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.
One of the key parts to building an isolated compound in case of societal collapse is that it is isolated.
Perhaps he never read "A Pattern Language" by Christopher Alexander et al. One of my favorite patterns was (my paraphrase): find the nicest spot on the property and be sure not to build there so that you can still visit that place once you have moved in.
Anyhow, yeah: they don't need bunkers whose only purpose is to let billionaires survive the apocalypse.
Here's a post with a few pics. Looks pretty sweet
