It remains unclear if the hearings were complete when they paused on March 20. It was undecided if there would be a request for more information and submissions, but June 6 was set as the date to announce a decision. I sat through the last two and-a-half days of hearings.
What if anything has changed? In summing up, city council planner Lianne Darby still recommended consent be declined. In his closing address, the developer's lawyer, Phil Page, argued vigorously it should be granted. It might seem that's not much change but there have been developments, some good, others less so.
I have said before, here and to the committee, the proposal was not assisted by the company and people behind it remaining anonymous. Shortly before the hearings resumed it emerged the people were a Ms Jing Song and her husband Ping Cao. Ms Song attended the hearings and made an emotional television appearance.
It has since emerged (ODT, 23.3.13) that Mr Cao owns Diamond Heights Construction Engineering Co Ltd, of Chongquing, currently engaged in building a hotel tower there. The company operates on a large scale. The proposed Dunedin tower, of about 50,000sq m, would be about 10% of its annual programme.
Ms Song studied and worked in Dunedin for eight years and said a love of the city had led her, with the support of her husband, to undertake the $100 million project while knowing it was ''risky''. She explained her appearance as a desire to dispel rumours about a ''dodgy'' Chinese company and to make these matters plain.
It is good the proponents have emerged from the shadows but it would be better still if they could now move further and address several serious issues raised. It is clear its isolated island site, together with its proposed floor space, presumably arrived at by commercial considerations, is a great determiner of the form and height of the building.
That virtually dictates its style - a form of Modernism - which, given its size and central location, produces its most obvious adverse effects and has generated a powerful wave of opposition.
Objectively and undeniably, it's in striking contrast to the Revivalist architecture of the backdrop colonial city. Love it or hate it, the latter is a significant cultural asset, and a tourist drawcard which this proposal can only diminish.
The hearings committee is not, as many still suppose, a political body but a legal one. This is not the city council saying ''welcome'' or ''vamoose'' to a project. It is a legal process to determine if it fits existing rules, principally contained in the Resource Management Act and the Dunedin District Plan.
The attention these give to the issues mentioned above is oblique, the principal legal objections being different and more obscure. But Ms Song and Mr Cao should be aware of the other objections and realise they won't disappear, whatever standing they have in law.
Another troubling aspect of the hearings was the recurring references to a pedestrian and cycle bridge across the rail tracks at Rattray St. Yes, such a link would forge a vital connection and not only for the hotel. Yes, the council has toyed with it before setting it aside for money reasons.
Yes, a level crossing might be preferred but is impractical in a shunting yard. But no, such a bridge is not desirable, even if KiwiRail allowed. It would eclipse the last remaining view shaft from the central city to the Peninsula, a key to the city's original design, which can only be preserved with an underpass. In discussing the link, all parties should take note of this long publicly aired factor which must now come into the equation.
Another concern is some of the committee members' apparent inability to read architectural images. A handsome suite was provided for the developers by Jeremy Whelan of Ignite Architects illustrating different forms of treatment modern glass buildings can have.
There were some fine, dynamic designs among them which led Cr Kate Wilson to ''express a frustration'' they hadn't been presented earlier because they might have ''prompted a different public reaction'' (ODT, 20.3.13). She was misreading the images. The treatment wouldn't affect the form, bulk or height of the building which are what make it a dull, imitative essay of a 60-year-old New York skyscraper.
My last words are to Ms Song and her husband. Recognising your well-intentioned boldness aimed at assisting the city, would you please consider another site and if necessary another design?
Peter Entwisle is a Dunedin curator, historian and writer.
