It is heartening to see Brian Rudman slamming the Historic Places Trust's u'turn on the Queens Wharf sheds as a "shameless surrender". Which it was. And hopefully the HPT will re-read the Historic Places Act, remind themselves what they are there for, and do the right thing before it is too late.
But the HPT's "shameless surrender" pales into insignificance alongside ARC's shameless self-interest when it comes to Queens Wharf and the Auckland waterfront as a whole.
If Queens Wharf was a Regional Park - and the chairman Mike Lee has spoken of Queens Wharf as "ARC's 28th Regional Park" - then all the buildings on it would have automatic protection.
That's why Auckland has Vaughan's Homestead, Couldry House, and many other historic buildings, plus a host of fantastic and iconic baches dotted around the coastline. These buildings have huge protections against demolition. So it would have been good for the historic buildings on Queens Wharf if the ARC's Chairman had put his fine words into action.
But Queens Wharf is not an ARC Regional Park - more's the pity - and it formally came into the ownership of ARC and the Crown on April 1st. April Fools Day.
The previous piece of surplus ports assets that came into direct ARC ownership was land and wharves at Tankfarm aka Wynyard Quarter or Western Reclamation. I remember well when ARC councillors had the first opportunity to walk around and admire and examine this new acquisition. Councillors could see lots of possibilities - ranging from the huge waterfront development through to the heritage trail and tourism opportunities and vernacular industry like fishing and boat building.
The first advice we had was that the land zonings needed to change to allow these new activities to occur. So Auckland City Council notified a plan change related to its District Plan controlling what can happen on the land, while ARC notified a plan change related to its Regional Plan Coastal controlling what happens on the coastal edge and on the wharf structures.
It is important to appreciate that while the freehold title of the land transferred to ARC, many private businesses and individuals had leases and other arrangements for the buildings and structures on the land and wharves. These property rights needed to be recognised in the Plan Change.
In the course of our walk we saw lots of buildings of character - some of them elegant - like the Sanfords Buildings, but most of them very workmanlike. Sheds in fact.
Because of the zoning on the land and the wharves - any of these buildings could have been demolished as of right. They had no protection.
The ARC commissioned heritage advice on some buildings, and submitted to ACC's plan change that a group of identified buildings should be protected against demolition. It cited the heritage and character assessment in its evidence. Remember - the ARC did not own any of these buildings. They are all privately owned.
The Plan Changes are now working their way through due process - including the environment court. You can see my blog about this process, including pictures of all the buildings at:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/03/endangered-species-auckland-waterfront.html
I would particularly ask you to take a look at Building 2 (the net shed or fisherman's shed), and also at Buildings 8, 11 and 17. They are all sheds and warehouses. The ARC has gone to war - as much as it can - to protect these warehouse like sheds from demolition by arguing they need to be included in the list of scheduled and protected buildings.
Some of these buildings were built before World War II. So they are pre-war. But they are children compared to the grand-daddy old sheds on Queens Wharf which were constructed before the First World War.
The question is: why is ARC being so inconsistent in its behaviour on Queens Wharf?
The answer to that question is simply that ARC has always wanted it for Auckland's Premier Cruise Ship Terminal, and that has pre-determined its actions.
The Port company never wanted to build a cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf. Its argument is that there is not enough money to be made from cruise ship fees to justify the capital cost of construction of a major terminal.
The ARC has had advice that there are other economic benefits from cruise ship visits - that passengers shop downtown and spend their dollars in Auckland. That's true.
Unfortunately the same can be said of container ships. Today Ports of Auckland hardly makes a bean from container handling because such a low rate was negotiated with Maersk. And while there are wider benefits to businesses reliant on getting goods in and out, the Auckland community has to put up with stacks of containers on prime waterfront land, and has their arterial roads jammed with huge trucks.
The ethical question is this: just because the ARC can legally demolish the sheds on Queens Wharf (because it has not carried out the same plan change process it led at WYnyard Quarter based on the same regional policies), does that mean it is appropriate and right for it to demolish them? Just because it is hell bent on building a "world class" cruise ship terminal there?
Especially when you consider that ARC commissioned a substantial Heritage Assessment which has rated both sheds and wharf as of "high significance". And that this same assessment and countless other suggestions from architects in their design competition entries have shown how the sheds could be incorporated into a perfectly serviceable and attractive building that can be used for cruise ships and for public purposes.
I end with this sad reminder of ARC's involvement in waterfront development.
The eyesore and embarrassment that is on Prince Wharf is there in its present form because of the Auckland Regional Council. The building is on a wharf, over water, and subject only to the Regional Plan Coastal. The ARC granted consent for the Hilton and Apartment block and ancillary carparks and impoverished public access and amenity. You can read about this sorry story at: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-sad-is-princes-wharf.html
and at: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-sad-is-princes-wharf-part-2.html
The annual Auckland Regional Council rates revenue from Princes Wharf is $225,000.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Queens Wharf Opens on Anzac Day
 What fantastic weather there was for the public opening of Queens Wharf as a "Peoples' Wharf" by ARC Chairman Mike Lee and Minister of Rugby World Cup Murray McCully. |
 Despite little advertising the wharf was thronging with people. Where did they all come from? Hard to say. Just came down town after Anzac Day looking for something to do, and saw there was something up at Queens Wharf Party Central and headed on down. |
 Vintage vehicles, games, bouncy castles, take away food, the odd portaloo. Shade was hard to find though. In all that sun... |
 And the Ports had laid on their party special. Everyone came down to the end of the wharf to look... |
 Yep. Dancing tugboats. Something for everybody. |
 They came on their bikes, disability buggies, wheel chairs, skate boards, and they came in their hundreds taking photos and enjoying being somewhere they'd never been allowed before... |
 And they came to have a look inside those sheds. Both sheds were open to view. Pity nobody could look in the upper floor of Shed 10 - but it's not that safe at the moment... |
 Many people took the opportunity to have a good look around. See what they could see. Not everybody can see the potential. That's par for the course. It's only after some love, design and attention to detail that the sheds will be able to come into their own... |
 The temporary ceiling is there, now, with strip lighting - fairly institutional - for when Shed 10 is used as cruise ship terminal which happens at the moment when Princes Wharf has a cruise ship. |
SOS Queens Wharf Save Our Sheds |
Sign their petition at: http://www.sosqueenswharf.co.nz/ Go to Facebook, and check out their page: SOS Queens Wharf |
 The big attraction on the day was undoubtedly the Navy. Their ship attracted huge amounts of attention. Everybody wanted to be shown around. |
 It got tiring in the sun. There are quite a few old timbers around to sit on, and the sheds were great shelter from the sun. |
 These big timbers make great seats. And they all seem to be in the right place. |
 As I sailed back to Devonport in the ferry, it was great to look back and see people on the peoples' wharf. Walking around the sheds. Enjoying their newest Regional Park. It was a great step of ARC and Government to buy this wharf and everything upon it. |
We need to think hard before doing anything permanent that will detract from the promise and the potential of the "peoples' wharf".... |
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Save Our Iconic Sheds
 New Zealand loves its sheds. Corrugated iron ones especially. This rail shed is an iconic part of the Otago Rail Trail - one of New Zealand's tourism success stories. |
 They make great paintings. Iconic paintings and images. Recalling our history and our attachment to it. Grahame Sydney painted this one. |
 And all over New Zealand, when the old shed gets a bit too tired, because the galvanize has failed and there's not been any paint around, you can always replace it with another one. But the old one remains. A memory. |
 So let's paint our sheds red for the time being and enjoy them for a while. At least till after the rugby world cup in 2011. That's if you like barn red as a colour... |
 Or green if you feel like the Wedderburn touch. Maybe a bit lurid. But fun all the same... |
 Or red and green. Should never be seen... |
|
Go down there on Sunday. This Sunday the 25th April. The sheds are open to view on Queens Wharf from 1:00pm to 5:00pm or so, and it's party time down there. Acts, theatre, food, fun. Bring the family. Make your claim to these iconic New Zealand sheds. |
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Can We Trust The Historic Places Trust?
On Friday 16th April, or thereabouts, Auckland Regional Council received a bombshell from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust - or more correctly from the Auckland Branch of the Historic Places Trust. The letter was a bombshell because it signalled a strong interest from NZHPT in Queens Wharf and the sheds, and it was a bombshell because it arrived just in time to influence ARC decisions relating to its proposals for Queens Wharf.
You can view the letter here: http://www.joelcayford.com/NZHPTQueensWharf.pdf
The key things the letter states include:
The letter was signed by Sherry Reynolds, General Manager Northern HPT.
After that letter, dated 15th April, arrived, Council staff, working with the ARC Chairman, prepared a set of officer recommendations relating to proposals for Queens Wharf that were sent out with the council agenda papers over the weekend. They included these recommendations:
Then following some lobbying and changes at the ARC's confidential meeting on Monday, where the letter from NZHPT was of considerable influence, the final decisions included the following:
I should note here, for the record, that a number of ARC Councillors voted against these resolutions. But a majority did. So these recommendations constitute an ARC decision. (By the way: you might be thinking I'm a bit of a scoundrel for discussing the contents of a confidential meeting. However I have not released any numbers or compromised any private interests. The matters I am sharing here are obviously in the public interest. The matters might be a little embarrassing, but they concern publicly owned assets, and public has a right to know.)
