Posted by the Council last week, this competition is open until the July 3 (details click here):

“Entrants are required to design an upgrade to a typical Council housing complex consisting of four bed-sit units, with a focus on making them more practical to live in for everyone, regardless of mobility or age [ie. people with disabilities]. Several small complexes with similar plans are currently being upgraded as part of the Council’s Housing Upgrade Project.”

With the first prize of $2000 (total pool of $4000), it sounds a little like a lot of advice for next to free, but then the point of competitions is the engagement with design issues, not just doing a Daniel Libeskind and getting famous… or is it?

Note: to students and other architectural types, you’ll need to have a registered architect to stamp your drawings.

“Naked streets” or “Naked roads” - some even call them (more tamely) “Shared Spaces” - have apparently been around since the 1980s.   Credited to Hans Monderman, the Naked street idea is based on a psychological approach which supports designing roads to reflect the different cognitive skills needed in different transport situations.  Shared suburban spaces are contrasted to motorways and argued to need specific skills for their complex human context.  This whole area of thinking has developed more formally into the field of “psychological” or “second generation traffic calming.” Read the rest of this entry »

I have come to this a little late, as it has already been the subject of about 30 or so comments over on Eye of the Fish, and I did think that perhaps I wouldn’t bother posting anything on it given the stirling job they usually do over there.

Then I read the post.

Disappointingly, it is  knee-jerk culturally-elitist pompous rubbish that alienates the people who are going to be affected by the Rongotai Revived (RR) proposal, and does the cause of good urban design (and more generally, thoughtful socialism), no amount of good in the process. Looking down your nose at the culture of others is called all sorts of terrible things if the cultures are of another creed/race/sexual orientation/etc - so why is it ok to diss the activities of the majority of the lower and middle classes with so much blathering arrogance?? Read the rest of this entry »

Yay for participatory democracy…

Obviously, the demise of our green recycling bins matter, with almost 10 000 signatures already on the Council hosted ePetition (how ick is that particular moniker?), which doesn’t close until May 13. This was one issue that spread like a virus through the pc’s of most Wellingtonians some weeks ago. I am unsure if there is a hard version of the petition as well…?

But, seeing as the Council magnanimously provides such a forum, we really should endeavour to make ourselves aware of the issues that are burning for our fellow citizens, and, in this very spirit, here are, along with the recycling bin issue, the current most significant matters… Read the rest of this entry »

Early December 2008 the Wellington City Council examined draft documents for Variation 11 (the long title being: District Plan Variation 11: Amendments to Proposed District Plan Change 48 (Central Area Review) - Wellington Waterfront.)

The relevant documents are: Report 1, Appendix 1, The Section 32 Report, and Attachment 1

At the time of the meeting Lindsay Shelton wrote an article available on Scoop suggesting inappropriate council behaviour such as: council officers approving buildings, the public being un-notified, and the outlawing of coffee (just joking about the coffee!).

Anyway, some day soon this should all become official for public consultation, and theoretically we’ll have 2 months or so to think about what the Arch Centre position is on all this. The documents are in part a reaction to the Hilton decision. As the council notes “the Environment Court did not question the existing waterfront Framework … but questioned the method of incorporation and reference in the District Plan.”

The Variation also includes changing the “strict regime … requiring all new building development and the development of open space to be assessed as Discretionary Activities (Unrestricted). This was to ensure that no development would occur on the waterfront without the opportunity for public involvement.” Currently, the main mechanism to ensure all projects are notified is the imposition of a zero height limit. The new proposal is “a new Discretionary (Restricted) rule with associated development standards and a design guide.”

Another key issue is the use of the idea of “design excellence,” borrowed from the existing Central Area under Plan Change 48 to allow over-height buildings. Wellington isn’t over-burdened with “design excellence” oozing from its built environment so you’d think on the surface that this was a good idea.

Oozing with Design Excellence?

But what is “design excellence” and who decides? and are these people appropriately qualified in these matters? A nice idea but a dangerous one? And isn’t it an oxymoron (I love that word) to have a Maximum Height Limit plus 15% - what was that definition of “maximum”?

What are your opinions re: this? As usual the sub-committee drafting the submission won’t include anyone involved in related (i.e. Waterfront in this case) projects, nor those working in any firms involved in such work. But we will consider ideas discussed on this blog, which no doubt will be varied and possibly contradictory. Any members keen on being involved please email Kate or Christine.