A decision by the council’s Development Committee has been pitched as a battle of whether a 20ha block of land at Hobsonville Point should be used for housing or a film studio and is the outcome of competing visions for the land from two council controlled organisations. Of course things aren’t quite as simple as that – including just how much land is being talked about. The whole thing seems a bit like two children arguing and the parent (council) having to pick which one it believes the most.
The land was initially earmarked by the former Waitakere City Council as being for a marine industry precinct however for various reasons that hasn’t gone ahead. The council in the past have agreed that the land would be developed if the marine precinct didn’t go ahead.
Auckland Council Properties Ltd want to develop the full 20ha providing 441 dwellings across 14ha of the land and the remaining 6ha of land would go towards an employment hub. They say that this option would recoup the $36 million already spent on the land and provide the council a $34 million profit.
Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) is to use 10ha of the land for a film studio and the remaining 10ha used for 315 houses. Interestingly both proposals have the same density of housing, the difference is how that’s laid out and integrates with the rest of Hobsonville and it is also said that the ACPL option does much better in this regard.
High level analysis by CBRE suggests that with this option the council will achieve $24 million less from the development. In return ATEED say the film studio will create 435 new jobs which over 25 years would generate the equivalent of $483 million (in $2007). No mention seems to be made of how many extra jobs would be generated by the employment hub.
ACPL also say they think a realistic alternative for a film studio would be better located just down the road closer to the industrial area going in around Westgate and say they’ve even offered to help find and acquire a site for those purposes. Presumably the benefits of a film studio precinct would be fairly independent of the location
The council have voted to give ATEED an extra four months to come up with a more solid proposal for a film studio.
I don’t have a firm view on either proposal but suspect the ACPL one is probably the stronger of the two primarily because I can’t see what unique benefits having a film studio with a near waterfront location are vs having it down the road. What do you think?
Processing...
I am a firm believer of the ACPL options with the studios over at the industrial areas of Westgate or Kumeu
I have also raised concerns here http://voakl.net/2015/07/08/council-looking-down-the-barrel-of-a-wrong-decision-over-hobsonville-point/ especially around the Unitary Plan zone the studios would sit on. That is Mixed Housing Urban but filming permitted as a Precinct overlay.
The ATEED option leaves me wanting a whole lot of answers from the Committee and why they have engaged in what is known as Joycery…
I think it’s unlikely to fly if the Council looks at the cost benefit of the commercial yield from the film studio (where the demand is for cheap large warehouse space) and waterfront residential at density.
Or are we to subsidize a walk to work proposition?
“Or are we to subsidize a walk to work proposition?”
Worse things to subsidise – the “work here – live there” mania is part of what has made so many of os spend 1-2h of each day in traffic jams.
At least the proposed marine engineering precinct had some historic linkage with the site. A screen production facility seems completely divorced from a residential development and I agree with locals that the jobs will not be going to those who live closeby.
As a (recent) Hobsonville Point resident, I like the novelty & romance of a film studio. But it’s a sacrifice of 125 houses in a residential area. Even driving past the commercial buildings on the way to the Ferry feels like industry doesn’t fit in. I agree with Matt that it’s would be better to have it up the road – easier access further up the road
Also, I’m amazed how massive the Scott Point development will be!
My view would prefer to move the movie industry away for a few kilometers and leave those land close to motoway for medium density development and a town center with transport interchange. Also future proof the land beside motorway for rail/BRT
Has anyone asked the film industry. My guess is they are less focused on location and more on cost, especially when the alternative is just a few km down the road.
The studios does seem like a waste of prime land and while 435 ‘new’ jobs sounds great, I dont think the location will be the driver of this.
As pointed out, why no mention of the amount of jobs the 6Ha of employment hub swill support. Probably more than 435 which may provide great work/live options for those that live in the development. Those jobs would probably feed of each other more than a film studio too with the likes of cafes and shops also being needed which will be a great asset for residents as well as workers.
Any word on the ACPL & Waterfront AKL merger into the single Auckland Urban Development Agency ?
That happens in September
Anything published on its proposed structure and mandate etc ?
The restructure is under consultation with staff at the moment, not likely to be public until after then.
High value land should be allowed high value use. That whole section should be THAB type developments, so close to the ferry and surely a short ride to the Westgate bus station.
Yeah, absolutely should be THAB type housing. Get some proper density there to take advantage of the land and some proper size public parks for recreation instead of lots of little pocket back yards.
The film studio should be near the airport, surely.
