close

Enter

Log in using OpenID

12 November 2014 - Whangarei District Council

embedDownload
Extra-ordinary
Whangarei District Council
Notice of Meeting
A extra-ordinary meeting of the Whangarei District Council will be held in the Council Chamber,
Forum North, Whangarei on:
Wednesday
12 November 2014
12.30pm
Committee
Her Worship the Mayor (Chairperson)
Cr S J Bell
Cr S J Bretherton
Cr C B Christie
Cr P A Cutforth
Cr S J Deeming
Cr S M Glen
Cr P R Halse
Cr C M Hermon
Cr G C Innes
Cr G M Martin
Cr B L McLachlan
Cr S L Morgan
Cr J D T Williamson
OPEN MEETING
APOLOGIES
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Members are reminded to indicate any items in which they might have a conflict of interest.
INDEX
Item No
Page No
1.
Notice of Motion .................................................................................................................. 1
2.
Assessment of development alternatives for the former Harbour Board/
NRC Building ....................................................................................................................... 2
Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2012
Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2012 in relation
to decision making and in particular the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure,
local public services and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost effective for households and
businesses. Consideration has also been given to social, economic and cultural interests and the need to maintain and
enhance the quality of the environment in taking a sustainable development approach.
Recommendations contained in the Council agenda may not be final Council decisions.
Please refer to Council minutes for resolutions.
1
1.
Notice of Motion
Reporting officer
M P Simpson (Chief Executive Officer)
Date of meeting
12 November 2014
Vision, mission and values
This item is in accord with Council’s vision, mission, and values statement.
Notice of Motion
Notices of Motion must be in writing signed by the mover, stating the meeting at which it is proposed that the
notice of motion be considered, and must be delivered to the Chief Executive at least 5 clear working days
before such meeting.
Councillors S J Bell, S J Bretherton, P A Cutforth, P R Halse and G M Martin have given notice in
accordance with Standing Order 3.10 that they intend to move the following motion:
“1.
That this council again rejects the Hundertwasser proposal for redevelopment of the
former Harbour board / NRC building.
2.
That council continues to progress other options.”
Whangarei District Council
1
12 November 2014
2
Amendment to the motion
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Stays.
Remove reference to LTP.
That the assessment of Harbourside be completed by February 2015.
Stays.
That Council undertakes a binding referendum in March 2015 to determine which project to pursue.
That a communication strategy be developed for approval by Council.
Recommendation
1.
That Council receives the report.
2.
In view of the high community interest in these projects, and the complexity of comparing their
relative merits, it is recommended that the following options:
a)
b)
c)
Harbourside, and
Hundertwasser Wairau Maori Art Centre and
demolish the Harbour Board Building
be included in the draft 2015-2025 long term Plan to allow the public to have input on their preferred
option.
3.
That to allow a fair comparison of the proposals staff be authorised to engage independent qualified
professionals to assess the construction costs, operational costs and expected visitor numbers for
the Harbourside project up to a maximum of $100,000.
4.
That Council thanks all those people that had submitted proposals.
3
2.
Assessment of development alternatives for the former
Harbour Board / NRC Building
Reporting officer
Paul Dell (Group Manager District Living)
Date of meeting
12 November 2014
Vision, mission and values
This item is in accord with Council’s vision, mission and values statement as this project will contribute to the
vision of creating a vibrant district and will enhance the Art, Cultural and Heritage vision for the Town Basin
in line with 20/20, 20/20 plus, Sustainable Futures 30/50 and Council’s Art, Culture and Heritage Policy.
1.
Introduction
As a result of Council’s decision of 24 July 2014 to invite public proposals for the future use of the former
Harbour Board / NRC Building at the Town Basin, an information pack was prepared and released to the
public on 12 August 2014. The public were given until Friday 10 October 2014 to lodge their proposals with
st
th
Council. Interested parties were also given the opportunity to inspect the building on the 21 and 28 August
2014. A number took up the offer. Various enquiries for information were also received and responded to.
On Monday 13 October the box containing the proposals was opened and 14 documents were logged. A
further seven that were received electronically were also logged giving a total of 21 (Attachment 1).
Of the 21 proposals seven were initially identified as having sufficient detail for further evaluation. All the
proposals were circulated to all the Councillors and at a workshop on 16 October 2014 the proposals were
assessed in detail using the “matrix” that had been developed by Council and was included in the information
Pack (Attachment 2).
Following a review of the proposals, four were identified for further consideration. These were:




Hundertwasser W airau Maori Art Centre (HW MAC) – (Barry Trass)
Harbourside - (Richard Cranenburgh)
Arts Maritime Play (AMP) – (Felicity Christian)
Art Gallery (Peter King).
A more detailed explanation of each of these in the words of the proposers is presented in attachment 3.
Council then met on 22 October to further discuss the proposals and receive a presentation on each of the
proposals by the proposers. This was an opportunity for Councillors to clarify aspects of each proposal
including funding, timing, management structure building ownership.
Following this workshop staff commissioned a more detailed evaluation of the cost of earthquake
strengthening for the Harbourside, AMP and Art Gallery proposals and also sought indicative costs for the
three builds (Attachment 4 & 5).
Staff collated all of the information for discussion with Council at a workshop on 29 October 2014. At this
workshop staff outlined the indicative build and operational costs of each proposal based on the additional
work and identified matters that Council still wished to clarify. The Chief Executive (CE) and Group Manager
District Living (GMDL) were directed to meet with each of the four parties to clarify the further matters. Staff
also circulated the seismic assessment and building cost estimate to each of the parties along with questions
relevant to their proposal.
The CEO and GMDL met each of the parties for one hour on Monday 3 November 2014 to discuss the
outstanding matters. These meetings were very useful and have allowed clarification of a number of matters.
2.
