NZ HERALD: Friday May 06, 2005. By Bernard Orsman
The controversial 36-storey apartment building planned for the site of the historic St James Theatre in Queen St is too big for the area, according to the Auckland City Council urban design panel. The panel has asked developer Norfolk Trustee to make changes to the building, which has become a design battleground between the developer, politicians and architectural professionals.
Last December, the High Court overturned a resource consent for the building and ordered the council to reconsider the application. In a landmark ruling, Justice Patrick Keane said the council could not ignore the design for one of the largest buildings in Auckland.
After seeing the redesigned tower plans last week, the panel concluded it was "not of appropriate scale to the predominant heritage character of the area" and should be scaled back, including a reduction in height. The panel also wanted the appearance of the tower to be lightened, a visually lighter and simpler roof and changes to differentiate the podium and tower block.
Norfolk Trustee property manager Angela Wells yesterday said the company would consider the panel's concerns about appearance, materials, the roof and appearance of bulk but would not reduce the height for commercial reasons. It complied with the central area district plan, she said. "It [the building] makes a nice landmark for the site. If you look at overseas cities, 36 stories isn't that high," she said.
The building, being marketed as The Antipodean, involved restoring the Spanish mission-style St James Theatre built in 1928. The original tower, hidden since the 1950s, will be uncovered by demolishing the former Odeon/Regent/Westend picture theatre buildings.
Papers released to the Herald under the Official Information Act show that Norfolk Trustee wants the building to escape public scrutiny when the council reconsiders the application for resource consent.
In a letter to the council on December 23 last year, Norfolk Trustee lawyer David Kirkpatrick said there was no basis for saying the effects of the design of the building were "adverse in respect of anyone in particular, or more than minor in respect of the environment generally". The resource consent should be "non-notified".
The judicial review was brought by the lobby group, Urban Auckland, on the grounds that the building received a "non-notified" resource consent. Central area planning manager Vijay Lala said the council had given no indication to the company that the resource consent would be handled on a non-notified basis "and every indication that we will process it on its merits with an open mind". A member of Urban Auckland, Don McRae, said it was a major building in a special area of Queen St and should be subject to public scrutiny.
No comments:
Post a Comment