Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 10:11AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

I agree that designating the KA 'suburban' would be monumentally stupid, though it's not like our council doesn't have form in that area. And when they built those poxy apartments and forced the KA to have shipping containers, then a very unsightly wall outside? Extremely objectionable. Surely if you choose to move in next to a long established live venue it's incumbent upon you or the developer to soundproof the housing, rather than the venue to keep your peace?
But has anyone else found themselves vowing never to return to the King's Arms after an international gig in the past year or two? I don't know who's at fault – promoters, the venue, a wrongheaded fire-limit – but the sheer volume of people at some shows is beyond ridiculous, maybe even dangerous. Moving through the venue is impossible, big chunks of the audience can't lay eyes upon the artist they shelled out $50 plus to see, and getting a beer, even if it were possible to struggle through the throng to the bar, is pointless, because you can forget about making it to the toilet.
Friday's Malkmus gig was just the latest in a string of shows which take advantage of the fact that the fire limit includes the garden bar's space, which is hardly used when an international (or big local) artist is playing. Something needs to be done, because it's not right to charge people for entry to show and provide that level of comfort and service.

Posted at 10:17AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

Friday's Malkmus gig was just the latest in a string of shows

The only thing I could see of Malkmus was his groin. From the garden bar. Ironically, being short, my view was actually *worse* from inside the King's Arms. And sitting in the garden bar left a lot to be desired, atmosphere-wise. Meh.

Posted at 10:30AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

people who have long been fond of bleating about the "nanny state".

A commenter over at The Hand Mirror suggested recently that now we have the Evil Stepfather State.

Posted at 10:36AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

Meanwhile, Mission Bay is to be declared an "entertainment zone" with late licences. WTF?

A councillor or crony owns something there?

(This is local government we're talking about...)

Posted at 10:44AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

All along the waterfront, from party central to entertainment zone.How convenient for the Easties.

Posted at 10:44AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

The concept of being able to have a decent night out at your local bar seems a good one to me. Being able to walk home = low temptation of drink driving.

I can see an argument for some kind of noise control after a certain time in locations that in close proximity to dwellings, but what's so noisy about Kingsland that it has to shut down at 11pm ?

Posted at 10:47AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

But has anyone else found themselves vowing never to return to the King's Arms after an international gig in the past year or two?

So much about the King's Arms is wrong - the main entrance is by the front of the stage, the bar takes up too much horizontal space, forcing the crowd down the back, the outside doors near the front can't be opened any more so it gets really hot in summer.

But yet it's there, and when the place isn't packed out it's a decent enough venue in a handy part of town.

Regardless of how shit the King's Arms is or isn't, it still doesn't deserve to be treated like some suburban wine bar.

Posted at 11:03AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

A lot of the new proposed regulations seem to me to be aimed squarely at shutting down the plethora of seedy "Sports Bars" that have sprung up in recent years, and the attitude seems to be bad luck if you are collatoral damage.

Some of the proposals make sense. Forcing off-licences, including supermarkets, to close at 10pm is a wildly good idea.

But most of it is rubbish - shonky regulations to protect shoddy apartments from noise - apartments approved or built by the property developers who run Auckland city.

Posted at 11:03AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

Its good to be able to rely on Auckland councillors to make the Wellington ones look good - I'd have succumbed to despair at having Kerry et al foisted on us for years if I wasn't able to think "at least she's not John banks."

To translate this logic to Wellington, lets close Bodega at 11. Its out of the CBD, there's some apartments near it (sorta), and the students in the nearby, totally feral residences might object to late night noise, or something.

Most headliners at bodega don't even get on stage before 11. It'd be ridiculous in Wellington, and it IS ridiculous in Auckland.

(At least you can see at bodega, unless you're behind the stupid pillar. And Tuatara on tap. Mmm. Tuatara).

Posted at 11:11AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

Surely if you choose to move in next to a long established live venue it's incumbent upon you or the developer to soundproof the housing, rather than the venue to keep your peace?

I'd think so, but I did think that people living next to the Speedway in Grey Lynn had a point, as did Russell, IIRC. Mind you, I could hear the lions at the Zoo and rock concerts far more clearly than I could ever hear the Speedway, from 2 suburbs away.

Furthermore, there's live music and *fucking loud* music. One is a pleasant local attraction, the other just rides roughshod over people's rights.

Posted at 11:17AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

It's 30 seconds' walk from Upper Queen Street

30 minutes, surely ?

Posted at 11:27AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

30 minutes, surely ?

nope. May be more bit more than 30 seconds, but only a couple of minutes if you only count walking down Dacre St from Upper Queen.

