Queens Wharf Design Competition

In August there are plans afoot to have a design competition for Queens Wharf. Bloody good. Auckland City Council should have learned something from the Te Wero Bridge competition, and now we have Auckland Regional Council and Government involved in one for Queens Wharf. Should be fun. Councillors won't be allowed to put in entries. So I thought I'd have a wee play on this blog and put up a few ideas myself. I am building a Google Sketchup Model which will grow over the next couple of months. Here's a snap of it today...

I thought it might be a good idea to ensure there is really good heritage interpretation this time. Compared to what you don't get anywhere else much on Auckland's waterfront. So here's a walk in, sit in, look at the history, sort of structure. Found it on Google. Plugged it in here close to Shed 10. That concrete block ferry building addition is behind.

The image you can see is a b&w photo of Queens Wharf as it was 80 years ago or so....

Here's the actual picture. More later.

Get that SuperCity up and running....

I'd love to be a fly on the wall now that the Select Committee has finished hearing submissions.

I took seriously the instructions from the Select Ctte officials who advised submitters: "....the committee requests that submissions address specifically the matters raised in the bill, as it will not be considering any other issues...." But I don't think anyone else did. Based on what I heard and read in NZ Herald submissions covered anything and everything. Which is probably just as well - given so few MPs - especially Cabinet Ministers have any experience of local government.

The penny should've well and truly dropped that local government is involved in many public sector activities and spheres, where the private sector is just not interested (can't make a buck here), or where market failure would be inevitable. Not: dog control, liquor licensing, prostitution control and grafitti removal - as Rodney Hide et al seemed to think.

In fact MPs will now be dreadfully aware that local government is all pervasive. This is not because local governbment politicians have run rampant with powers of general competence - as some seem to think - but because it made sense for a broad range of activities to be coordinated, managed, provided and funded by local government. At a variety of levels and in variety of ways and in different ways - depending on where you live.

That's the real choice argument. Not the silly one suggested by the Hon Roger Douglas. He appears to genuinely believe councils should compete for ratepayers - even ones who don't live in a council's jurisdiction. This is the sort of wishful thinking that led similarly minded dreamers to advocate a market for town-supply water. You should be able to choose your water provider, they said, even though all the water came out one set of pipes and one tap. At a stretch it works for electricity - 240 volts = 240 volts.

I suppose the water idea held a bit of water - if you believe that all water is the same. Which I don't. Given the choice (oh let there be one), I'd choose my water to come from the Waitakeres, rather than the Waikato River.

But I digress.

Those of us involved in local government - and I mean local - I don't mean regional - appreciate the complexity and extent of local government services. Now, after these hearings, so do a good bunch of MPs.

My guess is they are also getting briefed by those whose job it is to manage the transition. Those at the ATA - Auckland Transition Agency - must be getting well and truly immersed now, getting aware of the massive challenge they face. For Auckland.

The proverbial is hitting the fan.

Hide, ATA and Government are now damned if they do, and damned if they don't rapidly get on with implementation. It is easy for enthusiasts on the sideline to issue media releases calling for speedy implementation. They say the time for grieving is over - and suchlike.....

From my corner, my lunchtime, I will do the best I can, to get the best for Auckland out of what is now unfolding. Yes I fought it and resisted it - to the best of my ability. But now, my job is to do what I can to deliver the best outcome.

The thing is, when I look out the window, all I see is a very large iceberg. And it's not much more than a year away. The good ship Auckland is heading to it at an increasing rate of knots - has to get there well before October 30th 2010. Radio silence ensures full steam ahead.

EECA - Energy End Use Database

I'm on the board of EECA - the New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. In the last two months, ECCA's website and publicly accessible databases have come on line. Partly to support the residential program: Warm Up New Zealand - Heat Smart.

But there's a lot else there that is of interest.

The Energy End Use Database for example, which has been updated to March 2007.

