Shelly Bay won’t be an eyesore
The proposed development is being carefully designed, says
For architects like me, it is usually wise to roll with the punches of public opinion and let what is said wash over, or under.
However, I cannot let Rosemary McLeod get away with her column (We’re funding Shelly Bay but there’s no transparency, May 4). Her opinion piece about Shelly Bay and other random issues (Te Wharewaka, Te Papa, immigration) indicates that she is poorly-informed. I have chosen to respond.
McLeod suggested that Shelly Bay will be an ‘‘eyesore on what ought to be prime land for everyone to enjoy’’ and that it will ‘‘most likely become yet another posh city playground for the poor to gawp at.’’
She intimated that it ‘‘could be another cheap and ugly development …because in this city, frontier style, nothing has to meet any aesthetic standard’’. She also suggested that architects and landscapers have not been given the opportunity ‘‘to dream up creative ideas’’.
I have always been a person who has attempted to make the urban environment a better place. Sometimes this seems to be cleaning up the mess others have previously created. This objective and desire to create a better place is also shared by The Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust, The Wellington Company and Wellington City Council.
I lead the design team that established the Shelly Bay Masterplan and Design Guide. I believe that our credentials make us worthy to have undertaken this task. Michael Bennett (architecture+) is one of New Zealand’s best designers, landscape architect Meagan Wraight (Wraight and Associates) is at the top of her profession and received an Arts Foundation Laureate Award, Graeme McIndoe and Andrew Burns (McIndoe Urban) are without peer as urban designers. I wish to defend their reputations, as well as my own.
The Masterplan and Design Guide that we developed establishes a framework that sets standards that will be monitored and assessed by a Design Review Panel for the design of each new building, house, renovated structure, and open space project. By these documents and this process the design quality will be ensured. So for McLeod to suggest that Shelly Bay will be an eyesore is both wide of the mark and insulting. For reassurance, she should take the time to study the documents.
I agree with her about the term ‘‘village green’’ evoking ye olde Englishness. That was a debate I lost. I advocated calling it Shelly Bay lawn or some other name. However ‘‘village green’’ is just a placeholder, and a descriptive name. The space itself will be worthy of its desirable position beside the harbour and a welcome green public space for all to enjoy. As an aside, Shelly Bay has mostly been out of bounds and locked away from the residents of Wellington up until now, and its redevelopment will open it up and make it accessible.
For the first time since the 1880s, it will be a place for everyone to enjoy. Its character will be unique and whilst it will have some similarity to Oriental Bay, or Sausalito for that matter, it will also share characteristics with Karaka Bay. But it will be different. It will be its own place that incorporates desirable aspects of the existing environment as well as desirable attributes of local and international harbourside neighbourhoods. To quote the Design Guide, ‘‘Existing built form and landscape elements have an aesthetic that is worthy of retention. New development should respect and develop that existing aesthetic rather than replace it. It is intended that Shelly Bay will continue to have a unique character that does not exist elsewhere’’.
McLeod said she ‘‘rather likes’’ Shelly Bay in its existing run-down state. She omits to mention it is largely privately-owned – by PNBST – who are entitled to maintain and upgrade their property. It is an opportunity to provide places to live, to work and to play for the enjoyment of both locals and visitors. For it to sit derelict is a luxury only the affluent could afford. The PNBST is not affluent.
At the end of her piece she states: ‘‘Why don’t we work actively on solving those problems.’ referring to Maori educational, incarceration, addiction, homelessness and suicide issues. Ironically her comments about Shelly Bay only undermine PNBST’s desire and ability to improve their situation.
Lastly, I respond to McLeod’s throw-away line about ‘‘the mysterious waka house’’ on Wellington’s waterfront and her question: ‘Whose idea was that, and what is its function, exactly?’
To quote from their website, the wharewaka, formally Te Raukura, ’’is of special significance to descendants from Taranaki iwi of Te Atiawa, Taranaki, Ngati Ruanui, Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga. Previously the area where the building is located was harbour frontage to Te Aro Pa, one of the
Leaving Shelly Bay derelict is a luxury only the affluent could afford.
largest Maori communities in Wellington up until the 1880s. The building sees the re-establishment of a Maori presence on Taranaki Wharf, notably absent on the waterfront since that time. ‘‘
I was, with my colleagues at architecture+, the architect of Te Raukura and can confirm that apart from its cultural significance, it performs an important urban function of defining public realm space on four sides including Odlin Plaza to the east, and the Whairepo lagoon to the west. Also it functions as a wharewaka, a wharekai and a wharehui. I am sure Wellington Tenths Trust chairman Morrie Love would be happy to show McLeod through the building and remove the mystery.
Last, and incredibly, McLeod implied a ‘‘covert’’ deal has been done between the city council and the developer – this was after the Dominion Post outlined that no deal has been done and that Wellingtonians would be asked for their opinions in the next few weeks on the proposed sale or lease of the council’s bits of land on the site.
It would be nice if McLeod made the effort to inform herself. Nobody is hiding anything from her or the public. Stuart Gardyne is director of architecture+.