Regarding these recommendations - you may be wondering, what's the difference? The key difference is that the ARC's approval to dismantle (for which read: demolish) the sheds was "subject to the outcome of consultation with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust". And reading its letter you could be forgiven for coming to the view that the NZ HPT was actually serious about Auckland's waterfront heritage.
Then. On Monday. After the ARC's meeting, there was a surprise media release from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. It said this:
You will note that this media release came from the Chief Executive, Bruce Chapman, who is based in Wellington, in the NZHPT's head office.
The letter amounts to complete capitulation on the part of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. No registration. No heritage assessment. No call for a heritage impact assessment. (By the way - a cynical view is that the powers that be at ARC had some indication before the Council meeting that the Historic Places Trust would fold, and so there was nothing to lose in changing the recommendations to give an appearance that the HPT concerns were real...)
You really wonder why New Zealand would bother with an organisation that is so spineless at National level, and so unsupportive of genuine preservation work that its Regional Office was carrying out in Auckland. So unsupportive of their initiative which had been taken seriously by ARC, and was being acted upon. As you can see. And right now these sheds, Auckland's heritage, needs all the help it can get. The pressure and speed to dismantle/demolish must be slowed so good sense can prevail.
But really, if we can't trust Auckland's heritage with the NZ Heritage Protection Trust, and we certainly can't trust ARC, who can we trust?
You can view the letter here: http://www.joelcayford.com/NZHPTQueensWharf.pdf
The key things the letter states include:
- NZHPT is considering a registration nomination for the cargo sheds and wharf structure
- because the nomination "appears to have some merit" NZHPT is preparing a more in depth heritage assessment of the cargo sheds and wharf structure
- NZHPT "preliminary investigations indicates that the place has significant heritage values..."
- ..."given the heritage value of the place, both formally recognised and that identified by the Matthews and Matthews Assessment we would recommend to ARC that an heritage impact assessment is now undertaken in regard to ARC's preferred option for redevelopment, whether this involves adaptive re-use of some or all of the buildings and wharf, or total removal of the warehouses and modifications to the wharf..."
The letter was signed by Sherry Reynolds, General Manager Northern HPT.
After that letter, dated 15th April, arrived, Council staff, working with the ARC Chairman, prepared a set of officer recommendations relating to proposals for Queens Wharf that were sent out with the council agenda papers over the weekend. They included these recommendations:
a) That the report be received.
b) That the Council approves the staged development of Queens Wharf to
enable its use as a fan zone for Rugby World Cup 2011, and for the
construction of the permanent cruise ship terminal to commence immediately
after the 2011/12 cruise season.
c) That, subject to the agreement of the Government as the joint owner of
Queens Wharf, and subject to the approval of the Auckland Transition Agency
as required, the Council:
(i) Approves the erection of a temporary structure on Queens Wharf for
use as a fan zone for Rugby World Cup 2011. The Council notes that
the New Zealand Government will fund the design and build of the
temporary structure, and that the temporary structure will be used as a
cruise ship terminal for the 2011/12 cruise season.
(ii) Approves the completion of a heritage assessment of Queens Wharf
with the aim of recording its heritage, maximising the retention and
integration of heritage features on the wharf into the development, reusing
materials from the sheds and ensuring that appropriate
interpretation of the history and heritage of the wharf is reflected in the
development of the wharf.
(iii) Approves the dismantling of sheds 10 and 11 on Queens Wharf and
the storage of materials to maximise re-use in the development, and
authorises the Chief Executive to obtain the necessary consents and
approvals to carry out the work....
Then following some lobbying and changes at the ARC's confidential meeting on Monday, where the letter from NZHPT was of considerable influence, the final decisions included the following:
a) That the report be received
b) That the Council approves the staged dvelopment of Queens Wharf to enable its use as fan zone, visitor centre and public open space for Rugby World Cup 2011, and for the construction of the permanent cruise ship terminal to commence immediately after the 2011/2012 cruise season.
c) That, subject to the agreement of the Government as joint owner of Queens Wharf, and subject to the approval of the Auckland Transition Agency as required, the Council:
(i) approves, subject to the outcome of consultation with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, the dismantling of sheds 10 and 11 on Queens Wharf as required and the storage of materials to maximise re-use in the development, and authorises the Chief Executive to obtain the necessary consents to carry out the work.
(ii) works with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust to complete a heritage assessment of Queens Wharf and its structures with the aim of recording its heritage, maximising the retention and integration of heritage features on the wharf into the development, re-using materials form the sheds and ensuring that appropriate interpretation of the history and heritage of the wharf is reflected in the development of the wharf.
(iii) approves the construction of a temporary structure on Queens Wharf for use as a fan zone, visitor centre and public open space for Rugby World Cup 2011. The Council notes that the New Zealand Government will fund the design and build of the temporary structure, and that the temporary structure will be used as a cruise ship terminal for the 2011/12 cruise season.....
I should note here, for the record, that a number of ARC Councillors voted against these resolutions. But a majority did. So these recommendations constitute an ARC decision. (By the way: you might be thinking I'm a bit of a scoundrel for discussing the contents of a confidential meeting. However I have not released any numbers or compromised any private interests. The matters I am sharing here are obviously in the public interest. The matters might be a little embarrassing, but they concern publicly owned assets, and public has a right to know.)
Regarding these recommendations - you may be wondering, what's the difference? The key difference is that the ARC's approval to dismantle (for which read: demolish) the sheds was "subject to the outcome of consultation with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust". And reading its letter you could be forgiven for coming to the view that the NZ HPT was actually serious about Auckland's waterfront heritage.
Then. On Monday. After the ARC's meeting, there was a surprise media release from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. It said this:
20 April 2010
MEDIA STATEMENT
Disappointment at loss of Queen’s Wharf buildings
The decision to demolish the two Queen’s Wharf sheds has been met with disappointment by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust.
“We would have preferred that a use be found for the sheds as part of the overall solution for this area, as it is an important part of New Zealand’s maritime history that will be lost,” said NZHPT Chief Executive, Bruce Chapman.
“Ways to adaptively reuse these buildings could have been explored, and we would have been prepared to support quite substantial changes to ensure as much of the buildings could be retained as possible.
“However we accept the position that has been adopted and now look forward to work closely with those involved in the design for the area to determine how much of the wharf’s characteristic features, such as the rail lines and moorings, can be retained.”
The NZHPT had been considering registration of the Queen’s Wharf, however will not be proceeding with this. Mr Chapman said the organisation would still like to have the opportunity to record more of the buildings’ information prior to their loss.
You will note that this media release came from the Chief Executive, Bruce Chapman, who is based in Wellington, in the NZHPT's head office.
The letter amounts to complete capitulation on the part of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. No registration. No heritage assessment. No call for a heritage impact assessment. (By the way - a cynical view is that the powers that be at ARC had some indication before the Council meeting that the Historic Places Trust would fold, and so there was nothing to lose in changing the recommendations to give an appearance that the HPT concerns were real...)
You really wonder why New Zealand would bother with an organisation that is so spineless at National level, and so unsupportive of genuine preservation work that its Regional Office was carrying out in Auckland. So unsupportive of their initiative which had been taken seriously by ARC, and was being acted upon. As you can see. And right now these sheds, Auckland's heritage, needs all the help it can get. The pressure and speed to dismantle/demolish must be slowed so good sense can prevail.
But really, if we can't trust Auckland's heritage with the NZ Heritage Protection Trust, and we certainly can't trust ARC, who can we trust?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
ARC's Clear Conflict of Interest at Queens Wharf
The word "hypocrisy" is being uttered in undertones up and down ARC corridors.
But not the corridors of power...
The Auckland Regional Council is Auckland's main heritage guardian. It has gone to war on several occasions while I've been on Council. It spent hundreds of thousands in expert evidence and legal advice protecting maori dump sites (middens) and colonial earth works at Long Bay. This applied energy means that the private land owners of that land cannot, now, develop that land or urbanise it. And I supported that action. New Zealand - and Auckland especially it seems - is very short of heritage and history because it has a habit of destroying it.
Tank Farm is another very good example. A great slice of Auckland Waterfront. With a fair distribution of pre-second world war buildings of considerable heritage and character. ARC has left few stones unturned in pursuit of development protection for those buildings - especially against demolition. Another blog on this site contain pictures of all of those buildings. You can see it at:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/03/endangered-species-auckland-waterfront.html
Here, ARC has made private owners of those buildings jump through all kinds of hoops if it is their wish to develop their land.
Yet here we have Queens Wharf, in public ownership now for about 2 weeks after transferring the wharf from Ports of Auckland ownership to ARC and Government, and we have the extraordinary activity of ARC - owner and regulator - pushing with huge haste for the demolition of cargo sheds which were built not before second world war - these sheds were built before the first world war. 1912 I am advised.
"Practice what you preach" - was a phrase used by more than one ARC councillor in the debate that occurred this Monday in at the ARC. But to no avail.
If it was not for the letter from the Historic Places Trust - calling for a proper heritage assessment of wharf and structures - the vote to approve dismantling would have been a doddle. As it is, ARC's decision to dismantle is subject to the outcome of consultation with the Historic Places Trust and presumably to it carrying out its own Heritage assessment.
