Residential tower on list for library
A 17-storey residential tower built on top of Wellington’s central library is one of three design upgrade options city councillors will vote on next week.
In October 2020, city councillors voted unanimously to fix and upgrade the earthquake-prone building, which has been closed since March 2019.
At that time, council officers were tasked with looking at options of how the building could be optimised, through the development of the upper floors and enhancing its sustainability.
Of the three options for the development, revealed yesterday in a report for the council’s strategy and policy committee, option 3 considers the highest possible build for the building’s structure, a 17-storey residential tower, at an estimated cost of $114 million.
Option 1, the recommended proposal, would see an extension of levels 3 and 4, at an estimated cost of $8.5m.
Option 2 proposes an extension of levels 3 and 4, as well as adding a new level, at an estimated cost of $29m.
The proposal for the residential tower states while it would be outside of current District Plan height rules, it aligns with potential future rules and planning policies to maximise housing density within the central city area, while providing a significant amount of residential accommodation.
However, the report stated potential drawbacks of the design included its visual impact on the library and surrounding area, a high planning risk with changes required to District Plan height rules, heritage and consent implications, legal challenges, and at least an 18-month timing delay to the entire project, which aims to get the library reopened by 2025.
Councillors Simon Woolf, Sean Rush, Jill Day and Fleur Fitzsimons said the option was unlikely to be feasible. Mayor Andy Foster said that while he understood the need for inner-city intensification of housing, the strengthening required on the apartment option would massively increase the time frame to reopen the library.
Rush said it looked like the design had been created by Homer Simpson. “There are better places in the city for that sort of development,” he said.
Woolf said it appeared officers may have put up the option “just to test things’’.
“The public wouldn’t like that – the height, for instance, and visual impact on city and surrounding areas,” he said.
Fitzsimons, who holds the libraries and community facilities portfolio, said if the proposal was legally realistic, it would be a great opportunity for the council to play a leadership role in increasing housing.
‘‘Given the significant legal hurdles to overcome, it’s unlikely to be successful, so that means we have to look at
“There are better places in the city for that sort of development.” Sean Rush City councillor
other options to play that leadership role,’’ she said.
If the recommended proposal, option 1, was chosen, an additional 880 square metres of usable space could be added to the library.
That option would involve an extension of the third and fourth floors across the existing roofline by adding an 8-metre extension for each floor.
The report stated that the benefits of the proposal would be the minimal visual impact, its low risk from a resource consent perspective, and the ability for rooftop space to be retained for other uses, such as a rooftop garden.
However, the key drawback with choosing the option would be that it would only provide a relatively small increase in the floor area.
Foster said the option would cause the least disruption while making the upper levels more usable.
Fitzsimons said that given the work being done to strengthen the library, it was sensible to consider altering the building to increase the available floor space.
Even more floor space, 3735sqm, could be added if option 2 was chosen, but that would come at a significantly higher cost. It could also push out the opening date by nine to 12 months.
An extension of levels 3 and 4 and an additional new level could maximise space while remaining within the constraints of the current height plan, the report stated.
If chosen, additional structural work would be required to accommodate an increase in weight loading, new bathroom facilities would be required to meet occupancy standards, and a full rebuild of the services layout and a new plant room would be needed.
Rush said the option would be less smart but more affordable, because of the additional revenue that could be created from the extra space.