Refinery Building (3 Halifax St) Summary

5 comments for Refinery Building (3 Halifax St).

Emotion Chart

Summary of Resident Feedback on the Refinery Building (3 Halifax St) Proposal

The Nelson City Council has received several written submissions from residents concerning the future of the Refinery Building at 3 Halifax Street. The feedback reveals a mix of support and concerns regarding the proposed deconstruction and future use of the site. Below is a synthesis of the key themes and recommendations extracted from the comments:

Themes:

  1. Seismic Viability and Safety Concerns:

  2. One resident suggests that if the building is not viable under current seismic codes, efforts should be made to repurpose and reuse materials during demolition.

  3. Historical Significance vs. Redevelopment:

  4. There is a provisional support for deconstruction, contingent on the consideration of the building's historical value. The potential for redeveloping the site for more intensive or quality-of-life improvements is recognized, but balanced against the desire to preserve it as a historic site.

  5. Potential for Adaptive Reuse:

  6. Multiple comments advocate for the adaptive reuse of the building, suggesting it could serve as a community facility. There is a strong recommendation to explore innovative solutions to retain the building and utilize it for community purposes.

  7. Financial and Environmental Considerations:

  8. Concerns are raised about the high cost of deconstruction, quoted at $1.4 million, which some residents find unreasonable. Additionally, there are worries about the suitability of the land for future construction due to potential contamination and its history.

Recommendations:

  1. Assess Historical Value:

  2. Conduct a thorough assessment to determine the historical significance of the Refinery Building and weigh this against the benefits of redevelopment.

  3. Explore Adaptive Reuse:

  4. Consider proposals for adaptive reuse of the building, particularly for community-oriented purposes. This could involve structural assessments to explore the feasibility of seismic strengthening rather than demolition.

  5. Community Engagement and Transparency:

  6. Increase efforts to engage with the community to gather more input and provide transparent information about the potential costs and benefits of different options.

  7. Environmental and Safety Assessments:

  8. Before proceeding with any demolition, ensure comprehensive environmental assessments are conducted to understand the impact on the land and its future usability.

Opposing Viewpoints:

  • Preservation vs. Redevelopment:
  • Some residents see value in preserving the building due to its historical significance, while others believe its removal could make way for more beneficial land use that enhances community liveability.
  • Cost Concerns:
  • The financial aspect of either demolishing or refurbishing the building is a significant concern, with calls for sensible spending and questioning the quoted deconstruction costs.

Conclusion

The council must carefully consider the diverse perspectives and suggestions from the community, balancing historical preservation with potential redevelopment benefits. Engaging in further dialogue with stakeholders and conducting detailed assessments will be crucial in reaching a decision that aligns with both community values and practical considerations.

Comment Point ID
Refinery bldg. - if not viable with seismic code then repurpose and reuse as much as possible when doing demo.  773.20
Refinery Building Deconstruction I provisionally support this project as this is valuable land that should be redeveloped in a way that either develops the land for more intense uses and/or develops it for more liveability and quality of life uses for the entire community.  I say provisionally, as I know there is some movement to save it as a historic building, which should be considered, but I do question if the historic value of this particular building outweighs the greater public good that could be accomplished by its removal and redevelopment of the land along the lines mentioned above. 982.19
Old Refinery and Stoke Hall the previous Refinery buidng should be done up as should theStoke Hall when finances permit and at sensible costings.In the meantime they should be made available to be used with a notice saying enter at your own risk on them 1072.11
Old Refinery Building - (3 Halifax Street ): I understand that the land under this building is not fit to be built on in the future, it would't be surprising considering contamination and foreshore history of this area. The demolishing of this building for it to then lay vacant would be the wrong decision and every effort is required to have the correct information about the reuse of this land before it is considered for demolition. It's my understanding the land is for community use only. It is a unique building and has great potential for adaptive reuse, I urge the council to look at innovative solutions to keep this building and offer it to community organisations to utilise, please read the link below to see how other landlords around the country are realising opportunities such as these. Deconstruction fees of $1,4 million is a ludicrous figure, and embarrassing for the council to present to the community as an option. https://thespinoff.co.nz/partner/23-04-2024/space-as-a-tool-for-change-inside-the-innovation-of-two-fiftyseven?itm_source=spinoff-homepage-layouts&itm_medium=sponsored-1&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR11m1oGe4qGQqtZsdTU28-Gb4vbTLfm4-nBq0lZnEUXCtEhwl3FyFqQ5AQ_aem_ASTKqxAWVRAtPkG3ZwT5uS7U61B4m66a5mb5kQ00e_ZDFsU712RYB3K_KYK2JEATdyY-9ZKlvXN37ooM_eQtdSI5&utm_medium=paid&utm_source=fb&utm_id=120209597115270283&utm_content=120209597115280283&utm_term=120209597115260283&utm_campaign=120209597115270283&mibextid=WC7FNe 1398.9
I oppose the allocation of funding to deconstruct the Refinery Building and instead strongly encourage NCC to consider undertaking seismic strengthening and repurposing the existing building for a community facility. 1491.7