Which airport?
Given that Whenaupai is the former international hub for Auckland and there has been talk of making it a mixed commercial/military operation, you could argue that it is close to the airport around Hobsonville/Westgate.
If they were to re-role Whenaupai the connections would be a nightmare.
Hopefully they never return to mixed-operations at Whenuapai. Imagine the chaos of trying to route two lots of traffic for two commercial airports and connecting traffic for transferring to flights at differing airports: the infrastructure isn’t there. Plus people complaining when moving in near the airport about the noise from the airport being there first….
Also, the fact is the RNZAF has been cut to the bare bones. In the days of mixed ops, they still had Wigram, Hobsonville and other bases to spread operations around. Now it is just Whenuapai and Ohakea, with Whenuapai being the main fixed-wing ops (P-3 SAR, C-130 logistics), naval support and the staging point for offshore flights (Ohakea has most training and rotary wing). Housing, public transport and the RNZAF are probably three of the top lots needing a boost rather than cuts!
Ak-Sam, I guess one could also argue it is so close to an airport it’s on one… back in the days of the flying boats
I’m not saying they should return Whenuapai to mixed use but to say: “Imagine the chaos of trying to route two lots of traffic for two commercial airports” is pushing it a bit too far. Many cities around the world have not just 2 airports but 3 or 4 with each being busier than Auckland airport! There is plenty of spacing between the two and with most flights either departing to Australia, South or North East to the USA etc there really is little in the way of air traffic conflict. Even Auckland Airport with 2 full length runways would not impact on a Whenuapai operation from an air traffic conflict point of view.
Wasn’t meaning air traffic in that statement, actually meant the ground stuff getting there. Probably could have worded that better, sorry about that. What I was trying to say is the ground transport to the airport is hard enough, but adding a second airport and the infrastructure to send passengers there as well and in between the airports would be problematic. As far as air traffic goes, we do indeed have pretty empty skies by global standards.
No need for a city of Auckland’s size to have two commercial airports. Flight connections can be a nightmare in a city with more than one main airport. I admire the Netherlands – one main airport at Schipol makes for smooth travel.
not to mention the privately owned StudioWest in nearby Glen Eden,
http://www.studiowest.co.nz/
or the existing Council owned/Waitakere City set up facilities in even nearer by Henderson
http://www.aucklandfilmstudios.com/facilities/
Making more (brand new) studio space in such as prime location seems like a solution looking for a problem, or someone looking for a cameo in the first production…
Wonder if the job figures are net of the loss in these other locations or just total?
Cheap and large is the key criteria for indoor studios, not location (as the interior can be everywhere, the actual thing can be anywhere).
I don’t think it’s a great idea having it on the waterfront myself. Perhaps on the other side of the motorway or down the road.
What is the use vacancy ratio of the existing facilities? Is there a need for expansion of Council provided facilities?
Vacancy rate- currently. 0%
Ash Vs Evil Dead, Filthy Rich, Brokenwood 2, Six Days, I think there’s one more? All the stages are full.
It won’t always be the case, but it is right now, we are very attractive to Americans….
If these are film studios like I’m familiar with they are nothing but barns. That’s not a high-amenity use in a high-ish amenity location. Even though it looks like a lot of open space around the buildings it will not be open to the public. And if I lived there, I wouldn’t like to see barns from my back garden. (Unless they’re real barns.)
As a feasibility study kind of guy I keep wondering where the data is for projects like these. This one and the convention centre come to mind. I’d love to look at the assumptions about market response. Someone already asked, how much film business would there be for an Auckland studio? Or have we all contracted Peter Jacksonitis which is a condition in which one sees blockbuster movies being made everywhere forever? In any event, if there is subsidy involved or an argument for public purpose the numbers should be made public.
Particularly I’d like to know where the 435 jobs number comes from. We hear these numbers thrown about for every project but no one substantiates them and certainly no one follows up to see if they kept these promises. And while $483 million is a lot of dollars laid end to end, is it a lot compared with other uses for the money? What are they assuming for skill levels, wage rates? And it’s over 25 years. (I won’t bother with the math.) Where is the public justification? I’m all for good ideas, boldness and risk, but public money has to be accounted for, preferably before the fact.
