This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
26. 11. 97
CENTRAL CITY SPECIAL COMMITTEE
19 NOVEMBER 1997
A meeting of the Central City Committee
was held on Wednesday 19 November 1997 at 12 noon
| PRESENT: | Councillor Margaret Murray (Chairman), The Mayor, Councillors Graham Berry, Anna Crighton, Newton Dodge, Morgan Fahey, Alister James, Charles Manning and Barbara Stewart. |
| APOLOGIES: | Councillor Crighton left the meeting at 2.20 pm and was not present for part clause 2. |
| The Mayor left the meeting at 2.25 pm and was not present for part clause 2. |
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
| 1. | CATHEDRAL SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT TENDER EVALUATION/RECOMMENDATION REPORT | RR 6589 |
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Major Projects Co-ordinator | Senior Project Co-ordinator, Andrew
Robinson Design Engineer Roading, Stuart McHugh |
| Corporate Plan Output: City Streets, Major Amenity Improvements, page 9.5.88 | |
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for:
Note, that the 'public-excluded' report includes tender prices for pavers in Appendix A to the report whereas the 'public' report does not. In all other respects both reports are exactly the same.
1. SELECTION OF PAVING MATERIAL AND AWARD OF SUPPLY CONTRACTS:
1.1 Introduction:
This section covers three paving combinations including recommendations for the selection of paving material and the award of contracts for the supply of paving material. Firstly, the paving supply contracts are discussed (aggregate pavers and natural stone pavers) from which the three paving combinations are formed. The paving combinations to be considered are referred to as:
| Option 1 | "Precast Concrete Exposed Aggregate Pavers" |
| Option 2 | "Granite Interlocking Blocks" |
| Option 3 | "Granite Tiles" |
Samples of each option measuring 5 metres x 5 metres of each option will be shown to the Committee prior to the meeting.
At its meeting held on 23 April 1997 Council resolved: "that Council officers, having clearly resolved the specifications including laying specifications, seek quotations for the supply and installation of granite setts and/or tiles as well as the greywacke or like aggregate pavers and Timaru bluestone header strips previously approved by the Council, and that such quotations be referred back to the full Council for a decision via the Central City Committee".
1.2 Aggregate Pavers:
In April 1997 registrations of interest were called for the supply of precast concrete exposed aggregate pavers. Four companies were invited to tender for the supply of precast concrete pavers and tenders closed on 13 August 1997. The four invited companies were:
Firth Industries Ltd
Boral Masonry Pty Ltd
Urbanstone Pty Ltd
Rocla Pty Ltd
Tender prices are presented in Table A1 of Appendix A. Please note that Rocla Pty Ltd (Sydney - Australia) did not submit a tender due to a heavy workload.
Based on the tenders submitted and following a detailed evaluation of presented samples, prices, company resources and experience, the project team recommends Firth Industries as the preferred supplier of the aggregate pavers. The project team has continued negotiations with Firth to 'fine tune' the paving products and the sample panel presented is the outcome of extensive work carried out between Council officers and Firth staff.
Table B1 of Appendix B to this report shows the required test criteria for the aggregate paver which formed part of the tender documents. The recommended aggregate paver materials have been tested and have passed the relevant tests.
The aggregate pavers will be supplied in 300 x 200 x 70mm for the pedestrian area and 200 x 100 x 80mm for the roadways. The pavers consist of a concrete block with 'blackhead' aggregate mixed throughout and exposed on the top surface.
'Blackhead' is a basalt material very similar in appearance to bluestone. The project team recommends the 'blackhead' aggregate over the greywacke because it provides a greater crispness and definition and will give a cleaner more distinct appearance than the 'softer' greywacke colours.
1.3 Natural Stone Pavers:
In July 1997 tenders for the supply of natural stone pavers were publicly advertised. Tenders closed on 23 July 1997. Tenders were called for the supply of both bluestone and granite.
The following ten companies submitted tenders.