This provides estimates of delivered and end-use energy across 16 regional councils and 73 territorial authorities by 5 economic sectors, 36 sub-sectors, 20 end-uses (lighting, cooking, etc), 26 technology types (boiler systems, electric motors etc) and 12 fuels. It also provides estimates of green house gas emissions for each of these sectors, and by council and authority.

The database is not wildly straightforward to use, but is an excellent source of comparative information for the more nerdy out there. Especially for different transport modes, and the energy sources they use, and the emissions they cause.

Go to: http://enduse.eeca.govt.nz/default.aspx

Misguided politicians and Queens Wharf...

Received an anonymous email today.
About Queens Wharf - and probably my views on it.
The letter goes like this:

"...How can anyone possibly contemplate the renovation of a a couple of
100 yr old banana sheds as the gateway to Auckland and NZ!!!
I'm lost for words.
They turned down a stadium for this!!!
I kind of understood the rejection of the stadium, only because of the
location; furtheer east would have been a better option.
However, I cannot come to terms with this. Are these people running
Auckland out of the minds or are they just plain stupid?
Am I out of touch with NZ? Auckland? Do they really think like this? or is
this just a few misquided politicians?..."

Right now, I do support the adaptive re-use of the old sheds. However I think there is a strand of opinion that goes along with the thoughts of whoever wrote me this email. My response to it goes like this:

1) While the shed at the end is now used for bananas, it is important to recognise that there is a shed within that shed. A cool house has been built to fit inside that shed, which in most respects is very similar to Shed 10 - ie it contains cast iron roof trusses and all that good stuff. Also substantial cast iron framing and such like. The internal banana shed would have to go, leaving an interesting space for party central.

2) The gateway to New Zealand has never been the Port. The international gateway to New Zealand is unquestionably the International Airport. That's where the lion's share of visitors first experience New Zealand. Whether that's a good experience or not is for another discussion. Certainly the dreary drive into the CBD isn't that fantastic. But there are proposals to improve the passenger transport connection. Returning to Queens Wharf - and cruise ships - I am advised that the great majority of cruise ships that come to Auckland don't even over-night. They are here for a matter of hours. In fact sailing into Waitemata Harbour - past Rangitoto, past North Head and Bastion Point, up the harbour with the CBD skyline and Harbour bridge in the background is pretty fantastic. Beats a lot of other cities. That's the cruise ship gateway. Don't make the mistake of thinking something like Princes Wharf is the gateway.....

3) I agree that the stadium needed to be further East. Bledisloe Wharf was always the best place for that infrastructure. It was never going on Queens Wharf.

4) There's not a lot else in this email to respond to - apart from the usual criticism of being out of one's mind - or being plain stupid. Goes with the territory.

While I think about it, there is another very good reason to run with the existing sheds for anything. Right now, those sheds are publicly owned. Any other organisation using them, or adapting them, will need to fit into that public arrangement - just as they will have to fit into that public shed. A sort of built-in control mechanism. A structural approach to containing the worst excesses of an irresponsible private sector. Not that private enterprise and the market don't have their place. They do. But the stuctural approach adopted on Princes Wharf - where POAL took their payoff for a fairly unconstrained long lease - gave the private sector the right to build what they wanted, and to gradually negotiate off the edge the public vision and amenity that was on paper at the start. So. I prefer tackling this challenge from the other end. Put a nice tight ring around where the private sector - or a cruise ship terminal - can function (by confining it to an existing shed's footprint), and then the public interest doesn't have to fight for its corner on the uneven playing field that resulted on Princes Wharf.

Queens Wharf - A Site Visit - Shed 10

Shed 10 is the one on Queens Wharf nearest Quay Street. Here we are at the front door. Ready for a site visit of ARC councillors and staff involved in this interesting and exciting project. For a start, you can get an idea of the size of the ground floor level of Shed 10 from this picture. You can drive a fleet of buses inside this doorway...

It might not be very pretty on the outside at the moment. Needs a certain amount of tlc. And you can see along the side, more or less where those pipes are, where an oxy-acetylene torch has been used to cut away the supports that would have held those big verandahs...