As someone who works in the Film Industry I’d like to share my point of view.
the houses were built there. Whole film set streets were built there (lion witch & wardrobe, 30 days of night). Walden media even offered to build a big studio in this exact location years ago. NZ is missing out on millions of dollars due to lack of sound stage space (sound stage is a proper sound proof studio that are used overseas and movie companies expect to use. Try shooting a scene in a warehouse whenits raining on a tin roof). There is only one movie size sound stage in Auckland located at Auckland film studios. The rest are in Wellington owned by Peter Jackson and they have done him well! A large film can employ around 1200 people and support hundreds of local businesses
I agree.
But, I’m not convinced Hobsonville is the best location for it.
Sorry reposting as some my my last post went missing!*
As someone who works in the Film Industry I’d like to share my point of view.
The location of a studios is very important to a production for the following reasons:
Fast access to materials be it building materials, Consumables, Services and Set dressing; Close access to different outdoor filming locations (a production often films in interior studios and exterior locations for the same job); A convinent connected location for workers to reach if they don’t live close by; A location easy to travel to (close to motorway from North, south, east and west) very tight deadlines are a part of the film industry so speed is very important; next to water is a big bonus as New Zealand does not have a single studio equipt with a tank to film in (very large pool) which is the norm overseas, think titanic filmed in mexico);
A reasonably quite location away from motorways, trains and airports as this can impact when filming on the backlot (outside the studios).
Also things to consider, many film workers live out west in fact film workers often move close to studios so just because there are few living in hobsonville at the moment does not mean that would be the case when the studio is built!
Hobsonville was used as a filming location before any houses were built there. Whole film set streets were built there (lion witch & wardrobe, 30 days of night). Walden media even offered to build a big studio in this exact location years ago. NZ is missing out on millions of dollars due to lack of sound stage space (a sound stage is a proper sound proof studio of which are tge normal standard of studio used overseas. Try shooting a scene in a warehouse when its raining on a tin roof.
There is only one movie size sound stage in Auckland located at Auckland film studios (they also have 3 old warehouse buildings.) The rest are in Wellington owned by Peter Jackson and they have done him well! A large film can employ around 1200 people and support hundreds of local businesses injecting vast amounts of money into the local economy.
At question is not whether a film studio is a good idea but whether it would somehow be considerably better at this location vs one a short distance away on cheaper land
I certainly appreciate your information on what features make particular locations desirable for studios. I think Matt makes the valid point though – is there an alternative location available that could offer similar amenity in a place less desirable for residential development?
I think the problem would be that there isn’t a lot of land that matches those requirements. I think long term the studio would do more for the economy than a couple hundred extra houses. But if I were setting on that block of land i’d be more inclined to build houses and sell them in the current bubble which is pretty much a guarantee. Rather than build a risky studio that could take decades to get my money back on. Private developers are unlikely to take this risk. Only the government could take the risk and see the bigger long term picture.
Both plans have at least 1/2 (10ha) of housing. The choice is between 6ha of employment hub (and slightly more housing) or 10h of movie studios.
My view is an employment hub is a better use of high valued land in a residential zone than a movie studio.
The real difference is one proposal is based on believable facts to be realised over a very short time period (we hope), the other is based on projections over 25 years. We all know how far wrong projections can be only 10 years out, 25 year forecasts are just wishful thinking.
There are a couple of large former yacht factories next the North Western motorway at Henderson which could fit the bill
I think Studiowest was up for sale so wouldn’t be suprised if that’s redeveloped. Wouldn’t living next to a studio mean putting up with traffic,construction noise and people working at night. It’s probably a better idea to build a studio on vacant land around Westgate.
What’s wrong with the studio facilities that already exist in Henderson and Glen Eden?
If they’re not up to sound-proof standard, can they be sound-proofed? If they’re not big enough, can they be expanded? Surely this would be cheaper, and better use of land already being used for that use.
I don’t know when they were built but film making has changed radically in just a few years, so there may be technological capabilities that the old studios can’t meet. And a sound stage is different from a studio. Still, they are a relatively low-value use based on how often they are actually used, and that they do not require a high-amenity location. No sound stage has a view. It can be anywhere there is good truck access. I’m most concerned about its competitiveness with Wellington. Is there enough business to go around?
I do believe film making can provide a nice kick to an economy but it won’t ever be huge and it won’t all be in Auckland even if the studios are there.
Thanks stevenz. Yeah, a studio/sound stage doesn’t need a view (and doesn’t need to block other people’s views), so Hobsonville Point is probably not a good location choice. Westgate or Kumeu (or Whenuapai? – big hangars already there) would seem to be more suitable/appropriate.