Consideration of the Proposals
In considering the four proposals staff consider that the first decision for Council to make is whether it sees
the development of this building as an opportunity for significant economic development in the District, CBD
and Town Basin or as an opportunity for the Community to add further Sense of Place and tell visitors about
our heritage and ourselves. While there would be some economic benefit it would not be the prime driver and
therefore the financial expectation would be different.
Extraordinary Whangarei District Council
12 November 2014
4
Overall staff considers the HWMAC proposal to be about economic development while on balance the other
three are more about enhancing Sense of Place and telling our story. These three have a variable mix of
this. As these three proposals are not seen as significant economic development projects it would suggest
that the type of detailed reporting that has been undertaken for the HW MAC proposal is not required, as
would be the case for example of W hangarei Art Museum (WAM), Swimming pool, Library, Northland
Athletics Gymnasium Stadium.
The following is a more detailed analysis of each. The figures have been discussed with the various parties
and are agreed as being a fair estimate.
2.1
HWMAC
The HWMAC is an economic development project focused on stimulating economic activity through the
attraction of visitors to W hangarei. It has three main components being a Hundertwasser building, a
Hundertwasser Gallery and a curated Contemporary Maori Art Gallery. It is not focused on telling “our” story
but is seen as an “attraction” to grow the district’s tourism base. It is a W orld known Brand. This project can
only be built on this site using this building. It already has resource consents and detailed design.
The Deloitte report and Crowe Horwath report have identified in the order of 150,000 people per annum
would pay to visit the facility which would guarantee its financial performance. The Crowe Horwath report
also indicates an increase in other visitors who may not necessarily pay to enter the facility but will still spend
on other activities.
A separate Deloitte report also saw benefit in this type of development assisting Council in attracting a Hotel.
Both these projects were seen as part of the “Jigsaw” to improve the District’s economy as part of the “At a
Cross Roads” story.
The following is an overall assessment of this proposal:
Item
$
Comment
Capital Build
11.4m
Depreciation
0.5m
Operational
0.5m
Covers depreciation. No Council contributions.
External Funding
Yes
$4.5 m pledged, private, business and Lotteries. Lotteries lapse in
November.
Council Capital
2.8m
Start Up
0.5m
Shortfall
4.85m
Council Opex
0
Displacement
Nil
Includes $2m Seismic, Transition Zone 0.3m. $1.4m spent to date
Employ Staff / training etc.
4 year underwrite.
Not moving other activities.
Councillors have raised a number of issues about Copyright and future liability. In this proposal there is a
four year underwrite if there is a shortfall. At the end of this period Council would become responsible for the
building and its use. Council could terminate the agreement with the Hundertwasser Foundation and return
the Art and not operate as a Hundertwasser Art Centre. W hat it then does with the building is its decision as
the owner.
2.2
Harbourside
Harbourside is a Museum of Contemporary and Creative Arts using a Maritime theme. It also contains a
Maori Arts Gallery. They acknowledge that while the proposal will attract visitors, approximately 40,000, that
is not its overriding purpose. A Key aim is to develop an iconic historic building, acknowledge the
Harbourside and Maritime history of the building and surrounding area. It will also offer an opportunity to
showcase our UFB capacity with New Zealand’s first purpose – designed digital arts centre. It also notes the
move of WAM into the building.
Overall it is seen as an opportunity to tell “our” story about our place in a way that will truly celebrate
Whangarei; past, present, future.
Extraordinary Whangarei District Council
12 November 2014
5
At the meeting with Richard Cranenburgh detailed discussion around the costings for the proposal resulted
in reasonable agreement on both the seismic and build cost as well as the indicative operational costs. The
level of any entrance fee was still to be determined.
The group would want to work with Council to find the necessary capital funding. No detailed discussions
had occurred with the Trusts of WAM, CHART or Kiwi North over proposals to co-locate or relocate some or
all of these activities.
There had also not been any formal conversation with the Hihiaua Trust. The more detailed discussion
indicated that the movement of W AM to the facility was likely to see them have less display space and was
therefore unlikely. In terms of CHART if it was to relocate to the building its rental space would be in the
order of $14K per annum (this would impact the Old Library).
It was confirmed that Council would own the building and likely manage the operation.
In discussion on the costs associated with reconstruction of the building Richard indicated that he did not see
the building itself as critical to the proposal and therefore demolition of the current building was not a barrier
to this project. This seems to be counter to the basis of the proposal.
Discussion on the proposed fundraising noted that there was no certainty of the lottery funding although
other similar projects had been successful.
The following is an overall assessment of this proposal.
Item
$
Capital Build
8.0m
Depreciation
0.35m
Operational (net)
0.55m
External Funding
6.0m
Council Capital
2.5m
Start up
Not included
Shortfall
6.0m
Comment
Lotteries, ASB suggested as sources.
Excludes start up. No funding secured at this time.
Council Opex
0.90m
2% rate contribution.
Displacement
Some
WAM unlikely, CHART – impact OL.
2.3
AMP
This project focuses on Arts, Maritime and Play. It will contain a voyaging centre (4D experience room)
celebrating historical and modern day sea voyaging, a visual arts centre (not Maori Art gallery) including a
“treasured piece” attraction, lookouts and bridges and roof space for outdoor exhibition, private functions and
viewing. There is no cafe or restaurant. No indication of visitor numbers could be given.
In discussion it was agreed that an indicative build cost of $7m would be used in the assessment. It was also
agreed that while detail on entrance fees was still to be worked through the likely annual operating cost to
Council including depreciation would be in the order of $750K.
They were of the view that the existing building needed to be kept for this proposal. Since the meeting
however they have indicated this needs to be considered against cost. W hile there had been some
discussion with an individual member of the Hihiaua Trust there had been no formal engagement with the
Trust.
They saw Council as owning the building with a Trust raising the funds and operating the facility. There was
no detail on whether this would be an existing or new Trust. Council would be expected to allocate $600K of
seed funding to allow the proposal to progress to detailed design and consenting.