Interesting inside when the big roller doors are slid open. Pretty much as they were built....

This is the cast iron footing for one of the ceiling/1st floor supports....

And this gives an idea of the underside of the 1st floor. This picture gives no idea of size, but I reckon the joist timbers are around 50x20 cms. That's a very hefty joist.

And this picture shows a close up of the floor timbers. They look about the cross section of railway sleepers, and are coach-nailed into the joists. It was like walking on concrete. You had no idea it was a floor with a big open space below...

This long character-filled space was evocative of all the work that has gone on in there for almost a century. Even with just a few sky-lights on a grey day the light was great...

Apparently the roof trusses, and probably quite a lot more of the original stucture, was floated out here from Britain complete. Just needed bolting together...

Some temporary openings in the side walls give an idea of the perspective you get, looking out...

And again. I liked the feel of the building. Good bones.

Queens Wharf - A Site Visit

Almost an anti-climax to be allowed to walk over Queens Wharf today. I feel as if I know it like the back of my hand, but there's nothing quite like a walk over. We were only allowed to look inside Shed 10. That's the one nearest Quay Street. The shed shown here is at the end of the wharf. It's just one storey in height, and is currently let to a cool store company. Guess it's full of fruit...

Close up of the bollards, shock-absorbers and timbers and rail sections on the surface of the wharf. One of the Ports workers with us mentioned that in the old days a few of these bollards actually got ripped out under the strain of ropes tied to ships. One got flicked all the way to Quay Street...apparently

Here's the site visit team at the end of Queens Wharf. This area feels very big and wide. Exposed on a day like this...

But there are these interesting nooks and crannies you get to see when you stand at the end. Nothing like a bit of rust on some steps, and watching the waves lapping there.

And there's plenty of timber and concrete and ironwork that give the wharf that feel, and Aucklanders that opportunity to touch and enjoy something maritime and old and authentic. Without being close to a pumping restaurant and bar complex...

You'd expect the views to be good. And they are. North Head and Mount Victoria are easy to see. This would be a great vantage point to watch the big ships come and go...

The Harbour Bridge - so often missing from Auckland CBD's downtown view is great from Queens Wharf. You can see Chelsea Sugar Works underneath...

So that's the cool store shed to the right, and Shed 10 to the left ahead. You can see that Queens Wharf is split level. The Cool Shed and Shed 10 sit on wharf structure about a metre above the access level that runs up the middle of Queens Wharf....

This is a close view of that metre rise. You can see the sea through those gaps at the bottom. Perhaps this low wall would be a good place for a few seats...

And here's the eastern edge of the Queens Wharf. Bollards are white here...

These floats lie beside Shed 10. Maybe get dropped in the sea next to the wharf when a ship ties up....

And right at the Quay Street end of Queens Wharf, you are painfully aware of the tacky red fence between you and the ferry terminal. (This is a cheap and nasty bit of fence - not like that wonderful wrought iron stuff that adorns Quay Street.) You also notice the unimaginative and shut in concrete block wall of the ferry terminal additions. Note to all: get rid of those car parks. There is no room for private office carparks here. Lose the cheap red fence asap. Nor is there room for Fullers rubbish. And those buildings need to be opened up so they spill onto Queens Wharf.

My Select Committee Oral Submission ....

I was invited to deliver my submission to the Select Committee at Orakei Marae on Bastion Point - Wednesday 8th July. This was because part of my submission addressed the matter of Maori seats. I also submitted about community boards (Community Councils in my lingo), Auckland Council elections, and Three Waters. Quite an experience.

Anyway, here it is. Remember, this was my oral submission - it is written as I spoke it:

1. Introduction to Oral Submission

Kia ora, and thank you and your staff for the opportunity of presenting my submission in this special place, Orakei Marae, Bastion Point.

This submission is in support of my written submission, which you will have.

