Publicly-owned golf courses in Auckland & Wellington can be redeveloped in ways that deliver both thousands of homes & open, green spaces and trees for all; I've seen it done in Melbourne
I didn’t have time to read yesterdays newsletter but I wish I had. What a great idea! Golf courses are not ‘green’ spaces, they’re biodiversity deadzones and cause groundwater issues around the globe. The fact people are complaining that a green space will be lost is sadly tantamount to the poor ecological literacy that abounds us.
Would love to see something like the Mirvac development and the Witchcliffe Eco Village development in south west WA. Places for people to truely live!
I don't know Bernard. I was scratching my head about the $160M council "costs" so I went back to the report. In fact, it states, for example, "The operating and maintenance costs of the Council-managed Chamberlain Park golf course were $800,492 in 2015/16, however, these costs were more than offset by $1,016,355 in revenue generated by the golf course."
Ah.... the large cost figures come from a _calculated_ "opportunity cost" of NOT using the golf courses to do residential subdivision at the prevailing values embedded in the surrounding residential land. I feel like I've been clickbaited. I for one, would prefer you played it straight and put your idea out there, without the need for eyeball grabbing headlines like $500 subsidy for every round of golf! Though I understand that's how journalism works these days. It's not why I choose to read the Kaka.
As I posted yesterday, my local squash club does a lot worse. It serves only its members, doesn't have means for the public to play, loses money year after year and costs the public more per member. Please don't calculate it per game of squash played - it will sound terrible! A lot of sport and other clubs work that way and we are thankful for the council support. If we run them all on a capitalist model, I'm not sure what will be left standing.
A 99 year lease. Good idea because we won't be around to get an earful if it doesn't work out well.
How will the lease cost compare to selling? I.e. is it cheaper for a developer to lease for 99 years or to buy now and use financial chicanery to determine the better option.
I see it being the sale/lease of only a golf course or two now, with maybe a golf course being re-purposed every five years or so. Not the big windfall that would be better for the council than selling the airport shares.
That aussie development looks great! Yes, would be great for a decent chunk of the WCC owned Berhampore Golf Course to be repurposed for housing and other recreational uses. Pretty sure the Miramar Golf Course is owned by the club itself though. It has recently sold half of the course to the airport, who will use it for airport purposes as they expand further on the eastern side of the runway.
Also it would be very hard to build any affordable housing on the Miramar course site as it’s within the Wellington Airport Airnoise Boundary – and so the district plan includes some pretty intense building requirements that are super expensive. Am pretty familiar with this as am also within the airnoise boundary and we’re in the process of adding a third bedroom at eye watering expense.
And if housing was built there I’d assume the airport company would just buy it up and remove it from residential use, which is what it’s progressively doing to other housing within the airnoise boundary. Check out Bridge Street some time – over half of the houses have been removed. Clearly this is a hobby horse of mine…
I think people’s reservations are understandable. So often developers do what will generate the most money for them with little other thought for neighbours or the local community or the quality of the building. I live next a site that finally had the derelict old house knock down along with every living thing including some wonderful big trees near the boundaries. So I get that people would be hesitant for that. Hence your example where all the trees are maintained would be great especially if it was a primarily walking and biking focused development.
Screw that. Show me a classy medium density development in NZ and I will show you five budding slums in Aotearoa. Leave the golf courses alone. Disclaimer I don’t play golf and regard it as a complete toss of a pastime.
Unlikely I think that the Council would use its ownership stake in the airport to do this - it has had many opportunities over the years to influence airport decisions about land use in the area and has not used this to promote housing.
In addition to this land, the airport has also in the last couple of years bought the old Miramar South school site - which is huge and in a residential area - and is in the process of turning it into things like rental car parking and other airport uses.
And since 1985 the airport company has bought 73 houses with the airnoise boundary and has demolished or removed 38 of them. They have around 25 that are tenanted, and I guess may be removed in the future. And they bought the old Tirangi road control tower site - the tower has since been demolished and the 2 sections it sat on are vacant. These numbers are from a letter from the airport responding to a request from a city councilor for information about this.
Errr - this is nothing new to NZ, we have been putting apts and retirement villages on racecourses (which is basically the same thing), just look at Alexander Race Park, Ellerslie, Avondale, Hamilton etc. Even race circuits like Hampton Downs.
