2005
In March 2005, ARC working with Auckland City Council and Ports of Auckland Ltd, ran a major public consultation about Auckland’s waterfront called Linking People, City and Sea. This emphasised the Western Reclamation and the America’s Cup Syndicate bases in particular. It also sought support for the Marine Event Centre. The consultation made no mention at all of cruise ships or cruise ship terminals. (You can read the detail of this here:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/05/queens-wharf-did-arc-consult-properly.html )
Then in December 2005, ARC working with Auckland City Council and Ports of Auckland Ltd, publised the Waterfront Vision 2040. This consultation makes no mention at all of the possible option of using Queens Wharf as cruise ship terminal. In fact, in relation to Queens Wharf this public document states: “alternative uses will be explored over the medium to long term when the wharf is no longer required for core port functions. Ideas include providing public access, public spaces, a continual link between Queen Street and the waterfront, reconfiguring the wharf structure to create a new town basin, an iconic building, extending ferries and water taxis, entertainment and a mix of activities…”
2007
Then in October 2007 there was an election, the council elections, and a new ARC Council was established. Most Councillors were re-elected from the previous council. I was relegated to the back benches. Mike Lee was elected Chairman, and Michael Barnett was elected Deputy Chairman.
2008
Council resolved on 25 Feb 2008 that ARC officers, with ARH and POAL, should undertake further work on the potential options for the development of Queens Wharf, determining the benefits and capital costs and operating costs of those options.
On November 12 2008, ARC considered a report in confidential. This contained information about the Princes Wharf cruise ship terminal noting that “improvement of passenger facilities at Princes Wharf have been held up due to objections from local residents….”. The report went on to suggest actions needed if Queens Wharf was to become Auckland’s primary cruise ship terminal, or if Queens Wharf was to be improved as Auckland’s secondary cruise ship terminal. Council resolved to support further work on Queens Wharf cruise ship terminal options, with “limited public access”, with Government, Auckland City Council, ARH, and POAL.
After that meeting, my unpublished letter to NZ Herald included: "...I am very dissappointed by Auckland Regional Council’s limited approach to the Queens Wharf opportunity. At the confidential meeting I advocated for the broader public interest and an urban design led approach. But to little avail. ARC’s involvement in the redevelopment of other Auckland waterfront opportunities has been a public disaster. It was ARC’s responsibility to balance public and private interests on Princes Wharf. It is a disgrace that this opportunity has such impoverished public spaces…” It was around this time that I began this blog….
2009
On May 25 2009, ARC considered a report in confidential which dealt with a potential material transaction relating to a recapitalisation of POAL which included the option of purchasing Queens Wharf outright. Among other things, Council resolved at that meeting: “That the council wishes to have Queens Wharf be made available, to accommodate a primary cruise ship terminal, and for public access, in addition to normal cargo operations.” This is the first time - I think - that ARC actually voted for Queens Wharf to become Auckland's primary cruise ship terminal. No accompanying decision was made to consult the public about this decision or its implications.
On 15 June 2009, in a confidential meeting, ARC decided to buy Queens Wharf for $40 million, in a 50/50 partnership with central government. This was made possible after Government had said that it was keen on using Queens Wharf as “Party Central” for the Rugby World Cup event in 2011. The ARC decided to make provision for this new expenditure in its LTCCP 2009-19, which was adopted on 29 June 2009. This $20 million expenditure was added to the LTCCP too late for public consultation.
On 19 June 2009, Chairman Mike Lee gained sole access to Shed 10, with an NZ Herald photographer, and was reported in NZ Herald: “….he did not believe that Aucklanders and their visitors would be satisfied with such a shape and type of building. ‘We need a longer and higher building, ideally with lots of glass and lights ... I don't think this is going to cut the mustard.’….” He’d made up his mind. ‘This is going to be the front door of Auckland for cruise ship visitors and possibly a renaissance of passenger ships,’ he said.
