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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment