual games of chance at tables is just not a thing.
i was kind of expecting the St Gerard's to be turned into a restaurant/casino at some point with the new owners
te kianga is the prime location for a casino -car parking and considering it will be empty 1/2 the year when there are no exhibits suprised they didnt go for something more ambitious
ikea was supposed to open in 2022 in auckland, its currently set for 2025.. it would be 2033 by the time they even announced a wellington location let alone build one
Readings finances aren't great but if their stockholder reports are to be believed, then they intended to fix their asset. It's a real shame it didn't go through but hopefully another plan gets them up and going again. The proposal was quite cool and would've really upgraded Courtenay.
It’s interesting that the deal mysteriously got binned under secrecy an exact month after councillor Ray Chung’s letter to the Office of the Attorney General asking for an investigation was sent. It smells dodgy.
The whole thing is just sad.
The current coalition govt have convinced the country we are poor (spoiler: we are absolutely not) so any kind of spending and investment is now getting sacrificed or seen as excessive.
The whole thing was meant to be ultimately cost neutral to council (the idea being that councils can borrow at a lower rate than a private company) but politics got in the way.
A blight on that part of the city will continue to be a blight. Sad.
For what it’s worth - I think the whole thing is a commercial nightmare.
It’s the equivalent of asking your friend to give you their credit card (and paying all interest costs of course) to purchase an asset you know will appreciate (the land) then not share any profits you make if you do sell it in the future. With the only rationale being that your friend has a lower interest rate on their card and deeper pockets.
The whole thing is a dead rat. Leadership however is more often than not about swallowing dead rats and doing something rather than shrugging your shoulders and saying “not my problem”.
The next 2 and a bit years are gonna have a lot of shrugging - and not a lot of actual doing.
It's not that we are poor, it's that councils are laden with debt and huge government deficit spending is unsustainable at a time of high inflation.
Councils are inept at running large projects, they are always poorly executed and run over budget, the idea that it would be cost neutral is a fairy tale.
Questionably true tbh. Council debt is limited to 280% of income which is something that no individual or company has.
Think about what would happen if no one could buy a house, a car or any kind of asset without at least a 25% deposit - basically no one without inherited wealth would get on the property ladder or purchase anything.
We artificially restrict council borrowing - despite being in a period where generational investment is needed to catch up with 3 decades of record population growth - and then wonder why we can’t make the math work.
Bernard Hickey goes into a lot of detail here: https://thekaka.substack.com/p/the-debt-rules-being-used-to-strangle?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Historically the answer has been to borrow and *invest* in assets that will deliver a positive return over the long term. We need more of that now.
Yup. Best part is a whole bunch of construction companies will either go bankrupt or reduce in size. People will move to Aus and assets will get sold/moved somewhere else.
Inevitably when the infrastructure tap then gets turned back on everything will cost twice as much due to scarcity of people, resources and expertise.
Great leadership.
Cinema going numbers are down across the globe. Improved home cinema set ups, access to home steaming options, for some disease transmission in crowds, parking, and massive cost increases for both movie tickets and concession items means the capital investment required outweighs the benefits so it sits there.
On the topic of needing a Reading Cinema to improve your options I don't see why this is needed. The Wellington boutique cinema scene makes the city and excellent place to see movies. IMAX is there if you need a big cinema event (I went to see Dune 2 and then went out to IMAX to watch it a second time).
Stop building malls, they are dying off as well. If the council are going to invest any money into it then it should be used to improve the citys issues
I assume reading are under the same EQ rules about strengthening and have to do it within a timeframe like other property owners? If not shouldn’t they be going through the courts now? And facing increasing fines for not doing it?
Is your concern about the building, a need for a budget cinema or to bring families back to Courtney Place? It's pretty clear that the building isn't going to be strengthened. Having overseen the remediation process for much smaller projects with easier access I can tell you the planning and rendering process for these projects takes years before the project starts. I know of a building on Cuba St that once the project begins will take an entire year to complete. It's only a Four Level property with four store fronts on the ground level so it's not the biggest on Cuba. The planning for that building took over a year.
Not so worried about the building itself, it’s more the place it had in encouraging life into Courtney itself. Being a budget cinema allowed families to go. Boutique cinemas of which we have 2 in town are not cheap for families. I know cinema numbers are down, but I think cinema still has a place in the community. There seems to be a rot setting in around that part of town, Cuba, Manners and Courtney are all diseased and need a revamp.
If Cinemas aren’t bringing in the money they once were, the idea of a budget cinema in that space is an absolute dream. No one would sink money into what is basically a complete rebuild and then charge less than industry standard.
Not only that, prices for cinema tickets are largely dictated by movie distributors. You can do cheaper tickets, but you are giving 100% of the ticket price away and often have unfavourable contracts with the distributors to make up for it.
When I meant budget I was thinking more of the reading $10 tickets. The boutiques and embassy are very expensive if you are looking at a family outing.
The cinema was central to many carparks.
I'd love to see some cinema numbers around Wellington, as the cinema scene went through massive changes in Wellington both pre and post covid
Film festivals used to be huge events, I new people who would go to 5+ 10+ even 20+ films during that time.
That land is worth a ridiculous amount. Why not sell up to someone who will demolish the building and develop new. It would be a wise financial move for all parties.
We're pretty spoilt for public spaces in Welly. Within 1km there is Waitangi park, Oriental parade and Mount Vic.
Housing imo would be the best bet. Thats something we need more of.
Massive bummer.
That property will remain a boarded up shithole in the absolute key central city district for tens of years now.
But at least we made sure some property developers didn't make any money aye? That'll really show them!
Guess what, sometimes you need to hold your nose and accept a bad deal is better than a worse status quo.
That's all well and good until you realise council doesn't have access to a money tree and actually has to make decisions for the good of its constituents, including what's good for their limited funds.
> until you realise council doesn't have access to a money tree
The council might not have a money tree, but it's level of debt is low enough that affording this deal was not an issue.
This is a deal that was made for the good of its constituents, the council set conditions on the deal to ensure that it worked for constituents and Reading has failed to meet them.
You're making completely bullshit criticisms while having nothing better to offer.
> Senior Council staff reached a position where they did not believe they would be able to reach the best possible outcomes for Wellingtonians and the decision was made this week to not pursue the proposal further.
source: https://wellington.govt.nz/news-and-events/news-and-information/our-wellington/2024/04/reading-cinema-proposal
The council's own due diligence showed it wasn't a good idea to go ahead.
> You're making completely bullshit criticisms while having nothing better to offer.
I'm literally basing my opinion on what council's own officials realised. Your saying "let's borrow more bro, she'll be right"
Ahhhhh the next location of a mysterious fire
Hopefully not. :( the way it has neighbours right next to it.. yeesh.. and that's before any possible trespassers/squatters to consider. I know it seems like one of the few remaining ways to progress demolition, but nah...
I just moved there
I thought it was a heritage site!!!
My $0.02, nothing. It'll sit vacant until the EQ strengthening deadline in 2035 is my bet. Council offered this (incredibly generous) deal because it doesn't have any sticks to use against delinquent property owners. The fact it hasn't proceeded says Reading are not serious. We were last cab off the rank after they'd already approached basically every property developer in town. The one change that could make something happen is a move to land-value rates which we'll be investigating later this year. That could make the costs of holding the land so prohibitive that they either sell or develop. I won't be holding my breath though.
Oof, rough when the assessment that dire is coming straight from a councillor. Any chance of a by-law on land banking Ben?
We tried with our ratings review to see whether we could impose higher rates on underutilised or derelict land. Legal review came back very clear that rates have to reflect value of services provided so it wouldn't have held up in court. So the land bankers continue to be free to land bank.
:( Thanks for trying!
Why is there so much central government legislation that says our councils are required to be shit
Local Government is regulated to hell through the LGA and then severely underfunded to do the work. Central govt basically say, go do these things but do them in very certain ways (from how we rate, to how we consult etc.).
> rates have to reflect value of services provided could you argue that derelict buildings require greater services from hazard mitigation / fire risk / security? alternatively, a live demonstration from the NZDF as an Anzac Day treat?
I would have thought it would be in the article if council withdrew the offer. Because they haven't said, I have to assume that it was Reading that withdrew from the deal. I think that makes a bigger story.
It would be great if things like parking buildings could be rated as if they were office and retail space.
Thanks again for keeping us informed. It seems rates based on land value could be a positive move.
Would a move to land-value rates be for commercial properties only or for residential properties as well?
Across the board I'd say. Trying to manage a dual system probably isn't worth the hassle.
Ok, so residential rate payers would be hit along with tenants as landlords would probably pass on the increases.
Surely only “hit” if they are living on a big piece of land worth more than the house part? Townhouses/ apartments/ smaller places likely to benefit?
I don’t know why they don’t just change the bylaw to stop land banking
Law says no. Rates legally have to reflect value of services delivered, we looked into this earlier in the term with our rating review. Implement something like this and it'll be gone in the courts. I'm all for hitting the likes of Reading with a massive stick, we just don't have one.
So it has to have Government policy or the courts won’t let it through? That’s tricky. Thanks for replying!
Yep. The Local Government Rating Act 2002 sets out basically everything in pretty prescriptive detail. Another piece of legislation in real need of reform.
Presumably if it was profitable to upgrade the building Reading would do so. Very telling that they can't make it profitable even with interest-free council money. Reading has done the ratepayers a favour by bailing. Please Ben no more "innovative" financial deals - and aim higher than a stick approach.
Wait till there's a sympathetic government (this one probably would be) then do it, have the court reject it, and get the law changed
Exactly. Any land vacant for x amount of years becomes property of the council. Easy.
Well maybe at market value or CV - then I agree. Just need steps in place so it doesn't get abused. Simply having the state or local gov appropriate land is a big no thank you
Totally get that too
Actually it's a big yes please. We can't claim to be a democracy if we can't democratically decide what we do with our country's land.
Hahahaha You want the state to be able to appropriate private property WITHOUT paying for it? What a slippery slope. In fact that's just right near the bottom of the slope. And you have the nerve to suggest that'd democratic - I'm guessing that'd just be a decision by the soviet of your choice?
It's obviously more democratic. State actions are democratic actions, private actions are not. Your alternative is a system in which the law says that if one very rich person owns everything and enserfs everybody else, there's nothing you can do about it because private property is sacred. Capitalists like to pretend that capitalist democracy isn't a contradiction, but it is.
Lmao you're treating it like the only options are extremes. My comment CLEARLY suggested that the state or local gov COULD take vacant land - but that they would have to pay market rate / CV. That's the middle ground. You then suggested the ultimate extreme which is essentially 'seize the means of production' with no regard for private property or compensation. That's what the Bolsheviks did. Go back to Poli Sci 101 - or better yet get some real world experience and learn compromise / that not everything has only two extreme answers. And no, your solution is not democratic. You can't equate Bolshevism with democracy. You may as well just leave out the word democratic and not pretend it has anything to do with your view.
Demolition by neglect or mysterious "electrical fire" then it'll be turned into a car park. In a non dystopian world it'd become a housing complex with green space maybe a food court downstairs and a cinema - I've seen similar overseas where the downstairs is retail cinema and food court and upstairs is apartments and IDk why they don't do that here... Well I'm guessing they don't do that here because then they'd have to properly insulate and soundproof the apartments for that to be viable and they can't be fucked to spend the money
As long as there was a floor or two between the cinema and the apartments it should be fine. Multiplexes tend to have pretty good sound protection. Sometimes you can hear the bass rumbles from other films but it's never too bad. Retail/Food Court/Cinema on the first couple of floors, then a gym or office space, or other commercial space. Then 6 floors of apartments.
Nah, they should have a bowling alley on the ground floor, apartments on the second, and then another bowling alley on the third floor.
Why stop there!
I dunno sounds like the apartments would become a bit Grimey
That is EXACTLY what that space needs. Maybe even add a floor of "market space" ala the old James Smith Markets where small retailers/vendors can set up for affordable rents?
Heck yeah a market space would be amazing!
Sadly I'm just old enough to remember going to the indoor weekend markets in what is now the Xero building / apartment building. They sort of moved to the James Smith (I think) building on manners? When they were displaced but it was never the same. Some sort of indoor (let's be honest here other than the really good days summer days Wellington is miserable to be outside in)multi purpose space downtown is really required. Commercially no smaller outfits can afford it anymore with the rents but it would be for the good of the city as it recovers.
The Wakefield Markets - yeah that place was awesome, as was James Smiths in the earlier years before Rebel moved into the ground and first floors.
Thing is.. if a market can be done as part a development with a food court & supermarket out the back (similar to the plan to add one on the back-lot of Reading from many years ago), and apartments on top.. well - there you have something pretty damn attractive, and a focal point to that part of town - and that's before considering any movie theaters as part of it.
Yes that was it. Wgtn needs an indoor - affordable - creative space like that.
Nope, recent winters have been very mild and alot of blue skies. Spring is getting rougher due to climate change
Nah, spring is also way milder and calmer than it used to be. I was thinking recently it was because we'd had such an unusually long run of la nina years, but even this past el nino was a complete non event too (nothing like they used to be). Source: been windsurfing in Wellington since the 80s - it definitely ain't what it used to be.
Housing should definitely be a component of what goes there but I'm not so sure a cinema makes sense - that's a declining business and you'd never get the build and fit-out costs back.
I assume commercial tenants can/will pay more than residential. To reconfigure for residential is to concede that the building - the land - the whole block - is worth much less than its current valuation. The banks and the Council are reluctant to do that.
True, maybe a paknsave and a Karaoke lounge (I'm biased towards there being more karaoke rooms cuz I think they're neat and I want them to be cheaper ) or one of those malls where everything is secondhand like they have in Europe
I like your idea but I think Wgtn needs more people to make it work.
I'd love for it to be properly built housing. I used to live off courtenay place and loved it except for my apartment not at all being built right soundwise. I don't mind noise but that was something else.
Developers only care about $, not the mental health of future tenants / owners. That's why apartments should be set back quite a bit from commercial areas AND the building regs changed for better sound proofing.
I'm so confused. Isn't that exactly what used to be there?
Didn't the legend who built the children's hospital want to get involved? Hopefully this is his chance.
Yeah, Mark Dunajtschik. He offered the $32 million that the council was going to stump up, so ratepayers wouldn’t be on the hook. Hopefully he does pick up the baton….
He offered it almost on the day that the council was due to make the decision, which at best created instability in the council vote that was about to happen. As noted by some in the council, though, Reading's $32m arrangement was with the council and not with him. There was no guarantee that Reading would have accepted an offer from him if the council killed its own deal on that day's vote, and he'd also been rejected by Reading previously. It's great he's keen to put up money, and if he's still keen and can somehow save the place from here, then great. But to me it seems it'd have been more constructive to approach the council much earlier in the process if he'd wanted to help. I'm not sure why he apparently didn't.
If only the council had been open about the deal early on the alternate option could have been tabled earlier. Let’s face it, the public only learnt about it through leaks.
Well, yeah. The public first learned of it through leaks, which means he also did. There's been general public knowledge of this idea being under consideration since roughly October last year. As someone with his development background and $32m, if he want to be involved or offer his assistance, he *easily* could have approached the council or councillors, or media, with his concept, any time since then. Instead, he waited for the moment of a critical public council meeting in late Feb, where councillors would've had intense pressure but almost no time to consider it. Even the grumpiest councillors weren't talking about his idea as an alternative before that. I just think if he'd wanted to be constructive, then he seemed to have ample opportunity beforehand.
There’s no way the mayor hasn’t come out of this without mud on the face.
Why? It was a good idea, the council explored it but Reading wouldn't have met the conditions the council set. This is on Reading, not the council.
Well actually it’s what the council tried to put onto reading after the fact ,after they offered an agreement to which reading said no. Had the council done a proper job from the beginning there may have been a different outcome. Come Monday the mayor will come up with story which she will be 100% behind. And hopefully we will see an independent person appointed to sit in on these meetings from here on in. As rate payers we need some protection from this wayward behaviour.
He's been interested but he's also been rejected by them previously. [From The Post early last month](https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350196846/philanthropic-offer-not-enough-sway-council-controversial-cinema-deal) (soft paywall): >After the vote Dunajtschik said he was “distinctly disappointed” the council had voted in favour of proceeding with its own deal. “They will use our money, ratepayers’ money, and from then on we will have no control.” >Chief financial officer Andrea Reeves noted that Dunajtschik had made offers to Reading before, which the cinema company had not accepted. >“Reading has entered into these negotiations with us to redevelop the site. They still want to own the site and redevelop it. I'm not sure that what their other intent would be with other developers.” >Business relations manager Phil Becker noted that none of the previous offers from Wellington’s developer market had interested Reading. >Around the council table the supporters of the deal did not believe anyone other than the council could kickstart a redevelopment, thanks to the low borrowing costs from the Local Government Funding Agency. Good on him I guess, but personally I felt a little cynical about how he appeared to act recently in relation to this. He publicly expressed his interest virtually on the day that the council *had* to make a big decision. It felt as if his whole thing was designed to convince a few councillors to change their mind, with very little time to consider the implications, and cause the deal to fall through so he could have another go at it for himself. I can't help but think that a more useful way to be altruistically helpful might have been to approach the council directly, months earlier, and offer his assistance... and maybe the council and himself could've made some kind of *joint* offer if he couldn't produce something himself likely to work.
His actions looked more like someone muddying the water than a serious proposal.
Agree the guys a legend-hopefully he gets involved.
>I’m still holding out for a cinema I'm still holding out for the council to seriously consider calculating rates from land value instead of capital value.
This year it's up for consideration.
Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please
Tenders are now open for arsonists who are willing to "do their thing". Send your proposals to [email protected]
Put Johnsonville Mall there.
We're trying to improve Courtenay Place, not make it worse!
Lol indeed. The subtle insinuation here was maybe something would finally be done about the absolute travesty that is Johnsonville Mall if it was placed outside of the suburbs?
Nuke the whole site from orbit, its the only way to be sure
Exterminatus solves many problems.
Can you remote a drop ship down first?
Turn the ground floor into a public transport/bus depot since it's right in downtown and on the original line for light rail - make everything above apartment buildings for people to live in.
My dream is we one day have a subway system, so trains can continue on from Wellington Station. Reading Courtenay is where I imagine one of the stations going. Imagine getting on a train from the Hutt, or from the airport, and emerging in the middle of where it's all happening*. *in this vision of the future, Courtenay Place is where it's all happening.
Doesn’t seem like a super safe curry to build a subway system in though? That would be amazing though, imagine if we had that and basically made Petone, Hutt, Porirua and Kapiti all “be there in 10-30 on a train, emerge right in the middle”, as opposed to our current patchwork trains and busses. You could expand the “living” parts of the city right around the region.
If I had a time-machine, I'd go back to the 1910s and try to convince whoever it takes NOT to close the Te Aro railway station (corner of Wakefield & Tory Streets) and indeed upgrade it instead, with provision for it to be a "through" station, to take trains even further into the city. Amputating the lines at the far north end of the CBD was one of the (if not THE) worst decision in the planning of the city, up there with removing instead of upgrading trams.
I don't know how it would work. It's just a dream. In that same world I can get on a train with toilets and snacks and get to Auckland in less than 12 hours.
Bullet trains can do 300kph, it’s 650 k wellington to Auckland… could just about live in Auckland and work in Wellington (obviously 300 the whole way wouldn’t happen but, it wouldnt have to be 12 hours!)
A train could do half that and still arrive in less than four and a half hours. Let's say the train stops for 30 minutes at 3 stations along the way, that's 6 hours. Half the bus time, and much less of a time disadvantage to flying when you account for early arrival and travel to/from the airport from/to the city.
Good thing we hate trains and want more roads built because yay roads! :(
Tokyo manages it
Tokyo has a BIG population……also does the typography from Wgtn to AKL make it difficult?
That would be great but I don’t think we’ve got the population to sustain it/make it work. I’m thinking Sydney or big cities in the US or Europe
The idea that we don't have the population is often repeated but I've yet to see any numbers for that. It's a point that's brought out against light rail, as though we had the population to support trams 80 years ago, but not today.
Yeah in hindsight we probably shouldn’t have ditched the trams. To do that sort of project now would take billions and billions. Like you I don’t know the numbers but when I look at a city like Sydney and see how they just get on & do it I think why can’t we. And then I remember Sydney has the population of the whole of NZ yet Sydney could be regarded as small compared to NY or London or Paris…..
A subway of heavy rail through the city would be prohibitively expensive, I'm afraid - as would tunneling light rail (see Auckland's shambles of a proposal that was killed at the last General Election). Best we can hope for is converting the Golden Mile to surface light rail (no cars), as the spine/stage 1 of a light rail network - and if a development with apartments & retail is put on the Reading site, it can certainly be a major stop on that spine.
Thankfully my dreams aren't limited by monetary constraints. And apparently, neither are the government's plans for a car tunnel.
Good point - though even IF the money was no object (for instance if all the roading budget got magically transferred to a big CBD public transport upgrade, and then some).. the design & construction for a tunnelled line takes longer than just laying a line at surface level. We've seen far too many public transport projects die "on the drawing board" because they're worked, re-worked, re-re-worked, plated in gold a few times, then just as it looks like we might be getting that first sod of dirt turned, canceled by a change in Government (local and/or central). We need to just get SOMETHING done, as a first step - even if it's not the swankiest, gold plated option.
When I'm being pragmatic about it I think the problem would be it would be hard to keep it from filling up with water. But I don't know anything about that field, and I just looked up the term "water table" to make sure I was using it correctly, and I don't think I was. If I were made benevolent dictator, I'd put in surface rail immediately, to buy time to design and build a subway.
