Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Save the King's Arms

217 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 9 Newer→ Last

  • Phil Lyth,

    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.

    Wellington • Since Apr 2009 • 458 posts Report Reply

  • elsketcho,

    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!

    Auckland • Since Aug 2007 • 35 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

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

    No one ever thinks of the candlestick maker.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Christopher Dempsey,

    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.

    Sticking on my ER hat again...

    Cits'n'Rats wanted to liberalise this policy by removing the sinking lid criteria - being the free marketeers that they are - hey share the evil around!

    City Vision managed to get an amendment to the policy which prohibits new venues from opening in socially deprived areas (decile 8,9,10)

    Without this amendment, the policy would have meant migration of pokie machines to socially deprived areas - making them poorer than they already are.

    As it is the draft policy means that pokie machine numbers will be stable (not fall), and will locate in areas less deprived - likely to be the Avondales, Onehungas, Mt Wellingtons, Sandringhams, etc.

    That is, if Cits'n'Rats don't decide to remove the socially deprived criteria.

    I note that the consultation period for the Liquor Policy closes on 7th October so get your submission in quick smart here.

    Doffing said hat to higher wisdom of RB....

    Parnell / Tamaki-Auckland… • Since Sep 2008 • 659 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    No one ever thinks of the candlestick maker.

    He was never a very bright fellow.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • dc_red,

    they could stay open until 12pm.

    Sweet as. That's an extra 13 hours.

    Forcing off-licences, including supermarkets, to close at 10pm is a wildly good idea.

    I don't really see how it's anyone else's business if I want to buy a six pack or a bottle of wine at 10.05pm. Or at any other time of day for that matter.

    Oil Patch, Alberta • Since Nov 2006 • 706 posts Report Reply

  • Rich Lock,

    No one ever thinks of the candlestick maker.

    Engineer, y'see.

    back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2728 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    As it is the draft policy means that pokie machine numbers will be stable (not fall), and will locate in areas less deprived - likely to be the Avondales, Onehungas, Mt Wellingtons, Sandringhams, etc.

    I'm glad to hear Avondale is OK for pokies. They make a nice accompaniment for the huge racecourse, conveniently situated right next to the state housing area.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Christopher Dempsey,

    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!

    Sigh. Jamming my hat on again....

    The planning rules for this kind of development were cast into place under a Cits'n'Rats council, in the early to mid 1990s. Their philosophy derives from ACT and National Party, which is that the free market rules. Consequently, a very light hand was placed over development.

    Cue forward through time and we have this:

    Housing on sites zoned business next to a business building lawfully built out on land zoned business. Yes, that's a building barely one metre away from residential balconies.

    Our infamous chicken coop apartments.

    I'm sure you can add your own horror stories - McD's in Balmoral anyone? - there are plenty.

    To fix this planning system requires a) money and no council is willing to spend the several million and several years it will require b) integrity in the sense of standing up to developers and saying NO - only a few hardy councillors have done this and have been pilloried by the press/developers.

    The more important point is this: we can choose how we want our neighbourhoods to develop. BUT it requires a long term view, and stickability over that long term - something that precious few are willing to commit to.

    In defense of Cits'n'Rats I will point out that at least in this situation - shonky developments - there are no double standards. They have been very explicit about things. People just failed to stop, think and figure out what it meant - which is no mean feat given that the planning system has been presented as some 'mythical scary beast', which it's not.

    My advice - if you are going to buy anywhere and given that we all know about the horror stories - it is incumbent on you to check zoning maps and planning rules. Ask around, there are plenty of community associations who have developed expertise in this area through various planning battles.

    Whipping hat off....

    Parnell / Tamaki-Auckland… • Since Sep 2008 • 659 posts Report Reply

  • Sam F,

    Interesting stuff.

    Christopher, you must be developing some fairly muscular arms from the repeated hat movements...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1611 posts Report Reply

  • Christopher Dempsey,

    Necessary hat movements I assure you so the muscular arms are a bonus.

    Parnell / Tamaki-Auckland… • Since Sep 2008 • 659 posts Report Reply

  • Mikaere Curtis,

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

    Phew, I must have missed that. Having now read the proposal, the whole thing stinks of doctrinaire authoritarianism. Would our natural "entertainment precincts" have developed if they had been restricted in their opening hours whilst other nearby areas had been less restricted ?

