Hotel backer 'sick of the rumours'

Thanks, my comment was ill informed. Ffolkes is a singular, not plural sort of a chap.

In their comment "Real World Symphony" ffolkes laments that: "The point is private apartments were not mentioned when the project was first mooted. "

Perhaps ffolkes would like to cast their mind back to the first news article that the ODT published online regarding this matter: $100m hotel for Dunedin waterfront.

Note that in the article I have linked to, for your convenience it explicitly states that "The hotel will have a rooftop restaurant, 164 apartments, 215 rooms and 121 car-parks."

So then it seems, contrary to what has been suggested, private apartments were, in fact, mentioned when the project was first mooted.

This 'real world' you write of: does it comprise people who share your point of view? The point is private apartments were not mentioned when the project was first mooted. There is an uneasy feeling that Betterways are doing planning, disclosure and promotion on the trot.

I well remember the claims made when a casino was proposed for Dunedin. It was going to create jobs and flow on businesses as a result of the huge number of tourists who were going to jet in from Asia. A key factor inapproving the development was the promise that the Exchange would come alive with new businesses.

As someone who worked there at the time I remember only two new business opening - a pawn shop and a strip club.  While the casino has certainly created some jobs - it has hardly revolutionised tourism in Dunedin and I suspect this project, if approved, will have much the same result. 

The difference is that the casino developed in keeping with the city's style of building while the hotel couldn't be more out of place if it tried. 

It is common in the big world outside of Dunedin for hotels to have apartments/units which are privately owned and which are lived in, or put into the hotel rental pool. 
Also, if the Post Office redvelopment was such a good business proposition I'm sure it would be done by now.  Perhaps the old building lovers who moan about anything new could chip in for the owner of the Post Office to finish the development, and subsidise any operating losses if it proves too small to be economic. 
In the meantime, Dunedin is looking a bit run down and lacks a five star hotel. Surely a new hotel will tidy up that area and give tourism and business a boost.  I think that the productive people are too busy getting on with working, allowing a small minority of "keyboard whingers" to dominate these forums with their backward looking ideas.

Of course DCC posts Notified Applications on its website. And non-notified decisions.

"Another thing is how a $100m plus project can be financed by a husband and wife?"

Well, lets see.  Oh yes, the husband owns a construction company. That's how.

I know these sound like big numbers to some people in little old Dunedin, but there are a lot of seriously rich business owners in the world.  A lot.

And "building on relclaimed land seems a little bit silly to me" simply proves you have no concept of the ability of engineers to do just that.  In fact building on reclaimed, unstable land has been going on very successfully around the world and in New Zealand for a long time.  Believe it or not, it's not guesswork.

Reading this thread is like taking a walk back in time. I notice the good old "but it's reclaimed land" argument has come up.
Piles ought to help there, maybe a little dewatering, and hey presto - yet another building on reclaimed land. Throw in a little base isolation and look, we have a building on reclaimed land which is earthquake strengthened!
Wow, it's almost likes it been done before...[Abridged]

A 28 storey hotel built on reclaimed land seems a little bit silly to me. With whats happened in Chch and the rest of the seismic activity throughout the country I'm surprised they would want to build there.

Another thing is how a $100m plus project can be financed by a husband and wife?

[Abridged]

If Dunedin needs more 5 star hotel accommodation, why not just build a hotel. I want to know who those apartments are intended for. I would like the proposers to tell us who they intend to rent or sell the apartments to and for how much. Can they show us a market survey indicating that Dunedin needs such apartments? And why don't the proposers make something usefully beautiful out one or more of our heritage buildings, like the old post office. That would be good for Dunedin. A sky scraper will not be a good thing

MikeStk: Agree. I didn't make a submission opposing this hotel because I thought it departed so far from the District Plan that the application would be declined as a matter of course. (Silly me.)

However, if I had known that there would be 164 central city apartments included, I most definitely would have made a submission opposing. This is because building apartments in the central city would IMO have an entirely different effect to building a hotel. Auckland had many very tacky, excessively small apartment blocks built. And I'd rather see local, permanent residents in central city housing to give the central city a 'neighbourhood' atmosphere.