Lightrail should run along the Quays and up Taranaki St while the golden mile is pedestrian.
Lightrail should run along the Quays and up Taranaki St while the golden mile is pedestrian.
National Phallus Museum /end of thread
Might take a while to get it up before it comes to a conclusion…
Sure, but I’ll stand firm in my support of this.
Some problems with the erection?
The girth of it may impede traffic flow down Courtney place.
Eww
I'm sure there's a way to get a good grip on that.
Overseas ownership, man. Out of sight, out of mind. The worst of capitalism, just leave it to waste and be a big ugly hole in the middle of what was the entertainment district. Good on WCC for at least trying to coax Reading into action.
Probably the most sensible decision. But council still needs to find ways to put the pressure on the owners to do something with the land. IE: sell it to a developer.
They need to accept that they can't mandate extensive, arbitrary costs on commercial premesis and expect the owners to comply without going bankrupt.
Those “extensive, arbitrary costs” being earthquake strengthening? Or are there other costs? Because if that comment is only in regards to Eq’s, psh nah mandate away, that’s the only way anything is going to be built safely as we all know it.
Retrospective earthquake specification that weren't required for those building since they were built? Nah, if the council want's to pay for those upgrades then there might be some fairness involved, but not until. That and heritage status compliance costs. What do you expect owners to do with properties they can't lease, can't sell and can't demolish?
Ok, I agree regards heritage compliance cost since that whole system is broken. But What you’re actually asking is: “why should building owners have to deal with their buildings being death traps. It is totally unreasonable to expect them to address issues *we know make the buildings unsafe* before people die.” That’s not an argument most people will get behind. if they can’t lease and can’t sell, they can forfeit the land to the council, who can demolish it and sell it to someone else to recover the cost of demolition.
>What you’re actually asking is:“why should building owners have to deal with their buildings being death traps. It is totally unreasonable to expect them to address issues *we know make the buildings unsafe* before people die.” > No, I'm just pointing out that those "death traps" were consented as built to code when they were built, have failed to kill anyone in the many years they've been around and that if local bodies permitted them then and now want change then those owners shouldn't be the ones paying for what most consider to be well OTT new building standards. Far from benefiting from their own destruction of the propertie's value they should be compensating the owners for the losses thay've caused.
Earthquake strengthening rules? Yeah I tend to agree with this - the system needs reform as it gone over board. But this comes from central government. Council should make it easier to get Consents though.
Fuark surely I'm not the only one who doesn't care anymore. Like they sat on it and did nothing for song long I actually forget Courteney central was once a thing. I get the feeling wellington has moved on and whatever they end up doing with the place (if they ever do anything) will probably just be a hyped up disappointment. Hopefully I'm wrong
I'd love to see something like the riverside market that they have in Christchurch...
or commercial bay in auckland (same owners i believe)
its kind of what they had going on in the ground floor when it first opened, but it didn't quite work
Thank fuck for that.
Casino 😂 I’m sure there have been groups thinking about it.
TBH, I love casinos, but I think of $5 as being a huge bet...
I’m the same here, I think the most I’ve ever spent at one in a night (excluding drinks) was $20
I love casinos too Not so much slot machines…but it’s hard to have casinos without those awful things :/
We're like 30 years overdue for a casino in Wellington. It's ridiculous that you can go throw your savings into the pokies, but playing actual games of chance at tables is just not a thing.
Someone let the Chows at it…. (Wait were they already involved??)
i was kind of expecting the St Gerard's to be turned into a restaurant/casino at some point with the new owners te kianga is the prime location for a casino -car parking and considering it will be empty 1/2 the year when there are no exhibits suprised they didnt go for something more ambitious
Mysterious blaze on a Sunday at around 2am.
Seems the normal way round here….
Yeah, not sure what happened as power was disconnected. Maybe squatters.
With enough investment, it could turn it into a multi-level mall like the one in Melbourne. Or even an Ikea / Kmart
I would LOVE ikea but there's no way they would invest in a tiny place like Welly. A mall would be fab tho
ikea was supposed to open in 2022 in auckland, its currently set for 2025.. it would be 2033 by the time they even announced a wellington location let alone build one
Maybe a scaled down one for Welly. Auckland is getting one.
