About 5 years ago what was then the Hyatt Hotel (since renamed the Pullman Hotel) underwent major renovations, which involved adding some apartments on the northern side of the building and rebuilding their frontage with Princes Street.
The location of the hotel is shown below, on the north-eastern corner of the intersection of Princes and Waterloo Quadrant.
Then something very strange happened – a verandah pole encased in plywood boxing was plonked right in the middle of the footpath on Princes Street, as illustrated below.
At the time it happened the whole arrangement looked so mediocre I assumed that it had to be temporary. As years passed, however, I have reluctantly come to realise that the pole and associated box were a permanent feature of Auckland’s pedestrian environment.
This, I suggest, is problematic.
The first issue is that the pole and box together block a good proportion of the footpath, which at that point is quite narrow due to the presence of a post box and street tree. The second issue is that the top of box have sharp corners that sit at head/eye height for a slightly shorter than average person. The third and final issue is that it’s just plain ugly.
So I contacted the Pullman Hotel and raised the issue with them. To which they responded:
I am just following up on your expressed concern to me on the 07/08/2012 about the boxing surrounding a beam connected to our hotel which is blocking a part of the pathway on Princes Street.
I have been in contact with the hotels Director of Engineering in regards to this and he has informed me that when the hotel was originally operated under Hyatt the boxing was a temporary supporting. However during the change of ownership the boxing was given consent and the council approved for it to stay there permanently.
I appreciate your concerns and can understand where you are coming from in retrospect of this, however as this has not directly affected anyone at this stage there are no plans in the near future for this to be removed.
If you do have further queries in regards to your concerns, please feel free to contact the city council directly.
The points in bold are quite important. The first point is an acknowledgement that it was intended as a temporary arrangement. The second point is an assertion the pole and box “has not directly affected anyone at this stage.”
Which seems odd – because it obviously affected me enough to raise the issue i the first place. I suspect the box has also affected many more people over the last 5 years, even if they have not bothered to raise the issue with the hotel.
So anyway, later in August 2012 I followed the advice of the Pullman Hotel and followed up with Auckland Transport. On the 6 September their feedback coordinator replied with the following email:
Thank you for contacting us about the Verandah pole outside the Pullman Hotel on Princess Street. While we had hoped to provide you with an update by this time, our investigation is taking longer than initially anticipated. We apologise for the delay and you can expect to receive an update by mid-September.
As you’re probably aware September 2012 has well and truly come and gone, as have another 6-7 months, and I’ve still not yet received any further information from Auckland Transport, despite me sending a follow-up email to clarify what the status of my complaint was.
So having demonstrated what I think is a reasonable amount of patience (~5 years since the box went in and more than 8 months since I first raised the issue with the Pullman) I think it’s time for me to simply come up with my own version of how the situation has unfolded:
The original designs for the verandah screwed up by placing the pole in the footpath, when a much cleaner – albeit more expensive – solution would have been to anchor the support to the side of the building. Someone at the Pullman/Hyatt Hotel then managed to pull the wool over the former Auckland City Council’s eyes by convincing them it would not be a major issue if the temporary verandah support was a permanent fixture. Meanwhile, Auckland Transport / Auckland Council are paralysed by this situation because consent has obviously be granted in error. And instead of being proactive about resolving the issue they are hoping that it quietly disappears off the radar.
As an aside, I think the attitude of the Pullman Hotel in response to this issue demonstrates a disregard for the public realm. I can’t escape the irony that as soon as you walk through the door to their hotel (which is situated a mere 10m up the road from this ugly pole) you see granite paving and plush carpet. If the Pullman Hotel thinks obstructive and ugly plywood boxing is good enough for Auckland’s footpaths then it should be good enough for their foyer, in my opinion.
I’d suggest Auckland Transport’s needs to get it’s act together and engage more proactively with pedestrian issues when they are raised by members of the community. All I want is an explanation for why a private business has been able to treat the public realm with such blatant disregard.
Having raised the issue with both the Pullmand Hotel and Auckland Transport the only avenues left for me are this blog post and capitalist resistance. But that I mean encouraging all of my guests to avoid staying at the Pullman Hotel. I encourage you to do the same.
Processing...
I don’t understand why that corner of the verandah needs a post but the other parts don’t. The structure was obviously designed to stay up without it, so what went wrong? Why is it the public realm that has to suffer because the property owner got the engineering wrong?
This happens all over town. As I was walking home a couple of weeks ago during that big traffic jam I ended up walking along the wrong side of Albert St and through the very recently renovated entrance the crown plaza hotel. The foothpath just disappears. How does the council let this happen?
they think they are being “business friendly” by allowing big businesses, such as hotels, to run rampant over the streetscape. In fact ultimately it just creates a relatively unpleasant urban environment in which I don’t feel like spending much time, i.e. is bad for business (at least retailers).
Looks a like a preventable health and safety risk for pedestrians, especially blind ones. Who signed this off? Do they walk anywhere?
