I live in Wanaka, from San Francisco. There's one side of the lake where there are lots of houses and hotels, where it would make sense to have a lodge like this. The side he wants to build his lodge on is the other side. People here are very particular about preserving the natural beauty, which is one consideration that went into this decision. Another consideration--which may or may not have affected this decision--is that many people are sore at Thiel for getting citizenship after just spending a few days here. The normal process take at least 8 years.
Another cool thing is faking medical emergency (which somehow was ok to wait over 24h for a flight instead of going straight to Australia right away) to be the only two people allowed in while own citizens are turned away.
“The day after the application was received, a New Zealand air ambulance staffed by a New Zealand ICU nurse-escort medevaced the child and an adult family member from Fiji to New Zealand,”
There is actually a lot of building going on in Wanaka in general, and in neighboring Hawea and Albert Town, so I believe the local council is willing to approve the right structure in an undeveloped area, at least in principle. There is also another lodge called Edgewater that is not too far from Thiel's proposed development site. So it's not impossible that something eventually gets approved after some iterations.
Put aside Thiel's reputation. The difference between what the council is approving and Thiel's lodge, is that the developments being approved have a certain architectural style. The style features lots of open spaces, compartmentalized sections within houses, and large glass doors. The local counsel feels this blends in better with the surrounding area. You can see an example of this kind of Wanaka architecture here: https://www.masonandwales.com/work/beacon-point-house.
Now I don't know if the local council would approve any building at all in Thiel's proposed site, but I do know they physically walked by to see what the proposal would look like from the track by the lake -- so they definitely took the proposal seriously. This may be something that eventually gets approved, but with a different architecture and more muted footprint, and possibly on a slightly different location on the same patch of land.
We are proud of Wanaka for the school system, how great it is for families, the awesome year-round outdoor sports, its low crime-rate, its tranquility, the natural beauty, its wonderful seasons, and the fact that other Kiwis come here to vacation in summer. Businesses here are owned locally.
Nobody here wants to live with underground bunkers next to them. The whole idea of building a bunker here in Wanaka to survive a nuclear blast is silly anyway. It's akin to trying to build a house on a mountain to survive the possibility of a 10,000 foot high tsunami. The odds of a 10,000 foot high tsunami are tiny, and if there were indeed a 10,000 foot high tsunami, the world would have bigger issues than the location of your mountain house. Likewise, if Wanaka, a small town near the center of the less populated island of a friendly, South Pacific island nation, surrounded by over 2,000 kilometers of sea on all sides, ever becomes the epicenter of a nuclear explosion... well, as a species we'd have bigger issues than whether a billionaire's getaway is built 10 feet underground as opposed to at ground level. We all have to accept some level of risk in life.
In my view, if Thiel changed his lodge proposal to look less bunker-y and more like typical Wanaka luxury lodges, the council would approve the structure, even if he built it in his desired location. He should also ditch his Japanese architectural firm and go with a local one. Just my two cents.
>There's one side of the lake where there are lots of houses and hotels, where it would make sense to have a lodge like this. The side he wants to build his lodge on is the other side.
One of the key parts to building an isolated compound in case of societal collapse is that it is isolated.