Extraordinary Whangarei District Council
12 November 2014
6
The following is an overall assessment of this proposal.
Item
$
Comment
Capital Build
7.0m
Excludes transitional zone. Includes $600K for design.
Depreciation
0.3m
Operational (net)
0.5m
External Funding
Unknown
Council Capital
Unknown
Start up
Not included
Shortfall
7.0m
Excludes start up. No funding secured at this time.
Council Opex
0.8m
1.8% rate contribution.
Displacement
Nil
2.3
Art Centre
We have referred to this proposal as Arts Centre. The proposal is based on a Maori Art Gallery or Auckland
Satellite Gallery and also a satellite of the Auckland Maritime Museum. It includes a theatre, convention
space, cafe, bar and restaurant. Peter has confirmed that the reason for this proposal was to ensure that no
“half baked” ideas would possibly get over the line. He still supports the Hundertwasser proposal if it were to
proceed. He saw no reason to keep the building for this proposal as in his professional opinion it had no
“iconic” value.
He believed that if the HWMAC proposal did not proceed the best option would be to demolish the building
and build something new. Peter would see any proposal being owned and operated by Council. He agreed
with the indicative costings.
The following is an overall assessment of this proposal.
Item
$
Comment
Capital Build
9.0m
Depreciation
0.4m
Operational (net)
0.45m
External Funding
-
Council Capital
9.0m
Start up
Not included
Shortfall
9.0m
Council Opex
0.85m
Displacement
Nil
3.
Excludes transition zones.
Plus start up.
1.9% rate contribution.
Discussion
In reaching a decision on what option may be appropriate staff consider that Council first needs to reach
agreement on whether the proposal they wish to see either using this building or on the site is driven by an
economic development goal or more to be able to tell a story about ourselves to the community and visitors
(Sense of Place).
Based on the information from the Hundertwasser Art Centre survey, it is noted that the leading reason for
opposition to that development was that ratepayer money should be spent on other priorities, with 52% of
those opposed stating this. A further 29% stated it was too expensive / waste of money and a further 19%
indicating the Art Centre is not right for W hangarei and / or won’t attract tourists. Council may wish to
consider whether the Community will have the same view for the other proposals?
Based on the information worked through with the various parties the indicative costs to ratepayers to build
and operate each proposal for 5 years would be:
Extraordinary Whangarei District Council
12 November 2014
7
Capital $
5 yrs: Opex S
Total
HWMAC
2.8m
0
2.8 m
Harbourside
2.5m
4.5m
7.0m
AMP
7.0m*
4.0m
11.0m
Art Centre
9.0m*
4.25m
13.25m
*No detail on external funding was presented.
Discussions with the various groups would indicate that Council will also likely have a significant involvement
in the three new proposals and would therefore have to allocate a certain level of staff resources and
possibly a professional fundraiser; however gaining external funding may not be easy.
Based on cost, support for the HWMAC, a view that the building has no historic value and the reality that
Council would most likely end up driving the Art Centre proposal it can reasonably be discounted. Peter
didn’t mind others picking up his ideas but did not see an active participation with others.
Both Harbourside and AMP have indicated a willingness to work together. Staff understand they originally
started working together but choose to develop separate proposals. If these two groups were to work together
there would need to be some significant compromises on the activities due to the space limitation. It is also
very unlikely that WAM could be accommodated. Further evaluation of the capital and likely operational costs
would need to be done if this project was selected.
One option that still needs consideration is whether to retain the building at all. While it is essential for the
HWMAC project there are mixed messages from the Harbourside and AMP proposers over whether the
building is critical or the activity is more important. Indicative costings for demolition of the building and
putting the site into grass is around $300K.
While the issue of the impact of any decision on the LTP process has not been canvassed it is expected that
if the HWMAC was the accepted option then no change is required. If any other options are approved then a
change to the LTP would be required.
4.
Summary
In summary Council needs to determine what the goal is for redevelopment of the building. If it is seen as an
attraction for economic development then the HW MAC project would be the best investment for Council and
the Community.
If on the other hand the Council wishes to use the building to create an opportunity to “tell our story” including
a range of Art options then Harbourside or AMP or a mix of these could be considered. Based on the
assessment of these two options Council and the Community’s financial support would be significant and
ongoing which is to be expected for this type of project.
Finally if none of the proposals are considered acceptable either in content, risk or cost then demolition of
the building still remains an option.
Recommendation
1.
That Council receives the report.
2.
In view of the high community interest in these projects, and the complexity of comparing their
relative merits, it is recommended that the following options:
a)
b)
c)
Harbourside, and
Hundertwasser W airau Maori Art Centre and
demolish the Harbour Board Building
be included in the draft 2015-2025 long term Plan to allow the public to have input on their preferred
option.
3.
That to allow a fair comparison of the proposals staff be authorised to engage independent qualified
professionals to assess the construction costs, operational costs and expected visitor numbers for
the Harbourside project up to a maximum of $100,000.
4.
That Council thanks all those people that had submitted proposals.
Extraordinary Whangarei District Council
12 November 2014
8
Attachments
1.
List of proposals received
2.
Assessment Matrix
3.
Detailed explanation of proposals
4.
Seismic Costing Assessment – Base Group Consulting
5.
Report on proposed developments – Arco Group Ltd
Extraordinary Whangarei District Council
12 November 2014
9
10
11
4 November 2014 Council Public Notices and News
12
Public Notices and News
Continued
Future of former
NRC/Harbour Board building
The submitters of the top four proposals for redevelopment of the former NRC/Harbour
Board building and site have provided outlines of their proposals.
Arts Maritime Play
(A.M.P)
In their own words:
Our vision is to provide for and stimulate discussion about:
Arts - at the heart of the community
Maritime – past and present
Play - in a multitude of ways at the
Town Basin
A.M.P. Design Principles
• Acknowledge the importance of the
site to Whangarei.