But first of all a brief introduction to where I’m coming from, and where I come from.
I am from the Mainland. Went to school in Oamaru, university in Christchurch, and after becoming vastly over-qualified, went to live and work in England for 14 years.
There I had a spectacular time as a rocket scientist on military projects, as a systems analyst for Shell International working on oil price modelling and crude oil depletion, then for IBM designing interactive multimedia resources used when they introduced the first IBM PC into UK and European dealerships for personal and business use.

When I returned to New Zealand, I didn’t need to go into Local Government. But I did because – like most committed politicians – I wanted to make a difference.

I’ve been an elected independent councillor in Auckland for the past 11 years. Including 6 years on North Shore City Council from 1998 where I chaired the Works Ctte during the Northern Busway design and North Shore’s major sewer network cleanup program. I served on Devonport Community Board through those years also. In 2004 I stood for ARC. In my first term I chaired its Transport Committee and the Regional Land Transport Ctte that shifted $1 billion from state highway spending to public transport. Since then I have focussed on the waterfront, regional development, and – of course – governance.

Like most local government politicians I have a love/hate relationship with local government. I love it when it’s good, and I hate it when it’s bad. And after eleven years total immersion I have some understanding of the difference.

It’s easy to hate something you don’t understand. Unfortunately – many of those who have the power to decide what happens to Auckland’s governance have publicly demonstrated a poor understanding of local government. And they hate it. Superficial criticisms and simplistic solutions will not deliver good governance for Auckland.

I am advised that this is not the place for me to state my opinions about the broad supercity proposals that have been proposed by Government – many of which I oppose - so I won’t say any more about those opinions, unless asked.

The rest of what I’m going to say now, addresses the specifics of the Bill that is in front of you. My objective is to get the best outcomes from a flawed process.

2. Maori Representation on Auckland Council

ARC has a Maori Liaison unit with good staff. People like Tipa Compain and Johnny Freeland. But their contribution to ARC decision-making is mediated by other staff, by committee chairs, and by statute. Consequent decision-making is Treaty of Waitangi driven. There is no room for the broader Maori world view to be expressed.

To get a free and independent Maori voice around the Auckland Council table there needs to be 2 or 3 Maori seats at Council and key committees.

Forgive me if what I say now is a bit ignorant. I have some understanding of the Ngati Whatua AIP. I have had informal discussions with individual Maori - not all from Ngati Whatua - because I saw opportunities for Auckland Maori at Auckland’s waterfront development. Through those discussions I understand some reasons why there has not been a coordinated and collective Maori voice in Auckland. Pending the resolution of individual iwi claims, it is difficult to speak with a collective voice. The Hikoi was an exception. I have learned a little of the negotiations that are occurring now between Government and Auckland iwi. I understand that the aim is for these negotiations to be with the broader collective, not just with specific iwi.

With that understanding in mind, I don’t believe the best solution to Maori representation on Auckland Council is through 2 or 3 Maori candidates being elected.

I think Maori representatives would be better being appointed to Auckland Council, and relevant committees, to allocated seats, by the Auckland maori collective leadership, rather than being elected at large or from large wards.

This process would also mean that the most appropriate or informed maori voices can be appointed to take those seats at Council and its committees for specific decisions.


3. Auckland Council Elections – 9 multi-member wards

Most Councils appear to be supporting 20 wards, with one member/ward. This will lead to 20 First Past the Post elections (though the STV voting system would improve outcomes). I think there is a better option, which is supported by a significant number of ARC councillors.

Presently the ARC's 13 members are elected from 6 wards. Rodney and Papakura/Franklin are single member wards; Manukau is a 3 member ward; Auckland is a 4 member ward; and Waitakere and North Shore are each 2 member wards. In the multi-member wards, voters get to choose ALL of the members from that ward. So in Auckland - for example - voters get to cast 4 votes.