On June 27 2010, ARC’s Chairman released drawings to NZ Herald that he had had commissioned himself. These had no Council endorsement. They show cruise ship structures on both sides of Queens Wharf, and both sheds gone. These images are contrasted in the news report with images provided by Auckland City Council which show Shed 10 incorporated into the design, and significant public space. You see these at: http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/QueensWharf.pdf
Then on July 14 2009, ARC Councillors had their first site visit of Queens Wharf. A blog covers that visit: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/07/queens-wharf-site-visit.html
and: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/07/queens-wharf-site-visit-shed-10.html
On the 19 July 2009, Cllr Sandra Coney spoke out about the sheds. Her statements were reported in NZ Herald, with Chairman Lee’s response:
“Although the wharf's two 1912 cargo sheds are missing from the council's preliminary concept drawings for a cruise ship terminal, Ms Coney described them as "heritage buildings" and sought an assurance that they would be included in a design brief . She called at a transport committee meeting for their preservation to be considered in the context of historic maritime buildings to have survived redevelopment along Quay St.
Auckland City has proposed incorporating the cargo sheds into wharf development plans, in contrast to the regional council's preliminary vision of a new three-storey ship terminal. ARC chief Peter Winder said entrants in a design competition could incorporate both old and new into their entries.
But council chairman Mike Lee said: "Unlike the substantial buildings on the Wellington waterfront, the Queens Wharf sheds were cheap and nasty when they were first built. Now they are old and decrepit, they are still cheap and nasty."
On Friday 24 July 2009, in another confidential meeting, ARC’s approval was sought for the final terms of the acquisition of Queens Wharf, along with its agreement to the terms of the proposed Queens Wharf Design Competition. A draft of the Sale and Purchase Agreement was provided (without schedules). The ARC delegated authority to the Chairman and the CEO to “finalise the Sale and Purchase Agreement…”. It is extraordinary that this responsibility was delegated in this way. I understand that it was in the course of those negotiations that POAL was negotiated away from its position that Princes Wharf remain the primary cruise ship terminal, to a new position that Queens Wharf was to become the primary cruise ship terminal, and that cruise ships were to be accommodated on Queens Wharf on both sides.
On Monday 24 August 2009, Stage 1 design competition opened. Then closed Fri 11 September 2009. From Sun 13 September 2009 Public exhibition of designs opens. I have blogged some of the images and design ideas from those entries:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/09/queens-wharf-design-competition-stage-1.html
Mon 28 September 2009, short list of designs to go forward announced. Start of detailed development for short list designs (Stage 2). Closed Fri 16 October 2009
On Friday 30 October 2009, Chairman Lee goes public: “The Queens Wharf design contest is a flop, says Auckland Regional Council chairman Mike Lee. He says the final eight designs are ‘lacklustre, underwhelming and mediocre’….” The competition is canned. (You can see very good images of the 8 finalists at this NZ Herald link: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/image.cfm?c_id=1&gal_objectid=10606264&gallery_id=107985 ) Six of the eight finalists used one or both cargo sheds in their designs.
December 22 2009, at a confidential meeting ARC agrees that winning design QW04 (one of those not incorporating the sheds, and thus providing the 8000 sm of floor space deemed necessary for primary cruise ship building) “as the design with the most merit from the design competition…” should be used as the basis of an “exclusive partnership between ARC and Government”…for "progressing the Queens Wharf development project". Again, the Chairman was given delegated authority, with the CEO, to enter into a Joint Venture agreement with Central Government. Again, this is an extraordinary delegation of responsibility. With minimum consultation requirements. This pre-christmas meeting was attended by a bare quorum of 7 ARC Councillors.
2010
February 19 2010, all 7 of Region’s mayors vote against the ARC and Central Government Joint Venture $100 million cruise ship terminal tart up of Queens Wharf. You’d think that feedback represented pretty weighty public consultation. But no.
April 19 2010, at another confidential meeting, ARC votes for the plastic tent or slug or relocateable structure, and that the sheds are to be ‘dismantled’ (sensitive demolition), but ‘subject to consultation with the Historic Places Trust’. Yet even this confidential meeting was not allowed to see the other designs that the Architectus/Jazmax team had come up with during the Joint Venture process. I understand there were 6 or so designs - some of which enviasged retaining one or both sheds, and provided a temporary structure alongside them. I have asked to see copies of these plans, but none have been provided yet. So ARC councillors, and the public have only one design to look at. One option to consider.
Which brings us to the present. Casual reading does suggest that the main consideration of this matter has been done in confidential by the ARC, and that genuine public consultation about crucial decisions - like where Auckland's primary cruise ship terminal should be; like what should happen on Princes Wharf (now that its residents are making life a bit hard for cruise ships); and like how any cruise ship terminal should be accommodated on Queens Wharf; and what do we all think about adapting the cargo sheds - has simply not happened.
What will happen next?
No comments:
Post a Comment