• Create a great place for Whangarei
people.
• Build upon sense of place & use the
natural assets of the site.
• Acknowledge past buildings, people,
uses and events.
Harbourside
In their own words:
Future Whangarei comprises a group of people including business, arts, culture and heritage professionals,
architects, landscape designers, digital creative, community
enthusiasts – as well as a broad range of �ordinary’
members of the Whangarei district – Maori, non-Maori,
young, old, from all walks of life.
Wally Yovich, who is acting as spokesperson for Future Whangarei, says:
“The Harbour Board Building is a vital part of Whangarei’s built heritage, and deserves
to be treated as such. The proposed development
would attract visitors, but that was not its overriding purpose. The main reason was to acknowledge and celebrate our local heritage”.
develop an iconic historic building;
acknowledge the Harbourside and maritime
history of the building and the surrounding
area;
• Provide �bang for buck’ and allow
sensible spending.
•
establish New Zealand’s first contemporary
Maori Art Gallery; and
• Complement existing Town Basin
activities and commerce.
•
showcase our UFB capacity with New Zealand’s first purpose-designed digital arts centre, bringing together traditional and modern
art in one place.
Voyaging and Visual Arts Centre (VaVAC)
• A Voyaging Centre celebrating historical and modern day sea voyaging, connecting
the themes of the area; the Hihihiaua Cultural Centre, the history of the Hatea, its
present day destination for world cruising community. 4D experience room.
• A Visual Arts Centre with permanent and visiting exhibition space, with a �treasured piece’ attraction, multi
purpose seminar/audio visual space administration /
lettable office space.
Harbourside will tell our story about our place in a way that will truly celebrate
Whangarei: past, present, future – where we
• Roof space to include an outdoor exhibition space,
viewing platform, space for private functions, public
events and festivals, glazed perimeter walls to provide
shelter from predominant westerly winds.
•
•
•
•
•
See youtube.com for uploaded videos of proposal - Search �AMP Whangarei’
AMP flythrough of concept - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYk-yx0TX6I
AMP existing site aerial video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8_Gkiu0y1o
The Only Iconic Proposal:
• Delivering employment and economic boost to Whangarei.
Underwood I King
In their own words:
Underwood King’s proposal is for the existing building to be developed in a way that
makes the most of the existing structure at minimum cost. The building is given a
mix of display space, in keeping with the original idea of an art centre, cafe/bar/
restaurant space to generate income, and other arts-based spaces.
• No ratepayer money required (besides earthquake strengthen and refurbishment
costs from Council - same as all other proposals)
• Generates profit - $700,000 - $500,000 p.a. Others need $900,000 annual
support = loss to ratepayers $1.4 million p.a.
• The existing building is not iconic. Two thirds of the building dates from the
seventies and what is left of the original building has been modified beyond recognition. The interior has no distinctive features or joinery. This building needs a
complete makeover to give it any appeal.
• This proposal attempts to “monumentalise” the appearance of the building and
make it look more like a museum rather than the office building it was
Tourism operators applaud this extraordinary game-changer
•
Visitors p.a. to City - 450,000. Paying to see Art Galleries - 150,000 (2 reports)
Harbourside Building
Support from all quarters - tourism, cruise ship industry, hotel operators, arts world,
notable New Zealanders, Sir Michael Hill, Sir Bob Harvey, Hamish Keith, Maori
organisations including Hihiaua Cultural Centre Trust.
•
•
Economic growth. $millions annually (feasibility studies support) - little or no
economic growth from other proposals
•
Pulling power. International attraction (e.g. Sydney Opera House and Bilbao)
•
Iconic. Possibly country’s most recognisable building - Whangarei becomes a
destination
•
Pays its way. 150,000 paying visitors - no on-going
ratepayer funding. Other
proposals - loss to ratepayers - $1.4m p.a.
•
Employment. New jobs,
catalyst for hotel, attractive
to cruise ships.
•
Community support over
60 percent - the community
backs it if ratepayers don’t
pay (Council survey).
•
Proposal ready - the only
one (resource consent and
in LTP).
•
Proven. Only proposal with
Feasibility Studies.
•
Gift to the city - $10m of
non-ratepayer funding.
•
Much Needed Turning Point
for Whangarei.
•
Allowing views of the river into the park and beyond
Managing the intrusion of traffic
Creating continuity to the Dent St frontage
Emphasising the primary gateways
Making the space versatile and adaptable so that people can use areas in lots of different ways - Christmas
in the Park, NZ Rally, expanded arts market, cultural
events.
Introducing movable pods, exhibitions, coffee and food
carts, small staging.
Offering a range of from small and intimate spaces
through to big open areas.
Providing a range of surfaces – soft grassed areas, hard paved precincts, urban
beach, lookout on river edge, changing levels, water’s edge.
Catering for established uses – fishing fleet, marina / recreational / cruising
community, craft market etc.
The Hundertwasser and Wairau Maori
Art Centre
In their own words:
Harbourside is not a single focus, single vision monument dedicated to one man’s
work, nor is it a glorified WAM.
• Lookouts and bridge to act as beacons for the Town
Basin and VaVAC, to frame views and form gateways,
provide elevated vantage points and a vertical audio/
visual projection surface to be used for stunning lighting effects for festivals, special events etc.
•
•
•
•
•
Full copies of these submissions are available on our website (www.wdc.govt.nz).
Summaries will be available to view in the Forum North Foyer on Tuesday 4 November.
Future Whangarei totally supports the development of the Hihiaua Cultural Centre.
Key components of the proposed
development include:
A.M.P Public Open Spaces
Key to the success of this project would be to develop the
setting around it, the public open spaces, by:
Each group has seen these pages, seen each other’s work, and has had input
into the way their own images and words have been presented. Our team would
like to thank all involved in bringing you these pages for their willingness to work
long hours to meet very short deadlines to bring these to you.