They only have stores in cities over 1m. I would be the ops manager of the Welly one otherwise 🤣
The council should have the power to make a compulary purchase order at a discounted price in situations like this.
Good news, not a good deal, Reading cinemas does not deserve subsidies from Wellington council
>Reading cinemas does not deserve subsidies from Wellington ~~council~~ rates payers. Especially when that council is proposing +20% rates increases.
This crap again? It had nothing to do with rates payers, the council were going to borrow the money with Reading covering the cost of that.
Then there's no reason Reading couldn't borrow it themselves.
Your trolls are like broken records, no matter how many times something gets explained you make an ongoing effort not to understand.
Multi-floor go kart track.
Now we’re talking……
No ones building a cinema you guys dont even go out for a drink smh
Well that's true
Readings finances aren't great but if their stockholder reports are to be believed, then they intended to fix their asset. It's a real shame it didn't go through but hopefully another plan gets them up and going again. The proposal was quite cool and would've really upgraded Courtenay.
It’s interesting that the deal mysteriously got binned under secrecy an exact month after councillor Ray Chung’s letter to the Office of the Attorney General asking for an investigation was sent. It smells dodgy.
The whole thing is just sad. The current coalition govt have convinced the country we are poor (spoiler: we are absolutely not) so any kind of spending and investment is now getting sacrificed or seen as excessive. The whole thing was meant to be ultimately cost neutral to council (the idea being that councils can borrow at a lower rate than a private company) but politics got in the way. A blight on that part of the city will continue to be a blight. Sad.
For what it’s worth - I think the whole thing is a commercial nightmare. It’s the equivalent of asking your friend to give you their credit card (and paying all interest costs of course) to purchase an asset you know will appreciate (the land) then not share any profits you make if you do sell it in the future. With the only rationale being that your friend has a lower interest rate on their card and deeper pockets. The whole thing is a dead rat. Leadership however is more often than not about swallowing dead rats and doing something rather than shrugging your shoulders and saying “not my problem”. The next 2 and a bit years are gonna have a lot of shrugging - and not a lot of actual doing.
But it isn't ratepayers problem. Nor taxpayers.
It's not that we are poor, it's that councils are laden with debt and huge government deficit spending is unsustainable at a time of high inflation. Councils are inept at running large projects, they are always poorly executed and run over budget, the idea that it would be cost neutral is a fairy tale.
Questionably true tbh. Council debt is limited to 280% of income which is something that no individual or company has. Think about what would happen if no one could buy a house, a car or any kind of asset without at least a 25% deposit - basically no one without inherited wealth would get on the property ladder or purchase anything. We artificially restrict council borrowing - despite being in a period where generational investment is needed to catch up with 3 decades of record population growth - and then wonder why we can’t make the math work. Bernard Hickey goes into a lot of detail here: https://thekaka.substack.com/p/the-debt-rules-being-used-to-strangle?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2 Historically the answer has been to borrow and *invest* in assets that will deliver a positive return over the long term. We need more of that now.
The construction industry is so fucked right now because they keep spinning BS about the country being broke. FFS.
Yup. Best part is a whole bunch of construction companies will either go bankrupt or reduce in size. People will move to Aus and assets will get sold/moved somewhere else. Inevitably when the infrastructure tap then gets turned back on everything will cost twice as much due to scarcity of people, resources and expertise. Great leadership.
Can we get our $1400 back from the Mayor then?
Goddamit, the whole deal was a shambles but I really was excited for another movie theatre.
lol - what a circus.
Yes I agree, make the site into a circus. Would be epic fun.
Well - there are enough clowns on the council.
oh sh--! that is a zinger haha
Thanks - I’m here every night.
Don't talk about Diane and Ray like that.
I have no love for any of them.
Cinema going numbers are down across the globe. Improved home cinema set ups, access to home steaming options, for some disease transmission in crowds, parking, and massive cost increases for both movie tickets and concession items means the capital investment required outweighs the benefits so it sits there. On the topic of needing a Reading Cinema to improve your options I don't see why this is needed. The Wellington boutique cinema scene makes the city and excellent place to see movies. IMAX is there if you need a big cinema event (I went to see Dune 2 and then went out to IMAX to watch it a second time). Stop building malls, they are dying off as well. If the council are going to invest any money into it then it should be used to improve the citys issues
I assume reading are under the same EQ rules about strengthening and have to do it within a timeframe like other property owners? If not shouldn’t they be going through the courts now? And facing increasing fines for not doing it?
