Queens Wharf too short for Queen Mary II

Auckland Regional Council's hastily planned Queens Wharf Cruise Ship Terminal would be too little for big ships like Queen Mary II. Don't support it. Don't build it. Auckland needs a big picture waterfront vision - not another short-term embarrassment. This is a case of: "build it and they won't be able to come...." There's a lot of pressure being exerted on Auckland right now, to gain support for this pet project, by ARC's Chairman Mike Lee and his bag man the Hon Murray McCully. They've whipped up support from a bunch of Auckland Mayors (Harvey, Williams and Brown). None of these mayors have a mandate from their councils. None of these mayors have put any public money into this project. None of them have been as immersed in the waterfront as Auckland City Councillors and Auckland Regional Councillors - let alone the Mayor of Auckland City Council. Stop Press 1: Rumour has it that certain Govt Ministers are so keen on this they have offered ARC a $100 million loan to do it. But the loan would be a charge on the new Auckland Council. No free lunch here - ratepayers could be paying for this short-term pet-project for years. And, wait for it, there are suggestions that any Coastal consents needed by ARC for this project could be rushed through Parliament with the next round of Resource Management Act changes. Imagine that! Wouldn't you like that sort of support for a factory farm in the McKenzie Basin! Stop Press 2: Auckland's Heart of the City organisation is also concerned about these proposals. You can support their campaign and get your views across by completing their Queens Wharf is a Mistake survey at: http://www.hotcity.co.nz/takeover/ Here's a few Q&As lurking in public minds: Q: Surely we need to get on with it and build something on Queens Wharf. Otherwise it's paralysis by analysis? A: That statement is not supported by Auckland's recent waterfront history. The Princes Wharf debacle (cruise ship terminal and Hilton Hotel), got consent and construction commenced a matter of months after it became surplus to POAL requirements. Construction started on North Wharf at Wynyard Quarter not much more than two years after it came into public ownership, and before land use plan changes have been settled. Its roaring ahead. And the Viaduct development got consent and was built, as planned, in time for America's Cup. BTW - Queens Wharf has not yet shifted into public ownership. That happens this April. Any suggestion that Auckland waterfront development is slow, or delayed, is a lie. Q: Doesn't Auckland needs a cruise ship terminal and it needs it now, otherwise the city and region will forgo economic benefits? A: In fact the recession has hit the cruise ship industry. I understand that previous schedules suggested there would be about 60 cruise ship visits in the current season. NZ Herald has reported this has been revised down to 47. Even so, as we see today and yesterday, Auckland still gets 2 cruise ships at once and needs places to berth them. This happens now on Queens Wharf, or - in the case of bigger cruise ships like Queen Mary II, they have to berth at the POAL container wharf. So. A new improved cruise ship terminal would be preferred by the industry, but the facts are the ships still come, and they still berth, and the benefits are still evident - even without a fancy new terminal. We do need to plan better for cruise ships, but we don't need to take out the one remaining downtown wharf for that. Q: Doesn't Auckland need a "world class" cruise ship terminal building on Queens Wharf that has iconic architectural character? A: Actually, neither Auckland, nor the cruise ship industry require a "world class" and "iconic design" cruise ship terminal. We just need something fit for purpose, and in a sensible place that does not compromise other waterfront activities and public opportunities. This could be achieved by a relatively simple, two level building, of unexceptionable design. The ideal location for both wharf space and building is Ferguson Terminal. Q: A cruise ship terminal on Ferguson Terminal would take 10 years + to negotiate with Ports of Auckland Ltd. It will never happen. The fight with business that rely on POAL would never end? A: Again. Hardly a question. More of a rhetorical statement. Auckland's whole of waterfront planning needs to include the POAL. Auckland's Ports facility is running at a loss now. It is not the cash cow it once was. Not quite run into the sea - but not the success it was. This part of New Zealand is "over-ported" - what with Ports of Tauranga and Marsden Point (both deep water ports with huge land areas for cargo and container storage). Auckland no longer needs to subsidise the low cost container freight aspirations of POAL - about 1,000,000 a year - at very low cost (only the shipping companies and exporters & importers win) - while Auckland has to look at walls of containers on its waterfront and tolerate lines of trucks on its local roads and state highways driving empty containers from A to B. Time for an integrated change. Time to rethink POAL container wharves AND allow serious public amenity and activity and provision on Auckland's waterfront. Something like Wellington. Q: But isn't it too windy on Queens Wharf. Aren't we kidding ourselves that people will want to "play" on Queens Wharf - after all - it's only a wharf? A: You only have to remember what the weather has been like in Auckland over December and January. It was magnificent with gentle westerly breezes. The beaches were packed. The CBD waterfront was not - of course - because there's nothing there for people to do. It's a myth that Auckland's waterfront is too windy/weather too bad for a public playground on the CBD waterfront. Again - look at Wellington's waterfront. Packed with people even in bad weather. Think of Queens Wharf as being part of a CBD waterfront promenade - with amenity and activity (like a market, like some places to sit and watch - without a waiter hovering, areas to read and enjoy some peace at lunchtime, places to take your sandwiches during a fine day....) Q: Shouldn't the waterfront be about economic activity, about the bustle of business, the banging of containers and ship anchors, and the rustling of cheque books and money? A: Many world city waterfront have been just like that, but large areas have changed to let people back to their waterfronts. Auckland is ripe for this. As POAL get ship-shape, it's time for Auckland's citizens to reclaim their waterfront for some fun....