Hard News: Save the King's Arms
217 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
Councillor whatsisname could have provided a useful link likethis one so that people could see for themselves what is on the Auckland City website about the proposal and consultation.
-
Yep, iconic and useful as the King's Arms is, especially as a live venue for some fairly unusual acts that wouldn't otherwise play in Auckland, they have tended of late to massively oversell their gigs. An alternative bar/toilet layout may help, and perhaps better use of the outside space i.e. a second bar at the back or side outside to spread the load. But hell, at least it exists as a great old venue in an accessible location. The council seems quite willing to hand out planning permission and sign off shonky ghetto style apartments (at least they WILL be very slum like in 10 years, with no proper maintenance) with no consideration given to the impact these cheap nasty developments have on their surrounding environs. Double standards in Auckland City as usual!
-
Just whilst we're dissecting Auckland City Council policy, what think you all of the proposed new pokie rules? I had a go at working out the implications but am sure some of you could do a much better job.
Sam, reading over that site I don't see any real issues. There's no scope for an increase in overall numbers of machines run by any operator, which would be the main concern, and there's no provision for new licences (that is, adding new machines to the city's total) to be granted. If the choices facing an operator are to remain in an existing, low-grade venue and keep their licensed pokies operating, or move to a nicer venue but lose all the pokies, which way do you think they'll jump? That, as I read it, is the "perverse outcome" of which the summary speaks. When you cannot leave your current premises without losing the pokies licence, you're going to cling to it tooth-and-nail.
-
Booze barns need space so there goes the butcher, baker and bookshop owner.
No one ever thinks of the candlestick maker.
-
Surely if you choose to move in next to a long established live venue it's incumbent upon you or the developer to soundproof the housing, rather than the venue to keep your peace?
Ask Auckland Airport how they feel about people who build/buy under the approach and departure paths and then bleat about the noise. I have as much sympathy (a value that is somewhere between zero and fuck-all of nothing) for them as I do for the people who moved in near Western Springs and then complained about the nose from the speedway.
-
Just whilst we're dissecting Auckland City Council policy, what think you all of the proposed new pokie rules? I had a go at working out the implications but am sure some of you could do a much better job.
Sticking on my ER hat again...
Cits'n'Rats wanted to liberalise this policy by removing the sinking lid criteria - being the free marketeers that they are - hey share the evil around!
City Vision managed to get an amendment to the policy which prohibits new venues from opening in socially deprived areas (decile 8,9,10)
Without this amendment, the policy would have meant migration of pokie machines to socially deprived areas - making them poorer than they already are.
As it is the draft policy means that pokie machine numbers will be stable (not fall), and will locate in areas less deprived - likely to be the Avondales, Onehungas, Mt Wellingtons, Sandringhams, etc.
That is, if Cits'n'Rats don't decide to remove the socially deprived criteria.
I note that the consultation period for the Liquor Policy closes on 7th October so get your submission in quick smart here.
Doffing said hat to higher wisdom of RB....
-
No one ever thinks of the candlestick maker.
He was never a very bright fellow.
-
they could stay open until 12pm.
Sweet as. That's an extra 13 hours.
Forcing off-licences, including supermarkets, to close at 10pm is a wildly good idea.
I don't really see how it's anyone else's business if I want to buy a six pack or a bottle of wine at 10.05pm. Or at any other time of day for that matter.
-
No one ever thinks of the candlestick maker.
Engineer, y'see.
-
As it is the draft policy means that pokie machine numbers will be stable (not fall), and will locate in areas less deprived - likely to be the Avondales, Onehungas, Mt Wellingtons, Sandringhams, etc.
I'm glad to hear Avondale is OK for pokies. They make a nice accompaniment for the huge racecourse, conveniently situated right next to the state housing area.
-
The council seems quite willing to hand out planning permission and sign off shonky ghetto style apartments (at least they WILL be very slum like in 10 years, with no proper maintenance) with no consideration given to the impact these cheap nasty developments have on their surrounding environs. Double standards in Auckland City as usual!
Sigh. Jamming my hat on again....
The planning rules for this kind of development were cast into place under a Cits'n'Rats council, in the early to mid 1990s. Their philosophy derives from ACT and National Party, which is that the free market rules. Consequently, a very light hand was placed over development.
Cue forward through time and we have this:
Housing on sites zoned business next to a business building lawfully built out on land zoned business. Yes, that's a building barely one metre away from residential balconies.
Our infamous chicken coop apartments.
I'm sure you can add your own horror stories - McD's in Balmoral anyone? - there are plenty.
To fix this planning system requires a) money and no council is willing to spend the several million and several years it will require b) integrity in the sense of standing up to developers and saying NO - only a few hardy councillors have done this and have been pilloried by the press/developers.
The more important point is this: we can choose how we want our neighbourhoods to develop. BUT it requires a long term view, and stickability over that long term - something that precious few are willing to commit to.