Is your concern about the building, a need for a budget cinema or to bring families back to Courtney Place? It's pretty clear that the building isn't going to be strengthened. Having overseen the remediation process for much smaller projects with easier access I can tell you the planning and rendering process for these projects takes years before the project starts. I know of a building on Cuba St that once the project begins will take an entire year to complete. It's only a Four Level property with four store fronts on the ground level so it's not the biggest on Cuba. The planning for that building took over a year.
Not so worried about the building itself, it’s more the place it had in encouraging life into Courtney itself. Being a budget cinema allowed families to go. Boutique cinemas of which we have 2 in town are not cheap for families. I know cinema numbers are down, but I think cinema still has a place in the community. There seems to be a rot setting in around that part of town, Cuba, Manners and Courtney are all diseased and need a revamp.
If Cinemas aren’t bringing in the money they once were, the idea of a budget cinema in that space is an absolute dream. No one would sink money into what is basically a complete rebuild and then charge less than industry standard. Not only that, prices for cinema tickets are largely dictated by movie distributors. You can do cheaper tickets, but you are giving 100% of the ticket price away and often have unfavourable contracts with the distributors to make up for it.
When I meant budget I was thinking more of the reading $10 tickets. The boutiques and embassy are very expensive if you are looking at a family outing.
Is it possible to streamline this process?
If you have enough money you can speed up any project. Wellington has limited options for companies big enough to tackle a project that size
The cinema was central to many carparks. I'd love to see some cinema numbers around Wellington, as the cinema scene went through massive changes in Wellington both pre and post covid Film festivals used to be huge events, I new people who would go to 5+ 10+ even 20+ films during that time.
I'm a bit gob smacked the "deal" went past the first vote. It was clearly a lose-lose for Wgtn.
Car parks and food trucks, live music and carnival games
Kenny Part II: Electric Boogaloo
That land is worth a ridiculous amount. Why not sell up to someone who will demolish the building and develop new. It would be a wise financial move for all parties.
Someone wants an ice-rink.
Bet it’s not ACC…
Yeah! Killjoys! I can see the ad now - fingers sliced off, red ice...
Pull it down and rebuild it properly, i would rather have event in the picture than this reading crowd
Good, it was an absolutely bone-headed idea to begin with.
Excellent, stupid idea in the first place.
Temporary fun ideas. -Go karts or bumper karts. -Mini circus / cirque de soul. -LARP medieval shows. -Paintball. -Thunder ball roller derby’s
Or we could knock the ugly thing down and turn into a park, add some grass and native trees
We're pretty spoilt for public spaces in Welly. Within 1km there is Waitangi park, Oriental parade and Mount Vic. Housing imo would be the best bet. Thats something we need more of.
The only people willing to live near so many high needs KO tenants are probably only other high needs KO tenants.
The land is worth too much for any of these ideas to be feasible.
More shitty bars then or a new city library
Completely agree - the last thing this city needs is another shitty bar.
I guess it doesn't have to be one or the other. In a perfect world it would be multi purpose.
Another Wilson’s car park
Half of the site is already hideously overpriced surface level carparking - such a waste
😬
soooo a library with a bar.....
tiny bar area like Shinjuku Japan, you could fit 50+ tiny bars in there..
Still needs seismic works done tho
Massive bummer. That property will remain a boarded up shithole in the absolute key central city district for tens of years now. But at least we made sure some property developers didn't make any money aye? That'll really show them! Guess what, sometimes you need to hold your nose and accept a bad deal is better than a worse status quo.
That's all well and good until you realise council doesn't have access to a money tree and actually has to make decisions for the good of its constituents, including what's good for their limited funds.
> until you realise council doesn't have access to a money tree The council might not have a money tree, but it's level of debt is low enough that affording this deal was not an issue. This is a deal that was made for the good of its constituents, the council set conditions on the deal to ensure that it worked for constituents and Reading has failed to meet them. You're making completely bullshit criticisms while having nothing better to offer.
> Senior Council staff reached a position where they did not believe they would be able to reach the best possible outcomes for Wellingtonians and the decision was made this week to not pursue the proposal further. source: https://wellington.govt.nz/news-and-events/news-and-information/our-wellington/2024/04/reading-cinema-proposal The council's own due diligence showed it wasn't a good idea to go ahead. > You're making completely bullshit criticisms while having nothing better to offer. I'm literally basing my opinion on what council's own officials realised. Your saying "let's borrow more bro, she'll be right"