Trethewey Granite and Marble (Auckland, New Zealand)
Stonecraft Enterprises Ltd (Auckland, New Zealand)
Design Source Ltd (Auckland, New Zealand)
Canterbury Stone Company (Christchurch, New Zealand)
Pisani Ltd (England)
Kursaal South America (Argentina)
Minaco Granite and Marble (Johannesburg, South Africa)
Phoenix Stone Company Ltd (Christchurch, New Zealand)
Rocks On (Sydney, Australia)
Jos Wynands Ltd (Lower Hutt, New Zealand)
Based on the tenders submitted and following a detailed evaluation of presented samples, prices, company resources and experience, six companies were shortlisted. Their tender prices are presented in Table A2 of Appendix A. The project team recommends Trethewey Granite and Marble as the preferred supplier of the natural stone pavers. The project
team has continued negotiations with Trethewey's to 'fine tune' the paving products required and the sample panels presented are the outcome of the extensive work carried out between Council officers and Trethewey's staff.
Granite header strips are now recommended over Timaru Bluestone by the project team on the basis of cost and appearance (the granite is almost half the price of bluestone based on rates of the preferred supplier which amounts to a reduction in costs for the header strips of approximately $110,000). Granite is very durable, has a timeless, enduring nature and high quality finish.
Table B2 of Appendix B to this report shows the required test criteria for the natural stone paver which formed part of the tender documents. The granite selected has been tested using these criteria and have passed the relevant tests. The granite pavers will be sourced from China.
1.4 Other Natural Stone Pavers:
Granite Setts have not been evaluated as the use of this type of granite was not favoured or recommended by the project team for the following reasons:
The rough surface finish is not compatible with the diverse use of the Square, ie wheeled equipment, cafe furniture, Summertimes events.
Setts would require mortaring (and re-mortaring over time) onto a concrete slab.
High labour content to lay the product which also requires a skilled laying contractor and hence a high cost (approximately 25% more than granite laid as an interlocking block).
Granite composite pavers (concrete paver with granite veneer bonded to it) were also considered and the further evaluation of these is on hold. A Japanese company has lodged a patent in New Zealand on this type of block and on the advice of the Council's Legal Services Manager, this patent could restrict any other party from producing a similar block without exposing that party to litigation. Firth Industries presented Council officers with a proposal on 4 November 1997 (after all tenders closing dates) claiming to have found a design which does not infringe on the patent. Council officers cannot consider Firth's offer as part of this tender process and are yet to be satisfied of the technical specifications for the composite paver. While Firths has offered to give an undertaking to the Council that any product would not infringe the Japanese patent, Council officers cannot recommend this option to the Council at this point in time and would need to further consider the issue.
1.5 Paving Options:
The three paving options which have been evaluated and are presented with this report are described in the following table:
Table 1 - Paving Options Reference Chart:
| Paving Option |
Pedestrian Paving |
Roadway Paving |
Header Strips |
Kerbs | Steps |
| 1. " Precast Concrete Exposed Aggregate Pavers" | Precast Concrete Exposed Aggregate. (300 x 200 x 70 mm paver units) placed on a metalcourse base. |
Precast Concrete Exposed Aggregate. (200 x 100 x 80 mm paver units) placed on a metalcourse base. |
Black Granite Flamed Surface Finish. (600 x 400 x 40 mm paver units) placed on a concrete base. |
Precast Concrete Exposed Aggregate. (200 x 200 x 900 mm kerb units) placed on a concrete base. |
Black Granite Flamed Surface Finish on a concrete base |
| 2. " Granite Interlocking Blocks " | Grey Granite Interlocking Block. Flamed surface finish. (300 x 200 x 70 mm paver units) placed on a metalcourse base. |
Grey Granite Interlocking Block. Flamed surface finish. (200 x 100 x 80 mm paver units) placed on a metalcourse base. |
As above. | Grey Granite, split with a handcut
finish (200 x 200 x 900 mm kerb units) placed on a concrete base. |
As above. |
| 3. " Granite Tiles" | Grey Granite Tiles. Flame surface finish. (400 x [500 to 700] x 40 mm paver units) placed on a concrete base. |
Grey Granite Tiles. Flame surface finish. (150 x [200 to 400] x 50 mm paver units) placed on a concrete base. |
As above. | As above. | As above. |
Table C of Appendix C discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each paving option from a technical perspective. A peer review of the pavement design for each paving option has been carried out by Bartley Consultants (Specialist Pavement Design Engineers) who confirm that each paving option is technically feasible.