Future Whangarei’s aim in this project is to:
•
New life for existing Harbour Board building
mitters, and staff are analysing the proposals. This will be presented to Council (and the public) at an Extra-ordinary Council meeting on
12 November.
“If we meet the needs of local people first, then
visitors will come” says Wally.
•
• Make places and spaces that are
adaptable and versatile.
Four groups making proposals for the development of the old NRC/Harbour Board
building and site at the Town Basin have presented their ideas to Whangarei District
Council.
We asked each group to provide a brief summary of their proposal along with several
images, so we can present them to you here, because not everyone has the opportunity to look at the full proposals online (www.wdc.govt.nz).
We wanted you to hear and see what they had to say about their own proposals, in
their own words and pictures, rather than ours, because we have not yet made any
decisions about the favoured project.
We have had two workshops to go through the material and hear from the sub-
•
•
•
•
•
A maritime heritage themed area
including interactive spaces.
A contemporary Maori Art Gallery dedicated to exhibiting the works of Maori
artists – many of whom are from the
North.
Digital art exhibitions from a range of
collections.
NZ Film Archive Gallery curating exhibitions relating to Northland eg maritime/
marine stories (�The Rainbow Warrior’,
Te Kaha dive areas etc)
The Whangarei Art Museum Collection.
An interactive learning centre, available
for educational purposes.
Medium size conference space.
Office space for lease.
Harbourside Building – Rooftop
• Viewing platform – giving a different perspective of the River.
• Outdoor space for private functions/exhibitions.
Open Spaces
• A range of spaces with different characteristics and levels to provide �multi-use’
areas eg Christmas in the Park, NZ Rally, music events, cultural activities, holiday
programmes, movable pods, exhibitions, staging etc.
• Signage, links and pick-up point to other destinations eg Hihiaua Cultural Centre,
Reyburn House, Quarry Arts, Quarry Gardens, AH Reed & Mair Parks, Kiwi Museum.
• Waka rides/Waka ama racing.
• Kauri waka carving.
• Proposed building concept assists with seismic strengthening. The roof terrace
acts as a floor diaphragm. Walls are added to the interior, to provide more area for
exhibits, and to the exterior to give a more unified “museum” look. These same
walls assist with the seismic strengthening of the building. This keeps costs to a
minimum.
• Three exhibitions are put forward to occupy two available spaces. The curated
Maori Art Gallery that is proposed as part of the HAC, a satellite of the Auckland
Art Gallery and a satellite of the Auckland Maritime Museum with local content.
• Space is provided for the Whangarei Film Society and an attractive multi-purpose
space is provided for pop-up galleries, small meetings or a learning centre.
• This building will not shut at 5p.m. The provision of a new bar, café and restaurant
in combination with the Film Theatre encourages night life in the town basin, a
key point mentioned in the 20/20 plan.
• The roof terrace provides an attractive outdoor public space with a view.
• Bridge linking the town basin with
the CBD. This pedestrian bridge
will add to our growing reputation
as a city of bridges.
• Exterior art wall for “graffiti art”
exhibitions & competitions. The
south wall windows are to be filled
in for security, strengthening and
to provide more exhibition space
inside. This alley wall and the
wall opposite are ideal for such a
display.
13
SEISMIC COSTING ASSESSMENT
2-6 QUAYSIDE
WHANGAREI
For: Whangarei District Council
Ref: 14085
Date: 28 October 2014
Filename: 14085_seismic assessment_281014
STRUCTURAL > CIVIL > GEOTECHNICAL
PO Box 1032, Whangarei 0140, New Zealand
P +64 9 437 3432
E [email protected]
www.basegroup.co.nz
Ref: 14085
Filename: 14085_seismic assessment_28101414
Seismic costing Assessment
2-6 Quayside, Whangarei
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.В 1.1В 1.2В 2.В 2.1В 2.2В 3.В 3.1В 3.2В 3.3В 4.В 4.1В 4.2В 4.3В 4.4В 5.В 6.В INTRODUCTION
Assessment Limitations
Proposed Development
BUILDING DESCRIPTION
1920’s Unreinforced Masonry
1964 Concrete Moment Resisting Frame
BUILDING PERFORMANCE
1920’s Unreinforced Masonry
1964 Concrete Moment Resisting Frame
Geotechnical
Structural Improvements
1920’s Unreinforced Masonry
1964 Concrete Moment Resisting Frame
Geotechnical
%NBS and New Buildings
SUMMARY
LIMITATIONS
3В 3В 3В 4В 5В 5В 6В 6В 6В 7В 8В 8В 8В 9В 9В 10В 11В STRUCTURAL > CIVIL > GEOTECHNICAL
PO Box 1032, Whangarei 0140, New Zealand
Page 2 of 11
P +64 9 437 3432
E [email protected]
www.basegroup.co.nz
Filename: 14085_seismic assessment_28101415
Ref: 14085
Seismic costing Assessment
2-6 Quayside, Whangarei
1.
INTRODUCTION
As requested Base Group Consulting have completed a high level seismic assessment of
the existing building located at 2-6 Quayside, Whangarei. It is understood that Whangarei
District Council (WDC) are seeking guidance on the expected seismic performance of the
existing building and an estimate of likely construction costs for seismic strengthening works.
The seismic assessment has generally been completed in accordance with the New Zealand
Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) guidelines.
1.1
Assessment Limitations
NZSEE guidelines recommend that a two stage approach is adopted with the Initial Seismic
Assessment (ISA) carried out to determine the percentage New Building Standard (%NBS)
achieved by the building. If the ISA determines that the %NBS is less than 33% then the
building is assessed as potentially Earthquake Prone in terms of the Building Act and a more
detailed evaluation of it will be required. A more reliable result will be obtained from a
Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA).