I think this approach is better than 1 member/ward, because:

· Councillors are less inclined to be parochial (they will represent a broader area, and not just their "personal" seat);
· councillors from the same ward can support each other (sharing local meetings, and with local boards);
· ratepayers have choices who to make representation to;
· councillors can allocate ward responsibilities better;
· greater likelihood of Auckland Council concentrating on regional issues and regional decision-making;
· parallels the different structural roles of Auckland Council Vs Community Council – the one being regional, the others being local

An option for Auckland Council would be: Rodney remains a 1 member ward; North Shore becomes a 3 member ward; Auckland is split into two 3 member wards (say); Waitakere becomes a 3 member ward; Franklin and Papakura are each 1 member wards; and Manukau becomes a 2 and a 3 member ward. (20 in total).

This structure – which echoes the ARC’s present workable arrangement - offers an effective balance between at-large representation, and 20 single-member wards.


4. Community Council (Board) Functions, Candidate Quality, Numbers

Community Councils should be required to produce a Local/Community Plan annually, which would cover:

· the community vision;
· outline of community priorities, projects and activities;
· key assets and values that need to be protected by Auckland Council;
· balanced budget for 3 years to fund these priorities;
· how the plan delivers on regional plans and strategies;
· performance measures.

In addition, Community Councils should have clearly defined local planning responsibilities - such as the ability to process local resource consent applications. There is good reason for the Bill to statutorily provide for this sort of process and role.

Community Councils will be the local eyes and ears of Auckland Council. They will bear the brunt of community concerns should these arise. It is appropriate therefore, that their responsibilities are clear cut. Auckland Council should be accountable for its decisions, while Community Councils are accountable for local decisions.

The current bill provides for Auckland Council to delegate other functions to Community Councils. Such as local parks maintenance and management, local roading repairs. This is appropriate. This discretion is hard to prescribe in statute.

Community Board members need to be paid appropriately. If you give local members the job of peeling bananas and pay them peanuts – you’ll get monkeys. There is dead wood in Auckland community boards now. This is a consequence of lack of power and low pay. Ensuring a typical Community Council workload translates into something like 3 days a week/member, would justify remuneration in the $35,000 to $45,000. Candidates of quality will be attracted by a combination of personally satisfying and publicly meaningful decision-making, and worthwhile remuneration.

How many Community Boards? Most North Shore Community Boards are col-located with Area Offices in buildings which also house the local library and community services such as the CAB. These combined community facilities are local institutions, but they have depended on North Shore City Council which acts as the anchor tenant. I would invite Select Ctte members to visit – for example – East Coast Bays, Glenfield and Devonport Area Offices to gain a better understanding of what I am talking about.

If any of the associated Community Boards (local Council) are abolished then it will be difficult to justify retention of the related Area Office. Like a house of cards. Whole communities will suffer.

Institutional losses on a huge scale are implicit in Government’s reform proposals. It is my submission that – to ensure some community continuity – then Community Councils be built broadly along the lines of existing Community Boards.

Summing up: The legislation needs to deliver Community Councils that are appreciated as important, valuable and significant by the local community, and which will attract candidates of quality, and which can be established without destroying institutional community development infrastructure and networks that exist now.


5. Three Water Management & Watercare Vertical Integration

It is essential that if vertical integration is the objective (merging Watercare as wholesaler of services, with the local water service functions of the current city and district councils), then that integration needs to be horizontal and include stormwater.

Throughout my experience of Auckland local government I have observed lobbying from those keen to gain control of piped and metered infrastructure. Water and wastewater are piped. They are also metered (wastewater is metered using “water-in” as a proxy for “wastewater-out”). A nice neat business.

The Bill at the moment is silent on stormwater – though some say that the word “wastewater” includes “stormwater”. First time I’ve heard that one. To avoid uncertainty, the Bill needs to explicitly state that this vertically integrated entity will, also, manage stormwater and be responsible for stormwater infrastructure – soft and hard – and for managing and maintaining it. Regional stormwater infrastructure consists of detention & settling ponds, natural streams, and some piping.

Much of Waitakere, North Shore, Manukau stormwater infrastructure is currently run in an integrated way with the other 2 waters. Stormwater is the biggest problem for wastewater (infiltration causes overflows at pump stations); and rainwater is increasingly used as local supply (for washing water and irrigation). Stormwater is inextricably intermingled with water and wastewater. That is why related infrastructure needs to be managed as part of a 3-water approach.