The word "dismantle" is now being used instead of "demolish". The Chair of ARC has begun using it lately. One or two ARC councillors like it too. There is talk of using some bits and pieces of the dismantled shed - as a sort of aide memoir of what is there now. Bit like takling the best bits of a Model T Vintage car and blending them into the construction of a brand new Holden - made of carbon fibre, or plastic.
That is the argument that was used to mitigate the Princes Wharf design. They said they'd reuse some of the old building structure. You can vaguely make it out buried underneath the Hilton Hotel and the Apartments. But it is tokenism. Facadism. Sad.
The advice ARC has already received from the heritage report it commissioned jointly with Auckland City Council is very strong. ARC's own heritage officers provided advice to the executive team writing the report that was considered on Monday. They wrote in respect to the Matthews & Matthews Architects Heritage Assessment report:
You don't get much clearer advice than that. But that wasn't the advice that was given to ARC councillors. Oh dear no. It got watered down by those preparing the ARC council meeting report. Here's what Councillors got to read from their Chief Executive and his staff:
Spot the difference - is my challenge.
So. ARC got a very clear steer from the heritage report that it commissioned. It got very clear advice from its own expert staff. But it got all boiled down to "dismantling" by the Chief Executive, no doubt in cahoots with ARC's Chairman.
Practice what you preach guys.
You demonstrate serious conflict of interest here - Cruise Ships before Heritage - where's the balance. Hence the whiff of hypocrisy...
But not the corridors of power...
The Auckland Regional Council is Auckland's main heritage guardian. It has gone to war on several occasions while I've been on Council. It spent hundreds of thousands in expert evidence and legal advice protecting maori dump sites (middens) and colonial earth works at Long Bay. This applied energy means that the private land owners of that land cannot, now, develop that land or urbanise it. And I supported that action. New Zealand - and Auckland especially it seems - is very short of heritage and history because it has a habit of destroying it.
Tank Farm is another very good example. A great slice of Auckland Waterfront. With a fair distribution of pre-second world war buildings of considerable heritage and character. ARC has left few stones unturned in pursuit of development protection for those buildings - especially against demolition. Another blog on this site contain pictures of all of those buildings. You can see it at:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/03/endangered-species-auckland-waterfront.html
Here, ARC has made private owners of those buildings jump through all kinds of hoops if it is their wish to develop their land.
Yet here we have Queens Wharf, in public ownership now for about 2 weeks after transferring the wharf from Ports of Auckland ownership to ARC and Government, and we have the extraordinary activity of ARC - owner and regulator - pushing with huge haste for the demolition of cargo sheds which were built not before second world war - these sheds were built before the first world war. 1912 I am advised.
"Practice what you preach" - was a phrase used by more than one ARC councillor in the debate that occurred this Monday in at the ARC. But to no avail.
If it was not for the letter from the Historic Places Trust - calling for a proper heritage assessment of wharf and structures - the vote to approve dismantling would have been a doddle. As it is, ARC's decision to dismantle is subject to the outcome of consultation with the Historic Places Trust and presumably to it carrying out its own Heritage assessment.
The word "dismantle" is now being used instead of "demolish". The Chair of ARC has begun using it lately. One or two ARC councillors like it too. There is talk of using some bits and pieces of the dismantled shed - as a sort of aide memoir of what is there now. Bit like takling the best bits of a Model T Vintage car and blending them into the construction of a brand new Holden - made of carbon fibre, or plastic.
That is the argument that was used to mitigate the Princes Wharf design. They said they'd reuse some of the old building structure. You can vaguely make it out buried underneath the Hilton Hotel and the Apartments. But it is tokenism. Facadism. Sad.
The advice ARC has already received from the heritage report it commissioned jointly with Auckland City Council is very strong. ARC's own heritage officers provided advice to the executive team writing the report that was considered on Monday. They wrote in respect to the Matthews & Matthews Architects Heritage Assessment report:
...due to their high heritage values and ready adaptability, the heritage assessment recommends that serious consideration be given to retaining and adapting the sheds as part pof the redevelopment of Queens Wharf. The (ARC's) Cultural Heritage Team concurs with this recommendation, as the presumption should be to protect and preserve heritage items of high significance. In designing any temporary or permanent development of Queens Wharf, it is our view that at least one of the sheds (Shed 10 is the least altered and in best condition of the two) should be retained and sensitively adapted for a new short-term or long-term use...
You don't get much clearer advice than that. But that wasn't the advice that was given to ARC councillors. Oh dear no. It got watered down by those preparing the ARC council meeting report. Here's what Councillors got to read from their Chief Executive and his staff:
The heritage assessment recommends that serious consideration be given to
retaining and adapting the sheds as part of the redevelopment of Queens Wharf. The
Council’s resolution of December 22 to endorse QW04 as the basis of the
development of Queens Wharf carries with it the consequential requirement that both
be removed to achieve the design. The proposed staged development set out in this
report also requires the removal of both sheds before the Rugby World Cup.
Through the development of the proposal, Government representatives have
repeatedly expressed their consideration that, despite the heritage value of the
sheds, their location, the limitations on what can be done to them to meet the
requirements of the site as a cruise terminal, and the major uncertainty over the cost of attempting to modify them, mean that they obstruct both the short term and long term development of the wharf and that, on balance, they should be removed.
In recognition of the heritage value of the wharf and the sheds, it is recommended
that, as part of the next stage of the development, the Council complete a heritage
assessment of the site with the intention of recording its heritage, maximizing the
retention and integration of heritage features on the wharf into the development, reusing materials from the sheds and ensuring appropriate interpretation of the history and heritage of the wharf is reflected in the development of the wharf.
It is further recommended that, when the sheds are removed, that they are
dismantled to maximize the recovery and reuse of materials in the development.
Spot the difference - is my challenge.
So. ARC got a very clear steer from the heritage report that it commissioned. It got very clear advice from its own expert staff. But it got all boiled down to "dismantling" by the Chief Executive, no doubt in cahoots with ARC's Chairman.
Practice what you preach guys.
You demonstrate serious conflict of interest here - Cruise Ships before Heritage - where's the balance. Hence the whiff of hypocrisy...
Save Our Shed - Campaign
Can you help? Do you want to?
It is extraordinary that the Historic Places Trust has so completely and utterly capitulated on the Queens Wharf sheds. It is unclear from its statement whether it is even interested in going ahead with the heritage assessment it recommended the ARC to carry out in a letter dated 15th April. I wonder what happened between Friday and Tuesday?
No matter, as mentioned elsewhere in these blogs, a very robust heritage assessment has already been carried out for ARC and Auckland City Council by Matthews & Matthews Architects. That has credibility and detail.
The planning scenario we seem to be looking at is this:
.....ARC is co-owner and regulator. It administers the Regional Plan Coastal which includes the zonings relating to port activities. One of these covers Queens Wharf. I understand that if the activity that is to go there - or be undertaken there - is a permitted use according to that plan then very little in the way of consenting stands between the ARC and bowling the sheds and outting up the tent. Because there is no protection over the sheds they can be bowled. A bit like the Masonic Hotel across the water at Devonport....
So what else is there to consider?
Well it seems to me that the ARC has duties in terms of the RMA that are wider than simple compliance with a plan - be it the Regional Plan Coastal which has not been updated since the transfer of Queens Wharf into ARC's ownership. Thin ice is what is being skated on here. There is already talk of judicial review proceedings. But maybe a Declaratory Judgement is needed first. One that tests what ARC's duties are in respect of Queens Wharf, and in terms of the planning process that should unfold now.
I suggest this because I get the sense Govt and ARC want to just go ahead and do their worst without due process. Get away with minimum.
What might be best practice?
Did you know - for example - that Sea + City is doing some work now on North Wharf? It has been preparing the wharf structure, and is building some new structures alongside the net shed, and is managing the stormwater from the area etc. Today at ARC, we were advised, as a formaility, that Sea + City had applied for resource consents relating to: public seats on the wharf; stormwater drainage from the wharf; and other matters. I asked a question about this, and was advised that Sea + City were keen to do the "right thing" when it came to consents for these works. It recognised - for example - that public seating on the wharf was not a permitted activity - in the relevant zone. So that is why it applied for consent.
It also applied for consent to allow promenading! But ARC officers advised that was not necessary. This was a fully notified consent. Sea + City did the right thing.
But I reckon ARC is running a mile from notification. Can of worms. Too much public interest. How can we avoid public scrutiny....
I mention this, because it raises issues about what the permitted activity status is on Queens Wharf. This seems to be still "port activities" of some sort - and not things like public seating, or presumably bars and cafes and party time. That is most likely why the powers that be keep emphasising that what they want to build is a "cruise ship terminal" and why the references to "party central" and partying and related activities are being down-played.
All those people. All that drinking. All that pedestrian traffic. All that noise and fun. All those generated effects that normal business es would be required to have carefully crafted conditions of consent sorted out through a notified planning process.
Because the port zoning does not provide for these activities.
If you were a private operator you'd be required to get a consent for any activity that was not provided for in the plan. And while I'm on the topic, what do you think happens to the stormwater from Queens Wharf and the buildings there? Not sure.... neither am I. But it's the ARC that consents those direct discharges into the harbour, and they need to comply.
