Muse: Hooray for Wellywood (Really!)
187 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
Tom Beard, in reply to
One thing that doesn't sit well with me, on principle, is that the resource consent for this was non-notifiable.
Question with two follow ups -
1) How difficult would it be to change the law so every resource consent application has to be notifiable?
2) Is there any party out there whose policy supports such a change?
3) Are there any good arguments against?I'll only answer 3 by saying: yes, lots. The "notification" process doesn't just involve letting people know about it and asking for their submissions: it requires a hearing, a panel of commissioners and the possibility of appeals, mediation and Environment Court action. It's expensive, time consuming, legalistic and involves huge uncertainty, all of which is hugely over the top for most consents.
One of the worst effects of this is that even when Councils have the discretion to look at a proposal qualitatively and holistically, it gives an incentive for applicants to dumb down proposals to meet quantitative and simple-minded notification triggers. For instance, they'll get the designer to arbitrarily lop off bits of the roof to meet recession planes, resulting in designs that are ugly, ridiculous and less in keeping with the neighbourhood than if the planners & urban designers had been able to advocate for a nuanced reading of the District Plan.
Another aspect is that it brings out the worst and most prejudiced aspects of NIMBYism: people who would not be materially affected by a proposal but just don't want any more people in their suburb or who mutter darkly about "the wrong sort of people". Unless they're familiar with the arcana of the RMA, they'll get confused by the terminology and get false expectations of the submission process. One example is the technical use of the word "permitted", which often leads to submitters getting outraged when decisions go against them ("OMG how can you give consent when the Plan bans it?!?"). Some also think that submissions are some sort of vote, but even if the submissions are 99-1 against, if the anti-submissions don't make reasonable arguments that granting the consent would be against the objectives of the plan then there is no reason to decline it. And when notification thresholds are much lower than the level of development anticipated by the plan, and the commissioners quickly approve a development despite what the submitters say, those submitters can rightly assume that the hearing process was a waste of their and everyone else's time. In short, would-be submitters have unrealistic expectations of the influence that the notification process would grant to them, without realising the perverse incentives towards mediocre developments that comply with the letter of the plan but don't achieve the overall objective of making a better city.
Finally, and this might be controversial, I believe there's a fundamental difference between urban design and planning, at least as the latter is seen under the RMA. Urban design aims for the long-term outcome of a beautiful, sustainable and liveable city, for all who live there, visit there or may live there in the future. RMA planning is about letting landowners build what they want on their land unless they piss off the neighbours. Sure, there are good reasons for preserving reasonable levels of amenity for existing residents, but the process as it is encourages petty, short-term, prejudiced and parochial thinking.
Having said that, I think there is a role for more public involvement in the consent process, but not through the current notification provisions. Currently, almost all resource consents are public information (so "non-notified" doesn't mean "sneaky and secret"), but there is no mechanism to allow for public input without involving the hugely cumbersome hearing process. I would like to see a process whereby the public are invited to make written submissions, which the planners have to take into account in their decision. Again, this would not be a vote, but would allow people to point out information and effects that officers might have missed, or to make cogent arguments for or against the proposal. Large consents, or those that breach District Plan standards to the extent that they are non-complying, would still be able to trigger a full hearing, but there needs to be a lightweight intermediate step.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I suspect if I was a visitor, I'd assume it was a Wellington city sign. I'd rather visitors didn't think that.
Yes. It occcurs to me that maybe that's what might confuse people who don't live in Wellington about this? The place where the sign will be shown is not physically part of the airport at all - it's just that the airport happens to own the land.
-
OK, located it on streetview..So it's on the corner of Miramar Avenue? As in, like a big sign as you enter Miramar? As in, a sign telling you something about Miramar?
-
Sacha, in reply to
confess I don't actually know where it will be
There are plenty of photos. It will be visible from planes landing and taking off and from surrounding suburbs. Mirimar is *behind* the hill it is on, though the surburb's visitors and residents are not really it's intended audience.
-
Sacha, in reply to
As in, a sign telling you something about Miramar?
No. Don't waste our time.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
OK, located it on streetview..So it's on the corner of Miramar Avenue? As in, like a big sign as you enter Miramar? As in, a sign telling you something about Miramar?
