Cull pushes for harbourside rethink

Ooooops - a typo mistake - sorry. Should have been Portsmouth Drive. A lot of the land South of Portsmouth Drive was also reclaimed from the harbour. The merits of reclamation are: No rezoning of land use, no land to purchase, no business relocation or staff redundancies.

It seems the limit of the present council's 'vision' for the harbourside's future consists largely of turning an areain which a significant proportion of Dunedin's wealth is capable of being generated into an area where wealth, generated elsewhere will be re-circulated or consumed.

The question is, 'wealth from what source, once we have done away with all agencies capable of generating wealth of our own?'

Even Auckland has pulled the plug on some of the worst spending excesses in advance of the Rugby World Cup. It seems that here, in Dunedin, we haven't the intelligence to follow suit.

Where is Devonport Drive?

Why are we hung up on transforming the existing basin area? Why not instead consider creating more land by reclamation parallel to Devonport Drive? This could create a large free car parking area which we do not currently have. Plenty of land area for the coffee clan to build on. Save Port Otago the cost of transporting dredged material all the way outside the harbour as at present. The area could be easily accessible to the public unlike the existing basin area.W
e could have pontoons for entertainment areas like Darling Harbour in Sydney. We could have space for family fishing which we do not currently have.We could have a wind protected area for rowing. This development would take some time but why not? The reclamation of the Devonport Drive area also took some time but with vision it is successful.

The key community-wide issue is that this plan change will result in lost jobs. Some of the larger businesses have stated that quite clearly, with relocation within Dunedin not an option. The DCC has an Economic Development Committee and an Economic Development Unit who are tasked with economic development so how does that sit with a plan change that will close businesses down?
Jobs lost in harbourside will not be replaced with hospitality jobs - existing businesses bring in wealth from customers outside of Dunedin, more hospitality jobs will just rearrange the deckchairs within the city. The councillors have an opportunity on 29th March to significantly amend the plan in such a way that does not drive out businesses. Any who vote for keeping the plan change as is could well have difficulty explaining the policy of DCC sponsored unemployment during the elections later this year.

This area is already an asset to this city in that there are already existing businesses there providing jobs, something this city badly needs. So I reiterate my position that this area is not dormant - it is a working port and should be left at such while we have looming on the horizon, an oil supply base with the potential to provide prosperity for this city or as Craig Easton of Craig Investment Partners put it "it could well turn Dunedin from the Edinburgh of the South to the Aberdeen of the South". Southland are chasing this industry with all they have got and refer to Tim Shadbolt as Sheik Shadbolt, such is their view that their region would prosper enormously be the siting of a supply base at Bluff.
Albatross, you ask can we not so better than support this industry. Really what else is there for this city? David Skegg VC of Otago University is quoted in last Saturday's ODT that he trembles for the future of the University, the largest employer in Dunedin. If it reduces in size with loss of staff and students where is our future?
Cadbury has been sold to Kraft. How long before it goes? Who will be the people to sit in the cafes, wander along the waterfront, launch kayaks from the pontoon etc etc when there's no industry here to support a lifestyle that needs lots of disposable income? And the lauching of kayaks, fishing, wandering along the waterfront can be done elsewhere around our very attractive harbour. That there are different views about this area and the uses to which it is put is precisely why Dave Cull has called for it to be debated by the full council and that to my knowledge has not yet been done and for Council to take into account the view of the citizens, something they aren't good at

The Otago Harbour basin is hardly fenced off and derelict. Look around, there are approximately 100 businesses in the area. There is much more to a harbour basin than "port" activities and this is obvious by the varied industries in the area. In the late 1980s, there was major activity in the harbour basin with the re-fit of all the InterIsland ferries. They were brought down to Dunedin because the industry was accessible and they couldn't do the re-fits in Wellington. Sorry, you can't compare apples with oranges (Wellington with Dunedin).

I think you missed my point slightly in the fact that Wellington used to be a working industrial port, ie its not anymore. Surely you realise majority of port activity is containerised and occurs at Port Chalmers. Why should the harbuor basin be fenced off and remain derelict?

It is true the waterfront isn't a desirable walking distance, but the quality of the destination influences this. Is Wellington windy? The misconception is that development is simply "apartments and cafes".

Majority of the Wellington waterfront consists of open space used mainly for recreation. The apartment/bar components exist in localised clusters.

The style of harbour basin development in Wellington works well as it's not an industrial area and is situated within walking distance from the main shopping and business districts. Dunedin's harbour basin is a working industrial area, one of very few left in the city and is not within walking distance from the main shopping and business districts. They are not similar areas at all. Why drive out the remaining industrial businesses with unwanted windswept apartment/cafe developments when one can travel to a number of lovely harbourside spots along the Peninsula?

Has anyone been to Wellington? Its waterfront is recognised internationally as being a great public space. It is a good case study in how a working port can evolve into a quality mixed used environment with a range of diverse users.

Durga, the wharf and water edge are dormant assets, with the potential to provide an amazing amenity for the public. Surely you don't think this is the best it can be? Do you think Dunedin really wants to bank its waterfront on a potential 'oil industry'? Can we not do better than that?

Albatross, we already have quality public places in Dunedin with access to the waterfront and harbour. OK, so they're not in the Steamer Basin but they exist.

The waterfront is not a dormant asset. It is an asset that:

(1) already has businesses providing real jobs for people in this city. And these real jobs are now an endangered species. I live in hope that the Chamber of Commerce wins their case and these businesses can just get on with it.

(2) has the potential to become the supply base for the oil industry, thereby providing an enormous economic boost to this city.