Whenuapai hangars are a no-go. Not a chance of getting so many people and cameras on base that frequently, besides the fact the hangars are in use
We are in desperate need of proper film studio facilities in Auckland. For the past 10 yrs that I’ve worked at Henderson Valley the council has refused to fix, in any meaningful way the ailing buildings which are boderline illegal (it’s the old apple and pear board buildings)
I think there would be great long term benefit with a studio as opposed to a one off housing development. As seen in Miramar ,Wellington. A film studio revenue of millions of dollars or a collection of a hairdresser, pizza shop and an alcohol shop(that’s a little off hand). But there are many studio’s around the world in built up area’s , as long as it’s done thoughtfully. It’s time for Auckland to have a bit of a bigger vision. It’ll certainly be interesting to look back in 10/15 yrs to see what happened.
Agree Penny, but the question is whether a studio needs to be located on prime waterfront real estate. A movie studio is after all basically an industrial facility, a collection of large insular buildings. Can that not go anywhere in the area where large light industry can be built?
I guess I’m not 100% sure it’s the right place. But this is an opportunity and the ball is already rolling so to speak. To get this facility built in another area would mean starting from zero, so many years of delay and it is already zoned for commercial development. Either way this site or another near by, I really do hope they go ahead and build a new studio as opposed to putting a band aid on the current one.
Agree with Penny, if the studio doesnt get the go ahead its pretty likely it will be a huge opportunity missed. An alternative location would currently need to be owned by the council as its a mixed private/public build. So that rules out a lot of the private land alternatives suggested here. Also im pretty sure most of the land would need to be clear of old buildings to be feasible (including old hangers) so there is room to build the sound stages, workshops, offices and proposed training facilities.If it was a case of just finding old hangers/warehouses to film in we’d already have half of hollywood here doing just that but unfortunately they expect higher standards as far as film facilities go. Its important to note we have already been missing out on millions of dollars worth of film productions due to our shortage of studios. Auckland is not really in competition with Wellington/Peter Jackson. He keeps his studios for his projects and at times does deals with the likes of James Cameron. This does not take work away from Auckland but it does mean we can not have many large Feature Films in production at any one time because the only other option for filming are The Auckland Film Studios and they can be booked up for years with just a single American Tv series. Studio West is almost constantly booked by Power Rangers. So these huge overseas productions come here, realize we’re fully booked and move elsewhere.
Also an important note as far as Wellington goes. Large productions find it easier to film in Auckland as there are more workers available which is an important factor. The Auckland film industry is already bigger than the Wellington one as its full of tv series, commercials and features. Its just that the Wellington industry is often in the news which creates the illusion that its all just happening there.
So is there an alternative location? Council owned? Proper concents? Not too far from the city?
I don’t know if there is but im guessing this must look like the easiest option seeing as they’re pushing for it.
Why does it need to be council owned? If i start a cafe which will generate employment in the local area, should i expect the council to build me a cafe?
Unfortunately many industries are very different to one another and require different strategies when trying to encourage growth. Investment in film studios is difficult to find, much like investment in apartment buildings. It takes a large initial capital investment to build them. On top of that we all know land prices are crazy high. The council providing the use of the land acts as a sweetener to lure the investers in. Studios can easily cost over 100 million to build. But you can rent a single sound stage out for upwards of $50,000 per week. ATEED are predicting the council would make around $483 over 25 years. Thats just for providing the use of the land. It does not include the huge economical benefits to the area. Speaking of Cafés, The three Hobbit films spent $380000on coffee alone. I’d be very, very surprised if the proposed alternative business hub generated anywhere near the amount of work and financial benefits to our local west auckland economy and wider economy as feature films and American tv series in the studios would. The Lion, The Witch snd The Wardrobe which did some filming at Hobsonville when it was an airbase, spent $133.8 million while here. Thats just a single film that would rent the studios for about 12 months. If you’ve ever been to Miramar you can see Peter Jacksons Stone Street Studios has a huge positive impact on the area. Every second person you meet has something to do with the production or knows someone who does. Stone street studios borders the airport on one side (over a hill) and on the other side its all residential housing, just across the street.
Basically studios are expensive to build and its rare if you ever get the opportunity but it can transform an area with the amount of money that can potentially pour through.
What is the return on the investment of the existing units and their utilisation History?
The right is always saying the “market Knows best”, is this a case of the market knowing better? It seems to me if you have developed an area with the infrastructure for Housing then changing it to lower density use loses out on the capital tied up in the infrastructure.