In defense of Cits'n'Rats I will point out that at least in this situation - shonky developments - there are no double standards. They have been very explicit about things. People just failed to stop, think and figure out what it meant - which is no mean feat given that the planning system has been presented as some 'mythical scary beast', which it's not.
My advice - if you are going to buy anywhere and given that we all know about the horror stories - it is incumbent on you to check zoning maps and planning rules. Ask around, there are plenty of community associations who have developed expertise in this area through various planning battles.
Whipping hat off....
-
Interesting stuff.
Christopher, you must be developing some fairly muscular arms from the repeated hat movements...
-
Necessary hat movements I assure you so the muscular arms are a bonus.
-
I think Kingsland is a designated "zone" under the proposal, which does seem kind of strange in that it is highly residential...
Phew, I must have missed that. Having now read the proposal, the whole thing stinks of doctrinaire authoritarianism. Would our natural "entertainment precincts" have developed if they had been restricted in their opening hours whilst other nearby areas had been less restricted ?
Restriction is the reason why West Auckland is dominated by a booze barn culture.
As for 10pm off-licence closing, this is another stupid idea. Shows what time the CitRats want everyone to go to bed...
-
No one ever thinks of the candlestick maker.
Well between carbon footprint compliance and lighting efficiency regulations .....
-
they could stay open until 12pm.
Sweet as. That's an extra 13 hours.
There is no 12pm. There is a 12 noon, and a 12 midnight. 12 ante meridiem makes no sense, and nor does 12 post meridiem. 12 midday, and perhaps even 12 meridiem could work, but suggesting that 12 noon is 12 pm implies that 12 noon is the 12 that happens after midday. It's actually the 12 that happens at midday.
That's a lot of 12's =)
Edit: a reference. I think we can trust Greenwich on something like this:
Is noon 12 a.m. or 12 p.m.?
12 noon is neither a.m. nor p.m.
To avoid confusion, the correct designation for twelve o'clock is 12 noon or 12 midnight. Alternatively, the twenty-four-hour-clock system may be used.
The abbreviation a.m. stands for ante-meridiem (before the Sun has crossed the line) and p.m. for post-meridiem (after the Sun has crossed the line). At 12 noon, the Sun is at its highest point in the sky and directly over the meridian. It is therefore neither "ante-" nor "post-".
-
The underlying principles of:
- Incentivising "good" bars with more lenient opening restrictions, and
- Different opening hours for different parts of the city
are ones that I'm all for.I'm not convinced that the definition of "good", the hours, or the parts of the city are properly defined here but I certainly appreciate the intent behind it. And so long as "entertainment" areas are definable on an ongoing basis by a local ward, I'm not sure that a "good" bar in a residential area shouldn't be closing down at midnight (see, you don't even need a 12 Graeme!). We certainly need more entertainment zones up front though.
-
I've been doing some delving and have found this photo of the King's Arms from the late 19th century (compare and contrast with the present day), back when it was a corner pub (before they took the corner away) and when it had an external lantern. Lanterns, along with the corner location, were a licensing requirement - it was a cheap way for the authorities to get street lighting and to hopefully attract a better class of boozer to the neighbourhood.
-
Surely if you choose to move in next to a long established live venue it's incumbent upon you or the developer to soundproof the housing, rather than the venue to keep your peace?
Chris has kind of answered this above, but I think it depends on the zoning more than what's there.
The fact that there might already be businesses or residents there doing whatever, doesn't prevent someone stepping in, building stuff, and then pointing to the zoning laws and saying "um, you can't do that anymore". Otherwise the nature of a part of town could change every time someone builds something or a different person lives there.
-
photo of the King's Arms from the late 19th century
Awesome!
-
Lanterns, along with the corner location, were a licensing requirement - it was a cheap way for the authorities to get street lighting and to hopefully attract a better class of boozer to the neighbourhood.
Maybe aiming to dispel a few bug-hunters as well...
-
First the Citrats zoned areas like around the KA commercial/industrial so the speculators could make money from changing the area from residential. 1960s
Then they allowed residential blocks that are allowed to ignore usual residential zoning so the speculators can make money turning the area residential again.2000s
Note the noise rules are less restrictive for houses in commercial zones.
Fail- Fail all round -
The fact that there might already be businesses or residents there doing whatever, doesn't prevent someone stepping in, building stuff, and then pointing to the zoning laws and saying "um, you can't do that anymore".
I always think of these lovely 'old' dears who moved into new apartments in Parnell and then used to complain constantly about the noise, music and general sounds of happiness floating up from the bar I was working at - surely zoning is guided by existing use in cases like that?
-
Edit: a reference. I think we can trust Greenwich on something like this:
Does seem to be a slightly controversial point. Some usages have put midday as 12pm, particularly in America. Also, using midnight is not necessarily perfectly disambiguating, because every day has two of those, one at each end. But it's an improvement. The 24 hour clock solves all the problems, though.
-
Sounds like a good idea to me; gigs that are over by 11pm would mean you could get home at a reasonable hour in time for work the next day.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.