Another item cropped up on the council agenda today. It related to works being carried out on the wharf at Cornwallis - an ARC regeional park fronting the Manukau Harbour. The works required are pretty minimal, but they are not provided for explicitly in the plan. The report councillors received receommended: "...to avoid a perceived conflict of interest, as the ARC is the applicant, it is recommended that an independent commissioner be appointed to review and make decisions...."
I think that what is good for the goose, should be good for the gander.
I think the ARC is making itself vulnerable to a legal challenge in respect to its compliance with its general duties under the Act.
Is there anyone out there who agrees, and would like to assist further?
It is extraordinary that the Historic Places Trust has so completely and utterly capitulated on the Queens Wharf sheds. It is unclear from its statement whether it is even interested in going ahead with the heritage assessment it recommended the ARC to carry out in a letter dated 15th April. I wonder what happened between Friday and Tuesday?
No matter, as mentioned elsewhere in these blogs, a very robust heritage assessment has already been carried out for ARC and Auckland City Council by Matthews & Matthews Architects. That has credibility and detail.
The planning scenario we seem to be looking at is this:
.....ARC is co-owner and regulator. It administers the Regional Plan Coastal which includes the zonings relating to port activities. One of these covers Queens Wharf. I understand that if the activity that is to go there - or be undertaken there - is a permitted use according to that plan then very little in the way of consenting stands between the ARC and bowling the sheds and outting up the tent. Because there is no protection over the sheds they can be bowled. A bit like the Masonic Hotel across the water at Devonport....
So what else is there to consider?
Well it seems to me that the ARC has duties in terms of the RMA that are wider than simple compliance with a plan - be it the Regional Plan Coastal which has not been updated since the transfer of Queens Wharf into ARC's ownership. Thin ice is what is being skated on here. There is already talk of judicial review proceedings. But maybe a Declaratory Judgement is needed first. One that tests what ARC's duties are in respect of Queens Wharf, and in terms of the planning process that should unfold now.
I suggest this because I get the sense Govt and ARC want to just go ahead and do their worst without due process. Get away with minimum.
What might be best practice?
Did you know - for example - that Sea + City is doing some work now on North Wharf? It has been preparing the wharf structure, and is building some new structures alongside the net shed, and is managing the stormwater from the area etc. Today at ARC, we were advised, as a formaility, that Sea + City had applied for resource consents relating to: public seats on the wharf; stormwater drainage from the wharf; and other matters. I asked a question about this, and was advised that Sea + City were keen to do the "right thing" when it came to consents for these works. It recognised - for example - that public seating on the wharf was not a permitted activity - in the relevant zone. So that is why it applied for consent.
It also applied for consent to allow promenading! But ARC officers advised that was not necessary. This was a fully notified consent. Sea + City did the right thing.
But I reckon ARC is running a mile from notification. Can of worms. Too much public interest. How can we avoid public scrutiny....
I mention this, because it raises issues about what the permitted activity status is on Queens Wharf. This seems to be still "port activities" of some sort - and not things like public seating, or presumably bars and cafes and party time. That is most likely why the powers that be keep emphasising that what they want to build is a "cruise ship terminal" and why the references to "party central" and partying and related activities are being down-played.
All those people. All that drinking. All that pedestrian traffic. All that noise and fun. All those generated effects that normal business es would be required to have carefully crafted conditions of consent sorted out through a notified planning process.
Because the port zoning does not provide for these activities.
If you were a private operator you'd be required to get a consent for any activity that was not provided for in the plan. And while I'm on the topic, what do you think happens to the stormwater from Queens Wharf and the buildings there? Not sure.... neither am I. But it's the ARC that consents those direct discharges into the harbour, and they need to comply.
Another item cropped up on the council agenda today. It related to works being carried out on the wharf at Cornwallis - an ARC regeional park fronting the Manukau Harbour. The works required are pretty minimal, but they are not provided for explicitly in the plan. The report councillors received receommended: "...to avoid a perceived conflict of interest, as the ARC is the applicant, it is recommended that an independent commissioner be appointed to review and make decisions...."
I think that what is good for the goose, should be good for the gander.
I think the ARC is making itself vulnerable to a legal challenge in respect to its compliance with its general duties under the Act.
Is there anyone out there who agrees, and would like to assist further?
Queens Wharf - Has it come to this?
 So here we have Queens Wharf, as ARC and the Government - according to its joint media release - would like it to be. The glowing thing is the plastic structure - aka the tent. Though we are told it is not a tent. It is a temporary structure that is not a tent.Apparently it can be slapped up and together for under $10 million. Cheap and reasonably tacky. There's a big screen outside on the end of Queens Wharf, and a possible Rugby Ball. September... |
I was advised that the reason the cargo sheds needed to go to make room for it, is because they want the tent also to be used as a cruise ship terminal. Can't get away from that Cruise Ship terminal on Queens Wharf imperative... |
 I think Auckland will love hosting a Party Central. We did it during the America's Cup. Here's a picture of how they hosted America's Cup Party Central in Valencia: The Woolshed. A real kiwi idea. People could shelter from direct sunshine, or rain, or wind - but there was plenty of air blowing through... |
 This facility worked really well in Valencia. People loved it. It would work well on Queens Wharf too. In the old sheds.Big screens strategically placed. Some areas had seating, others a bit more casual. Needs to be good for families, for young people wanting a good time, for older people too. A people's place... |
 Lots of people will actually go to rugby matches (unlike the yachting where it's hard for people to get out there and watch a race - TV is better for most).But with seat tickets going for a King's Ransom for NZ's Rugby World Cup, and with matches happening all over the country, a lot of Aucklanders will be watching TV screens, just as they watched yachting in Valencia.... |
 And it's quite fun to do that in a big group, especially when there are fans around from other countries doing the same - in the same space.So far, it is planned that surplus Rugby fan accommodation will be provided by a Cruise Ship moored at Queens Wharf. This will provide a critical mass of rugby fans, rights on the spot - could a be a few thousand - the Queens Wharf shed(s) could become their TV viewing room. Places where they can invite NZ guests, places where Aucklanders can go to enjoy the fun too. Because Queens Wharf will be very busy place with the comings and goings of fans and their friends and guests. |
 Have you been on Queens Wharf yet? Have you been inside the Sheds? Have you experienced the views?Hardly anybody has. So go donw there this Sunday. Anzac Day. And have a good look. Would you renovate the house you just bought before you've lived in it for a while. Not likely! Same goes for Queens Wharf. Auckland needs to live on it for a while. Auckland needs to feel what it's like to have Queens Wharf for public uses. We need to experiment. Before we do anything permament down there. |
 I've been lucky enough to have a walk-over. Before I did I thought we should bowl the sheds. But then I went into them....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. Apparently a lot of the work was about wool bales. Our own wool shed. 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... |
| Party Central on Queens Wharf is a good idea. Kills lots of birds with one stone. Has many, many benefits for Auckland and for Aucklanders. Let alone the Rugby World Cup event. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
ARC's Shameless Self Interest on Queens Wharf
It is heartening to see Brian Rudman slamming the Historic Places Trust's u'turn on the Queens Wharf sheds as a "shameless surrender". Which it was. And hopefully the HPT will re-read the Historic Places Act, remind themselves what they are there for, and do the right thing before it is too late.
But the HPT's "shameless surrender" pales into insignificance alongside ARC's shameless self-interest when it comes to Queens Wharf and the Auckland waterfront as a whole.
If Queens Wharf was a Regional Park - and the chairman Mike Lee has spoken of Queens Wharf as "ARC's 28th Regional Park" - then all the buildings on it would have automatic protection.
That's why Auckland has Vaughan's Homestead, Couldry House, and many other historic buildings, plus a host of fantastic and iconic baches dotted around the coastline. These buildings have huge protections against demolition. So it would have been good for the historic buildings on Queens Wharf if the ARC's Chairman had put his fine words into action.
But Queens Wharf is not an ARC Regional Park - more's the pity - and it formally came into the ownership of ARC and the Crown on April 1st. April Fools Day.
The previous piece of surplus ports assets that came into direct ARC ownership was land and wharves at Tankfarm aka Wynyard Quarter or Western Reclamation. I remember well when ARC councillors had the first opportunity to walk around and admire and examine this new acquisition. Councillors could see lots of possibilities - ranging from the huge waterfront development through to the heritage trail and tourism opportunities and vernacular industry like fishing and boat building.
The first advice we had was that the land zonings needed to change to allow these new activities to occur. So Auckland City Council notified a plan change related to its District Plan controlling what can happen on the land, while ARC notified a plan change related to its Regional Plan Coastal controlling what happens on the coastal edge and on the wharf structures.
It is important to appreciate that while the freehold title of the land transferred to ARC, many private businesses and individuals had leases and other arrangements for the buildings and structures on the land and wharves. These property rights needed to be recognised in the Plan Change.
In the course of our walk we saw lots of buildings of character - some of them elegant - like the Sanfords Buildings, but most of them very workmanlike. Sheds in fact.
Because of the zoning on the land and the wharves - any of these buildings could have been demolished as of right. They had no protection.
The ARC commissioned heritage advice on some buildings, and submitted to ACC's plan change that a group of identified buildings should be protected against demolition. It cited the heritage and character assessment in its evidence. Remember - the ARC did not own any of these buildings. They are all privately owned.