I wonder if the DCC puts planning applications on their website. Must find out. Maybe if they don't, they should.

Really?  A gift?  I just spewed up a bit in my mouth. This has become some sort of sick joke.

As presented thus far, the hotel's design is what I would describe as gobsmackingly ugly. Why should the residents of Dunedin be forced to look at this eyesore? Would Ms Song like to wake up to a view of her hotel each morning? No? Well neither would the majority of Dunedin people. Besides, if Ms Song loves Dunedin so much why doesn't she actually live here? 

"I don't know how people can blithely say that most people are for this monstrosity," writes Barnaby.  

Easy!  Pretend that everyone who did not make a submission against it is in favour.  This can be somewhat difficult to put across credibly when there were in fact submission in favour, a handful compared with a bucket-full against, but this does not figure in the logic of those who trot the argument out.  It was the same with the stadium - only one town hall full of anti's, a tiny minority of the population of Dunedin!  Yes - very convincing till you engage brain and a lightbulb moment occurs: the pro-stadium marches and town hall rallies showed how many in favour?  None, if that's the way to count them.  There were no rallies, no marches in support.  But those who use this totally illogical argument find it far too useful to give up.  

For them, all the people who don't object to the side they support can be counted as if they were on their side, yes-men for whatever it is at the time.  That's rather insulting for all those who for reasons of their own did not write submissions, couldn't make it to the meetings and so on. don't you think?  Do they want their opinions grabbed and "owned" without their say-so?

I don't know how people can blithely say that most people are for this monstrosity. The vast majority of people I know are horrified at the proposal. 

Yet again, Dunedin seems to be decades out of date. While everyone else is pulling down their 1960's skyscrapers we are looking at plonking one in our midst. If this were suggested in the centre of cities like Edinburgh or Paris, the developers would be laughed out of town. Even Christchurch is going for low rise buildings in its rebuild. But no, we have to cosy up to the out of town developers and "roll out the red carpet not the red tape" as Cull has it.

The person who thinks that there will be no cost to ratepayers  should try reading the developer's application. This makes it very clear that they will be seeking all sorts of funding and concessions from the DCC. Given the calibre of our current Council and its complete disregard for any sort of fiscal responsibility, they will undoubtedly be given what they seek.

Can we please call this thing what it actually is? It is not a hotel. It is an apartment block. If the hotel component of this building was all that was being built it would probably only be a respectable three stories or so. It's like calling the Sky Tower a shopping complex.

Ms Song please take heart from the fact most sensible Dunedin residents support your proposed hotel 100%.  Even a ODT Poll some months back, to the disgust of opponents, showed most were in favour.

Ignore the Hillbillies, and the backward thinking councillors. Keep pushing for it, and be confident the residents who matter here - those who want Dunedin to go forward, will do everything we can to support you.

It's off beam to suggest opposition is a racist response. The new world power is the People's Republic of China, a Communist nation, not necessarily international Chinese citizens.

I did not hear any rumours concerning dodgy Chinese investments about this proposed hotel. What is now clear is that they are really pushing this hotel. They now seem on the verge of desperation, is this article the final push?

Once again: this proposed hotel is a vacuum cleaner in disguise and it is a blight against the city scape. Ms Song has failed to address both of these concerns but keeps pushing the "gift" and "love for Dunedin" concept. 

Why is it that they cannot build something more befitting to our historical character and local sentiment? Saying that she respects the will of the Dunedin citizens against the hotel but still going ahead with her plans is a wee bit cheeky. 

[Abridged]

Would there be the same opposition if it was a British, American or Canadian developer? Does the emergence of the Chinese as a new world power upset the anglo-centric world view of some of the opposition to this development?

Unlike the stadium, I am all for it as it does not require to be heavily subsidised by my rates. Good on you Ms Song for investing in Dunedin.

''If it's not for the love of [Dunedin], what ... [else] are we doing here?"

Running a commercial enterprise.  Drop the spin.  It's not a gift.