Posted at 11:32AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

I can see an argument for some kind of noise control after a certain time in locations that in close proximity to dwellings, but what's so noisy about Kingsland that it has to shut down at 11pm ?

I think Kingsland is a designated "zone" under the proposal, which does seem kind of strange in that it is highly residential...

To be fair some of the bars in the Kingsland strip do get fairly noisy well in to the night. I work shift work and it's not uncommon to hear the "doff doff doff" until 2 or 3 am when I'm getting up - not that it worries me, but it sure pisses off my partner who is still in bed. It was our choice to live so close to the action though....

Posted at 11:33AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

nope. May be more bit more than 30 seconds, but only a couple of minutes if you only count walking down Dacre St from Upper Queen.

Doh ! My bad. I've been to the KA, but never from the central city direction. So when I have been there, it's always seemed a lot further away.

Posted at 11:36AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

Surely if you choose to move in next to a long established live venue it's incumbent upon you or the developer to soundproof the housing, rather than the venue to keep your peace?

The tort of private nuisance actually tends to work the other way. At Law school, we were taught the case of homeowners who moved in next to a long-established pig farm, and managed to have the farm successfully shut down because of the nuisance it created. Noise would be treated in the same way.

Re: the CitRats' ability to produce consistently rubbish policies at an almost superhuman rate, I'm reminded of this quote attributed to German General Kurt von Hammerstein-Erquord:

"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!"

Posted at 11:41AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

A councillor or crony owns something there?

Even simpler.

Venues in areas who had the gall to not elect Citizens and Ratepayers get closed down, because obviously it is unsafe for such people to drink or have fun.

It's 30 seconds' walk from Upper Queen Street, for goodness sake.

It is 30 seconds walk outside of the Hobson (C&R, C&R, C&R) ward and 30 seconds inside of the Eden-Albert (CV, CV, Focus Eden) ward.

Posted at 11:46AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

I'd think so, but I did think that people living next to the Speedway in Grey Lynn had a point, as did Russell, IIRC. Mind you, I could hear the lions at the Zoo and rock concerts far more clearly than I could ever hear the Speedway, from 2 suburbs away.

The two areas don't really compare. Far, far more residents were affected by the speedway noise -- to the point of their windows rattling for hours. The residents' association negotiated and accepted a new enforcement order and that seems to have settled things.

Furthermore, there's live music and *fucking loud* music. One is a pleasant local attraction, the other just rides roughshod over people's rights.

Have you been to the King's Arms? The crappy apartments went up directly across the road from the venue, in a commercial-industrial area. Even so, the sound spill from the venue is remarkably light -- thanks to the huge wall against the venue, built by the pub owners at their own considerable expense.

Posted at 11:47AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

It is 30 seconds walk outside of the Hobson (C&R, C&R, C&R) ward and 30 seconds inside of the Eden-Albert (CV, CV, Focus Eden) ward.

Far out. I did not know that.

Posted at 11:52AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

Yup. Can't mark it on the PDF obviously, but the Arms is just a minute's stroll south of the boundary between Hobson and Eden-Albert, near where the boundaries for Western Bays, Eden-Albert and Hobson meet.

Posted at 11:54AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

Dammit, actually read the thing and it seems me above conspiracy theory might be missled, being that Kingsland and Eden village are entertainment zones. Hate to waste a good conspiracy, mutter, mutter...

Posted at 11:56AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

Cr Aaron Bhatnagar asked me to repost this from a Kiwiblog thread:

Hi all,

There is some significant misunderstanding about what is being proposed and is out for consultation.

1. It is proposed that a licensee in a suburb would only have an 11pm closing if they didn't meet certain standards, like having a clean record, security and server training. If they meet these higher standards, they could stay open until 12pm. If a bar only wants to meet the bare minimum standards, then 11pm would apply. If they want to longer hours, then we want them to meet higher standards. I imagine many local bars and restaurants would be keen to do this, and they may already be doing this already.

2. It is proposed that licensees in entertainment precincts can have a 3am closing time if they meet those above standards. Entertainment precincts means strips like Parnell, Ponsonby, Kingsland etc.

3. The CBD and Viaduct can have 24 hr opening hours if they meet additional standards like CCTV. We are keen to incentivise those licensees who will meet additional levels of host responsibility, in order to promote healthier drinking environs.

Another misunderstanding is what is proposed for RWC2011. Govt is providing for special licensing for this period. What the new proposal does allow for is consistency, fairness and transparency, which there isn't at the moment with varying hours for licensees in the same area. The current policy is adhoc and subjective.