The Plan Changes are now working their way through due process - including the environment court. You can see my blog about this process, including pictures of all the buildings at:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/03/endangered-species-auckland-waterfront.html
I would particularly ask you to take a look at Building 2 (the net shed or fisherman's shed), and also at Buildings 8, 11 and 17. They are all sheds and warehouses. The ARC has gone to war - as much as it can - to protect these warehouse like sheds from demolition by arguing they need to be included in the list of scheduled and protected buildings.
Some of these buildings were built before World War II. So they are pre-war. But they are children compared to the grand-daddy old sheds on Queens Wharf which were constructed before the First World War.
The question is: why is ARC being so inconsistent in its behaviour on Queens Wharf?
The answer to that question is simply that ARC has always wanted it for Auckland's Premier Cruise Ship Terminal, and that has pre-determined its actions.
The Port company never wanted to build a cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf. Its argument is that there is not enough money to be made from cruise ship fees to justify the capital cost of construction of a major terminal.
The ARC has had advice that there are other economic benefits from cruise ship visits - that passengers shop downtown and spend their dollars in Auckland. That's true.
Unfortunately the same can be said of container ships. Today Ports of Auckland hardly makes a bean from container handling because such a low rate was negotiated with Maersk. And while there are wider benefits to businesses reliant on getting goods in and out, the Auckland community has to put up with stacks of containers on prime waterfront land, and has their arterial roads jammed with huge trucks.
The ethical question is this: just because the ARC can legally demolish the sheds on Queens Wharf (because it has not carried out the same plan change process it led at WYnyard Quarter based on the same regional policies), does that mean it is appropriate and right for it to demolish them? Just because it is hell bent on building a "world class" cruise ship terminal there?
Especially when you consider that ARC commissioned a substantial Heritage Assessment which has rated both sheds and wharf as of "high significance". And that this same assessment and countless other suggestions from architects in their design competition entries have shown how the sheds could be incorporated into a perfectly serviceable and attractive building that can be used for cruise ships and for public purposes.
I end with this sad reminder of ARC's involvement in waterfront development.
The eyesore and embarrassment that is on Prince Wharf is there in its present form because of the Auckland Regional Council. The building is on a wharf, over water, and subject only to the Regional Plan Coastal. The ARC granted consent for the Hilton and Apartment block and ancillary carparks and impoverished public access and amenity. You can read about this sorry story at: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-sad-is-princes-wharf.html
and at: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-sad-is-princes-wharf-part-2.html
The annual Auckland Regional Council rates revenue from Princes Wharf is $225,000.
But the HPT's "shameless surrender" pales into insignificance alongside ARC's shameless self-interest when it comes to Queens Wharf and the Auckland waterfront as a whole.
If Queens Wharf was a Regional Park - and the chairman Mike Lee has spoken of Queens Wharf as "ARC's 28th Regional Park" - then all the buildings on it would have automatic protection.
That's why Auckland has Vaughan's Homestead, Couldry House, and many other historic buildings, plus a host of fantastic and iconic baches dotted around the coastline. These buildings have huge protections against demolition. So it would have been good for the historic buildings on Queens Wharf if the ARC's Chairman had put his fine words into action.
But Queens Wharf is not an ARC Regional Park - more's the pity - and it formally came into the ownership of ARC and the Crown on April 1st. April Fools Day.
The previous piece of surplus ports assets that came into direct ARC ownership was land and wharves at Tankfarm aka Wynyard Quarter or Western Reclamation. I remember well when ARC councillors had the first opportunity to walk around and admire and examine this new acquisition. Councillors could see lots of possibilities - ranging from the huge waterfront development through to the heritage trail and tourism opportunities and vernacular industry like fishing and boat building.
The first advice we had was that the land zonings needed to change to allow these new activities to occur. So Auckland City Council notified a plan change related to its District Plan controlling what can happen on the land, while ARC notified a plan change related to its Regional Plan Coastal controlling what happens on the coastal edge and on the wharf structures.
It is important to appreciate that while the freehold title of the land transferred to ARC, many private businesses and individuals had leases and other arrangements for the buildings and structures on the land and wharves. These property rights needed to be recognised in the Plan Change.
In the course of our walk we saw lots of buildings of character - some of them elegant - like the Sanfords Buildings, but most of them very workmanlike. Sheds in fact.
Because of the zoning on the land and the wharves - any of these buildings could have been demolished as of right. They had no protection.
The ARC commissioned heritage advice on some buildings, and submitted to ACC's plan change that a group of identified buildings should be protected against demolition. It cited the heritage and character assessment in its evidence. Remember - the ARC did not own any of these buildings. They are all privately owned.
The Plan Changes are now working their way through due process - including the environment court. You can see my blog about this process, including pictures of all the buildings at:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/03/endangered-species-auckland-waterfront.html
I would particularly ask you to take a look at Building 2 (the net shed or fisherman's shed), and also at Buildings 8, 11 and 17. They are all sheds and warehouses. The ARC has gone to war - as much as it can - to protect these warehouse like sheds from demolition by arguing they need to be included in the list of scheduled and protected buildings.
Some of these buildings were built before World War II. So they are pre-war. But they are children compared to the grand-daddy old sheds on Queens Wharf which were constructed before the First World War.
The question is: why is ARC being so inconsistent in its behaviour on Queens Wharf?
The answer to that question is simply that ARC has always wanted it for Auckland's Premier Cruise Ship Terminal, and that has pre-determined its actions.
The Port company never wanted to build a cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf. Its argument is that there is not enough money to be made from cruise ship fees to justify the capital cost of construction of a major terminal.
The ARC has had advice that there are other economic benefits from cruise ship visits - that passengers shop downtown and spend their dollars in Auckland. That's true.
Unfortunately the same can be said of container ships. Today Ports of Auckland hardly makes a bean from container handling because such a low rate was negotiated with Maersk. And while there are wider benefits to businesses reliant on getting goods in and out, the Auckland community has to put up with stacks of containers on prime waterfront land, and has their arterial roads jammed with huge trucks.
The ethical question is this: just because the ARC can legally demolish the sheds on Queens Wharf (because it has not carried out the same plan change process it led at WYnyard Quarter based on the same regional policies), does that mean it is appropriate and right for it to demolish them? Just because it is hell bent on building a "world class" cruise ship terminal there?
Especially when you consider that ARC commissioned a substantial Heritage Assessment which has rated both sheds and wharf as of "high significance". And that this same assessment and countless other suggestions from architects in their design competition entries have shown how the sheds could be incorporated into a perfectly serviceable and attractive building that can be used for cruise ships and for public purposes.
I end with this sad reminder of ARC's involvement in waterfront development.
The eyesore and embarrassment that is on Prince Wharf is there in its present form because of the Auckland Regional Council. The building is on a wharf, over water, and subject only to the Regional Plan Coastal. The ARC granted consent for the Hilton and Apartment block and ancillary carparks and impoverished public access and amenity. You can read about this sorry story at: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-sad-is-princes-wharf.html
and at: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-sad-is-princes-wharf-part-2.html
The annual Auckland Regional Council rates revenue from Princes Wharf is $225,000.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Queens Wharf Opens on Anzac Day
| What fantastic weather there was for the public opening of Queens Wharf as a "Peoples' Wharf" by ARC Chairman Mike Lee and Minister of Rugby World Cup Murray McCully. |
| Despite little advertising the wharf was thronging with people. Where did they all come from? Hard to say. Just came down town after Anzac Day looking for something to do, and saw there was something up at Queens Wharf Party Central and headed on down. |
| Vintage vehicles, games, bouncy castles, take away food, the odd portaloo. Shade was hard to find though. In all that sun... |
| And the Ports had laid on their party special. Everyone came down to the end of the wharf to look... |
| Yep. Dancing tugboats. Something for everybody. |
| They came on their bikes, disability buggies, wheel chairs, skate boards, and they came in their hundreds taking photos and enjoying being somewhere they'd never been allowed before... |
| And they came to have a look inside those sheds. Both sheds were open to view. Pity nobody could look in the upper floor of Shed 10 - but it's not that safe at the moment... |
| Many people took the opportunity to have a good look around. See what they could see. Not everybody can see the potential. That's par for the course. It's only after some love, design and attention to detail that the sheds will be able to come into their own... |
| The temporary ceiling is there, now, with strip lighting - fairly institutional - for when Shed 10 is used as cruise ship terminal which happens at the moment when Princes Wharf has a cruise ship. |
SOS Queens Wharf Save Our Sheds |
Sign their petition at: http://www.sosqueenswharf.co.nz/ Go to Facebook, and check out their page: SOS Queens Wharf |
| The big attraction on the day was undoubtedly the Navy. Their ship attracted huge amounts of attention. Everybody wanted to be shown around. |
| It got tiring in the sun. There are quite a few old timbers around to sit on, and the sheds were great shelter from the sun. |
| These big timbers make great seats. And they all seem to be in the right place. |
| As I sailed back to Devonport in the ferry, it was great to look back and see people on the peoples' wharf. Walking around the sheds. Enjoying their newest Regional Park. It was a great step of ARC and Government to buy this wharf and everything upon it. |
We need to think hard before doing anything permanent that will detract from the promise and the potential of the "peoples' wharf".... |
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Save Our Iconic Sheds
| New Zealand loves its sheds. Corrugated iron ones especially. This rail shed is an iconic part of the Otago Rail Trail - one of New Zealand's tourism success stories. |
| They make great paintings. Iconic paintings and images. Recalling our history and our attachment to it. Grahame Sydney painted this one. |
| And all over New Zealand, when the old shed gets a bit too tired, because the galvanize has failed and there's not been any paint around, you can always replace it with another one. But the old one remains. A memory. |
| So let's paint our sheds red for the time being and enjoy them for a while. At least till after the rugby world cup in 2011. That's if you like barn red as a colour... |
| Or green if you feel like the Wedderburn touch. Maybe a bit lurid. But fun all the same... |
| Or red and green. Should never be seen... |
|
Go down there on Sunday. This Sunday the 25th April. The sheds are open to view on Queens Wharf from 1:00pm to 5:00pm or so, and it's party time down there. Acts, theatre, food, fun. Bring the family. Make your claim to these iconic New Zealand sheds. |
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Can We Trust The Historic Places Trust?