1.6 Paving Cost Comparative Analysis:
1.6.1 Capital Cost:
The following costs are the sub-total costs for the supply, preparation and laying of each paving option for Stages 1 to 4. Costs have been derived from the preferred tenderers' prices for supply of paving materials and the main construction contract. They allow a comparison to be made between paving options for the paving component of the main construction works only.
Table 2 - Capital Cost Comparative Analysis
| Paving Option | Material Supply |
Foundation construction |
Laying Pavers |
Totals |
| 1. Precast exposed aggregate pavers | $2,034,000 | $805,043 | $557,231 | $3,396,274 |
| 2. Granite Interlocking Blocks | $2,826,606 | $833,940 | $656,568 | $4,317,114 |
| 3. Granite Tiles | $1,988,143 | $1,441,693 | $964,152 | $4,393,988 |
| Note |
|
1.6.2 Life Cycle Costs:
Below is a summary of costs for Stages 1 to 4 related to cleaning, maintaining and replacement (after design life) for all three paving options.
Costs associated with general cleaning which includes regular sweeping and water washing, with spot cleaning of heavy soiled areas (eg food stall areas) is common to all paving options therefore has not been included in this analysis. (For information this cost is estimated at a present day cost of $100,000 per year).
Table 3 - Life Cycle Costs - Comparative Analysis
| 10 years | 20 years | 30 years | Notes | |
| Option 1 "Precast Concrete Exposed Aggregate Pavers" |
$435,000 | $1,041,000 | $1,866,000 | After 30 years, the foundations and
pavers require replacement. This projected cost is:
$3,422,400 Total after 30 years (including replacement is: 1,866,000 + $3,422,400 = Total $5,288,400 |
| Option 2 " Granite Interlocking Blocks" |
$225,000 | $479,000 | $764,000 | After 30 years, the foundations require
replacement, BUT the pavers can be reused. This projected
cost is $1,626,000. Total after 30 years is: $1,626,000 + $764,000 = Total $2,390,000. |
| Option 3 "Granite Tiles" |
$191,500 | $1,512,000 | $1,812,000 | Mortar joints replaced after 20 years. After 30 years Total is $1,812,000 |
Notes: Costs include:
| Option 1 | - a clear protective seal
applied every 2.5 years - foundation repairs - sand jointing repairs |
| Option 2 | - foundation repairs - sand jointing repairs |
| Option 3 | - re-mortaring of paver
joints - foundation repairs - additional pavement restoration associated with installation of services |
A clear protective seal is required for Option 1 to reduce the effects of oil and grease spills (ie staining). Man-made aggregate pavers are more susceptible to staining than the denser, less permeable granite. Granite does not require sealing to protect it against staining.
1.7 Summary and Discussion:
Firth Industries Ltd are the preferred precast concrete exposed aggregate paver supplier.
Trethewey Granite and Marble are the preferred natural stone (granite) supplier.
Three paving options have been considered as follows:
| Option 1 | - "Precast Concrete Exposed Aggregate Pavers". This option includes granite in the header strips, steps and street furniture and exposed aggregate pavers elsewhere. |
| Option 2 | - 'Granite Interlocking Blocks". This option includes granite in all areas with general paving 300 x 200mm. |
| Option 3 | - 'Granite Tiles'. This option includes granite in all areas with general paving 400 x (500 to 700) mm. |
The comparative sub-total capital costs for the paving options for Stages 1 to 4 (based on preferred tenderers' prices) are:
| Option 1 | $3,396,274 |
| Option 2 | $4,317,114 |
| Option 3 | $4,393,988 |
The life cycle costing analysis demonstrates that Options 2
and 3 are cheaper to maintain over a period of 30 years than
Option 1. This assumes: a 'design life' of 30 years for the
aggregate paver and metalcourse foundation in Option 1;
a 'design life' of 30 years for the metalcourse foundation in
Options 2;
a 'design life' of 20 years for the mortar bed and jointing in
Option 3.