One thing that has become clear in this morning's Herald is that the boundaries for some of these areas could be amended. For example, I note there is a bar called the Kings Arms which plays live music, falling outside of the CBD in Newton. However, it is in a light industrial area. Because we are out for consultation, we can specifically review this, and other causes for consideration. We look forward to hearing from stakeholders in the consultation process.

Regards Cr Aaron Bhatnagar Chairman, City Development Auckland City Council

I added carriage returns for readability.

Posted at 11:59AM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

Donning my Elected Rep hat...

I am not particularly surprised at this policy, and how it has unfolded. Given that I have pointed out to the policy writer that in effect the policy creates areas of high profit (entertainment precincts that close at 3am) versus areas of low profit (everywhere else that closes at 11pm).

It's not a stretch to imagine that the areas of high profit will attract say, Lion, or DB, or Dominion (I honestly don't know what booze baron companies there are) into the area, where in order to make maximum profit they have to have very large barns - booze barns. I know that there are two booze barons running around so that means if one sets up in say, Mt Eden Entertainment Precinct - the other will surely follow as day follows night.

Where does the existing retail go? Out the door. Booze barns need space so there goes the butcher, baker and bookshop owner.

In effect the policy decimates retail in those high profit areas. And that's something I'm not thrilled about, as I've explained to officers several times.

The solution is to make everywhere a high profit area or low profit area. But the policy die is cast, and it is hard to get rid of already written policy unless Council simply refuses to endorse it - which is not looking likely under C'n'R.

I will continue to agitate for a minimum of re-written policy, or abandonment of it, but if anyone is at all worried about the implications of the policy then they need to lobby councillors. Don't bother lobbying City Vision Councillors - they understand this issue very well - being the free-marketeers that they are. It's the nanny-state C'n'R Councillors that you need to lobby.

Donning said hat.....

Posted at 12:00PM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

So it's a 30 second walk from anywhere, but a 30 minute queue for the toilet?

Posted at 12:00PM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

Friday's Malkmus gig was just the latest in a string of shows which take advantage of the fact that the fire limit includes the garden bar's space, which is hardly used when an international (or big local) artist is playing. Something needs to be done, because it's not right to charge people for entry to show and provide that level of comfort and service.

I couldn't agree more! Chums had to leave The National gig last year for fear of being crushed...
It worked out ok for Beirut though as they did an encore out in the garden for those still hanging around, but generally I gotta say, DON'T OVERSELL THE KING'S ARMS!

Posted at 12:06PM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

Just whilst we're dissecting Auckland City Council policy, what think you all of the proposed new pokie rules? I had a go at working out the implications but am sure some of you could do a much better job.

Posted at 12:08PM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

Councillor whatsisname could have provided a useful link likethis one so that people could see for themselves what is on the Auckland City website about the proposal and consultation.

Posted at 12:20PM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

Yep, iconic and useful as the King's Arms is, especially as a live venue for some fairly unusual acts that wouldn't otherwise play in Auckland, they have tended of late to massively oversell their gigs. An alternative bar/toilet layout may help, and perhaps better use of the outside space i.e. a second bar at the back or side outside to spread the load. But hell, at least it exists as a great old venue in an accessible location. The council seems quite willing to hand out planning permission and sign off shonky ghetto style apartments (at least they WILL be very slum like in 10 years, with no proper maintenance) with no consideration given to the impact these cheap nasty developments have on their surrounding environs. Double standards in Auckland City as usual!

Posted at 12:23PM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

Just whilst we're dissecting Auckland City Council policy, what think you all of the proposed new pokie rules? I had a go at working out the implications but am sure some of you could do a much better job.

Sam, reading over that site I don't see any real issues. There's no scope for an increase in overall numbers of machines run by any operator, which would be the main concern, and there's no provision for new licences (that is, adding new machines to the city's total) to be granted. If the choices facing an operator are to remain in an existing, low-grade venue and keep their licensed pokies operating, or move to a nicer venue but lose all the pokies, which way do you think they'll jump? That, as I read it, is the "perverse outcome" of which the summary speaks. When you cannot leave your current premises without losing the pokies licence, you're going to cling to it tooth-and-nail.

Posted at 12:25PM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

Booze barns need space so there goes the butcher, baker and bookshop owner.

No one ever thinks of the candlestick maker.

Posted at 12:27PM on 23 Sep 09. Permalink.

Surely if you choose to move in next to a long established live venue it's incumbent upon you or the developer to soundproof the housing, rather than the venue to keep your peace?

Ask Auckland Airport how they feel about people who build/buy under the approach and departure paths and then bleat about the noise. I have as much sympathy (a value that is somewhere between zero and fuck-all of nothing) for them as I do for the people who moved in near Western Springs and then complained about the nose from the speedway.