ENDS

So, there you have it. The most obviously engaged members of the Select Committee were Shane Jones and Simon Power, and its Chair - Tau Henare. They appeared very interested in the idea of Maori seats being allocated, and appropriate Maori members appointed.

Puketutu - Not a Dump for BioSolids - So Far

On the 9th July 2009, independent commissioners - chaired by Leigh McGregor, declined Watercare's applications for consents needed to dispose of sewage biosolids into the quarry hole that will be left on Puketutu Island when Winstone Aggregates finish their rock quarrying operation there. I breathed a sigh of appreciation.

There is a god....

This project - continuously referred to as a "land rehabilitation" by Watercare - has been around for a while. ARC has been dragged into it - reluctantly as far as I am concerned, willingly as far as some others are concerned - because the temptation of a free regional park was dangled in front of it. Like this: Watercare buys the Island and uses a chunk of it as a biosolids dump, and ARC can have the balance for a regional park immediately, and the whole of it for park when the quarry hole is fully "rehabilitated"....

Stank, as far as I was concerned.

Made me think of Goebbels. He used to say, " if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." Felt the same to me, the use of the word "rehabilitation" to describe the dumping of partly processed human sewage as a "beneficial use" of this material, as a good way of "rehabilitating" this hole in the Island.

Anyway, this picture comes from Watercare's website and is an aerial view of Puketutu. To the right, you can see the edge of watercare's Mangere Wastewater treatment plant. The sort of triangle area, also to the right, is the current Pond 2 Landfill site used to deposit biosolids now. It's capacity is to 2012 or thereabouts...
And, this picture shows Puketutu in the middle distance. The picture is taken from Mangere Mountain. In the background you can see the Waitakere's. And the Manukau Harbour is the water you can see. None of these pictures give a good idea of the topography of Puketutu. It is steep and undulating, and is about 140 hectares in area. It would make a fanatastic park. Views from it toward Manukau Heads are great. But please hold the biosolids...

I guess the decision will be appealed. But it must help push Watercare in a different direction. And about time. It's a worry with Watercare being supported as the vertically integrated entity in charge of all of Auckland's 3-waters, if it so resolute about least cost, business friendly approaches to water.

To quote summarised reasons for the decision to decline:

"...(a) There would be severe and irreversible adverse effects on the spiritual and cultural wellbeing and values of tangata whenua and their ancestral relationship with the Island if this proposal was permitted to proceed;
(b) The proposal would have adverse effects on the natural character of the coastal environment and the cultural values of tangata whenua which are both matters of national importance and of regional significance. Therse effects could not be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated and in the case of iwi values would be irreversible;
(c) The properties of the biosolids are far from favourable, and will restrict the landform to a very flat, distinctly unnatural appearance, with prolonged and intrusive aftercare likely to be required;
(d) In purely physical terms consent to the proposal might be granted, subject in all respects to the imposition of appropriate conditions. However, the purely physical considerations are considered to be far outweighed by the significant adverse effects that would be caused for matters of national and regional importance;
(e) The disposal of biosolids is not an appropriate way to "rehabilitate" Puketutu Island: it will degrade the island environmentally and leave it in a worse state than that prior to its "rehabilitation"..... etc

Just as an end note to this posting, I note that Auckland's wastewater system needs a policy upgrade. For a start the "trade waste" option of tipping heavy metals etc into the sewer, in exchange for a nominal trade waste fee, must be stopped. Sydney Water stopped this practice almost 20 years ago. Their goal was to reduce the heavy metal contaminants that render biosolids dangerous to life and healthy land. Stopping trade wastes would begin the slow process of creating a better quality organic biosolids that is more likely to be composted usefully with greenwaste and used as a soil conditioner. I appreciate there are challenges with this. But it is becoming the Western world norm to genuinely reuse biosolids, and to recycle their organic content back into the ground.