This seismic assessment is neither an ISA or DSA and is not intended to establish the
%NBS of the existing building, but is intended to provide a qualitative assessment of the
expected seismic performance and the construction costs of potential strengthening works.
Due to time limitations this assessment has been prepared over the period of two working
days and provides a high level overview of the expected seismic performance of the existing
building. No investigations of the existing building have been undertaken and a review of the
following information has formed the basis of the assessment:
п‚·
Structural drawings (partial) – F.C.C. de Wit, 10 December 1964
п‚·
Liquefaction Assessment – Jacobs, 12 June 2014
п‚·
Visual inspection of exterior – 24th October 2014
1.2
Proposed Development
It is understood from discussions with WDC that the future use of the building is likely to
change (exact use yet to be confirmed) and compliance with the Building Act will require the
building to be strengthened to 100%NBS. For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed
that the building is to be strengthened to this level.
Future use of the building may also incorporate the addition of an additional light weight
storey. The change in use of the building may increase the design floor loads and require
internal alterations, therefore strengthening works in addition to those associated with
seismic performance may be required, particularly for the ground level and level 1 timber
floors and first
Similarly when alterations to a building are undertaken the Building Act requires that
accessibility and means of escape from fire meet the Building Code requirements as near as
reasonably practical. It is expected that building improvement works for compliance with
accessibility and escape from fire will be required.
STRUCTURAL > CIVIL > GEOTECHNICAL
PO Box 1032, Whangarei 0140, New Zealand
Page 3 of 11
P +64 9 437 3432
E [email protected]
www.basegroup.co.nz
Ref: 14085
Filename: 14085_seismic assessment_28101416
Seismic costing Assessment
2-6 Quayside, Whangarei
2.
BUILDING DESCRIPTION
An exterior visual inspection only of the building has been undertaken by Base Group
Consulting. It is understood that the two storey building has been constructed in two distinct
parts with the original building constructed between 1927 - 1934 and the remainder
constructed in 1964.
The building is sized approximately 30m x 27m and contains a central light well formed
between the two parts of the building. The total footprint is approximately 685mВІ.
Figure 1: Ground floor plan (1964)
STRUCTURAL > CIVIL > GEOTECHNICAL
PO Box 1032, Whangarei 0140, New Zealand
Page 4 of 11
P +64 9 437 3432
E [email protected]
www.basegroup.co.nz
Ref: 14085
Filename: 14085_seismic assessment_28101417
Seismic costing Assessment
2-6 Quayside, Whangarei
2.1
1920’s Unreinforced Masonry
The original portion of the building (coloured red) is shown in Figure 1 and is understood to
comprise a two storey unreinforced masonry (URM) structure with a timber floor at ground
level and timber floor at first floor. The footprint is approximately 200mВІ. Previous
investigations have determined that there is nominal connection between the floor and roof
systems to the supporting URM structure. There appears to be numerous perforations in the
exterior walls on both levels.
Lateral load resistance of this part of the building is provided by in plane shear of the URM
walls acting in orthogonal directions. The URM walls are also likely to provide gravity load
resistance offering little resilience and redundancy in the structural system.
Virtually all URM buildings are likely to be earthquake prone unless they have already been
strengthened. This form of building was largely abandoned in NZ after the Napier
earthquake of 1931.
2.2
1964 Concrete Moment Resisting Frame
The 1965 building addition (coloured blue) shown in Figure 1 is constructed from in-situ
reinforced concrete and comprises an �L’ shaped footprint of 485m².
The building is formed on driven timber piles supporting a reinforced concrete column and
beam frame arrangement with an in-situ concrete floor to the first floor. The roof is formed
from light weight steel trusses and the ground level floor is a suspended timber floor. Cavity
URM infill panels have been provided in the longitudinal direction to the perimeter wall and to
the light well.
Lateral load resistance is likely to be provided by the URM infill panels in the longitudinal
direction and via moment resisting frame in the transverse direction. Concrete frame
buildings of this period are often a mixture of wall action through infill panels with frame
action on the open faces.
STRUCTURAL > CIVIL > GEOTECHNICAL
PO Box 1032, Whangarei 0140, New Zealand
Page 5 of 11
P +64 9 437 3432
E [email protected]
www.basegroup.co.nz
Filename: 14085_seismic assessment_28101418
Ref: 14085
Seismic costing Assessment
2-6 Quayside, Whangarei
3.
BUILDING PERFORMANCE
3.1
1920’s Unreinforced Masonry
URM buildings generally have a number of inherent structural features which make them
prone to failure under seismic loading with typical failure modes considered likely in this
building as follows.
п‚·
Out-of-plane wall failures – URM walls are weak in out-of-plane bending with
vulnerability predominantly governed by its slenderness. Cavity walls (e.g. two single
brick thick walls separated by a 75 mm gap that are connected by small metal ties)
that are missing wall ties or have wall ties that are badly deteriorated are especially
vulnerable
п‚·
Floor diaphragm flexibility – The timber floor diaphragm is likely to be excessively
flexible resulting in the connected walls undergoing sufficiently large out-of-plane
deflections to cause major wall damage and collapse.
п‚·
Floor diaphragm connection – The timber floor diaphragm has limited connection to
the supporting URM walls and failure of these connections can potentially lead to
global collapse of the building
п‚·
Pounding failures – This mechanism occurs where there is insufficient space
between adjacent buildings so that they pound into each other when vibrating
laterally during an earthquake. It is expected that the two parts of the building are not
adequately connected or provided with sufficient separation.
Based on the age and type of construction it is expected that this part of the building would
be Grade E, classified as potentially Earthquake Prone and a very high life-safety risk.
3.2
1964 Concrete Moment Resisting Frame
The concrete moment resisting frame (CMRF) system is considered to be non-ductile and
lacks the modern detailing and design practices that account for seismic resilience.