On Friday 16th April, or thereabouts, Auckland Regional Council received a bombshell from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust - or more correctly from the Auckland Branch of the Historic Places Trust. The letter was a bombshell because it signalled a strong interest from NZHPT in Queens Wharf and the sheds, and it was a bombshell because it arrived just in time to influence ARC decisions relating to its proposals for Queens Wharf.
You can view the letter here: http://www.joelcayford.com/NZHPTQueensWharf.pdf
The key things the letter states include:
The letter was signed by Sherry Reynolds, General Manager Northern HPT.
After that letter, dated 15th April, arrived, Council staff, working with the ARC Chairman, prepared a set of officer recommendations relating to proposals for Queens Wharf that were sent out with the council agenda papers over the weekend. They included these recommendations:
Then following some lobbying and changes at the ARC's confidential meeting on Monday, where the letter from NZHPT was of considerable influence, the final decisions included the following:
I should note here, for the record, that a number of ARC Councillors voted against these resolutions. But a majority did. So these recommendations constitute an ARC decision. (By the way: you might be thinking I'm a bit of a scoundrel for discussing the contents of a confidential meeting. However I have not released any numbers or compromised any private interests. The matters I am sharing here are obviously in the public interest. The matters might be a little embarrassing, but they concern publicly owned assets, and public has a right to know.)
Regarding these recommendations - you may be wondering, what's the difference? The key difference is that the ARC's approval to dismantle (for which read: demolish) the sheds was "subject to the outcome of consultation with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust". And reading its letter you could be forgiven for coming to the view that the NZ HPT was actually serious about Auckland's waterfront heritage.
Then. On Monday. After the ARC's meeting, there was a surprise media release from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. It said this:
You will note that this media release came from the Chief Executive, Bruce Chapman, who is based in Wellington, in the NZHPT's head office.
The letter amounts to complete capitulation on the part of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. No registration. No heritage assessment. No call for a heritage impact assessment. (By the way - a cynical view is that the powers that be at ARC had some indication before the Council meeting that the Historic Places Trust would fold, and so there was nothing to lose in changing the recommendations to give an appearance that the HPT concerns were real...)
You really wonder why New Zealand would bother with an organisation that is so spineless at National level, and so unsupportive of genuine preservation work that its Regional Office was carrying out in Auckland. So unsupportive of their initiative which had been taken seriously by ARC, and was being acted upon. As you can see. And right now these sheds, Auckland's heritage, needs all the help it can get. The pressure and speed to dismantle/demolish must be slowed so good sense can prevail.
But really, if we can't trust Auckland's heritage with the NZ Heritage Protection Trust, and we certainly can't trust ARC, who can we trust?
You can view the letter here: http://www.joelcayford.com/NZHPTQueensWharf.pdf
The key things the letter states include:
- NZHPT is considering a registration nomination for the cargo sheds and wharf structure
- because the nomination "appears to have some merit" NZHPT is preparing a more in depth heritage assessment of the cargo sheds and wharf structure
- NZHPT "preliminary investigations indicates that the place has significant heritage values..."
- ..."given the heritage value of the place, both formally recognised and that identified by the Matthews and Matthews Assessment we would recommend to ARC that an heritage impact assessment is now undertaken in regard to ARC's preferred option for redevelopment, whether this involves adaptive re-use of some or all of the buildings and wharf, or total removal of the warehouses and modifications to the wharf..."
The letter was signed by Sherry Reynolds, General Manager Northern HPT.
After that letter, dated 15th April, arrived, Council staff, working with the ARC Chairman, prepared a set of officer recommendations relating to proposals for Queens Wharf that were sent out with the council agenda papers over the weekend. They included these recommendations:
a) That the report be received.
b) That the Council approves the staged development of Queens Wharf to
enable its use as a fan zone for Rugby World Cup 2011, and for the
construction of the permanent cruise ship terminal to commence immediately
after the 2011/12 cruise season.
c) That, subject to the agreement of the Government as the joint owner of
Queens Wharf, and subject to the approval of the Auckland Transition Agency
as required, the Council:
(i) Approves the erection of a temporary structure on Queens Wharf for
use as a fan zone for Rugby World Cup 2011. The Council notes that
the New Zealand Government will fund the design and build of the
temporary structure, and that the temporary structure will be used as a
cruise ship terminal for the 2011/12 cruise season.
(ii) Approves the completion of a heritage assessment of Queens Wharf
with the aim of recording its heritage, maximising the retention and
integration of heritage features on the wharf into the development, reusing
materials from the sheds and ensuring that appropriate
interpretation of the history and heritage of the wharf is reflected in the
development of the wharf.
(iii) Approves the dismantling of sheds 10 and 11 on Queens Wharf and
the storage of materials to maximise re-use in the development, and
authorises the Chief Executive to obtain the necessary consents and
approvals to carry out the work....
Then following some lobbying and changes at the ARC's confidential meeting on Monday, where the letter from NZHPT was of considerable influence, the final decisions included the following:
a) That the report be received
b) That the Council approves the staged dvelopment of Queens Wharf to enable its use as fan zone, visitor centre and public open space for Rugby World Cup 2011, and for the construction of the permanent cruise ship terminal to commence immediately after the 2011/2012 cruise season.
c) That, subject to the agreement of the Government as joint owner of Queens Wharf, and subject to the approval of the Auckland Transition Agency as required, the Council:
(i) approves, subject to the outcome of consultation with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, the dismantling of sheds 10 and 11 on Queens Wharf as required and the storage of materials to maximise re-use in the development, and authorises the Chief Executive to obtain the necessary consents to carry out the work.
(ii) works with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust to complete a heritage assessment of Queens Wharf and its structures with the aim of recording its heritage, maximising the retention and integration of heritage features on the wharf into the development, re-using materials form the sheds and ensuring that appropriate interpretation of the history and heritage of the wharf is reflected in the development of the wharf.
(iii) approves the construction of a temporary structure on Queens Wharf for use as a fan zone, visitor centre and public open space for Rugby World Cup 2011. The Council notes that the New Zealand Government will fund the design and build of the temporary structure, and that the temporary structure will be used as a cruise ship terminal for the 2011/12 cruise season.....
I should note here, for the record, that a number of ARC Councillors voted against these resolutions. But a majority did. So these recommendations constitute an ARC decision. (By the way: you might be thinking I'm a bit of a scoundrel for discussing the contents of a confidential meeting. However I have not released any numbers or compromised any private interests. The matters I am sharing here are obviously in the public interest. The matters might be a little embarrassing, but they concern publicly owned assets, and public has a right to know.)
Regarding these recommendations - you may be wondering, what's the difference? The key difference is that the ARC's approval to dismantle (for which read: demolish) the sheds was "subject to the outcome of consultation with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust". And reading its letter you could be forgiven for coming to the view that the NZ HPT was actually serious about Auckland's waterfront heritage.
Then. On Monday. After the ARC's meeting, there was a surprise media release from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. It said this:
20 April 2010
MEDIA STATEMENT
Disappointment at loss of Queen’s Wharf buildings
The decision to demolish the two Queen’s Wharf sheds has been met with disappointment by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust.
“We would have preferred that a use be found for the sheds as part of the overall solution for this area, as it is an important part of New Zealand’s maritime history that will be lost,” said NZHPT Chief Executive, Bruce Chapman.
“Ways to adaptively reuse these buildings could have been explored, and we would have been prepared to support quite substantial changes to ensure as much of the buildings could be retained as possible.
“However we accept the position that has been adopted and now look forward to work closely with those involved in the design for the area to determine how much of the wharf’s characteristic features, such as the rail lines and moorings, can be retained.”
The NZHPT had been considering registration of the Queen’s Wharf, however will not be proceeding with this. Mr Chapman said the organisation would still like to have the opportunity to record more of the buildings’ information prior to their loss.
You will note that this media release came from the Chief Executive, Bruce Chapman, who is based in Wellington, in the NZHPT's head office.
The letter amounts to complete capitulation on the part of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. No registration. No heritage assessment. No call for a heritage impact assessment. (By the way - a cynical view is that the powers that be at ARC had some indication before the Council meeting that the Historic Places Trust would fold, and so there was nothing to lose in changing the recommendations to give an appearance that the HPT concerns were real...)