Hate to be the one to break it to you, but the Berhampore golf course land is all legally protected as part of the Wellington Town Belt so can’t be sold (it’s protected by legislation). To be fair to the golfers there though, they are fully aware that they are only a few and the area is mostly used for walkers, families, dogs etc. They share well and the whole area was well used during lockdowns too. There’s plenty of room for densification along those corridors already without needing to sell that land - hence the proposal to send trams that way
Hi. Sorry for the delayed response. End of year work stuff.
I think it's extremely unlikely the Council would use its ownership stake in that way. Their approach to the airport's acquisition of land has been neutral or negative in terms of housing use, also on emissions. The Council has left it to community groups to hold the airport to account for these things. Andy Foster was the previous Council liaison with the airport. I understand (from a connection who works for the airport company) that he attended meetings very rarely - and did not attend crucial meetings including the one where the airport's 25 year master plan was finalised. Maybe the new mayor will take a different approach and use the position to ensure airport activity supports the Council's housing strategy. Here's hoping.
In addition to the golf club land, the airport has also acquired the old Miramar South School site and is in the process of turning that into mainly carparking for rental cars. Also some other airport uses. That's a massive site - basically a whole residential block. And they've acquired a large number of properties within the "airnoise boundary". Some of these are on my street. So I asked a Councilor to help me get info about this - after the airport didn't respond when I asked. The "airnoise boundary" is quite a small area including the streets around the airport up to around 3 blocks back. Here's what they said "Based on our historical property records the Airport has acquired 73 residential properties dating back to 1985. Over this period 33 properties have been removed." This includes one entire side of Bridge Street - took them around 10 years to buy everyone out. Last house went earlier this year. "There are also 25 properties held by the Airport which are rented for residential use." Presumably they'll remove these at some stage. They've also bought two further sections that were not in residential use (previously owned by Airways and home to the old control tower) but which are in a fully residential block. Of course all of these properties are affected by noise - but so are all properties in the CBD and along major roads.
You'll see the Guardians of the Bays has taken the airport company to the Environment Court and have won some concessions from this around things like environmental reporting and noise. Here's what they have to say about this: https://guardiansofthebays.org.nz/wins/
Nice follow up Mr Hickey!
Certainly rattled a few cages yesterday.
I didn’t have time to read yesterdays newsletter but I wish I had. What a great idea! Golf courses are not ‘green’ spaces, they’re biodiversity deadzones and cause groundwater issues around the globe. The fact people are complaining that a green space will be lost is sadly tantamount to the poor ecological literacy that abounds us.
Would love to see something like the Mirvac development and the Witchcliffe Eco Village development in south west WA. Places for people to truely live!
I don't know Bernard. I was scratching my head about the $160M council "costs" so I went back to the report. In fact, it states, for example, "The operating and maintenance costs of the Council-managed Chamberlain Park golf course were $800,492 in 2015/16, however, these costs were more than offset by $1,016,355 in revenue generated by the golf course."
Ah.... the large cost figures come from a _calculated_ "opportunity cost" of NOT using the golf courses to do residential subdivision at the prevailing values embedded in the surrounding residential land. I feel like I've been clickbaited. I for one, would prefer you played it straight and put your idea out there, without the need for eyeball grabbing headlines like $500 subsidy for every round of golf! Though I understand that's how journalism works these days. It's not why I choose to read the Kaka.
As I posted yesterday, my local squash club does a lot worse. It serves only its members, doesn't have means for the public to play, loses money year after year and costs the public more per member. Please don't calculate it per game of squash played - it will sound terrible! A lot of sport and other clubs work that way and we are thankful for the council support. If we run them all on a capitalist model, I'm not sure what will be left standing.
A 99 year lease. Good idea because we won't be around to get an earful if it doesn't work out well.
How will the lease cost compare to selling? I.e. is it cheaper for a developer to lease for 99 years or to buy now and use financial chicanery to determine the better option.
I see it being the sale/lease of only a golf course or two now, with maybe a golf course being re-purposed every five years or so. Not the big windfall that would be better for the council than selling the airport shares.
That aussie development looks great! Yes, would be great for a decent chunk of the WCC owned Berhampore Golf Course to be repurposed for housing and other recreational uses. Pretty sure the Miramar Golf Course is owned by the club itself though. It has recently sold half of the course to the airport, who will use it for airport purposes as they expand further on the eastern side of the runway.
Also it would be very hard to build any affordable housing on the Miramar course site as it’s within the Wellington Airport Airnoise Boundary – and so the district plan includes some pretty intense building requirements that are super expensive. Am pretty familiar with this as am also within the airnoise boundary and we’re in the process of adding a third bedroom at eye watering expense.