I've seen this yuppification in many places around the world, one example is the one at Southampton which is hideous and soulless, for the rich only, often with their yachts - lost all its authentic, unique sense of place ambience. We need to consider the value of places rather than just making plans to line the rich's pockets for the biggest buck. I'm sure the oil exploration you speak of can still come. Lattés and flat whites remark etc isn’t far off the mark at all. Let's keep it a people place, especially for those at the real coal face, keeping the wheels going round for a fraction the yuppies have. Harbours are working class places, let's leave it that way.

No 'Dunner-Runner', mixed-use of the harbourside area won't work, for a variety of reasons. The relaxed 'ambience' of the proposed 'Yuppyville' won't sit easily with the sounds of angle-grinders, panel-beating and the other sounds which go with the present vitality of this region; arc-welding during steel fabrication will produce enough electrical interference to all but obliterate TV images, and the same smells from smelting and other operations will assail the nostrils, as they do now.
When the inevitable friction arises between residents and industry, City Hall will side with the inhabitiants of its creation, because City Hall is never wrong. Industries will be left with such unrealistic 'compliance' requirements that
many will relocate, and with the dearth of industrial land in and around Dunedin, that relocation will probably be to other main centres.
As for who has been buying-up land in anticipation of this 'brain-storm', I feel that there will be more than a token presence of those who have already flogged the Stadium's land acquisition for all it's worth. Don't think major areas, which I believe belong to 'Chalmers Properties'; think instead, small strategic 'pockets' which will be very difficult to 'work-around' and hence, have to be purchased from those who will hold-out for the last cent.

You will need to go back several years. This plan was first talked about some 10 years ago then in 2005 DCC gave $9 million for the development (even though the future costs to ratepayers and the potential financial gains were unknown) and they unveiled the plan, Harland's "vision". As to ownership of the land, most is owned by Chalmers Properties (owned by Port Otago). See an article ODT 14 July 2005 by Simon Hartley.

It comes as no surprise the councillors pushing for this desecration and ‘yuppification’ of the harbour front to be desecrated in another of their grandiose plans, and oust a hoard of working class whose jobs would be resultantly lost. They only want jobs for high paid professionals, as is going on down Awatea St, though much of that work is coming from places other than the region of Otago anyway, and in any case, such jobs are temporary, unlike the ones they’d upset here. Dave Cull and the three or so good egg councilors just need to hold the other ones off till October, then hopefully the harbourside issue will sink. If anything needs done there, why not enhance the authentic heritage factor, and get the Te Whaka steamer running, another worthy visitor attraction?

I feel there is a danger (demonstrated already regarding the Awatea St properties) of signalling too early a determination to acquire properties for a visionary project. I would like to know if there have been significant changes in ownership of harbourside properties in the period dating from say 2 years before this "vision" was brought to public attention.

Do any present DCC/ORC councillors or staff own land in the Harbourside area under consideration? If so, they should publicly declare their interests. Both bodies should declare whether this is the case, or not, to clear up any rumour that this may be so.

No reason why mixed use proposals couldn't work.
Port Chalmers stand to make a mint if they get a zone change from industrial to residential though. Does anyone know the detail of their dealings with council have been to date? It comes acros as a bit too cosy for my liking.

Albatross, I think you miss the point. We already have a degree of different, existing uses in the Harbourside area with industry, residential and commercial (with the likes of restaurants, food bars and cafes.) Cheaper warehouse living by students and 'creative' people may not be worth as much, for rating purposes, compared to flash apartments, but creates fewer problems with reverse sensitivity problems that could drive industry out- and lose us jobs.

No, or a reduced, industrial presence means less rates income from those businesses. So we are not better off. It's all a matter of balancing different interests. I think what Cr Cull and the Chamber of Commerce are worried about is that the balance is lost in favour of apartment dwellers and 'foodies' to the detriment of other important parties interested in keeping the area and city as a whole alive.

Some people seem to want Dunedin to imitate Auckland and forget it is a much bigger city with a warmer climate. 

Stage 2 of this plan does need to be debated in public by the full council. Thank you for bringing this up again Cr Cull. It's not only the importance of future viability of existing businesses in the area and that is extremely important, but also any potential business there such as a supply base for an oil industry. Where's the democratic process in this city? Why is Jim Harland describing it as a vision? He's the CEO for goodness sake. The CEO who has strenuously been pushing this ridiculous plan for many years. Time the Counil took control and debated this issue taking into account the long term effects. We need jobs in this city not more cafes.

"It could also deter offshore oil-exploration companies from using Dunedin as a base". digger - We need real and sustainable jobs here... I would question this. The waterfront is a great opportunity to interrogate how sustainable growth can occur alongside existing uses and infrastructure.  Dunedin deserves a quality public waterfront and opportunities to live/work in the central city. The best cities in the world have quality public spaces, especially those associated with harbours and waterfronts. The Dunedin waterfront should be seen as a dormant asset to the city. If you get a chance to visit the ex-ORC building site you should. Picture a mixed use environment with a diverse range of users. Surrounded by the inner townbelt and the peninsula you gain a greater appreciation of the special landscape Dunedin sits in. To simply think of a developed waterfront as "lattes and flat whites" lacks imagination.

This is a positive move by Cr Dave Cull. CEO Harland's 50 year 'vision' ( not another one) hardly stacks up given the implications cited here. Upmarket apartments, and yet more cafes, ( for a population of 120k) is hardly visionary for real industry to develop here, let alone survive.I t is great to see the Chamber of Commerce behind him. (Shame, though, about their support for the stadium as a so called 'growth engine' for Dunedin.) We need real and sustainable jobs here- not lattes and flat whites, Mr Harland.