The comparative costs after 30 years are:
| Option 1 | $5,288,400 |
| Option 2 | $2,390,000 |
| Option 3 | $1,812,000 |
Granite is more durable and denser than precast concrete pavers and has a design life of 100 + years. The paving material could be reused in future remodelling of the Square.
Option 1 is the only option that meets the Council approved project brief and budget. It is technically sound and architecturally appealing. Not withstanding the comparatively high life cycle costs over 30 years, the project team recommends Option 1 to the Council. This recommendation is made with other financial requirements for the project in mind (refer Section 3 of this report 'Refined Project Budget').
If natural stone pavers are to be considered further by Council, now that laying specifications and quotations are confirmed, the project team considers Option 2 as the better of the natural stone options. If Option 2 is chosen by Council, additional project funding will be required (refer Table 6 of this report).
1.8 Conclusion:
The project team recommends Option 1 and as such: (a) Firth Industries Ltd be awarded the precast concrete paver supply contract for the pedestrian pavers and roadway pavers for a contract sum of $1,774,689, and; (b) Trethewey Granite and Marble be awarded the natural stone paver supply contract for the granite header strips, and steps for a contract sum of $248,108 (based on NZ$1.00 to US$0.64).
1.9 Stage 5 Paving Supply (Proposed Bus Terminus Area):
The Cathedral Square Redevelopment project and approved brief and budget includes the paving for Stages 1 to 4. Stage 5 involves the removal of the buses from the Square to a bus terminal (timing yet to be confirmed by Council). The paving required for Stage 5 is approximately 2550m2 including header strips and main paving. Consideration should be given to purchasing Stage 5 paving material at the same time (or shortly after) the purchase of pavers for Stages 1 to 4 to ensure better product consistency. This applies for both precast exposed aggregate pavers and natural stone pavers.
The approximate prices for the 3 paving options for Stage 5 are:
| Option 1 | $192,000 |
| Option 2 | $275,000 |
| Option 3 | $180,000 |
It is recommended that provision for $192,000 be made in the 1998/99 Draft Annual Plan, so that this paving could be procured in the next financial year for use when Stage 5 of the redevelopment occurs.
2. MAIN CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT:
2.1 Introduction:
The main construction contract for the first three stages of the redevelopment involves paving, realignment and narrowing of the existing road network. It also involves the construction of a bus terminus area in the north-west quadrant of the Square with the construction of associated bus shelters and electronic signage.
Street furniture and lighting will also be upgraded including seating, signage, bollards, rubbish bins, steps, security cameras and landscape features.
2.2 Tender Process:
In August 1997 Registrations of Interest were called for the construction of the main contract works for Stage 1, 2 and 3. Six companies were invited to tender for the main construction contract as follows:
B D Construction Ltd
Works Operations Unit (CCC)
Fulton Hogan Ltd
Technic Canterbury Ltd
Calcon Asphalt Ltd
Works Civil Construction
Before tenders closed on 15 October 1997 both Technic Canterbury Ltd and Works Civil Construction advised that they would not be submitting a tender. Technic Canterbury Ltd and Works Civil Construction advised that they had been awarded such a large amount of work since tender registration that they could not now meet the Cathedral Square contract obligations. Fulton Hogan submitted a late tender and in terms of the Conditions of Tendering, their tender could not be accepted. Consequently, three companies submitted tenders, with Works Operations submitting an alternative tender in addition to their complying tender, thus four tenders were evaluated by the project team.
Based on the tenders submitted and following a detailed evaluation, the project team recommends BD Construction Ltd as the preferred main contractor for the construction of Stages 1, 2 and 3. The evaluation included the seeking of clarification of Works Operations alternative tender, which was not considered further due to technical deficiencies.
Tender prices for the three paving options were received for Stages 1, 2 and 3 as follows:
Table 4 - Tender Prices for Stages 1, 2 and 3 - Main Construction Contract
| Option | BD Construction |
Calcon Asphalt |
Works Operations |
Works Operations (Alternative) |
| 1. Precast Exposed Aggregate Paver | $2,324,724 | $2,596,230 | $2,792,326 | $2,404,885 |
| 2. Granite Interlocking Block | $2,398,585 | $2,648,257 | $2,878,000 | $2,465,657 |
| 3. Granite on Tiles | $2,896,348 | $3,184,240 | $3,737,812 | - |
2.3 Summary:
The main construction contract for Stages 1, 2 and 3 has been tendered and evaluated. BD Construction Ltd is the preferred tenderer (for all options)
2.4 Conclusion:
It is recommended that BD Construction Ltd be awarded the Option 1 main construction contract for Stages 1 to 3 for a price of $2,324,724.
