Skip to main content
Uncategorized

Wellington Balconies

By September 2, 200914 Comments

While you’re waiting for your next newsletter to appear, we thought that you might like to have a go at a small quiz, on the subject of balconies. They’re that appendage to a building that often gets little consideration, little forethought as to what it is going to be used as or how it is going to be cleaned. We present for your viewing pleasure a selection of apartment building balconies from around Te Aro.

Can you guess where they are? Answers please!

Balcony 1 is ….?


Balcony 2 is ….?


Balcony 3 is ….?


Balcony 4 is ….?


Balcony 5 is ….?


Balcony 6 is ….?


Balcony 7 is ….?

Author admin

More posts by admin

Join the discussion 14 Comments

  • tomek says:

    Balcony 1… is not a balcony. Really. Is it? Like the human appendix, it’s just a smelly appendage with no real purpose šŸ˜‰

  • Guy says:

    Tomek, 1/2 points for that. Good observation – no real purpose (i bet it looked good on the drawings for the Council though! But where is it? I’m sure you know where….

  • Tom says:

    1: Knigges Ave student accommodation
    2: Orange apartments, Abel Smith St
    3: Duel on Vivian
    4: Not sure: maybe The Wellington in Cuba St?
    5: Marickian apartments, cnr Taranaki & Frederick
    6: Piermont
    7: Cubana

  • Tom says:

    Examples 1 and 2 were probably just left on for wind mitigation purposes. Back when Central Area buildings were Controlled Activities, there was nothing to stop such absurdities. Under the current design guide, the proposal has to exhibit “design coherence” and wind mitigation measures have to be integral parts of the design, so the council should have teeth to require better solutions. Theoretically.

  • Guy says:

    Gosh, “Tom”, you’ve certainly scooped the pool on those – you win a smack on the ass from a bartender of your choice. Allegedly. Did you have to pause and think about those, or were they all too obvious?

  • JCB says:

    I’d argue that 1 and 2 aren’t balconies at all, on the grounds of them being unusable and all….

    and the others are just washing lines.

    I win !

  • tomek says:

    Guy, I know them all right, I just didn’t want to come across like an architecture nerd šŸ˜‰

    Tom? Tom Beard? Is that you sir?

    -t

  • tomek says:

    We all like to poke fun at eyesores but why do they exist in the first place? Is it because they are cheap to build? Which brings me to my main question, does good looking architecture have to be expensive?

    Do you have examples of what you would consider “good architecture” from around Wellington which you know didn’t cost an arm and a leg. Domestic architecture is all very good but it’s not what we really notice and it’s not what makes up our cities. So in particular, do you have any example of commercial/office architecture which is in some way inspiring or out standing and was built at a reasonable cost.

  • Teina says:

    Humm what do you mean by “reasonable cost”?

    Reasonable cost to build in terms of construction cost .ie cheap costing materials but together in visually pleasing matter or are you implying ā€œReasonable cost ā€œin terms of arriving at the proposed build-able solution includes the cost of architects & designers to conceive, document and convince other to approve and the build ! Once a pond a time Architecture + uses to do wonderful detailing using everyday available materials . Im unsure if they still do this. My personal dim view of the state of architectural practice (in Wellington) is that its cost driven always. Construction cost driven & Budget driven in term of my much is spent on design phase ā€“ ie the cheaper to document & construct building the better . but once in a while we get to slip in some some interesting stuff that isnā€™t noticed until built.

    PS who has not noticed the “washing line balconies”

  • Guy says:

    tomek – at your service. I’ll get onto that soon.

  • tomek says:

    Teina,

    I’m new to this whole business (actually I’m so new that I’m not even in the business yet) and you’re right, “reasonable cost” is a rather vague description. My reason for asking this question was to elicit a response because I am genuinely interested in this subject. Economics aside, what social and psychological barriers are stopping us from creating nicely designed buildings.

    In the world of ID we see stuff being designed to be nice and functional all the time. I’m sure that IDers have to deal with costs of design, materials and manufacturing processes but we still get nice stuff. What is stopping us when it comes to buildings?

    I can’t help but feel that many architects have grown cynical and resentful and have assumed the attitude that “their hands and creative minds are tied”. If one is failing to see a limitation or a constraint as an interesting problem awaiting a creative solution then perhaps one is not as creative or passionate as one thought (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I don’t know anything because I am young and naive and “the real world” is very different and that’s not how things really work… change it)

    -t

  • Maximus says:

    there’s some interesting creative stuff in the paper today, and on the eye of the fish website as well. Creative minds certainly at full force there…

  • 60 MPa says:

    Think #4 is Bellagio next to Molly Malone’s in Taranaki St

  • Guy says:

    No, not Bellagios. ‘Tom’ was right – it is the Wellingtonian. We have to work harder for the next quiz….