Old Mayor Len ain't what he use to be....

Remember when Len ordered the Palace Hotel to be demolished in a fit of post election ejaculation? When he wouldn't let the owners have their own engineers assess the site, when he took no counsel of what if any parts of the old Auckland landmark might be saved - when he ordered the old building to be torn down despite the city being host to many engineers capable of constructing a temporary stabilisation of the building, when, he Mayor Len, a lawyer - did not advise the owners that they could seek an temporary injunction to stop the lowering of the building. Remember him, old comb-over Lenny, robed-up and all goofy looking?

Well his council said there was evidence to prosecute the owners of the building, asking the world to believe, that there was some benefit for the owners to tear their own building down - even if the revved and useless council were going to do it anyway cause old Len wanted to make dust - it was closest he'd ever get to the OK corral come high noon. Now, months later, when the dust has settled, and Mayor Lenny has restrained himself from getting a hair transplant - the truth comes out. There is no evidence to prosecute the owners of the Palace Hotel, none zilch. No comment though if there is any evidence to prosecute the building compliance and inspection officers of the council, no no no. Mums the word on that one.

I wonder if where now might see a suit against Mayor Len and his council from the Chow brothers and a salutary lesson to the Auckland Council at least not to panic and become gungho just cause the wind is blowing wind blown dust and dirt. Oh Lenny boy.

What's happening here, at the Palace Hotel ?

'Council has a hidden agenda and they're not releasing the full report on why they pulled it down. I need to see that report, I just need fair treatment and I need to see a full report about why they pulled it down,' said Michael Chow (reported in Friday's NZ Herald.)

Does Mayor Len really think it is legal or moral to condemn a building (a historic building no less) first of all refusing the legitimate owners the opportunity to obtain their own report on the need for demolition, or at the very least inform the owners that they could seek an injunction against the decision. Len Brown in another life is a lawyer and now as the leader of this city where he has pledged to bring people together he has either forgotten his knowledge of the law or more deliberately held silent on it to the detriment of it's owners and to the detriment of the City of Auckland.

Just to put things in context again, the area surrounding the building had already been made safe from the prospect of the building falling, including the exclusion of people. There was no need for haste. The Chow brothers were anticipating spending $12 million on the site. Chow had at his disposal experts and the necessary dollars to privately secure the area if necessary despite the Council having already done so. Chow had contractors capable of making the building safe in a very short period, through spraying resin, spraying concrete and sheeting or wrapping the walls externally all to prevent its collapse. However, it is clear the whole building was never going to fall and that needs to be remembered. There is no certainty that any of the building was going to fall in fact, let alone the whole thing.

The Chows have been poorly treated over this issue, I think they have been treated in a illegal manner as well. I think it is unprecedented that an owner of a building (or house) demolished without their consent has reasons for the demolition withheld from them - that's not democratic or just. At all times the should have been kept informed including their options explained to them should they not agree with the Council decisions. And I wonder what it tells us of the new Mayor and his 'inclusive' approach. The Chows, millionaire businessmen are surely no mugs, and no doubt capable of reaching the same decision as the Council 'engineers' regarding the need for demolition if the proof was before them and tested to their satisfaction. The behaviour of Auckland City appears similar to the situations I've read about overseas when Governments want land cleared - they send in the thugs.

An Auckland City spokesman, Glyn Walters said a trespass notice excluding Council from the site was 'just a publicity stunt.' I think Walters should learn to be a good spokesman and shut his mouth instead of blaming aggrieved parties for standing up to defend their property and rights.

These men (the Chos) might be the subject of racial disquiet, or moral judgement, both issues that have no place in the proper running of a city where citizens come first and heritage buildings are not dropped at the whim of a new Mayor unwilling to provide the 'secret' reasons for doing so, or inviting that those 'reasons' be tested by law if necessary. When demo men gather to knock down a building, there is a type of lust to have it down a type of fever that appeared gripped Council that fateful night - the city, the heritage and the citizens are the losers for that uncontrolled lust, not to mention the men who own those bricks broken and crushed without their consent.

Palace Hotel in Auckland what happened? (2)

Mayor Len made a press release that seems to confirm the report that the Cho brothers are likely to sue the Council and the demolition contractor as one brother said on the eve of the demolition of the old building. Mayor Len said he had a preliminary report but he wasn't going to release it because some parties were being hostile and threatening litigation. I think Len, a lawyer, knows that the information will be discovered to the Cho brothers if they go ahead. But he may not know that by 10pm on the eve of the old hotel's destruction the building had ceased to move, he also might not know that the demolition was videoed and clearly shows how strong and stable the heart of the building remained and it's defiance against the excavator bucket.

If Mayor looks at Ch Ch he will have seen the time given to carefully assess the condition of heritage buildings, there was no rush, as there needed to be no rush in Auckland - the area was cordoned off, slightly inconvenient yes but dangerous no. Moreover, Mayor Len may not know of the efforts may in Chch to support the damaged buildings whilst repairs might be made, or that the same happened with the Auckland High Court in relatively recent years. I think Mayor Len already knows that Council engineers approved and signed off the work to be done on the Hotel and also that the Chos (whose investment in the building was huge)merely asked for time for a second opinion to save the 100 year plus building. It was reported in the papers that the annexes were showing the most fragility not the building proper giving rise to another issue if the damage on the annexes could in anyway promote the need to demolish the entire building proper or if resin could have been sprayed into the cracks and temporary braces put in place to see if that might have brought a remedy that the digger buckets never would.

Palace Hotel in Auckland what happened?

An engineer made a plan for the renovations which included removing some floors, and an excavation of 5 metres. The council gave approval for the work to go ahead but did not require any strengthening or bracing of the brick facade while the work took place. If the fragility of brick to vibration is not known to current generations, particularly after the Christchurch earthquakes, it would be astounding, for engineers and a Council to not know borders on insanity and gross incompetence to the highest level. Anybody living in any sort of home which boarders a road on which heavy traffic travels feels vibration, and that vibration is dampened by soft soil, clay or other similar substrate, but concrete or rock is a conduit for the vibration.

If a hole is dug in the ground the faces of the excavation are the weak point until retained in some fashion, rain water or underground water table add to the weakness, so does vibration. The Palace was internally stripped, the floors that where removed weakened the integrity of the brick because they were working as a horizontal brace. An unbraced brick wall has no strength because unlike a block wall has no poured concrete centres of reinforcing steel pinning it to the foundation.

Today a council spokesman said it was not 'known' what caused the problem. Mayor Brown gave the order for it to be demolished despite the one of the owner Cho saying he wanted to time to have it assessed by another engineer. Christchurch was able to have building properly assessed it seems without haste using a range of experts and specialists. But the Auckland Council felt there was no time to do so, having already apparently failed to ensure the proper steps were taken and enforced during the renovation. Mr Cho told the owner of the demo company and the council engineer that he is going to sue them. I hope he does.