Council staff push for central city improvements

I don't care what the current international thinking on building conservation is.

Obviously where buildings are already in good condition and serving a valuable purpose there is no need to pull them down. What I mainly object to is the protection of the sheds at the warf and other useless (in the true meaning of the word) buildings being kept. 

I'm giving my opinion as a ratepayer and I don't really care for overseas experts telling us how to run our cities. The one-ways have always worked well and the idea of making them two-way again has only surfaced recently to my knowledge because the university would like to block off Cumberland Street to extend their campus. 

Dunedinites love the one-ways because they work as an "in town highway" making the commute from one end of town to the other very quick. If made two-way, the way the lights would then have to work would mean you would be sitting on the 'one-way streets' at red lights for a lot longer as you need to give people time to turn against oncoming traffic. This is what makes the one-ways so efficient and I believe anyone - Washington expert or not - saying otherwise hasn't done the math or has a conflict of interest. [abridged]

Gregglles, your comment "they [NZHPT] protect buildings that are not as profitable as a modern building could be and therefore are a drain on the economy" runs counter to current international thinking on building conservation and place economics, as applicable to Dunedin and practised here.

Dunedin City Council’s heritage workshops for building owners, held in November last year, and previously in 2010, provide an expert context from which to judge the relative merits of adaptive reuse of Dunedin's historic building resource in light of sustainable economic development. 

However, I note your main concern is with the one-way system.

Spatial plan consultation shows that considerable doubt exists about the efficacy of the one-way system for successful business delivery and enhanced economic development within the central city. The reasons for its (proposed) removal from the warehouse district are set out in reports and recommendations which underpin the draft spatial plan.

Because measuring historic heritage's economic impact for Dunedin is critical to spatial plan and district plan advancements, you might also like to survey the published work of internationally renowned heritage and economics specialist Donovan Rypkema. Visiting Dunedin in 2010, hosted by NZHPT in association with DCC, Rypkema provided a public lecture and seminars on centre city revitalisation and the reuse of heritage structures. He is the principal of PlaceEconomics, a Washington DC-based real estate and economic development-consulting firm.

The following URL may be of interest to Dunedin readers. In June 2011 PlaceEconomics completed an economic impact study that demonstrates the economic value in reinvesting in Connecticut’s [USA] historic buildings: http://www.placeeconomics.com/

I don't care what the Historic Places Trust do and don't do. What I know is they protect buildings that are not as profitable as a modern building could be and therefore are a drain on the economy. My point was that I don't want the one-ways changed. This article is not about the Historic Places Trust. The argument was about the effect making the one-ways two-ways would have on the town.

My point to DaveM was that he was wrong that the one-ways were the cause of the less popular south end of town. That point still stands. My point was also that the last thing Dunedin needs is more shops, something it's already likely to be getting in Green Island. The retail sector is still at an all-time low, and industry would provide a lot more jobs than retail. The one-way system makes getting in and out of town a lot easier for the large trucks that industry use. Therefore, in order to grow, Dunedin is well served by the one-ways, just the way they are.

Gregglles, visit the New Zealand Historic Places Trust website http://www.historic.org.nz/en/AboutUs/IntroNZHPT.aspx to learn more about the Crown Entity. You're attempting to confer powers and functions upon the entity in excess of what the Historic Places Act 1993 prescribes.

NZHPT is the leading historic heritage agency and guardian of New Zealand’s national heritage. NZHPT's work includes "identifying our heritage places, seeking to ensure they survive for appreciation by current and future generations, and fostering that appreciation by recording and sharing their stories".

It is the Dunedin City Council which provides "protective mechanisms for land-based historic heritage" through "District Plan policies and heritage listings under the Resource Management Act 1991" - although NZHPT "retains regulatory responsibilities regarding archaeological sites".

Thus, DCC determines which precincts, buildings and sites have statutory protection... in the area south of Queens Gardens.

Re bulldozing buildings, I direct Greggles to Peter Entwisle's excellent opinion piece in today's ODT print edition that gives a very reasonable outline of what constitutes a 'Philistine'. There are buildings in this area that would be best demolished but they are not the ones the Trust wants to see preserved.

Does the area just south of the Leviathan include the new retail complex just south of the Chinese Gardens? The only problem with that area is the Historic Places Trust preventing the building owners from giving most of the buildings what they really need - a bulldozer.

It's not the one-ways that are the problem, and even if they were, more shops isn't what Dunedin needs. It needs more industry, and I know most truck drivers would tell you that the one-ways make Dunedin a lot better for industry. 

As a child visiting the big smoke the two exciting shops were Whitcomb and Tombs and Woolworths in Princes St.  W&T in those days had a huge stock, not just the latest hits, and staff who knew where to lay their hands on books that had been published several years earlier, not old stock but re-ordered.  My mother said when she was a young woman the Exchange, not the Octagon, was the centre of activity.

When I moved here the places that made most impression on me extended from Russell Oaten's Disc Den in Rattray St,  along to W&T and Woollies to the DIC (clothes, fabrics - department store) where the Art Gallery is now, then in George St were McKenzies and in the next block the second Woolworths (now Wall Street).  Wardells was a grocery with a better deli than any present supermarket, staff knew their products.  The cheeses were cut to order and the ladies would cut you a sliver to taste before choosing.  Then there was Brown Ewings, later Hays then Haywrights now Farmers, and the DSA (a bit down-market of the DIC). Penroses, wonderful Penroses!   The along to Arthur Barnetts, now a withered relic of what it was in its heyday.