You really wonder why New Zealand would bother with an organisation that is so spineless at National level, and so unsupportive of genuine preservation work that its Regional Office was carrying out in Auckland. So unsupportive of their initiative which had been taken seriously by ARC, and was being acted upon. As you can see. And right now these sheds, Auckland's heritage, needs all the help it can get. The pressure and speed to dismantle/demolish must be slowed so good sense can prevail.
But really, if we can't trust Auckland's heritage with the NZ Heritage Protection Trust, and we certainly can't trust ARC, who can we trust?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
ARC's Clear Conflict of Interest at Queens Wharf
The word "hypocrisy" is being uttered in undertones up and down ARC corridors.
But not the corridors of power...
The Auckland Regional Council is Auckland's main heritage guardian. It has gone to war on several occasions while I've been on Council. It spent hundreds of thousands in expert evidence and legal advice protecting maori dump sites (middens) and colonial earth works at Long Bay. This applied energy means that the private land owners of that land cannot, now, develop that land or urbanise it. And I supported that action. New Zealand - and Auckland especially it seems - is very short of heritage and history because it has a habit of destroying it.
Tank Farm is another very good example. A great slice of Auckland Waterfront. With a fair distribution of pre-second world war buildings of considerable heritage and character. ARC has left few stones unturned in pursuit of development protection for those buildings - especially against demolition. Another blog on this site contain pictures of all of those buildings. You can see it at:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/03/endangered-species-auckland-waterfront.html
Here, ARC has made private owners of those buildings jump through all kinds of hoops if it is their wish to develop their land.
Yet here we have Queens Wharf, in public ownership now for about 2 weeks after transferring the wharf from Ports of Auckland ownership to ARC and Government, and we have the extraordinary activity of ARC - owner and regulator - pushing with huge haste for the demolition of cargo sheds which were built not before second world war - these sheds were built before the first world war. 1912 I am advised.
"Practice what you preach" - was a phrase used by more than one ARC councillor in the debate that occurred this Monday in at the ARC. But to no avail.
If it was not for the letter from the Historic Places Trust - calling for a proper heritage assessment of wharf and structures - the vote to approve dismantling would have been a doddle. As it is, ARC's decision to dismantle is subject to the outcome of consultation with the Historic Places Trust and presumably to it carrying out its own Heritage assessment.
The word "dismantle" is now being used instead of "demolish". The Chair of ARC has begun using it lately. One or two ARC councillors like it too. There is talk of using some bits and pieces of the dismantled shed - as a sort of aide memoir of what is there now. Bit like takling the best bits of a Model T Vintage car and blending them into the construction of a brand new Holden - made of carbon fibre, or plastic.
That is the argument that was used to mitigate the Princes Wharf design. They said they'd reuse some of the old building structure. You can vaguely make it out buried underneath the Hilton Hotel and the Apartments. But it is tokenism. Facadism. Sad.
The advice ARC has already received from the heritage report it commissioned jointly with Auckland City Council is very strong. ARC's own heritage officers provided advice to the executive team writing the report that was considered on Monday. They wrote in respect to the Matthews & Matthews Architects Heritage Assessment report:
You don't get much clearer advice than that. But that wasn't the advice that was given to ARC councillors. Oh dear no. It got watered down by those preparing the ARC council meeting report. Here's what Councillors got to read from their Chief Executive and his staff:
Spot the difference - is my challenge.
So. ARC got a very clear steer from the heritage report that it commissioned. It got very clear advice from its own expert staff. But it got all boiled down to "dismantling" by the Chief Executive, no doubt in cahoots with ARC's Chairman.
Practice what you preach guys.
You demonstrate serious conflict of interest here - Cruise Ships before Heritage - where's the balance. Hence the whiff of hypocrisy...
But not the corridors of power...
The Auckland Regional Council is Auckland's main heritage guardian. It has gone to war on several occasions while I've been on Council. It spent hundreds of thousands in expert evidence and legal advice protecting maori dump sites (middens) and colonial earth works at Long Bay. This applied energy means that the private land owners of that land cannot, now, develop that land or urbanise it. And I supported that action. New Zealand - and Auckland especially it seems - is very short of heritage and history because it has a habit of destroying it.
Tank Farm is another very good example. A great slice of Auckland Waterfront. With a fair distribution of pre-second world war buildings of considerable heritage and character. ARC has left few stones unturned in pursuit of development protection for those buildings - especially against demolition. Another blog on this site contain pictures of all of those buildings. You can see it at:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/03/endangered-species-auckland-waterfront.html
Here, ARC has made private owners of those buildings jump through all kinds of hoops if it is their wish to develop their land.
Yet here we have Queens Wharf, in public ownership now for about 2 weeks after transferring the wharf from Ports of Auckland ownership to ARC and Government, and we have the extraordinary activity of ARC - owner and regulator - pushing with huge haste for the demolition of cargo sheds which were built not before second world war - these sheds were built before the first world war. 1912 I am advised.
"Practice what you preach" - was a phrase used by more than one ARC councillor in the debate that occurred this Monday in at the ARC. But to no avail.
If it was not for the letter from the Historic Places Trust - calling for a proper heritage assessment of wharf and structures - the vote to approve dismantling would have been a doddle. As it is, ARC's decision to dismantle is subject to the outcome of consultation with the Historic Places Trust and presumably to it carrying out its own Heritage assessment.
The word "dismantle" is now being used instead of "demolish". The Chair of ARC has begun using it lately. One or two ARC councillors like it too. There is talk of using some bits and pieces of the dismantled shed - as a sort of aide memoir of what is there now. Bit like takling the best bits of a Model T Vintage car and blending them into the construction of a brand new Holden - made of carbon fibre, or plastic.
That is the argument that was used to mitigate the Princes Wharf design. They said they'd reuse some of the old building structure. You can vaguely make it out buried underneath the Hilton Hotel and the Apartments. But it is tokenism. Facadism. Sad.
The advice ARC has already received from the heritage report it commissioned jointly with Auckland City Council is very strong. ARC's own heritage officers provided advice to the executive team writing the report that was considered on Monday. They wrote in respect to the Matthews & Matthews Architects Heritage Assessment report:
...due to their high heritage values and ready adaptability, the heritage assessment recommends that serious consideration be given to retaining and adapting the sheds as part pof the redevelopment of Queens Wharf. The (ARC's) Cultural Heritage Team concurs with this recommendation, as the presumption should be to protect and preserve heritage items of high significance. In designing any temporary or permanent development of Queens Wharf, it is our view that at least one of the sheds (Shed 10 is the least altered and in best condition of the two) should be retained and sensitively adapted for a new short-term or long-term use...
You don't get much clearer advice than that. But that wasn't the advice that was given to ARC councillors. Oh dear no. It got watered down by those preparing the ARC council meeting report. Here's what Councillors got to read from their Chief Executive and his staff:
The heritage assessment recommends that serious consideration be given to
retaining and adapting the sheds as part of the redevelopment of Queens Wharf. The
Council’s resolution of December 22 to endorse QW04 as the basis of the
development of Queens Wharf carries with it the consequential requirement that both
be removed to achieve the design. The proposed staged development set out in this
report also requires the removal of both sheds before the Rugby World Cup.
Through the development of the proposal, Government representatives have
repeatedly expressed their consideration that, despite the heritage value of the
sheds, their location, the limitations on what can be done to them to meet the
requirements of the site as a cruise terminal, and the major uncertainty over the cost of attempting to modify them, mean that they obstruct both the short term and long term development of the wharf and that, on balance, they should be removed.
In recognition of the heritage value of the wharf and the sheds, it is recommended
that, as part of the next stage of the development, the Council complete a heritage
assessment of the site with the intention of recording its heritage, maximizing the
retention and integration of heritage features on the wharf into the development, reusing materials from the sheds and ensuring appropriate interpretation of the history and heritage of the wharf is reflected in the development of the wharf.
It is further recommended that, when the sheds are removed, that they are
dismantled to maximize the recovery and reuse of materials in the development.
Spot the difference - is my challenge.
So. ARC got a very clear steer from the heritage report that it commissioned. It got very clear advice from its own expert staff. But it got all boiled down to "dismantling" by the Chief Executive, no doubt in cahoots with ARC's Chairman.
Practice what you preach guys.
You demonstrate serious conflict of interest here - Cruise Ships before Heritage - where's the balance. Hence the whiff of hypocrisy...
Save Our Shed - Campaign
Can you help? Do you want to?
It is extraordinary that the Historic Places Trust has so completely and utterly capitulated on the Queens Wharf sheds. It is unclear from its statement whether it is even interested in going ahead with the heritage assessment it recommended the ARC to carry out in a letter dated 15th April. I wonder what happened between Friday and Tuesday?
No matter, as mentioned elsewhere in these blogs, a very robust heritage assessment has already been carried out for ARC and Auckland City Council by Matthews & Matthews Architects. That has credibility and detail.
The planning scenario we seem to be looking at is this:
.....ARC is co-owner and regulator. It administers the Regional Plan Coastal which includes the zonings relating to port activities. One of these covers Queens Wharf. I understand that if the activity that is to go there - or be undertaken there - is a permitted use according to that plan then very little in the way of consenting stands between the ARC and bowling the sheds and outting up the tent. Because there is no protection over the sheds they can be bowled. A bit like the Masonic Hotel across the water at Devonport....