Preliminary assessment indicates that the post elastic mechanism for the building is likely to
be a column sidesway mechanism for frame action.
The critical feature considered to effect the performance of the structural frame is the
inadequate tensile capacity of longitudinal reinforcement, bar lapping and termination which
is likely to lead to lower flexural strengths with rapid degradation of strength.
Local overstressing of column sections will lead to loss of gravity capacity resulting in partial
collapse or soft storey mechanisms to occur. The in-situ concrete floor diaphragm however
is expected to be well integrated with direct connections to the supporting frame (column and
beam) elements.
The poor seismic performance of CMRFs is largely due to a lack of ductility and shear
capacity in beams, columns and beam column joints of these buildings. This is generally due
to insufficient transverse reinforcement (quantity and anchorage), poor design detailing of
longitudinal reinforcement and lack of design control over where the plastic hinge zones will
form (lacking “capacity design”).
It is assumed that the building was designed in accordance with the appropriate standards of
the day being NZS 95 Pt IV using a horizontal seismic co-efficient of 0.08. On this basis it is
expected that this part of the building would be Grade D, classified as potentially Earthquake
Prone and a high life-safety risk.
STRUCTURAL > CIVIL > GEOTECHNICAL
PO Box 1032, Whangarei 0140, New Zealand
Page 6 of 11
P +64 9 437 3432
E [email protected]
www.basegroup.co.nz
Ref: 14085
Filename: 14085_seismic assessment_28101419
Seismic costing Assessment
2-6 Quayside, Whangarei
3.3
Geotechnical
Jacobs have completed a liquefaction assessment of the site based on a series of subsurface CPT tests which reveal the upper 8m of the soil profile as being susceptible to
liquefaction under the design ULS event. The assessment also notes that the clay rich soils
below this depth may still experience significant strength loss. CPT refusal at a competent
bearing layer have been identified at approximately 27m depth.
Vertical settlement under a design ULS event is expected to be in the order of 100mm.
Although not calculated in the Jacobs assessment there is also expected to be significant
lateral stretch at the site.
The foundations for the original URM structure are unknown, however the foundations for
the RC addition are driven timber piles designed as floating or friction piles extending some
10m -12m below ground level. The existing piles are expected to suffer significant loss in
vertical load capacity under ULS events and will not offer resistance to lateral spreading of
the shallow material.
The existing foundations are considered to have a capacity of less than 100%NBS and
strengthening works are considered necessary.
STRUCTURAL > CIVIL > GEOTECHNICAL
PO Box 1032, Whangarei 0140, New Zealand
Page 7 of 11
P +64 9 437 3432
E [email protected]
www.basegroup.co.nz
Filename: 14085_seismic assessment_28101420
Ref: 14085
Seismic costing Assessment
2-6 Quayside, Whangarei
4.
STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS
4.1
1920’s Unreinforced Masonry
The original URM portion of the building is considered to be potentially Earthquake Prone
and a general scope of strengthening works to improve the seismic performance will include:
п‚·
Material stabilisation – repointing mortar, grout, epoxy injections
п‚·
Floor and roof connections – addition of a network of small ties fixing the walls to the
floor and roof diaphragms
п‚·
Outer layer fixing – retrofit of steel ties between brick skins to replace and enhance
existing brick ties
п‚·
Out-of-plane strengthening – retrofit of vertical inter floor steel supports
п‚·
New structural systems – retrofit of steel moment or braced frames and associated
foundations or construction of a timber framed wall against the exterior walls to
provide secondary support to the roof and floor
п‚·
Removal of elements – removal of specific hazards such as parapets
The above items offer a generic scope of strengthening works, however in many cases for
older URM buildings achieving a 100%NBS threshold for strengthening works is a
technically challenging exercise and generally considered cost prohibitive.
From industry research and previous technical reports the suggested cost of strengthening a
two storey URM building to in excess of 67%NBS can vary from $500 to $1,500/mВІ of floor
area and in some cases up $3,500/mВІ for high value heritage buildings. For the URM part of
the building it is expected that the cost of seismic strengthening works will be in the order of
$400,000.
Addition of another storey to the building will increase the seismic strengthening costs and
reduce the viability of strengthening the URM elements to 100%NBS.
4.2
1964 Concrete Moment Resisting Frame
The RC frame portion of the building is considered to be potentially Earthquake Prone and a
general scope of strengthening works to improve the seismic performance will include:
п‚·
Column sidesway mechanism – add separate stiffer lateral load resisting system to
reduce displacement such as steel brace frames parallel with CMRF or strengthen
columns and beam - column joints to force beam mechanisms
п‚·
New structural systems – retrofit of steel moment or braced frames and associated
foundations
п‚·
Seismic separation – tie adjacent structures together to prevent pounding
The suggested cost of strengthening a two storey CMRF of this age to 100%NBS can vary
from $450 to $600/mВІ of floor area. For the CMRF part of the building it is expected that the
cost of seismic strengthening works will be in the order of $550,000.
STRUCTURAL > CIVIL > GEOTECHNICAL
PO Box 1032, Whangarei 0140, New Zealand
Page 8 of 11
P +64 9 437 3432
E [email protected]
www.basegroup.co.nz
Filename: 14085_seismic assessment_28101421
Ref: 14085
Seismic costing Assessment
2-6 Quayside, Whangarei
4.3
Geotechnical
Improvement works are required to mitigate the effects of liquefaction and lateral stretch at
the site. This can be achieved by several options with the most practical for incorporation
into the existing building being:
п‚·
Ground improvements – densification of the upper 8m of soil profile to reduce
liquefaction potential
п‚·
Deep piles – end bearing piles anchored into competent bearing material
It is suggested that the most effective solution is to provide a structural system mitigating the
effects of geotechnical hazards at the site and to underpin the existing building with new pile
foundations taken to competent bearing some 27m below ground level. The piles will be
designed for vertical loads from the superstructure but also for negative skin friction and
horizontal loads from lateral stretch.