It's the road entry to Miramar but it's the air route entry to the city. And really, it's about the city. Ask yourself why in the world would the airport bother to promote Miramar. And it's not as if the good people of that suburb were asked for their opinion either. But everybody understands the sign's about Wellington. Even John Key, judging by his comments.
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
You might think it’s just about Miramar, but most of it’s supporters claim it’s about promoting Wellington as a tourist destination, most of it’s detractors think it’s reflecting on Wellington as a whole.
You might not be wrong, but you are almost certainly in a minority.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
You might not be wrong, but you are almost certainly in a minority.
I guess I'm happy in that place. I'm not a supporter, either. To me it's mostly about property rights. If enough people are bitter on it, then that's a reason to override those rights, and it would be politic to do that anyway for most businesses. But I am rather interested that such a furore has been created over it which seems to override all sense and intentions. It doesn't seem to matter to anyone what it was intended to signify. Wellingtonians clearly feel that they get to decide what the meaning of the sign is.
-
I bet that if someone pasted on your forehead a sticker saying THE WILSONATOR you might feel invested in deciding what it means as well.
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
If the sign doesn’t signify to most people what it was intended to signify then that’s a failure of design and a reason to come up with a less easily misread signifier, surely?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Sure, but it if was pasted on a sign near my house I'd probably have to ask the writer.
-
If the sign doesn’t signify to most people what it was intended to signify then that’s a failure of design and a reason to come up with a less easily misread signifier, surely?
Well, no, see, the sign was intended to be humourous. So clearly if you don't get the joke it's your fault, not the joke's.
Sure, but it if was pasted on a sign near my house I'd probably have to ask the writer.
Argh. Let's not do the thing again where meaning is in the intention of the author, shall we? Tim's right: if the sign doesn't mean to people what their authors intended it to mean, then maybe it should be changed.
-
But I am rather interested that such a furore has been created over it
I think that some of the furore comes from the fact that all this was said a year ao, when the idea was initially presented. Most people said, "yeah, nah, not your best work". The airport said, "hmm. ok give us some suggestions, we'll have a think about it, come up with a best idea". They sat down, thought hard for a year, gave everyone the finger and said, "we're doing exactly what we said we'd do last year that y'all thought was a bit crap, what are ya gonna do about it, huh?".
Which is kind of annoying really, and may explain why there's more furore this time than there was last time.
-
Sure, but it if was pasted on a sign near my house I’d probably have to ask the writer.
Not that practical when the theory is that's it's for the benefit of tourists.They're unlikely to know who to ask.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Geez I like it,I like it alot, I can just imagine a wind farm in the water, (as it saves complaints about the ugliness of the landscape) as the plane approaches, big gust of wind, and plane becomes an instant helicopter, going down.;)
-
Gareth Ward, in reply to
I would like to see a process whereby the public are invited to make written submissions, which the planners have to take into account in their decision. Again, this would not be a vote, but would allow people to point out information and effects that officers might have missed, or to make cogent arguments for or against the proposal. Large consents, or those that breach District Plan standards to the extent that they are non-complying, would still be able to trigger a full hearing, but there needs to be a lightweight intermediate step.
Laying claim to www.facebook.com/RMA as we speak... :)
-
David Hood, in reply to
I assume this has happened elsewhere as well.
Queenstown springs to mind. From memory they, and other fast food places, all got firm No to the kind of signs found in other places when they first came to town.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Argh. Let's not do the thing again where meaning is in the intention of the author, shall we?
No, let's not. We can agree to disagree on the relevance of the author in the meaning of the author's writings. Out.
-
3410,
Forgive me.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Forgive me.
No
-
recordari, in reply to
How about me?
-
Sacha, in reply to
How about me?
Now that, I can stomach
-
Just officially rename the airport Wellywood (as with Charles de Gaulle, O'Hare, JFK, La Guardia, John Lennon etc etc).
Though I would prefer:
-
recordari, in reply to
Now that, I can stomach
Should be on the political thread really. "When two tribes go to war, money is all that you can score"? And the tribal reference.
-
Carol Stewart, in reply to
I can just imagine a wind farm in the water
No need to imagine, Sofie.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.