3. REFINED PROJECT BUDGET:
3.1 General:
The 1997 Annual Plan makes provision for the redevelopment of Cathedral Square as follows:
Table 5 - 1997 Annual Plan Financial Provision
| 1996/97 | 1997/98 | 1998/99 | 1999/00 | Total |
| 200,568 | 2,400,000 | 3,400,000 | 1,425,000 | 7,425,568 |
The Annual Plan figures are based on Option 1 ie the precast exposed aggregate paver option. A budget has not yet been established or adopted by Council for any other options. Based on the preferred tenderers prices and latest estimates following detailed design, the refined project budget totals for the project (Stages 1 - 4) are shown as follows for each paving option against the July 1997 project budget.
Table 6 - Refined Project Budget for Paving Options
| Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 | July 1997 Budget | |
| Stages 1,2,3 Paving Supply |
$997,000 |
$1,451,644 |
$1,018,000 |
|
| Recommended Tender | $2,324,724 (includes $220,000 contingency) |
$2,398,585 (includes $239,000 contingency) |
$2,896,348 (includes $284,000 contingency) |
|
| Miscellaneous - Note 1 | $181,000 | $181,000 | $181,000 | |
| Sub total | $3,502,724 | $4,031,229 | $4,095,348 | $3,633,953 |
| Stage 4 Paving Supply |
$1,037,000 | $1,374,962 | $970,143 | |
| Construction estimate - Note 2 | $1,498,000 (includes $200,000 contingency) |
$1,568,030 (includes $210,000 contingency) |
$2,008,438 (includes $250,000 contingency) |
|
| Sub total | $2,535,000 | $2,942,992 | $2,978,581 | $2,888,721 |
| Lighting estimate | $449,237 | $449,237 | $449,237 | included above |
| Quoted Fees | $717,000 | $717,000 | $717,000 | $717,000 |
| Miscellaneous Expenses | $90,000 | $90,000 | $90,000 | $90,000 |
| Costs incurred to July 97 | $131 607 |
$131 607 |
$131 607 |
$95,894 |
| Totals | 7,425,568 | $8,362,065 | $8,461,773 | $7,425,568 |
| Notes: |
A working party has been established by council to prepare a brief and budget estimate for (i) and (iii). Items (ii) and (iv) will be funded by private enterprise.
|
3.2 Summary:
The recommended Option 1 is within the Council approved budget of $7,425,568. The refined project budget is shown in Table 6.
In the event that Council does not adopt Option 1, additional funding of $936,497 will be required for Option 2 or $1,036,205 for Option 3.
Additional funding should be considered by Council for: (a) Stage 5 paving material pre-purchase ($192,000); (b) artworks, activities, plaques and banners (amount to be determined); (c) specific lighting of the Cathedral ($348,000). Refer separate report.
3.3 Conclusion:
It is recommended that the refined project budget for Option 1 be approved by Council. No additional funding is required for this Option. It is also recommended that the pre-purchase of Stage 5 paving be made during the 1998/99 financial year.
The attached Table (Capital Costs and Life Cycle Costs for Paving Options over 50 years) was presented as an addendum to the Committee meeting (19 November 1997) and is to replace Table 3 in the original report.
With reference to the attached Table, the costs shown in bold are present day dollars. The italic figures show CPI (Consumer Price Index) adjusted figures and nett present values (discounted at 8.5%).
This analysis assumes that future Councils will want to retain the granite as a surface finish, beyond say 25-30 years but does not necessarily restrict them to the proposed 1997 design. The granite options are not to imply that the design will never change. New furniture, layouts and paving patterns are still possible. Granite offers the option of providing long term paving material.
The table demonstrates that Option 2 has the lowest life cycle costs over 50 years in both present day dollars and when these figures are CPI adjusted. However, under a nett present value analysis, Option 1 has the lowest life cycle costs over 50 years.
At the commencement of the meeting the Chairman adjourned the meeting to allow committee members to view the sample panels laid in the yard adjacent to the Beckenham Service Centre.
In discussion on the options presented there was unanimous support for the granite options with discussion centering on the desirability of Options 2 or 3. A further option (Option 4) was proposed being the Option 2 proposal for the areas designated for roading and the Option 3 proposal for the pedestrian areas with kerbing of rough hewn grey granite interlocking blocks. Council officers and the Council's consultant architect David Sheppard commenting on Options 2 and 3 from an architectural perspective, recommended granite tiles (Option 3), whilst officers commenting from a technical perspective, favoured Option 2 over Option 3 citing difficulty in accessing the underground services through the concrete base required for granite tiles (Option 3). When put to the vote, Option 4 (a combination of Option 2 and Option 3) was supported by a majority of the Committee. The Senior Project Co-ordinator was requested to report direct to the Council on the financial implications of Option 4.
The Senior Project Co-ordinator reports additionally as follows:
The information requested by the Committee is presented below. Note, that the combination of Option 2 roadway pavers and kerb together with Option 3 pedestrian pavers which has been suggested by the Committee will be referred to as Option 4 for clarity.
The following figures are to be read alongside Table 2 (Capital Cost Comparative Analysis)
| Material Supply |
Foundation Construction |
Laying Pavers |
Totals | |
| Option 4 | $2,089,500 | $1,377,000 | $897,590 | $4,364,090 |
The paving material supply contract for Option 4 would be awarded to Trethewey Granite & Marble. The life cycle costs for Option 4 would be marginally less than for Option 3.
The main construction contract price would be approximately $2,755,000.00. It is recommended that if Option 4 is approved by Council, then the contract be awarded to B D Construction Ltd for $2,896,348 (ie BD Construction's Option 3 tender price) and a variation order be immediately issued to account for the Option 4 variation.
The refined project budget for Option 4 would be:
| Option 4 | |
| Stages 1,2,3 Paving Supply |
$1,119,357 |
| Recomended Construction Tender | $2,755,000 (includes $284,000 contingency) |
| Miscellaneous - Note 1* | $181,000 |
| Subtotal | $4,055,357 |
| Stage 4 Paving Supply |
$930,143 |
| Construction estimate - Note 2* | $2,008,438 (includes $250,000 contingency) |
| Sub total | $2,978,581 |
| Lighting estimate | $449,237 |
| Quoted Fees | $717,000 |
| Miscellaneous Expenses | $90,000 |
| Costs incurred to July 97 | $131,607 |
| Totals | $8,421,782 |
* The same notes apply to this table as in Table 6 - Refined Project Budget for Paving Options in the main report
The decision between Option 2 or Option 3 (or 4) rests largely on an engineering or architectural discussion. Option 2 is easier to construct, maintain and also offers full re-use of granite following surface disruption for services. It uses commonly used construction methodology. Option 3 (or 4) restricts access to services in future years, has a higher construction-related 'risk' and will not be fully re-usable following surface disruption.
In terms of architectural appearance Option 3 (or 4) is perceived to be more suitable for a large open space because of the bigger granite tile size which offers a 'lighter' and 'less busy' surface. It is suggested, that when viewed from a distance, all granite options appear the same as the granite size is 'lost' over a wider field of view and the grey infill pavers are all bound by the 15m x 8m black granite header strip.
In the event that granite paving is selected by Council, then Council Officers strongly recommend that Option 2 be chosen for the above reasons.