So what else is there to consider?
Well it seems to me that the ARC has duties in terms of the RMA that are wider than simple compliance with a plan - be it the Regional Plan Coastal which has not been updated since the transfer of Queens Wharf into ARC's ownership. Thin ice is what is being skated on here. There is already talk of judicial review proceedings. But maybe a Declaratory Judgement is needed first. One that tests what ARC's duties are in respect of Queens Wharf, and in terms of the planning process that should unfold now.
I suggest this because I get the sense Govt and ARC want to just go ahead and do their worst without due process. Get away with minimum.
What might be best practice?
Did you know - for example - that Sea + City is doing some work now on North Wharf? It has been preparing the wharf structure, and is building some new structures alongside the net shed, and is managing the stormwater from the area etc. Today at ARC, we were advised, as a formaility, that Sea + City had applied for resource consents relating to: public seats on the wharf; stormwater drainage from the wharf; and other matters. I asked a question about this, and was advised that Sea + City were keen to do the "right thing" when it came to consents for these works. It recognised - for example - that public seating on the wharf was not a permitted activity - in the relevant zone. So that is why it applied for consent.
It also applied for consent to allow promenading! But ARC officers advised that was not necessary. This was a fully notified consent. Sea + City did the right thing.
But I reckon ARC is running a mile from notification. Can of worms. Too much public interest. How can we avoid public scrutiny....
I mention this, because it raises issues about what the permitted activity status is on Queens Wharf. This seems to be still "port activities" of some sort - and not things like public seating, or presumably bars and cafes and party time. That is most likely why the powers that be keep emphasising that what they want to build is a "cruise ship terminal" and why the references to "party central" and partying and related activities are being down-played.
All those people. All that drinking. All that pedestrian traffic. All that noise and fun. All those generated effects that normal business es would be required to have carefully crafted conditions of consent sorted out through a notified planning process.
Because the port zoning does not provide for these activities.
If you were a private operator you'd be required to get a consent for any activity that was not provided for in the plan. And while I'm on the topic, what do you think happens to the stormwater from Queens Wharf and the buildings there? Not sure.... neither am I. But it's the ARC that consents those direct discharges into the harbour, and they need to comply.
Another item cropped up on the council agenda today. It related to works being carried out on the wharf at Cornwallis - an ARC regeional park fronting the Manukau Harbour. The works required are pretty minimal, but they are not provided for explicitly in the plan. The report councillors received receommended: "...to avoid a perceived conflict of interest, as the ARC is the applicant, it is recommended that an independent commissioner be appointed to review and make decisions...."
I think that what is good for the goose, should be good for the gander.
I think the ARC is making itself vulnerable to a legal challenge in respect to its compliance with its general duties under the Act.
Is there anyone out there who agrees, and would like to assist further?
It is extraordinary that the Historic Places Trust has so completely and utterly capitulated on the Queens Wharf sheds. It is unclear from its statement whether it is even interested in going ahead with the heritage assessment it recommended the ARC to carry out in a letter dated 15th April. I wonder what happened between Friday and Tuesday?
No matter, as mentioned elsewhere in these blogs, a very robust heritage assessment has already been carried out for ARC and Auckland City Council by Matthews & Matthews Architects. That has credibility and detail.
The planning scenario we seem to be looking at is this:
.....ARC is co-owner and regulator. It administers the Regional Plan Coastal which includes the zonings relating to port activities. One of these covers Queens Wharf. I understand that if the activity that is to go there - or be undertaken there - is a permitted use according to that plan then very little in the way of consenting stands between the ARC and bowling the sheds and outting up the tent. Because there is no protection over the sheds they can be bowled. A bit like the Masonic Hotel across the water at Devonport....
So what else is there to consider?
Well it seems to me that the ARC has duties in terms of the RMA that are wider than simple compliance with a plan - be it the Regional Plan Coastal which has not been updated since the transfer of Queens Wharf into ARC's ownership. Thin ice is what is being skated on here. There is already talk of judicial review proceedings. But maybe a Declaratory Judgement is needed first. One that tests what ARC's duties are in respect of Queens Wharf, and in terms of the planning process that should unfold now.
I suggest this because I get the sense Govt and ARC want to just go ahead and do their worst without due process. Get away with minimum.
What might be best practice?
Did you know - for example - that Sea + City is doing some work now on North Wharf? It has been preparing the wharf structure, and is building some new structures alongside the net shed, and is managing the stormwater from the area etc. Today at ARC, we were advised, as a formaility, that Sea + City had applied for resource consents relating to: public seats on the wharf; stormwater drainage from the wharf; and other matters. I asked a question about this, and was advised that Sea + City were keen to do the "right thing" when it came to consents for these works. It recognised - for example - that public seating on the wharf was not a permitted activity - in the relevant zone. So that is why it applied for consent.
It also applied for consent to allow promenading! But ARC officers advised that was not necessary. This was a fully notified consent. Sea + City did the right thing.
But I reckon ARC is running a mile from notification. Can of worms. Too much public interest. How can we avoid public scrutiny....
I mention this, because it raises issues about what the permitted activity status is on Queens Wharf. This seems to be still "port activities" of some sort - and not things like public seating, or presumably bars and cafes and party time. That is most likely why the powers that be keep emphasising that what they want to build is a "cruise ship terminal" and why the references to "party central" and partying and related activities are being down-played.
All those people. All that drinking. All that pedestrian traffic. All that noise and fun. All those generated effects that normal business es would be required to have carefully crafted conditions of consent sorted out through a notified planning process.
Because the port zoning does not provide for these activities.
If you were a private operator you'd be required to get a consent for any activity that was not provided for in the plan. And while I'm on the topic, what do you think happens to the stormwater from Queens Wharf and the buildings there? Not sure.... neither am I. But it's the ARC that consents those direct discharges into the harbour, and they need to comply.
Another item cropped up on the council agenda today. It related to works being carried out on the wharf at Cornwallis - an ARC regeional park fronting the Manukau Harbour. The works required are pretty minimal, but they are not provided for explicitly in the plan. The report councillors received receommended: "...to avoid a perceived conflict of interest, as the ARC is the applicant, it is recommended that an independent commissioner be appointed to review and make decisions...."
I think that what is good for the goose, should be good for the gander.
I think the ARC is making itself vulnerable to a legal challenge in respect to its compliance with its general duties under the Act.
Is there anyone out there who agrees, and would like to assist further?
Queens Wharf - Has it come to this?
| So here we have Queens Wharf, as ARC and the Government - according to its joint media release - would like it to be. The glowing thing is the plastic structure - aka the tent. Though we are told it is not a tent. It is a temporary structure that is not a tent. Apparently it can be slapped up and together for under $10 million. Cheap and reasonably tacky. There's a big screen outside on the end of Queens Wharf, and a possible Rugby Ball. September... |
I was advised that the reason the cargo sheds needed to go to make room for it, is because they want the tent also to be used as a cruise ship terminal. Can't get away from that Cruise Ship terminal on Queens Wharf imperative... |
I think Auckland will love hosting a Party Central. We did it during the America's Cup. Here's a picture of how they hosted America's Cup Party Central in Valencia: The Woolshed. A real kiwi idea. People could shelter from direct sunshine, or rain, or wind - but there was plenty of air blowing through... |
| This facility worked really well in Valencia. People loved it. It would work well on Queens Wharf too. In the old sheds. Big screens strategically placed. Some areas had seating, others a bit more casual. Needs to be good for families, for young people wanting a good time, for older people too. A people's place... |
| Lots of people will actually go to rugby matches (unlike the yachting where it's hard for people to get out there and watch a race - TV is better for most). But with seat tickets going for a King's Ransom for NZ's Rugby World Cup, and with matches happening all over the country, a lot of Aucklanders will be watching TV screens, just as they watched yachting in Valencia.... |
| And it's quite fun to do that in a big group, especially when there are fans around from other countries doing the same - in the same space. So far, it is planned that surplus Rugby fan accommodation will be provided by a Cruise Ship moored at Queens Wharf. This will provide a critical mass of rugby fans, rights on the spot - could a be a few thousand - the Queens Wharf shed(s) could become their TV viewing room. Places where they can invite NZ guests, places where Aucklanders can go to enjoy the fun too. Because Queens Wharf will be very busy place with the comings and goings of fans and their friends and guests. |
| Have you been on Queens Wharf yet? Have you been inside the Sheds? Have you experienced the views? Hardly anybody has. So go donw there this Sunday. Anzac Day. And have a good look. Would you renovate the house you just bought before you've lived in it for a while. Not likely! Same goes for Queens Wharf. Auckland needs to live on it for a while. Auckland needs to feel what it's like to have Queens Wharf for public uses. We need to experiment. Before we do anything permament down there. |
| I've been lucky enough to have a walk-over. Before I did I thought we should bowl the sheds. But then I went into them.... 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. Apparently a lot of the work was about wool bales. Our own wool shed. 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... |
| Party Central on Queens Wharf is a good idea. Kills lots of birds with one stone. Has many, many benefits for Auckland and for Aucklanders. Let alone the Rugby World Cup event. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