The estimated cost for underpinning of the building with new deep pile foundations including
strengthening of ground beams and piles caps is $500,000.
4.4
%NBS and New Buildings
It should also be noted the term %NBS is somewhat misleading and strengthening of an
existing building to achieve 100%NBS does not offer the same level of service or seismic
performance as a new building designed to the current Building Code requirements.
This is due to new building design being calibrated to ensure that new buildings are
statistically well in excess of the code minimum values. This issue has also been addressed
by the Royal Commission, which has recommended %ULS (Ultimate Limit State) be used
instead of %NBS.
STRUCTURAL > CIVIL > GEOTECHNICAL
PO Box 1032, Whangarei 0140, New Zealand
Page 9 of 11
P +64 9 437 3432
E [email protected]
www.basegroup.co.nz
Ref: 14085
Filename: 14085_seismic assessment_28101422
Seismic costing Assessment
2-6 Quayside, Whangarei
5.
SUMMARY
Based on visual inspection of the building exterior and partial review of structural drawings
with consideration to the building age, structural systems and materials it is considered that
the old Harbour Board Building at 2-6 Quayside is potentially Earthquake Prone.
A change in use of the building requires seismic strengthening to 100%NBS and extensive
works are considered necessary to improve the seismic performance of the building
including superstructure and foundation strengthening.
The original part of the building constructed between 1927-1934 is of URM construction and
it is generally considered cost prohibitive to strengthen such buildings to 100%NBS. The
remainder of the building constructed in 1964 is of reinforced concrete frame within some
URM infill panels.
The cost of seismic strengthening for the building superstructure to achieve 100%NBS is
considered to be approximately $950,000 and allowing for deep pile foundation
strengthening the cost could be approximately $1.45M.
STRUCTURAL > CIVIL > GEOTECHNICAL
PO Box 1032, Whangarei 0140, New Zealand
Page 10 of 11
P +64 9 437 3432
E [email protected]
www.basegroup.co.nz
Ref: 14085
Filename: 14085_seismic assessment_28101423
Seismic costing Assessment
2-6 Quayside, Whangarei
6.
LIMITATIONS
This assessment has been carried out solely as a high level seismic assessment of the
building generally following the procedure set out in the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering document "Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of
Buildings in Earthquakes, June 2006". This assessment and procedure is subject to the
limitations set out in Section 1 of this report and should not be relied on by any party for any
other purpose. Detailed inspections and engineering calculations, or engineering judgements
based on them, have not been undertaken, and if carried out may lead to a different result,
seismic grade and strengthening cost.
Base Group Consulting have performed the services for this seismic assessment in
accordance with the standard agreement for consulting services and current professional
standards for structural assessment. No guarantees are either expressed or implied.
A S MacPherson
Chartered Professional Engineer
BE Civil (Hons), CPEng, MIPENZ, IntPE(NZ)
STRUCTURAL > CIVIL > GEOTECHNICAL
PO Box 1032, Whangarei 0140, New Zealand
Page 11 of 11
P +64 9 437 3432
E [email protected]
www.basegroup.co.nz
24
REPORT
WDC Town
Basin
Proposed Developments
October 2014
October 2014
WDC – Town Basin Development
Arco Group Ltd
25
29 October 2014
Whangarei District Council
Private Bag 9023
Whangarei
Attention: Paul Dell
Dear Paul,
RE: Old NRC Building Proposals
Thank you for your recent enquiry with which we have pleasure in submitting our proposals to
you for your consideration.
With the short time frame it has been difficult to provide a detailed overview of and accurate
costings of all the three different proposals.
The three proposals that I viewed, the A.M.P, F.W, Underwood and King have all proposed to
modify and strengthen the existing building structure.
I have had discussions on all four proposals with Grant Stevens and I have read through Aaron’s
report and it is clear to me that to proceed and carry out the strengthening work underground
and to the structure of the building will be a challenging and expensive project.
From a construction perspective following are some brief notes as to each concept:
A.M.P
п‚· This proposal includes a lot of:
o Glass
o Structural steel work
o Large open plan areas
WDC – Town Basin Development
Arco Group Ltd
26
п‚· Includes to reuse the existing structure
п‚·
The existing roof top to be redeveloped into useable floor space
п‚· Approximately 1900mВІ of floor/roof area plus the air bridges and look out areas
Estimated approximate cost for development is $7.5million (not including lookouts)
F-W
п‚·
п‚·
п‚·
п‚·
п‚·
To reuse the existing structure
The existing roof top to be redeveloped into useable floor space
Simple face lift
No floor plans
Approximately 1900mВІ of floor and roof area
Estimated approximate cost for development is $7.5 million
Underwood/King
п‚· To reuse the existing structure
п‚· Roof top to be redeveloped into useable floor space
п‚· More complex exterior refurbishment
п‚· Have thought about structure from strengthening and architecture how strengthening
could be achieved
п‚· Approximately 1900mВІ of floor and roof area
Estimated approximate cost for development is $8.5 million
The above estimates are based off a square meter rate which is based off the brief description of
the work required along with assumptions made from experiences that we have had on similar
projects that we have been involved with.
The timeframe required for each of the three proposals would be somewhere between 18-36
months, this depends on what option is chosen and what the scope of the project is.
WDC – Town Basin Development
Arco Group Ltd
27
I trust this information is useful and will assist in making a wise decision in advancing this project
and making it a successful development.
I look forward to hearing from you and assure you of prompt, honest and excellent service and
workmanship.
Yours Faithfully,
Tim Hayman
Managing Director
ARCO Group Ltd
WDC – Town Basin Development
Arco Group Ltd
Document
Category
Real Estate
Views
63
File Size
2 486 KB
Tags
1/--pages
Report inappropriate content