You could buy food in Princes and George Streets, real food.  Butchers, fishmongers, Wing On's fruit and veges which stocked the exotic as well as standard onions and oranges and so on. 

Tamblyn Rhodes had a strange mixture, auctions perhaps, insurance write-offs.  I bought yards of fabric with some  that I had to cut around but it was cheap for the quality and worth the trouble.  I still have a couple of towels bought un-hemmed from there.  High necked navy wool jerseys from Harold Banks' second hand and army surplus wore for years, they may have been a bit coarse but they were great quality, no second-hand "recovered" fibres in them!  Second hand shops - George Street premises were obviously cheap enough at that time for them - included North End Traders, succeeding the better than fabulous Newbolds bookshop, stacked solidly with second hand books under the control of Mr White the proprietor who with sometimes the use of the ladder could put his hand on even the most obscure title. An early up-market change in the block south of Frederick Street was the establishment of a high-qualilty book shop, Bob Stables.

The area south of the Exchange has been going through the same stage as the southern blocks of George Street, though none few of the shops seemed to establish as firmly: cheap premises with secondhand shops predominating.  George Street climbed the social ladder, losing quirky interest but gaining the profitable flasher looking fashion and travel, cafes and fast food.   Generics, many of them.  Dull stuff in my opinion, but that's irrelevant as am I, not being in the young spend-spend demographic.  

Thinking back to the days immediately following WW2, the area south of the Octagon was 'where it all happened'; not George Street, as today. Several decades ago, a migration northwards took place, spurred on by a very active businessmen's association in 'The Golden Block'. South of the Octagon, (or at least, the portion south of Moray Place), lost its appeal, and, ultimately, its pre-eminent position, especially retail-wise. Other factors for the growth of George Street might well have been the 'pull' exercised by the proximity of the University.

There has also been a tendency in recent years for retail businesses to relocate in clusters, away from the city centre, which are more easily reached by motor transport. Whatever the cause, or causes, I don't think that one-ways, or any other configuration of the street-lanes, had all that much to do with it.

Yes Hype O.Thermia, I acknowledge the one-way isn't the root cause, but maybe it has hastened the decline of this area. If the City Council simply 'butts out' private enterprise can only do so much to work around traffic-related problems.  It would certainly be good to hear the opinions of those who own buildings and spend development dollars here.

I'm not sold on the change (it could make things worse at considerable expense) but it's worth further debate, and exploration of more detail than is provided here. For a start, how many adjacent southbound or northbound traffic lanes would we be losing?

The area south of the Leviathan that DaveM says the one-way system "has
created something of a ghost town" isn't like that because of the one-ways.  The buildings got old and out of fashion.  Businesses built new ones, or relocated head office out of town, or (e.g. stock and station agencies) amalgamated so only one building was necessary, or ceased to exist.  It's a phase parts of towns go through, whether business or residential, once-prosperous areas drift down the social ladder.  A different class of occupants moves in, ones looking for cheap premises.  Some of the cheap buildings attract interesting people, creative, sparky, who in turn attract people who are attracted by lively people and what they are creating, teaching or selling. 

Times change gradually.  The styles may, as has happened in Dunedin, regain favour, not oldy-mouldy and too ornate but heritage to be cherished, and now our best buildings are being refurbished because perception of their value has changed.  There is not a lot that's helpful the council can do about this cyclical process except butt out and keep compliance rules and costs and delays to a minimum.  And refrain from spending rates on council staff titivating at great expense it will not attract people to the area.  All it will do is take spending money out of the pockets of those who would develop, and those who would be their clients if we are allowed to keep a dollar for our own spending.

Except it is broke Greggles, south of the Leviathan - it has created something of a ghost town. The plan does have multiple lanes going in each direction.

Though 'created' isn't really the right word - it has exacerbated a problem and discouraged any positive change.  

The one-ways make Dunedin the most effective, accessible city in the country.

What's the rationale for changing them? To keep some consultant in a job perhaps. 

Leave them be! 

As Gregglies says, they make the city easy to get around.  Like with the other make-work items on the list, show us some proof that there's a point in pillaging our pockets even further.  I can see why there's a point when your job prospects depend on endlessly coming up with schemes that other people pay for, useful or not.  Just can't see the point for me, an ordinary ratepayer.

Leave the one-ways alone. They are what make Dunedin an easy city to commute around. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Also, why does Bond St need shared space? It's always shaded and rarely attracts foot traffic. I'd be all for the 30kmh section of George and Princes St becoming shared space, but I don't get why Bond St needs it.

''A delay would result in the appearance of the central city continuing to decline, possibly discouraging private investment, and the opportunity to support private investment in the warehouse precinct would 'be lost'.''

"possibly discouraging", "opportunity...lost"

As the Internet meme says: "citation needed".  This is not core council business.  Council business is to smooth the consent process, write the District Plan and then not stand in the way of private development.  The above report doesn't convince me that $13m of money that the city does not have should be committed to this project.