And if housing was built there I’d assume the airport company would just buy it up and remove it from residential use, which is what it’s progressively doing to other housing within the airnoise boundary. Check out Bridge Street some time – over half of the houses have been removed. Clearly this is a hobby horse of mine…
I think people’s reservations are understandable. So often developers do what will generate the most money for them with little other thought for neighbours or the local community or the quality of the building. I live next a site that finally had the derelict old house knock down along with every living thing including some wonderful big trees near the boundaries. So I get that people would be hesitant for that. Hence your example where all the trees are maintained would be great especially if it was a primarily walking and biking focused development.
So the task is to find and support those whose purpose is to build eco villages - plus educate Aucklanders re same.
Screw that. Show me a classy medium density development in NZ and I will show you five budding slums in Aotearoa. Leave the golf courses alone. Disclaimer I don’t play golf and regard it as a complete toss of a pastime.
Thanks for taking the heat on Twitter, Bernard.
Unlikely I think that the Council would use its ownership stake in the airport to do this - it has had many opportunities over the years to influence airport decisions about land use in the area and has not used this to promote housing.
Here you go: https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington/125162829/wellington-airport-recently-acquired-half-a-golf-course--now-its-fighting-to-put-planes-on-it
The group that took the airport to the environment court had this to say about it: https://mailchi.mp/028c9d1d7115/guardians-of-the-bays-april-2022-newsletter-15034653?e=17bf746334 Submissions on the district plan changes the airport says it is seeking have just closed (last week).
In addition to this land, the airport has also in the last couple of years bought the old Miramar South school site - which is huge and in a residential area - and is in the process of turning it into things like rental car parking and other airport uses.
And since 1985 the airport company has bought 73 houses with the airnoise boundary and has demolished or removed 38 of them. They have around 25 that are tenanted, and I guess may be removed in the future. And they bought the old Tirangi road control tower site - the tower has since been demolished and the 2 sections it sat on are vacant. These numbers are from a letter from the airport responding to a request from a city councilor for information about this.
Errr - this is nothing new to NZ, we have been putting apts and retirement villages on racecourses (which is basically the same thing), just look at Alexander Race Park, Ellerslie, Avondale, Hamilton etc. Even race circuits like Hampton Downs.
Hate to be the one to break it to you, but the Berhampore golf course land is all legally protected as part of the Wellington Town Belt so can’t be sold (it’s protected by legislation). To be fair to the golfers there though, they are fully aware that they are only a few and the area is mostly used for walkers, families, dogs etc. They share well and the whole area was well used during lockdowns too. There’s plenty of room for densification along those corridors already without needing to sell that land - hence the proposal to send trams that way
Hi. Sorry for the delayed response. End of year work stuff.
I think it's extremely unlikely the Council would use its ownership stake in that way. Their approach to the airport's acquisition of land has been neutral or negative in terms of housing use, also on emissions. The Council has left it to community groups to hold the airport to account for these things. Andy Foster was the previous Council liaison with the airport. I understand (from a connection who works for the airport company) that he attended meetings very rarely - and did not attend crucial meetings including the one where the airport's 25 year master plan was finalised. Maybe the new mayor will take a different approach and use the position to ensure airport activity supports the Council's housing strategy. Here's hoping.
In addition to the golf club land, the airport has also acquired the old Miramar South School site and is in the process of turning that into mainly carparking for rental cars. Also some other airport uses. That's a massive site - basically a whole residential block. And they've acquired a large number of properties within the "airnoise boundary". Some of these are on my street. So I asked a Councilor to help me get info about this - after the airport didn't respond when I asked. The "airnoise boundary" is quite a small area including the streets around the airport up to around 3 blocks back. Here's what they said "Based on our historical property records the Airport has acquired 73 residential properties dating back to 1985. Over this period 33 properties have been removed." This includes one entire side of Bridge Street - took them around 10 years to buy everyone out. Last house went earlier this year. "There are also 25 properties held by the Airport which are rented for residential use." Presumably they'll remove these at some stage. They've also bought two further sections that were not in residential use (previously owned by Airways and home to the old control tower) but which are in a fully residential block. Of course all of these properties are affected by noise - but so are all properties in the CBD and along major roads.
Here's a link to a story about the golf course sale: https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington/125162829/wellington-airport-recently-acquired-half-a-golf-course--now-its-fighting-to-put-planes-on-it
You'll see the Guardians of the Bays has taken the airport company to the Environment Court and have won some concessions from this around things like environmental reporting and noise. Here's what they have to say about this: https://guardiansofthebays.org.nz/wins/