That’s what I want to know – did anyone sign off on this? If so what were the reasons given? Or did the Hyatt/Pullman pull the wool over the planners eyes?
Someone should put a notice or tag on the pole about it, then people would be more aware of what’s going on. Lots of people walk up and down there to and from the uni.
I am constantly disquieted by the uglification of Auckland. there seems to be no regard for signage to be attractive, streets to be kept really clean or buildings to be pleasing. to the ey. You have my vote. No wonder Hone Heke took to the flag pole with an axe. This could be a hint?
Ha! I think I’d need a fairly solid metal cutter to get through that pole methinks. I prefer Ghandi to Hone, although non-violent methods do have their limitations: Time to take effect being the most notable.
“the only avenues left for me are this blog post and capitalist resistance”
Another avenue: Uglify it. Make up some posters that point out just what an eyesore the thing is and who is responsible. Then plaster them on the structure itself as fast as they can remove them. Maybe tag it as well with spraypaint. Hopefully if it looks a bit ghetto then they’ll do something about it.
Some of the above might require some guerrilla skills. I expect they won’t be happy to see you plastering posters on “their” ugly post. If they catch you, argue that it is public land and therefore nothing to do with them. Hopefully they’ll get sick of arguing with you and that will hasten the removal.
Alternately, get some orange tape and cones and turn the whole thing in to a giant hazard warning. If you do that properly then they might think the council were responsible and be loath to remove it. try and close the entire footpath so that their guests have to divert around your blockage.
I think before anyone does anything silly like uglify it, you should do a face-to-face meeting with someone at the Pullman. That would be more powerful than an email & of course the exposure of the issue on the blog might be enough to get them to fix it.
I went into the hotel in person to make the initial complaint. They asked for my contact details and responded via email.
Try contacting main time media, I expect John Campbell would be pleased to have this on his show for example.
Agree with this post – and also with the fact that recently, more and more of requests to Auckland Transport just fall into a black hole, never being answered.
you have to stay on their backs, email back to request a progress report, noting your previous emails and that nothing’s happened, I’ve been on to them about some failed seal that’s a hazard for cyclists close to the Smales Farm office since December last year
The odd thing is that in this situation the least AT could do is offer an explanation, which should be fairly straightforward. I’m beginning to wonder whether we need an incorporated society or something to take civil cases against businesses/individuals that infringe on the public realm.
In fact, I HAVE stayed on their backs – but only by email, and nothing! I guess I have to escalate to phone calls.
Nice post, Stu. This is a classic example of the importance that council and society places on walking. We’re pretty low in the hierarchy! Reminds me of the cycle facility of the month award: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/ or similar form the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/nov/05/readers-worst-cycle-lanes
Blow me down. I walked past this today, for the first time since I can remember, before I saw this post, and thought “What an odd place to put a post. Who signed off on that?”
Down with blog-posts, I say. 🙂
You’re so punny! Good one – I wish I had spotted that one myself.
Perhaps Stu is secretly stalking you and reading your mind?
Thanks Bryce, you’ve just proven the Pullman Hotel wrong to assert that the post “has not affected anyone else”.
P.s. You don’t mind me stalking you do you? DO YOU!?!
On the topic of AT communication, I am still owed a refund from them that I was promised in November 2012. They emailed asking me for details for the refund and I replied, and heard nothing back. I have sent two emails to them since, and they have not replied.
Stu – keep us posted on any further information you receive from AT. Road works and construction equipment is ugly, and hence it is temporary. It should have been removed.
Perhaps a comment or two on tripadvisor that the horrendous public space immediately outside the hotel is off putting enough to walk up to the Langham instead might help.
Here I can agree with you this time, perhaps the calm language helps. Councils have a remarkable capacity for myopia, maybe I should be the inflammatory one this time and suggest there is almost a hint of corruption in some of their processes and the decisions they reach. Certainly elected members are very weak and prone to pandering to small but vehement lobby groups or businesses and ignoring the wider public interest. Here is a similar example. Residents in a coastal area of Chch were allowed to build illegally onto the shore frontage at the edge of their properties which is normally considered to be public land. They were then able to apply for and be granted resource consent retrospectively for this work. The result is that when a public walkway was going to be put along the edge of the Estuary, they told the council they had no right to put it on the foreshore in front of their properties and they would file court action. The outcome was the council voted they would not put the walkway in front of these properties despite it being public right of way. A handful of residents got the council to back down as against the interests of many people who would use this walkway.
Yeah its great the hazard tape is high up on the skinny pole, I guess most people just expect to come across a white plywood box in the middle of a footpath! Good on you for chasing this up, this kind of stupid stuff shouldn’t be able to happen. I would bet quite a few people would have walked into that over 5 years too.
I just happened to be walking past said intrusion into the public domain today and saw 5 gentleman standing, looking at it and discussing it. As I squeezed past them one pointed up and said ” you could have a support from on top”.
So Stu it appears your itch is about to be scratched: well done you. A small victory over something really irritating.
Taking back the city, one path at a time 🙂