In addition to the above, the budget estimates below are provided for items requiring consideration at a future date as part of the 1998/99 Budget Process and are given for completeness. The inclusion or otherwise of these items is still to be debated by Council. It should be noted that figures for items (i) and (ii) have been estimated without the provision of a Council approved Brief
| (i) Artworks and Activities (this includes such things as a heritage trail, upgrading of plaques, artworks, sculptures, games but excludes a water feature). Note a single, striking art feature is envisaged to be funded by Trust-Bank Community Trust through the Turning Point 2000 project which would signal the completion of the Square project and the start of the new century. This has been estimated at approximately $250,000 |
$400,000 | |
| (ii) Children's Play Equipment and
Facilities (Based on recent playground equipment and safety surfacing at the Botanical Gardens and recognising that Square equipment would need to be unique.) |
$200,000 | |
| (iii) Lighting of the Cathedral | $348,000 |
|
| (iv) Stage 5 Paving Material Supply Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 |
$192,000 $275,000 $180,000 $180,000 |
or or or |
| Recommendation: |
|
2. CATHEDRAL SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT LIGHTING RR 6552
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Major Projects Co-ordinator | Senior Projects Co-ordinator, Andrew
Robinson Design Engineer Roading, Stuart McHugh |
| Corporate Plan Output: City Streets, Major amenity Improvements, page 9.5.88 | |
The purpose of this report is to
1. Update Council on the proposals for the lighting of
Cathedral Square.
2. Seek approval for the budgeting of the lighting of the
Cathedral.
BACKGROUND:
Barry Webb and Associates of Sydney, Australia were chosen by the project team as the preferred Specialist Lighting Consultant after consideration of proposals from the following lighting consultants:
| Barry Webb and Associates |
| Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner Ltd |
| GEC (NZ) Ltd |
| Philips (NZ) Ltd |
Barry Webb and Associates have acted as specialist lighting consultants for many significant projects in Australia including:
| St Paul's Cathedral, Melbourne |
| State Library of NSW |
| World EXPO 88, Brisbane |
| Darling Harbour, Sydney |
| Circular Quay, Sydney |
| Homebush Bay (Sydney Olympics Site) |
Their considerable experience in lighting of urban spaces and significant buildings and understanding of the Council's Brief were essential elements in their selection as specialist lighting consultants to the project team.
Barry Webb and Associates report entitled 'Christchurch Cathedral Square - Observations on the Existing Lighting' is attached as Appendix 1 and their report entitled 'Christchurch Cathedral Square - Visions for the Night Usage of the Space' is attached as Appendix 2.
The findings of the report on the existing lighting in summary form are:
The base lighting in the Square is a very cold metal halide lighting, providing a very high uniform light level which lacks visual interest.
The Cathedral is unquestionably the most important single object in the Square. It is probably also the worst lit.
The current lighting has several inherent problems that conflict with the intent of the Square as a gathering place and night time destination.
The basic elements that are needed to create a successful public space at night are warmth in the colour of the light, good colour rendering, low glare, creation of a human scale and visual interest.
The findings of the report on the proposed lighting in summary form are:
Lighting of the Square should create a safe night environment that people will find interesting and enjoyable to be in.
The Cathedral building is both beautiful and a highly significant piece of architecture. It should be relit to be the principal focus in the Square.
There must be a variety in the light level to appreciate the Square's highlights.
An integrated lighting installation is essential to bring together all elements in the Square to create an overall image.
Peter McLean of Barry Webb and Associates was in attendance at the 19 November meeting and made a presentation to the Committee.
BUDGET:
The refined project budget is included in the main (Tender Evaluation/ Recommendation) report to this meeting. Included in this budget is an amount of $449,237 for lighting.
Barry Webb and Associates and City Design have confirmed that the general requirements of the Brief can be met from the current project budget. However, Barry Webb and Associates' attached reports refer to the Cathedral as 'unquestionably the most important single object in the Square' and includes very specific proposals to light it over and above the requirements of the Brief. These proposals are seen as essential in ensuring the overall success of the lighting experience that could be achieved in the Square through Barry Webb and Associates proposals.
An estimate for the lighting of the Cathedral which has not been budgeted for is $348,000 and it is recommended that this amount be considered with priority in the 1998/99 Draft Annual Plan.
| Recommendation: | That a figure of $348,000 be considered as part of the 1998/99 budget process for the lighting of the Cathedral Square Redevelopment project which would increase the lighting budget from $449,237 to $797,237. |
3. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Committee resolved that the draft resolution to exclude the public set out on page 17 of the agenda be adopted.
CONSIDERED THIS 26 DAY OF NOVEMBER 1997
MAYOR