    Restriction is the reason why West Auckland is dominated by a booze barn culture.

    As for 10pm off-licence closing, this is another stupid idea. Shows what time the CitRats want everyone to go to bed...

    Tamaki Makaurau • Since Nov 2006 • 528 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell,

    No one ever thinks of the candlestick maker.

    Well between carbon footprint compliance and lighting efficiency regulations .....

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2623 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    they could stay open until 12pm.

    Sweet as. That's an extra 13 hours.

    There is no 12pm. There is a 12 noon, and a 12 midnight. 12 ante meridiem makes no sense, and nor does 12 post meridiem. 12 midday, and perhaps even 12 meridiem could work, but suggesting that 12 noon is 12 pm implies that 12 noon is the 12 that happens after midday. It's actually the 12 that happens at midday.

    That's a lot of 12's =)

    Edit: a reference. I think we can trust Greenwich on something like this:

    Is noon 12 a.m. or 12 p.m.?

    12 noon is neither a.m. nor p.m.

    To avoid confusion, the correct designation for twelve o'clock is 12 noon or 12 midnight. Alternatively, the twenty-four-hour-clock system may be used.

    The abbreviation a.m. stands for ante-meridiem (before the Sun has crossed the line) and p.m. for post-meridiem (after the Sun has crossed the line). At 12 noon, the Sun is at its highest point in the sky and directly over the meridian. It is therefore neither "ante-" nor "post-".

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    The underlying principles of:
    - Incentivising "good" bars with more lenient opening restrictions, and
    - Different opening hours for different parts of the city
    are ones that I'm all for.

    I'm not convinced that the definition of "good", the hours, or the parts of the city are properly defined here but I certainly appreciate the intent behind it. And so long as "entertainment" areas are definable on an ongoing basis by a local ward, I'm not sure that a "good" bar in a residential area shouldn't be closing down at midnight (see, you don't even need a 12 Graeme!). We certainly need more entertainment zones up front though.

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1727 posts Report Reply

  • Robyn Gallagher,

    I've been doing some delving and have found this photo of the King's Arms from the late 19th century (compare and contrast with the present day), back when it was a corner pub (before they took the corner away) and when it had an external lantern. Lanterns, along with the corner location, were a licensing requirement - it was a cheap way for the authorities to get street lighting and to hopefully attract a better class of boozer to the neighbourhood.

    Since Nov 2006 • 1946 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    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?

    Chris has kind of answered this above, but I think it depends on the zoning more than what's there.

    The fact that there might already be businesses or residents there doing whatever, doesn't prevent someone stepping in, building stuff, and then pointing to the zoning laws and saying "um, you can't do that anymore". Otherwise the nature of a part of town could change every time someone builds something or a different person lives there.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    photo of the King's Arms from the late 19th century

    Awesome!

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Sam F,

    Lanterns, along with the corner location, were a licensing requirement - it was a cheap way for the authorities to get street lighting and to hopefully attract a better class of boozer to the neighbourhood.

    Maybe aiming to dispel a few bug-hunters as well...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1611 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Curtis,

    First the Citrats zoned areas like around the KA commercial/industrial so the speculators could make money from changing the area from residential. 1960s
    Then they allowed residential blocks that are allowed to ignore usual residential zoning so the speculators can make money turning the area residential again.2000s
    Note the noise rules are less restrictive for houses in commercial zones.
    Fail- Fail all round

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 314 posts Report Reply

  • matt mitchell-anyon,

    The fact that there might already be businesses or residents there doing whatever, doesn't prevent someone stepping in, building stuff, and then pointing to the zoning laws and saying "um, you can't do that anymore".

    I always think of these lovely 'old' dears who moved into new apartments in Parnell and then used to complain constantly about the noise, music and general sounds of happiness floating up from the bar I was working at - surely zoning is guided by existing use in cases like that?

    kingsland • Since Sep 2009 • 5 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Edit: a reference. I think we can trust Greenwich on something like this:

    Does seem to be a slightly controversial point. Some usages have put midday as 12pm, particularly in America. Also, using midnight is not necessarily perfectly disambiguating, because every day has two of those, one at each end. But it's an improvement. The 24 hour clock solves all the problems, though.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Chockasunday,

    Sounds like a good idea to me; gigs that are over by 11pm would mean you could get home at a reasonable hour in time for work the next day.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 62 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 9 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.