Wellington 2040 – our vision

If you’ve come here today from reading the Capital Times – then welcome! We’ve been around since 1946, and provide a voice on architecture, design, and urban issues in Wellington. The current issue of the Capital Times has picked up on our submission for Wellington 2040 – a Council run call for submissions on what the city might look like in another 30 years time.

While no one knows for sure, in about 30 years, there are bound to be a few changes. We’ve put together a scenario of what the city might be like then – and included some nice big images for the Council, hoping that they will be as excited by the future possibilities as we are. There is discussion on the Waterfront (like this image of what we think / hope it might be like), as well as discussion on the upcoming Basin Reserve flyover ‘consultation’ and the image that was published by the Capital Times two weeks ago.

The Basin Reserve question is very hot right now – and bound to get even hotter – there is discussion here at the Save the Basin website and also here at the Eye of the Fish, as well as an official view point here at the NZ Transport Agency.

We’d really like your feedback – please feel free to leave a comment on any of these websites – or especially, right here.


6 responses to “Wellington 2040 – our vision”

  1. Lovely drawings – well done! Can you do an enlargement so we can see what the words say?

  2. Just for you, with your blind, fish-eyes, we will.


  3. It’s a really great idea, which we have praised on wellington.scoop, where we’re now using your new improved image. Everyone (except the NZTA) agrees that SH1 must be trenched at the war memorial park, so your brilliant Basin scheme would flow on from there.

  4. Lindsay, to be fair to the NZTA, I suspect that they have explored the option of tunnels – but the problem is they have dismissed them without letting the public have any say.

    Somewhere in one of the reports (maybe on scoop?) it says they had 15 options, which they have whittled down to 5. Treating the public that way is not helping their case. It may be that they have already costed a tunnelled option at a price point that shows it is financially unfeasible. If so, then they should publish that option and it’s projected pricing as well. To do otherwise, as they have done, is just to shoot themselves in the foot.

    Regardless of that, we’re looking forward to tomorrow (22 Feb) when the NZTA publish their 5 options. We (Arch Centre) will certainly be pushing for at least a 6th option to be included.

    Watch this space….

  5. Bill Toomath Avatar
    Bill Toomath

    Bravo for your joyful vision of a future Wellington CBD! It gives a refreshing lift to the spirit, countering portents of gloom.

    The bonus of gaining Jervois Quay as a frontal park boulevard, by restricting cars in the CBD and with light rail in the obvious Featherston Street location, gives hope for a new unifying quality in the central city’s urban shape.

    Enjoyed your loopy aerial monorail for sightseeing – an answer to London’s Eye? – or is it a virtual reality luge? Not sure about the mini-stadium at Queens Wharf though . . . another blank inward-turned structure . . .

    Your bravely wholehearted approach offers a changed image for the city, optimistic and playful.
    Fanciful perhaps, but with realistic underpinnings based on what the future may demand.

    – bilt –

  6. Bill, as always, there is an amount of cheeky / perhaps fanciful ideas in the Arch Centre’s proposal. Lovely to have your comments – thank you – we’re glad you like it.

    We included the “loopy aerial monorail” as a feature because that is one of the suggestions for the waterfront – that it is somewhere that Wellingtonians can go to work and play. The written document, which accompanies the drawings, goes into further detal.

    But we also included a mini sports stadium as that was another of our submissions – that the proposed Indoor Sports Stadium (now under construction in Kilbirnie) was in the wrong place in the suburbs – we believed firmly that it should be in the Central City. The Council’s arguments that it serviced the city well in its Kilbirnie location are, we believe, somewhat spurious. While it will be close to Eastern suburbs schools, it will be well away from other schools further west. A central location would have served everyone better – as we stated numerous times in submissions.

    However, seeing as it is now under construction way out east, we believe the only fair thing to do is now to demand further Indoor Sports Centres in the CBD as recompense – and so we proposed that it should replace the Shell offices currently on Queens Wharf.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *