Golden Mile or fool’s gold? Artists’ impressions under fire

Thursday, 7 August 2025

Bus shelters in Courtenay Place open to the elements but with overhead canopies? Perfectly spaced waist-high fencing along the waterfront? Maybe, maybe not.

Artists’ impressions, such as the recently released drawings of new safety barriers planned along part of Wellington’s waterfront, are often used by the council to promote and publicise new projects.

But after The Post queried certain design elements of both projects - the bus shelters are part of the Golden Mile revamp of Courtenay Place - a council spokesperson confirmed the drawings were only “indicative” and could always change before final sign off.

The practice has been criticised by locals—“the sun doesn’t always shine in Lambton Quay” was a frequent comment when drawings of plans for that stretch of the Golden Mile upgrade were released by Let’s Get Wellington Moving—and by experts.

They include Anthony Burke, the host of Grand Designs Australia and a professor of architecture, who says photo-realistic renderings create an expectation that they will be an exact replica of a project in advance of its completion, which was often not the case.

“It’s better to understand renderings as indicative, more about the exploration of an idea than an absolutely faithful rendition of a finished building,” he told the Sydney Morning Herald, adding that a large grain of salt was required when viewing artists’ impressions.

He also noted the illustrations were used as a marketing tool to put a project in the best possible light.

Wellington architect Angela Foster believed the use of “indicative imagery”, where the built solution did not reflect what was put forward to the public, would only further erode trust in the council.

As a result most engagement is beyond worthless where more often than not, it is a mechanism to wrap a veneer of legitimacy around policy objectives so they can ‘tick the box’.

“As has been frequently commented on - they would be better off putting together a good vision statement and a set of guiding principles for making decisions rather than releasing information piecemeal to make themselves feel as though they are moving forward without tackling the more important big picture outcomes.

“[Things] should be built as drawn… otherwise it’s misrepresentation,” she said.

In the council’s resource application for the Courtenay Place revitalisation illustrations of a proposed design for new “modular” bus shelters by design practice Jasmax shows them as largely open to the elements with a central pillar supporting an overhead steel and glass canopy. Similar ones were planned for Lambton Quay, at a cost of $1.2m each.

However, when The Post questioned the suitability of the “open to the elements” shelters a spokesperson said the concept design was still being worked through: “Final designs will take weather conditions into account.”

Likewise the publicised designs and renders for vertical dark steel edge protection along sections of Queens Wharf and Kumutoto precincts should be considered representative rather than actual.

Councillors will vote on Thursday on the proposal to install the fencing, a move that, if it gets the go ahead, would see $7.06 million spent without public consultation, aside from some feedback on a Let’s Talk web page.

That showed that between November 2024 to July 2025, the page received 71 contributions, 810 page visits, and 556 unique visitors, the council said.

Key feedback themes included the importance of improved lighting, the debate over fencing costs and need, and suggestions of alternative safety measures. There had been a large number of comments against permanent fencing.